Hitchens - Spokesman For Atheism?

[Monte Jefferson]

Mr. Peterson,

On the contrary, it's a piece of trash.

I suppose our disagreement had been settled prior to the origin of the thread.

Of what, exactly?

Subversion with style. Does not sacrifice accessibility. For this, the book's many shortcomings are forgiven. Few humans found their expressway to Damascus while engrossed in the Summa Theologica. And conversely, while a proper education is key to spiritual recreancy, a well-rounded dietitian will recommend supplemental sources of eschatological carcinogens. Religious belief is secured within fortified psychological bunkers and invading Normandy is a doomed prospect with only numbers, steel, and a moral right. What is needed in addition is a tricky plan along with the element of surprise. Skewering the sacrosanct with the artistry of a Christopher Hitchens is a sneak attack upon some of those psychological barriers. I think you'd be surprised at how many begin their career of apostasy when they first dare blasphemous and humorous thoughts about God or other aspects of their religious heritage and successfully sidestep the bolt of lightning. To see the given for its absurdity and without consequence is dangerous indeed. In fact, it's just this kind of thing which frequent repetition of scripture, hymns, prayers, and other mind-focusing rituals were invented to guard against. Of course, I say this knowing those most riveted by Hitchens's delivery will be those who are unsure of their commitments. And this book I think will prove a worthy weapon for the atheist's arsenal. After all, we partisans battle for them first and foremost.

It's crammed to the bursting point with elementary (and lethal) historical errors, and it seldom if ever engages actual data.

It's not a Master's Thesis. Cleaning up those errors might improve the book but it wasn't written as a tomb for historical trivia and double blind studies. It's my hope that those who read Hitchens will also read other books.

[Mighty Curelom]

What is needed in addition is a tricky plan along with the element of surprise. Skewering the sacrosanct with the artistry of a Christopher Hitchens is a sneak attack upon some of those psychological barriers.

You're kidding, right? Hitchens is sneaking past those psychological barriers by writing a book called "God is not Great," in which he makes the claim that "religion poisons everything"? If that's what you call sneaky, I'd like to see what you consider blatant.

Of course, I say this knowing those most riveted by Hitchens's delivery will be those who are unsure of their commitments.

Actually, those most "riveted" will be those already committed to his thesis. Those people might even consider the work "a masterpiece."

Books like "God is not Great" don't convert many people. They're mainly a type of literary pornography for those of similar opinions. They're the literary equivalent of right wing talk radio.

[Monte Jefferson]

Mr. Whitlock,

A succinct response to your question might be that Hitchens is admired by many atheists more for his spirit, flamboyance, masterful cynicism, and a writing talent that's off the charts than for his historiography and ultimate philosophical and sociological conclusions. I don't know who the authors you reference are, I'm not a scholar or student of Mormonism, but I catch your drift with your allusion to street preachers. You might be onto something there, but your street preachers better have a wicked mastery of the English language. I might ask though, do street preachers win souls for Christ? Do they have a place in Christianity?

I am working on a book geared toward atheists. I think it will be superior to what Hitchens has written in many ways, but ultimately it will pale in comparsion. If I ever were to meet Hitchens, I'm not sure I'd be worthy to so much as kiss his ring.

[Monte Jefferson]

Mr. Curelom ,

Hitchens is sneaking past those psychological barriers by writing a book called...

No.

Actually, those most "riveted" will be those already committed to his thesis. Those people might even consider the work "a masterpiece."

In a sense, perhaps. But as they are already commited, the book will likely not affect their lives much.

[Daniel Peterson]

I suppose our disagreement had been settled prior to the origin of the thread.

I suppose.

However, the myriad problems with Hitchens's book are not matters of taste or even prior loyalties. They are, as I hope to show rather publicly in the not too distant future, objectively demonstrable.

Subversion with style. Does not sacrifice accessibility. For this, the book's many shortcomings are forgiven.

If accuracy, charity, and logic are discounted, god is Not Great isn't an altogether terrible book.

What is needed in addition is a tricky plan along with the element of surprise.

Hitchens's book is scarcely subtle.

Cleaning up those errors might improve the book but it wasn't written as a tomb for historical trivia and double blind studies.

One might say something similar about the so-called Protocols of Zion.

[jwhitlock]

A succinct response to your question might be that Hitchens is admired by many atheists more for his spirit, flamboyance, masterful cynicism, and a writing talent that's off the charts than for his historiography and ultimate philosophical and sociological conclusions.

In other words, Hitchens as all about form and presentation and nothing about substance. Such is the best tradition of Hollywood.

Yes, I would categorize him that way, too.

In that way, he really has nothing to offer to those who think beyond the hype and glitz of his presentation. And those of us who do read other books recognize his writing for the emptiness it really is.

[Bill Hamblin]

Hitchens is admired by many atheists more for his spirit, flamboyance, masterful cynicism, and a writing talent that's off the charts than for his historiography and ultimate philosophical and sociological conclusions.

That's an excellent description of what the ancient Greeks called sophistry. It really doesn't matter how much "flamboyance, masterful cynicism, and a writing talent" Hitchens has. If his substantive claims are demonstrably false (which most are), then he's simply flamboyantly and cynically wrong.

[Smith]

That's an excellent description of what the ancient Greeks called sophistry. It really doesn't matter how much "flamboyance, masterful cynicism, and a writing talent" Hitchens has. If his substantive claims are demonstrably false (which most are), then he's simply flamboyantly and cynically wrong.

Also reminds me of Nibley's talk/chapter in the 'World and the Prophets' on Rhetoric.

[Pahoran]

Mr. Whitlock,

A succinct response to your question might be that Hitchens is admired by many atheists more for his spirit, flamboyance, masterful cynicism, and a writing talent that's off the charts than for his historiography and ultimate philosophical and sociological conclusions. I don't know who the authors you reference are, I'm not a scholar or student of Mormonism, but I catch your drift with your allusion to street preachers. You might be onto something there, but your street preachers better have a wicked mastery of the English language. I might ask though, do street preachers win souls for Christ? Do they have a place in Christianity?

I am working on a book geared toward atheists. I think it will be superior to what Hitchens has written in many ways, but ultimately it will pale in comparsion. If I ever were to meet Hitchens, I'm not sure I'd be worthy to so much as kiss his ring.

Monte,

your sycophantic grovelling at the mere mention of Hitchens' name has its own unique charm, but it wears off rather quickly. The fact is that this book clearly demonstrates his disdain--i.e. bigotry--towards all beliefs--and believers--everywhere. That is not to say that we should ignore what he has actually achieved.

Two vast things, each wondrous in itself, combine to make this book a prodigy: the author's industry and his ignorance. One can only be so intricately wrong by deep study and long effort, enough to make Mr. Hitchens displace Ms. Brodie as the fasting hermit and very saint of ignorance, a position in which we all hitherto had thought her secure.

(With apologies to Gary Wills.)

Regards,

Pahoran

[thesometimesaint]

I would say Mr. Hitchens just got dismissed, at it is past time for him to leave the building.

[LifeOnaPlate]

That's an excellent description of what the ancient Greeks called sophistry. It really doesn't matter how much "flamboyance, masterful cynicism, and a writing talent" Hitchens has. If his substantive claims are demonstrably false (which most are), then he's simply flamboyantly and cynically wrong.

As Smith pointed out, I couldn't help but think of Nibley. Ah, Hugh!

[Monte Jefferson]

Mr. Peterson,

However, the myriad problems with Hitchens's book are not matters of taste or even prior loyalties. They are, as I hope to show rather publicly in the not too distant future, objectively demonstrable.

Given the reviews from even the secularists, you're likely not to shock anyone. I think many of my atheist friends are afraid to endorse Hitchens's book. While I understand their feelings, it's a shame.

If accuracy, charity, and logic are discounted, god is Not Great isn't an altogether terrible book.

Hitchens's book is scarcely subtle.

Now, Mr. Peterson, would it be abrupt of me to point out the Book of Mormon, the center piece of Mormon faith, is lacking on these very same points. In fact, I dare say Hitchens's history is a far closer fit to the real world.

At any rate, I need to make it clear that I believe Hitchens's history is good enough to make the points he needs to make.

[Monte Jefferson]

That's an excellent description of what the ancient Greeks called sophistry. It really doesn't matter how much "flamboyance, masterful cynicism, and a writing talent" Hitchens has. If his substantive claims are demonstrably false (which most are), then he's simply flamboyantly and cynically wrong.

Mr. Hamblin,

I doubt his substantive claims are "demonstratably false". I'll look forward to Mr. Peterson's public expose.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Now, Mr. Peterson, would it be abrupt of me to point out the Book of Mormon, the center piece of Mormon faith, is lacking on these very same points. In fact, I dare say Hitchens's history is a far closer fit to the real world.

Please, I invite you to begin a new thread with this as your hypothesis. If it would be so easy to do, by all means, let's get the conversation started.

[Daniel Peterson]

Given the reviews from even the secularists, you're likely not to shock anyone. I think many of my atheist friends are afraid to endorse Hitchens's book. While I understand their feelings, it's a shame.

It's very much to their credit that certain atheists have refused to sign off on Hitchens's remarkably poor book despite his being "on their team."

It would have been shameful for them to have reacted otherwise.

Now, Mr. Peterson, would it be abrupt of me to point out the Book of Mormon, the center piece of Mormon faith, is lacking on these very same points. In fact, I dare say Hitchens's history is a far closer fit to the real world.

I don't have the faintest idea what you might have in mind by suggesting that the Book of Mormon is deficient as to charity and logic. With regard to accuracy, the historicity of the Book of Mormon can be and is debated. The inaccuracy of god is Not Great, however, is beyond any reasonable dispute.

At any rate, I need to make it clear that I believe Hitchens's history is good enough to make the points he needs to make.

If it genuinely doesn't bother you that his historical claims are false at literally scores and scores of crucial points, I can see why you might like his book.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't have the faintest idea what you might have in mind by suggesting that the Book of Mormon is deficient as to charity and logic. With regard to accuracy, the historicity of the Book of Mormon can be and is debated. The inaccuracy of god is Not Great, however, is beyond any reasonable dispute.

Come on, DCP, let the lad give it a go, I'd like to see him advance his position on the BoM!

[Bach]

I've only read excerpts of Hitchen's book, but I know that I don't like it. I was never really one for giving literary writers any kind of credence in areas of philosophical inquiry anyway.

Dawkin's book -- or at least the parts I read of it, which were substantial -- was quite good, if flippant. I'm willing to sign off on what I've read of that one.

I have to express skepticism, though, that there could exist such a person as a spokesperson for atheism. Atheists include humanists, Marxists, Kantians, hedonists, utilitarians, nihilists, Hayekians, and whole list of other outlooks on life. Not only that, but atheists seem to have differing reasons for not believing in God. The only doctrine that all atheists subscribe to, it seems, is the idea that God doesn't exist. A "spokesperson for atheism", then, wouldn't be able to say much in his position except "there is no God". In that sense, I suppose that all atheists are spokespersons for atheism... but that kind of negates the idea of a spokesperson, now doesn't it?

[Monte Jefferson]

Pahoran,

your sycophantic grovelling at the mere mention of Hitchens' name has its own unique charm, but it wears off rather quickly.

Imagine what we secularists endure from the people of faith with their cantankerous veneration of prophets, saints, hobgoblins and a hodgepodge of other mythical figures.

The fact is that this book clearly demonstrates his disdain--i.e. bigotry--towards all beliefs--and believers--everywhere. That is not to say that we should ignore what he has actually achieved.

One man's bigotry is another's righteous indignation. Hitchens is hardly a bigot. A polemicist, certainly, but one of severe consideration and intellectual honesty.

[Monte Jefferson]

..the historicity of the Book of Mormon can be and is debated...

Sure, it is debated. But only by, uh, Mormons. Imagine if secularists were so devoted to Hitchens that they, as a collective entity, became apologists for every incidental detail of his historical expositions. I look forward to your public demonstration. Perhaps it will give me something further to reflect on as I plod away on my upcoming book.

[Daniel Peterson]

Sure, it is debated. But only by, uh, Mormons.

Actually, believing Mormons tend to believe in Book of Mormon historicity. Critics of Book of Mormon historicity tend not to be Mormons.

That non-Mormons in general tend to be unaware of the arguments is a not very interesting fact.

Imagine if secularists were so devoted to Hitchens that they, as a collective entity, became apologists for every incidental detail of his historical expositions.

I haven't been talking about "incidental" details.

Hitchens is dramatically wrong on numerous important points in his book. In fact, on the whole, I can't think of very many that he gets right

[Bill Hamblin]

Mr. Hamblin,

I doubt his substantive claims are "demonstratably false". I'll look forward to Mr. Peterson's public expose.

Actually, I went into quite some depth on this very thread, detailing where Hitchens essentially fabricates the suppression of the works of Aristotle by Christians. I demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Hitchens's claim is manifestly untrue.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208236624

If you'd like to discuss the details of my position vs. Hitchens's feel free. If you'd prefer to opine and assert, which is all you have been doing up to this point, you needn't bother. I will neither be reading nor responding.

[Monte Jefferson]

Actually, I went into quite some depth on this very thread, detailing where Hitchens essentially fabricates the suppression of the works of Aristotle by Christians. I demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Hitchens's claim is manifestly untrue.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208236624

If you'd like to discuss the details of my position vs. Hitchens's feel free. If you'd prefer to opine and assert, which is all you have been doing up to this point, you needn't bother. I will neither be reading nor responding.

Mr. Hamblin,

What are the details of Hitchens's position on the recovery of Aristotle? He's mentioned the matter in passing over a few lines to which you've offered a lengthy rejoinder. Your essay was interesting, but isn't it common knowledge that the "lost" in the context of this discussion refers to the fact that Greek had become a dead language? Granting this, Hitchens's position is problematic but without more commentary from his side of the ring it's difficult to determine how many of your blows actually connect. You are after all, per your own admission, doing his "unpacking" for him and you've laid out a fine wardrobe from those small suitcases. In your essay, you underscore your tired butlering service, and this makes me wonder if you're getting a full book length critique out of incidental statements that aren't really central to Hitchens's unparalelled demonstration.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Mr. Hamblin,

What are the details of Hitchens's position on the recovery of Aristotle? He's mentioned the matter in passing over a few lines to which you've offered a lengthy rejoinder. Your essay was interesting, but isn't it common knowledge that the "lost" in the context of this discussion refers to the fact that Greek had become a dead language? Granting this, Hitchens's position is problematic but without more commentary from his side of the ring it's difficult to determine how many of your blows actually connect. You are after all, per your own admission, doing his "unpacking" for him and you've laid out a fine wardrobe from those small suitcases. In your essay, you underscore your tired butlering service, and this makes me wonder if you're getting a full book length critique out of incidental statements that aren't really central to Hitchens's unparalelled demonstration.

Care to attempt being specific? Bill Hamblin has invited you to engage on the substance, not a paragraph of rhetoric. If Hamblin is incorrect in his assertions, or flawed, let's hear some specific reasons why.

Hobgoblins? Who is worshipping hobgoblins?

[Daniel Peterson]

Your essay was interesting, but isn't it common knowledge that the "lost" in the context of this discussion refers to the fact that Greek had become a dead language?

Greek has never been a "dead language."

Not even in the sense that Hebrew was ever a "dead language."

Granting this, Hitchens's position is problematic but without more commentary from his side of the ring it's difficult to determine how many of your blows actually connect. You are after all, per your own admission, doing his "unpacking" for him and you've laid out a fine wardrobe from those small suitcases. In your essay, you underscore your tired butlering service,

Rhetoric instead of content.

and this makes me wonder if you're getting a full book length critique out of incidental statements that aren't really central to Hitchens's unparalelled demonstration.

His "unparalleled demonstration"?

Only in the sense that its assertions find few parallels in empirical fact.

[LifeOnaPlate]

His "unparalleled demonstration"?

Only in the sense that its assertions find few parallels in empirical fact.

HIYO!

DCP: how long until your review is published? I forget.