Hitchens - Spokesman For Atheism?

[jwhitlock]

I find it interesting that The Dude claims we cannot say that Hitchens is certain about his statements, because we cannot produce a statement where Hitchens specifically says "I am certain". Without such a statement, we are not allowed to infer any certainty to what Hitchens says.

However, if a believer says "I know there is a God", then that's certainty.

Consider these statements from the Hitchens quote The Dude supplied in post #204:

"Religion is man-made."

"The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species."

These are statements made as absolutes. And when you make an absolute statement, you are making a statement with certainty. Hitchens' certainty flows from these statements to the ones in between, where he is the judge, jury, and executioner, informing us with certainty of what religion actually is and does. Nowhere does he inform us that these things are his opinion; he infers and wants us to understand that he is being very, very certain about what he is telling us.

Such equivocation by those who would defend Hitchens, along with the application of a double standard to statements of certainty by believers, is interesting to observe.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm sure the folks who were rushing to the aid of Talibachman in another thread could demonstrate how Hitchens, while making absolute claims, wasn't trying to sound certain.

[The Dude]

You still seem to think that only someone who has read the whole book is really qualified to comment on it. The rest of us, who have only read parts, and who rely on the analysis of DCP, are evidently "second tier" commenters and not really qualified to comment.

I don't agree with your arbitrary qualification.

Do you doubt that Pahoran and LOP would have made a different argument if they had actually read the part of the book I was quoting from? The quote, in context, clearly shows that I was not equivocating, moving goal posts, waffling, etc. You are still trying to get out of the second tier with whining and excuses, but no shortcut is going to give you the context that Hamblin and DCP left out of the review. That's not an artificial qualification: the disadvantage for you (guys) is real.

The mass of evidence points to Hitchens' work, research, and conclusions as being garbage. You seem to be waffling on confirming that, which is instructive, at least to me.

I'm not really defending Hitchens on the whole. I've agreed with at least two of Hamblin's criticisms. For others, it is possible I will agree or disagree by the time I'm finished. This should not concern you since you already have your mind made up. Oh, but I guess it somehow interests you, or it's somehow instructive, to you at least... whatever that means.

What is interesting in all this is the attempt by both Bach and The Dude to...

I find it interesting that The Dude claims...

Such equivocation by those who would defend Hitchens... is interesting to observe.

What are you trying to convey by calling something interesting or instructive? Aren't these just more throwaway comments like calling something "ironic"? Maybe you are running out of things to say.

[jwhitlock]

Do you doubt that Pahoran and LOP would have made a different argument if they had actually read the part of the book I was quoting from? The quote, in context, clearly shows that I was not equivocating, moving goal posts, waffling, etc. You are still trying to get out of the second tier with whining and excuses, but no shortcut is going to give you the context that Hamblin and DCP left out of the review. That's not an artificial qualification: the disadvantage for you (guys) is real.

This is irrelevant in the context of the main accusation in this thread: Hitchens research is shoddy and inaccurate, and his conclusions are not supported because of that.

We can make that comment and it can be valid because of the reasons I've outlined previously. I have no idea about the direction P&L's comments would have taken otherwise; you'll have to ask them.

I'm not really defending Hitchens on the whole. I've agreed with at least two of Hamblin's criticisms. For others, it is possible I will agree or disagree by the time I'm finished. This should not concern you since you already have your mind made up. Oh, but I guess it somehow interests you, or it's somehow instructive, to you at least... whatever that means.

Certainly I have my mind made up - based on pretty firm evidence. You haven't provided anything to counteract that, except to state that I shouldn't be allowed to make up my mind until I have read the whole book myself - something that I deem unnecessary, and for good reason.

What are you trying to convey by calling something interesting or instructive? Aren't these just more throwaway comments like calling something "ironic"? Maybe you are running out of things to say.

My statements were very clear on what they were trying to convey. Instead of dodging the real question by questioning my motivation, why don't you respond to why you think Hitchens is not "certain"?

I do, by the way, give you kudos on one thing - you've become very good at dodging direct questions and statements by instead concentrating on motivations or qualifications.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not really defending Hitchens on the whole. I've agreed with at least two of Hamblin's criticisms. For others, it is possible I will agree or disagree by the time I'm finished.

How familiar with the book were you before you embraced Hitchens's statement for your sig line, Mr. The Dude?

[The Dude]

Religion is man-made

I agree this is stated as an absolute and at the extreme I have difficulty with it. As I already explained to Hamblin, I cannot be certain that all religion is completely man-made, although I strongly suspect that they all are. I see no evidence or convincing argument (to me) that extra-human influence has been involved in any of them, their mutually exclusive claims notwithstanding.

The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.

I don't agree that this is stated as an absolute. It is clearly an opinion, a judgement, made by Hitchens. I happen to agree with it and since last night it has been part of my signature line. People who claim divine warrant for their certainty, and who try to press it upon others [you'll see that in the context of the quote which DCP and Hamblin didn't share with you denizens of the 2nd tier], are primitive detractors from public discourse. (I have no reason to think you do this yourself, JW, so don't take offense that I agree with Hitchens on this point.)

So to respond to your direct question, sometimes I agree that Hitchens is too certain, and sometimes I think you have a hard time separating absolutes from opinion.

I do, by the way, give you kudos on one thing - you've become very good at dodging direct questions and statements by instead concentrating on motivations or qualifications.

And you have become very self-assured of your standing on this message board. (Note: that's an opinion not an absolute)

[LifeOnaPlate]

I do, by the way, give you kudos on one thing - you've become very good at dodging direct questions and statements by instead concentrating on motivations or qualifications.

Amen.

A person who says no one can be certain of divine direction, who is certain, certainly must have recieved divine instruction in order to be so omnipotent in regards to things divine.

Guy #1: Are you sure?

Guy #2: I'm positive.

Guy #1: Only fools are positive.

Guy #2:Are you sure about that?

Guy #1: I'm Positive!

[The Dude]

Amen. The Dude still hasn't justified his quote from Hitchens.

With every quip you make I'm less sure that you understand the quote -- trying to justify it to you would be fruitless.

[LifeOnaPlate]

With every quip you make I'm less sure that you understand the quote -- trying to justify it to you would be fruitless.

I guess it would have been easier to justify it from the start.

Or- hey- to quote a justifiable quote!

[Bach]

What's interesting in all this is the attempt by both Bach and The Dude to exclude us / religious believers from the debate because:

We haven't read the whole book.

Call for references. I'll give you a thousand dollars if you can produce such a post made by me. Go on. I dare you.

For that matter, where has The Dude tried to fully exclude from the debate anyone who hasn't read the whole book? He himself hasn't read the whole book.

People with personal religious belief can never contribute to the public discourse and should never be able to contribute to public policy, because they will let the influence of that belief color such discourse and policy.

WRONG. I have NEVER said that. The only things I have expressed displeasure with are justifications of political actions that are merely grounded on religious 'knowledge', and not publicly available knowledge. Consider your strawman of my position sufficiently pitchforked.

[Scott Lloyd]

Amen.

A person who says no one can be certain of divine direction, who is certain, certainly must have recieved divine instruction in order to be so omnipotent in regards to things divine.

Guy #1: Are you sure?

Guy #2: I'm positive.

Guy #1: Only fools are positive.

Guy #2:Are you sure about that?

Guy #1: I'm Positive!

I just quoted the above dialog here in the office and got a round of laughter. They laughed even harder when I added that the two guys were atheists.

[Bach]

As long as you recognize that not all atheists believe that, then sure -- no harm in having a little fun.

[Doctor Steuss]

As long as you recognize that not all atheists believe that, then sure -- no harm in having a little fun.

You're a charitable fellow Bach.

[Scott Lloyd]

As long as you recognize that not all atheists believe that, then sure -- no harm in having a little fun.

No problem.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I just quoted the above dialog here in the office and got a round of laughter. They laughed even harder when I added that the two guys were atheists.

Agreed, Bach, no sweat.

[Pahoran]

I don't think this is entirely accurate.

And yet it is.

Believing Latter-day Saints don't say, "Well, it's true... to us." They hold that their personal 'revelation' is sufficient grounds that their religion is universally true, which has a number of implications that don't otherwise obtain.

That's right. And I did not say otherwise.

What we don't do, however, is insist that anyone else take our word for it.

For instance, people with unqualified "certainty" almost invariably use their religious beliefs to inform their voting practices;

As do people who don't articulate any claim to "unqualified 'certainty'." I'm unaware of there being much of a point to democracy if it is somehow illegitimate for people to vote according to what they believe.

the consequences of this and other implications of "certainty" surely affect the lives of people who don't share such a surety of knowledge.

Indeed. In fact, I already mentioned this, in the post to which you are most selectively replying, thus:

We do not attempt to tell anyone else that they should simply take our word for it when we claim that God has revealed some X to us via personal revelation. In fact, we don't even expect our co-religionists to do so, something I would really expect someone to know if he had ever really been one. All we really ask anyone to do is to accept that we ourselves believe X for that reason, and will therefore act on that belief.

Which, just BTW, I truly suspect is the rub for "brights." You congratulate yourselves that you are being extraordinarily broad-minded and tolerant by giving us your gracious permission to keep our nutty beliefs, just so long as we keep them entirely to ourselves and never permit them to influence our words or actions in the public square. We, however, as part of our non-"bright" irrationality, insist on treating our beliefs as integral to our thought processes, rather than as the encapsulated and easily detachable modules you'd prefer us to make them.

Now Bach, perhaps you, uniquely out of all the voting world, vote in a manner contrary to, or otherwise ignoring, your beliefs. I don't know anyone else who does.

If Mormons truly understood their religion to hold the less-inflammatory position of "it's true to us", things would look much different.

Thank you for beating up that straw man.

I'm extremely skeptical of what you said here.

And yet it happens to be true.

If people believe that their conception of God is true universally -- and trust me, they do -- then why not use it as a basis for public decision-making, or as a reason to interfere in another person's life, or as a casus belli?

You may try to pretend that this is somehow unique to religious believers, but if you really believe that, then you know nothing whatsoever about historical reality.

That people in fact have done, are doing, and will in the future do these exact things in the name of God (and Latter-day Saints are no exception here) casts your assertion here in an uncomfortable light.

And people will use their belief in Marxism or "God Delusion" or evolution or global warming as "a basis for public decision-making, or as a reason to interfere in another person's life, or as a casus belli." This is part of the human condition, and is not in any way linked to with what some subset of humans may or may not believe about "their conception of God."

Contrary to the deliberate lies that atheists pass around amongst themselves, and occasionally are foolish and tactless enough to blurt out in public.

Regards,

Pahoran

[jwhitlock]

Call for references. I'll give you a thousand dollars if you can produce such a post made by me. Go on. I dare you.

Sorry about that, I'll clarify. The first one applied to the Dude, the second to you. I lumped you both together as using exclusionary methods and should have been clearer to separate the methods.

For that matter, where has The Dude tried to fully exclude from the debate anyone who hasn't read the whole book? He himself hasn't read the whole book.

His claim that those who haven't read the book are second tier commenters should be enough. This was his first line of attack, in fact, in his first post on this thread. He usually doesn't like to address a claim before trying first to disqualify the person making the claim.

"People with personal religious belief can never contribute to the public discourse and should never be able to contribute to public policy, because they will let the influence of that belief color such discourse and policy."

WRONG. I have NEVER said that. The only things I have expressed displeasure with are justifications of political actions that are merely grounded on religious 'knowledge', and not publicly available knowledge. Consider your strawman of my position sufficiently pitchforked.

See the following (your quotes):

For instance, people with unqualified "certainty" almost invariably use their religious beliefs to inform their voting practices; the consequences of this and other implications of "certainty" surely affect the lives of people who don't share such a surety of knowledge.

Setting the stage - religious people affect the lives of others (I guess non-religious people don't affect the lives of others with their opinions)

If people believe that their conception of God is true universally -- and trust me, they do -- then why not use it as a basis for public decision-making, or as a reason to interfere in another person's life, or as a casus belli? That people in fact have done, are doing, and will in the future do these exact things in the name of God (and Latter-day Saints are no exception here) casts your assertion here in an uncomfortable light.

Still setting the state - it's uncomfortable when people's religious opinions are the basis for public policy.

As such, religions are inherently less conducive to public discourse than secular ideologies.

Ohhh - public discourse suffers when religion is any part of it.

Don't kid yourself, man -- religion still has plenty of influence in places it probably shouldn't.

Bad influence, bad influence. We really need to exclude that influence in certain places - like the public discourse mentioned above.

Religious belief is more than merely unproven, though. Revelatory 'knowledge' is necessarily personal, as Pahoran and others have already admitted, and knowledge that is intrinsically personal can never be part of a meaningful public dialogue.

Whoops - religious personal knowledge can never be part of a meaningful public dialog. Let's get exclusionary.

It has nothing at all to do with the transcendent "faith" of religion, in which conclusions are accepted for no good reason at all -- by definition.

And to wrap up - religious opinions and conclusions have no reason behind them...

Yes, and we can have a meaningful dialectic (heh, heh) with them, precisely because they don't shield themselves behind such infuriating nonsense as, "God's thoughts are not man's thoughts."

Because look how ridiculous such opinions are.

There's the "straw man" for you. Please feel free to correct and clarify.

[Pahoran]

I didn't say he speaks for the whole of humanity. I said to understand him you have to take humanity into consideration: take more into consideration than just your experience as a Mormon. Think global. Think about the whole of humanity. Lots of religions, not just yours.

Why? He doesn't. He speaks only for his own religion, i.e. the worship of his own preternaturally superficial intellect.

That is the quote to which I refer. I'm not spinning the quote at all -- in fact, since I do happen to have the book on my desk and I am actually reading it (shocking! someone in this thread is actually reading the book that's been bashed for 11 pages), I can give you further context that supports the "spin" I have been arguing all along. No spin. No goal posts being moved.

Oh, really?

You genuflected:

Thus the mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and the most devastating one. Religion is man-made.

Thus is Mr. Hitchens' certitude, but upon whom is it being "thrust?"

Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus actually said or did. Still less can they hope to tell us the "meaning" of later discoveries and developments which were, when they began, either obstructed by their religions or denounced by them. And yet -- the believers claim to know! Not just to know, but to know everything.

Everything?

Not just to know that god exists, and that he created and supervised the whole enterprise, but also to know what "he" demands of us -- from our diet to our observances to our sexual morality. In other words, in a vast and complicated discussion where we know more and more about less and less, yet can still hope for some enlightenment as we proceed, one faction -- itself composed of mutually warring factions -- has the sheer arrogance to tell us that we already have all the essential information we need.

And Mr. Hitchens knows that we don't because...?

His certainty comes from where, exactly?

Such stupidity, combined with such pride, should be enough to exclude "belief" from the debate. The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted.

(page 10-11, God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens)

So, according to Hitchens, because believers actually believe their beliefs to be true--in total contrast to Hitchens and yourself, of course--they should be silenced and "excluded from the debate."

And you approve of this.

Should I be surprised?

I confess that I'm not.

Yes, I see very much here that pertains to the "thrusting" of religion into places where it doesn't belong.

Such as discussions about moral behaviour and the purpose of life. These are "places where it doesn't belong," according to you and your hero.

And, of course, you are both certain about this.

But note please, that contrary to your assertion above, you have indeed moved the goal posts. You previously said:

But now you are turning the quote around just like LOP. It isn't about having (or not having) certainty without God -- the quote is about the impotence of thrusting your God-given certainty on others.

Only now you've shifted your ground--perhaps hoping that nobody would notice--such that the "thrusting" is now "into places where it doesn't belong."

Also, if LOP is still following the thread, he will note that it is clear that Hitchens does not claim there is certainty, in fact Mr. Hitchens says there is very much uncertainty in this complicated world -- except for the various contradictory religions who say they already have "certainty" from God.

On the contrary. Mr. Hitchens may modestly (or proudly) disclaim any "certainty" in his dogmatic and immovable prejudices, but he has no doubt that they are true.

Regards,

Pahoran

[The Dude]

Oh, really?

Yes, really.

And you approve of this.

No, I've already said what I approve of.

And, of course, you are both certain about this.

You just see me as a stand-in for Hitchens, no matter that I have already explained that I am not completely certain that all religions are 100% man made. You just ignore it and carry on with your bullying. That's the Pahoran way.

But note please, that contrary to your assertion above, you have indeed moved the goal posts.

No I have not.

Only now you've shifted your ground--perhaps hoping that nobody would notice--such that the "thrusting" is now "into places where it doesn't belong."

No I have not.

Carry on with your bullying. Ignore the qualifiers and distinctions. Tell me what I think and kick me in the butt for thinking it. That's the Pahoran way.

[The Dude]

His claim that those who haven't read the book are second tier commenters should be enough.

Enough to really get your goat. But you aren't excluded, and you don't have to be second tier. It is purely by your choice.

This was his first line of attack, in fact, in his first post on this thread.

And I waited a good long time before re-entering the thread. In fact, I waited until I started actually reading the book.

He usually doesn't like to address a claim before trying first to disqualify the person making the claim.

You are very self-assured in your position on this board to start telling people what I usually do. I do, on a somewhat regular basis, have the balls to ask self-assured posters if they have actually read the book they are trashing. But I do not routinely start out with ad hominen attacks. Your witness here is false, as many can attest.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Enough to really get your goat. But you aren't excluded, and you don't have to be second tier. It is purely by your choice.

And I waited a good long time before re-entering the thread. In fact, I waited until I started actually reading the book.

You are very self-assured in your position on this board to start telling people what I usually do. I do, on a somewhat regular basis, have the balls to ask self-assured posters if they have actually read the book they are trashing. But I do not routinely start out with ad hominen attacks. Your witness here is false, as many can attest.

But you even started off this post by attacking the poster you are responding to; within the same ost you deny doing such on a regular basis.

Much like I just did!

[Pahoran]

You just see me as a stand-in for Hitchens, no matter that I have already explained that I am not completely certain that all religions are 100% man made. You just ignore it and carry on with your bullying. That's the Pahoran way.

Bullying? Well cry me a river, Dude, but you are the one who so enthusiastically approves of Hitchens' "pithy comment" that you included it in your (presumably equally pithy) signature line. You are the one defending and explaining it, thus assuming the role of Mr. Hitchens's apologist.

If in fact you disagree with Hitchens about where anyone's religiously based beliefs "belong," feel free to clarify that. Which, AFAICT, you have not yet done.

No I have not.

I fear you will feel "bullied" if I do anything so overbearing as to ask you to explain how you reconcile two rather incompatible statements, but I'll risk it. In defense of Hitchens's indefensibly dismissive statement, you previously wrote:

QUOTE(The Dude @ Aug 20 2007, 06:26 PM)

But now you are turning the quote around just like LOP. It isn't about having (or not having) certainty without God -- the quote is about the impotence of thrusting your God-given certainty on others.

But now you say:

QUOTE(The Dude @ Aug 20 2007, 09:58 PM)

Yes, I see very much here that pertains to the "thrusting" of religion into places where it doesn't belong.

So which is it? Is it the high-handed imposition of religious values upon the disenfranchised "bright" elite, or is it the irritatingly insensitive insistence in participating in a debate in which religious values are not welcome?

If you meant to say the latter when you said the former, whose fault is it if we took you at your word the first time around?

No I have not.

What is this supposed to be; proof by repeated denial?

Carry on with your bullying. Ignore the qualifiers and distinctions. Tell me what I think and kick me in the butt for thinking it. That's the Pahoran way.

Now Dude. Calm down.

You are the one defending the only "bullying" in view. Mr. Hitchens wants all religious believers everywhere to take their convictions and crawl back under their respective rocks, so that he (and you, his faithful defender) can monopolise the debate from this point on; he with his loudly proclaimed certainty, and you with your apparently more nuanced view, but with none of those irritating Christians to mess things up. If you don't actually approve of this, you have yet to get around to telling us what part you disapprove of.

Regards,

Pahoran

[jwhitlock]

You are very self-assured in your position on this board to start telling people what I usually do. I do, on a somewhat regular basis, have the balls to ask self-assured posters if they have actually read the book they are trashing.

Glad to see you finally answered some specifics in your response post previous to this concerning Hitchens claiming certainty. It still sounds like you want to apply a double standard with what Hitchens says compared to what a Mormon bearing witness says.

Self assured in my position on this board? In what, that I don't defer to your opinion on things? Please.

But I do not routinely start out with ad hominen attacks. Your witness here is false, as many can attest.

But you do question the motivation and qualifications first before you talk about the claims. That was what your first post did. You asked if I had read the book. And when I told you what I had done, you (not me) relegated me to "second tier" status in commenting on it. Attacks, indeed.

And lest anyone be taken in by your coyness about ad hominen attacks, you might remember the following you addressed about me:

I'm still reeling at the stupidity of that turn of debate, and will never take that person seriously again.

Now that you've also termed me to be self-assured (arrogant?, or perhaps a better synonym, "cocky"), the fine tradition continues.

Anyway, the thread has been informative in one way. When we refer to fringe EV anti-Mormons (Decker, for instance) and how biased and inaccurate their research is, most of the EVs on this board don't have a problem recognizing them for what they are and distancing themselves from them. When we refer to a fringe anti-religion (and anti-Mormon) atheist such as Hitchens, and have demonstrated how biased and inaccurate his research is, I find no such corresponding distancing. That has been instructive.

[The Dude]

If in fact you disagree with Hitchens about where anyone's religiously based beliefs "belong," feel free to clarify that. Which, AFAICT, you have not yet done.

Thanks for leaving open the possibility that you just aren't paying attention, but I happen to agree enough to put it in my signature line. I guess this makes me a target, and I'll just have to deal with such outbursts, continually wondering if the meager substance between your insults is worth it. <sigh>

I fear you will feel "bullied" if I do anything so overbearing as to ask you to explain how you reconcile two rather incompatible statements, but I'll risk it. In defense of Hitchens's indefensibly dismissive statement, you previously wrote:

But now you are turning the quote around just like LOP. It isn't about having (or not having) certainty without God -- the quote is about the impotence of thrusting your God-given certainty on others.

But now you say:

Yes, I see very much here that pertains to the "thrusting" of religion into places where it doesn't belong.

I fail to see why you characterize these as incompatible statements. The quote is about what is wrong with thrusting your personal claims of god-given certainty on others -- i.e. where they don't belong. These phrases in bold are not only compatible, they are synonymous.

So which is it? Is it the high-handed imposition of religious values upon the disenfranchised "bright" elite, or is it the irritatingly insensitive insistence in participating in a debate in which religious values are not welcome?

How are those interpretations "two rather incompatible statements" (your words)? How could I be possibly be moving the goal posts, or equivocating, or waffling, if I first meant one and then switched to the other? What would I gain if I were guilty of these tactics? Is this really truly the basis of your heavy-handed accusation? You have nothing, Pahoran.

[jwhitlock]

And I waited a good long time before re-entering the thread. In fact, I waited until I started actually reading the book.

Well blow me down.

Even though I also had already started reading the book (in that I read the excerpts on Slate), your starting to read the book must take precedence in authority over mine. And so you sit in judgment on me, relegating me to the "second tier" - when in reality, both you and I had only started reading and not read the whole thing.

Double standards in the finest Hitchens tradition.