Hitchens - Spokesman For Atheism?

[Scott Lloyd]

This doesn't sound at all like the Hitchens that wrote the book we are referring to. You can refer to the excerpts in Slate mentioned above, if you'd like. "Doesn't really hit the mark" is understating his attitude a bit; he's downright nasty about the Church. And I don't get any impression from his writings that he is willing to entertain the fact that he might just be wrong; the errors in his book appear to be so pervasive and blatant as to discount such a possibility.

At the FAIR Conference, after Dr. Peterson had finished his presentation "God and Mr. Hitchens," one of the questioners in the audience asked, "Why are you wasting time on this yahoo? Isn't it a bit like beating up an invalid?"

Dan replied (and he can restate this better than I) something along the lines of the book being a best-seller and having an enormous impact, and though the book itself is trash, the souls it is destroying are precious.

[Daniel Peterson]

his credibility has been brought up.

Hitchens has absolutely no credibility with me. None. On any level.

And it isn't just Mormons for whom he has contempt. While he admires Lenin and Trotsky, he despises Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, and all religious believers. His book is thickly stuffed with insults and name-calling directed against people of faith.

It's an ugly and poorly-done thing at best.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I couldn't have said it better myself. I would never join myself with the American Atheists (or any other organized atheist group.) As such, said groups operate like a religion.

Yes, but you are clearly a non-denominational atheist, with your own liturgy, sermons and docrtines presented on your myspace page.

[jwhitlock]

At the FAIR Conference, after Dr. Peterson had finished his presentation "God and Mr. Hitchens," one of the questioners in the audience asked, "Why are you wasting time on this yahoo? Isn't it a bit like beating up an invalid?"

Dan replied (and he can restate this better than I) something along the lines of the book being a best-seller and having an enormous impact, and though the book itself is trash, the souls it is destroying are precious.

Yes, I remember that.

Hitchens comes out looking more and more like an atheist version of Keller; no substance, but a snare to those who will give him heed. If you haven't already done so, you might want to take a look at the Amazon comments on his book. I don't think I've ever seen quite a contrast of perspective as between those who adore him, and those like DCP and others who recognize him for what he is. Literally poles apart.

[Nimrod_clone]

My friend at work is an avowed atheist and lent me the book. I got through about 3/4 of it before I gave up and gave it back to him. It was complete crap and that is being kind.

What I had trouble with the most was trying to reconcile Mr Hitchensâ?? extensive travel, experience and literary profession with a completely unreadable book. His use of phrase and language was obviously meant to sound scholarly but came of sounding silly.

Other than the title of his book, I could not discern through all the ranting and anecdotal stories, what the point was. At least Dawkinsâ?? recent book had an argument based on his science, with Hitchens I was left unconvinced about anything.

Just my 2 centsâ?¦.

NC

[Bill Hamblin]

Those who find some merit in Hitchens's new book might be interested in reading the latest section of the (hopefully) forthcoming book by DCP and myself. It comes from the chapter entitled "A World without Religion," detailing the importance of religion in world history. (I can't get footnotes to appear in the text; I'm appending them at the end, but the numbered references were dropped from the text itself when I cut and pasted.)

===

A Test Case of Preservation: Aristotle and Plato

Hitchens bemoans the loss of so much ancient culture to alleged book burning by ignorant and tyrannical Christians. “The lost works of Aristotle and other Greeks,” Hitchens claims, were “‘lost’ because the Christian authorities had burned some, suppressed others, and closed the schools of philosophy” (25), alluding to Justinian closing the Academy of Athens in 529. Why did they commit such a crime against culture? “On the grounds that there could have been no useful reflections on morality before the teachings of Jesus” (25). Later, he continues in the same vein. “Many of [Aristotle’s] writings were lost,” he informs us, “when the Christian emperor Justinian closed the schools of philosophy, but were preserved in Arabic translation in Baghdad and then retransmitted to a benighted Christian Europe by way of Jewish and Muslim Andalusia” (68).

Needless to say, there is not the hint of a footnote to these claims. (Where does he come up with these ideas?) It is tiresome to repeatedly be forced to unpack Hitchens’s consistently warped presentation of intellectual history; tiresome, but very necessary. First, let’s take a look at the chronological impossibility of what Hitchens claims. Justinian rather ineffectively closed the pagan Academy of Athens in 529—ineffectively, because teaching there in fact continued for decades. Note, first, that by this time the academy had obviously somehow survived two centuries of Christian rule. Furthermore, it was largely moribund, since there were so few pagans left in Byzantium. The Academy was also largely Platonic in emphasis, not Aristotelian. Most importantly, the closing of the Academy did not entail a ban on the study of Plato or Aristotle; as we shall soon note, the study of Plato and Aristotle continued unabated.

The Abbasid institute to which Hitchens refers, that was central to the translation of Greek scientific and philosophical texts into Arabic, was the Dar al-Hikma (“House of Wisdom”) at Baghdad. It did not begin operations until the late eighth century, after the founding of Baghdad in 762. Thus, there is nearly a quarter of a millennium between when Justinian closed the Academy in 529 and when the Baghdad translation schools began after 762. If Justinian had been successful in stifling the study of Aristotle so that many of his works were lost, as Hitchens claims, how did these suppressed and lost manuscripts of Aristotle survive for the next 250 years to be translated by the Arabs and then later transmitted to the West? All of this further ignores the issue that medieval Islamic society was just as religious as the West. If religions universally scorn and repress learning, as Hitchens claims, why in the world did the Muslims bother to translate Aristotle at all?

What about the supposed Christian motivation for this non-event? Here Hitchens is quite blunt. Christians destroyed Aristotle and other Greek manuscripts because they wanted people to believe that “there could have been no useful [pagan] reflections on morality before the teachings of Jesus” (25). Actual medieval Christians, as opposed to Hitchens’s caricatures, did not share this view. For example the early eleventh century Byzantine monk Mauropous —the teacher of the polymathic scholar Michael Psellus (1018-1081), one of the founders of the Byzantine Platonic revival of the eleventh century —“was so impressed by the similarity of Plato and Plutarch’s lofty moral sentiments to the teachings of the gospel” that he wrote the following prayer in the form of a poem to God:

If perchance you wish to exempt certain pagans from punishment, my Christ,

May you spare for my sake Plato and Plutarch,

For both were very close to your laws in both teaching and way of life.

Does Hitchens really want to argue that these are the sentiments of a man who believed “there could have been no useful reflections on morality before the teachings of Jesus” (25)?

Furthermore, Hitchens’s assertion that it was “Jewish and Muslim” scholars of Andalusia who reintroduced Aristotle to the West is only partly true. The scholars of Andalusia involved in the cultural exchange included Jews, Muslims, and—though conspicuously absent from Hitchens’s account—Christians. (They were apparently somehow able to accomplish all this without the help of atheists, by the way.) However, at roughly the same time translations of parts of Aristotle directly from the Greek were being made by James of Venice (died c. 1142) at Constantinople. Additional books were later translated by Robert Grosseteste (d. 1253) and William of Moerbeke (d. 1286). Why does Hitchens ignore the notable role of these Christian scholars in both Andalusia and elsewhere in the reintroduction of Aristotle to the West? The work of these Christian scholars again directly conflicts with his claims that it was the Christians who suppressed Aristotle in the first place. His overall position seems strange given the strongly Aristotelian nature of Scholasticism in the later Middle Ages, as even a preemptory glance at Aquinas can demonstrate.

In fact, the writings of Plato and Aristotle were largely lost in the West because Greek ceased to be studied after the fall of Rome. They, however, continued to be widely studied in the Byzantine East. How else would it have been possible for us to now have their books in the original Greek? To show just how wrong Hitchens is in his claim we need only note that, far from being suppressed by Justinian, the study of Aristotle flourished in Byzantium. “Byzantine higher education always centered on the study of Aristotle. His works have been transmitted in over 1,000 manuscripts dated between the 9th and 16th centuries, making him by far the most widely copied ancient Greek author; he is also the most commented on.” When we remember that the Greek New Testament—the most widely read text in medieval Byzantium—survives in only around 5500 Byzantine manuscripts, the existence of 1000 manuscripts of Aristotle is absolutely phenomenal. Indeed, excluding papyri fragments and liturgical copies of the Psalms, the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) survives in less than 1600 manuscripts. In other words, the supposedly suppressed Aristotle was copied and read by Byzantine Christians almost as much as the Old Testament! These are the texts Hitchens claims were suppressed by the Christians.

Taking into account differences in overall population, printing, and literacy levels, it is quite probable that—proportionally speaking—Aristotle was actually more widely and seriously read by medieval Christians than he is today, even by atheists. The eleventh century scholar Michael of Ephesus, for example, famously “worked on [his commentaries of Aristotle] until he ruined his eyesight.” The Middle Ages was the age of Aristotle. Alas, Plato didn’t fair quite so well. Nonetheless, though his works survive in only 260 Byzantine manuscripts, he remains “one of the most frequently quoted classical authors in Byzantine belles letters.”

The writings of Aristotle and Plato were temporarily lost to the West (and only the West) not because of religious suppression as Hitchens claims, but because of the disappearance of all Greek learning in the West in the wake of the fall of Rome. This is manifest in the occasional use of the phrase “Graecum est; non potest legi” (“It is Greek; it cannot be read”) in medieval Western manuscripts where Greek words or phrases were omitted by copyists; hence, the famous saying, “it’s Greek to me.” Greek versions of Plato and Aristotle were reintroduced to the West in the fourteenth century by Byzantine refugees fleeing the fall of their empire to the Turks, who brought their precious manuscripts of Plato and Aristotle with them when they fled precisely because they thought those books were worth saving, thereby planting one of the seeds of the Renaissance. We owe the preservation of the works of these two great philosophers to the very Christians whom Hitchens despises as the ignorant tyrants who supposedly suppressed and burned the books they were actually preserving! The historical reality is precisely the opposite of what Hitchens claims. Without religion the works of Plato and Aristotle would have been lost.

---

Alan Cameron, “The last days of the Academy at Athens,” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, 195 (1969): 7-29; ODB 1:9.

D. Gutas, Greek Thought, Arab Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early 'Abbasid Society, (Routledge, 1998); C. Wells, Sailing from Byzantium: How a Lost Empire Shaped the World, (Delacorte, 2006), 145-57.

A. Kazhdan, The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, (Oxford, 1991), 2:1319; hereafter ODB.

ODB 3:1754-5, 3:1684; J. Strayer (ed.), Dictionary of the Middle Ages, (Scribners, 1987), 9:697-8, hereafter DMA.

Deno John Geanakoplos, Byzantium: Church, Society, and Civilization Seen through Contemporary Eyes, (University of Chicago, 1984), 395.

R. Rubenstein, Aristotle’s Children: How Christians, Muslims, and Jews Rediscovered Ancient Wisdom and Illuminated the Middle Ages, (Harvest, 2004), observe the notable inclusion of “Christians” in the title; B. Laughlin, The Aristotle Adventure: A Guide to the Greek, Arabic, & Latin Scholars Who Transmitted Aristotle's Logic to the Renaissance, (Albert Hale, 1995).

DMA 1:460-1.

ODB 1:171.

K. Jobes and M. Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, (Baker, 2000), 57-63, at 63.

ODB 2:1369a.

ODB 3:1683; see also DMA 9:694-704.

Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, 1.2.

Wells, Sailing from Byzantium, 66-114.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thanks for the sneak peek.

[jwhitlock]

I think it's pretty clear that Hitchens is not a reliable source. The questions, however, remain: How widely are he and his ideas embraced by atheists in general? How many atheists will say that Hitchens does not speak for them? Or is atheism thoroughly tainted by an irrational hatred of religion such as that displayed by Hitchens?

From calmoriah's link in post #12 it is evident that there are at least some out there who distance themselves from Hitchens; are they the majority or the minority?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think it's pretty clear that Hitchens is not a reliable source. The questions, however, remain: How widely are he and his ideas embraced by atheists in general? How many atheists will say that Hitchens does not speak for them? Or is atheism thoroughly tainted by an irrational hatred of religion such as that displayed by Hitchens?

From calmoriah's link in post #12 it is evident that there are at least some out there who distance themselves from Hitchens; are they the majority or the minority?

I can see kids really digging the book. I'm talking rebelious or atheistic teens.

[Doctor Steuss]

At the FAIR Conference, after Dr. Peterson had finished his presentation "God and Mr. Hitchens," one of the questioners in the audience asked, "Why are you wasting time on this yahoo? Isn't it a bit like beating up an invalid?"

Dan replied (and he can restate this better than I) something along the lines of the book being a best-seller and having an enormous impact, and though the book itself is trash, the souls it is destroying are precious.

I havenâ??t had the opportunity to read it yet, but I have had several friends recommend it to me (and give it rather lavish praise). The latest of which is a rather brilliant gal who is in her final year of law school.

If Mr. Hitchensâ?? book, logic, and research is indeed as bad as Dr. Peterson (and others) have seemingly demonstrated, then it appears that Mr. Hitchensâ?? is quite talented in fooling otherwise intelligent people (I try not to have morons for friends).

Kudos and shame may be in orderâ?¦

[Doctor Steuss]

Rabbi Hamblin,

I'm sure this hasn't gone through the editing process yet, but...

...as Hitchens claims, how did these suppressed and lost manuscripts of Aristotle survive for then next 250 years to be translated by the Arabs and then later transmitted to the West?

Just a heads up on a typo.

[jwhitlock]

I haven't had the opportunity to read it yet, but I have had several friends recommend it to me (and give it rather lavish praise). The latest of which is a rather brilliant gal who is in her final year of law school.

If Mr. Hitchens' book, logic, and research is indeed as bad as Dr. Peterson (and others) have seemingly demonstrated, then it appears that Mr. Hitchens' is quite talented in fooling otherwise intelligent people (I try not to have morons for friends).

Kudos and shame may be in orderâ?¦

You can read the excerpt on Mormons on Slate; it's fairly indicative of how badly Hitchens gets things wrong.

Mormons are often accused of not thinking critically, or accepting everything that fits with their preconceived notions uncritically. That does happen. But it is interesting to find the same thing happening with otherwise intelligent people accepting Hitchens uncritically. It would indicate that people who one would classify as intelligent are not immune from doing some heavy filtering through their own preconceptions, while ignoring facts that contradict those preconceptions.

The problem is, of course, that Hitchens' research and methodology is so flawed as to call into question the very conclusions he is coming to. And that means that those who accept Hitchens uncritically based on their own preconceptions may indeed be on a very sandy foundation themselves.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rabbi Hamblin,

I'm sure this hasn't gone through the editing process yet, but...

Just a heads up on a typo.

Thanks!

[Alf O'Mega]

Alas, Plato didnâ??t fair quite so well.

As long as we're flagging typos.

Now I expect an acknowledgment of contributions by your atheist friends in the front matter!

[Bill Hamblin]

As long as we're flagging typos.

Now I expect an acknowledgment of contributions by your atheist friends in the front matter!

If I knew who you were, I would acknowledge you. You're right; I should have capitalized it as FAIR. (Or do you think I meant "fare"?)

Thanks!

[Uncle Dale]

Those who find some merit in Hitchens's new book might be interested in reading the latest section

of the (hopefully) forthcoming book by DCP and myself. It comes from the chapter entitled

"A World without Religion," detailing the importance of religion in world history...

I wonder what message Hitchens would have given the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae?

Probably something like:

"Your oracles are all false -- there are no gods atop Mr. Olympus -- we can all go home!"

Uncle "now, if I can just articulate that same statement in Farsi, I will have made my point" Dale

[Alf O'Mega]

If I knew who you were, I would acknowledge you.

A collective acknowledgment will be fine. You're not saying I'm the only atheist to have contributed a correction, are you?

[Bill Hamblin]

A collective acknowledgment will be fine. You're not saying I'm the only atheist to have contributed a correction, are you?

I have come to bury atheists, not to praise them!

[Alf O'Mega]

I have come to bury atheists, not to praise them!

Praise the Lord and pass the shovel!

[Uncle Dale]

I have come to bury atheists, not to praise them!

Praise the Lord and pass the shovel!

If you wish to shovel earth over today's atheists, you will of course have to execute them first.

You might, however, attempt to bury the memorials and burn the writings of atheists of the past.

With which one will you begin?

Lao Tzu?

Gautama Siddhartha?

Shri Shankara Chariya?

Plato?

Tom Paine?

UD

[Doctor Steuss]

I was about to point out another, but Bill already fixed it:

They, however, continued to be widely studied in the Byzantine East.

"They" was "their."

And here I was excited to say:

Contributions by a Mormon = 2

Contributions by an Atheist = 1

Looks like I'll have to holster my shovel for another day...

[Bill Hamblin]

Praise the Lord and pass the shovel!

If you wish to shovel earth over today's atheists, you will of course have to execute them first.

You might, however, attempt to bury the memorials and burn the writings of atheists of the past.

With which one will you begin?

Lao Tzu?

Gautama Siddhartha?

Shri Shankara Chariya?

Plato?

Tom Paine?

UD

Lao Tzu, Siddhartha, Shankara and Plato were hardly atheists.

And, by the way, I was joking, as the devil face was supposed to indicate.

[Scott Lloyd]

Lao Tzu, Siddhartha, Shankara and Plato were hardly atheists.

And, by the way, I was joking, as the devil face was supposed to indicate.

Uncle Dale is wont to compile laundry lists -- and has a problem with lack of discrimination in doing so, as he and I have discussed previously.

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale is wont to compile laundry lists -- and has a problem with lack of discrimination

in doing so, as he and I have discussed previously.

What god did Buddha profess?

He was the world's most famous atheist. I should have some small perception of that, from my studies

in Nepal with his modern Mahayana disciples.

UD

[Scott Lloyd]

What god did Buddha profess?

He was the world's most famous atheist. I should have some small perception of that, from my studies

in Nepal with his modern Mahayana disciples.

UD

I didn't say you were off base with all of the items on your lists; just with some.

laundry list [informal] a lengthy, inclusive list of data, matters for consideration, etc., often one regarded as unorganized or showing a lack of necessary selectiveness -- Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition (emphasis added)