Hitchens - Spokesman For Atheism?

[Uncle Dale]

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

Actually you may have a point -- because Shankara Chariya's version of the Advaita Vedanta

was a theistic rebuttal to classic Buddhism. However, the "Ishwara" of Shankara is identifiable

with no particular Hindu god -- it is a personalization/personification of Infinite Being.

In other words, a human construct based upon human perception and reflection.

On those grounds, you win the point -- (and get the last word on this one).

Uncle "sorry about the 'last word' part -- you know me" Dale

[Bill Hamblin]

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

Buddhists everywhere, and especially the Mahayana, believe in numerous devas (Sanskrit for "god," cognate with Roman deus, Greek theos, and Persian div. Rejection of an ultimate supreme being in the Western sense is hardly the same thing as atheism. Try visiting a Tibetan temple, for example.

Here, from the Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism (p. 72), "deva = A god or supernatural being ... Buddhism inherited the Vedic concept of a panthon of gods ... The gods are thought to reside on or over Mt Meru, the cosmic mountain ... Offerings and sacrfices are to be made to the gods"

There are numerous tales in Buddhist scripture describing the god Indra being taught by the Buddha.

[Alf O'Mega]

And here I was excited to say:

Contributions by a Mormon = 2

Contributions by an Atheist = 1

Well, since I'm a Mormon and an atheist, you can make it 2.5 to 0.5.

[Uncle Dale]

Try visiting a Tibetan temple, for example.

Sorry -- there is no such thing.

You might visit a stupa and honor the preserved remains of deceased saints -- or visit a monastery --

or visit a pagoda. You might even visit a Buddhist church here where I live, in Hilo, Hawaii --

But a "Tibetan temple?" -- I have never seen such a thing -- except in USA "Yellow Book" pages.

And yes, you might ask a novice monk, or his mother, if they believe in ghosts and gremlins; good

and evil spirits, and they might say "yes." --- But ask the abbott or chief monk, or a recognized

spiritual leader, and the answer will be different.

Ask the Dali Lama, and you will get a smile and a lecture on "children's stories," as we did at his

darshan in Houston back in 1979 --- as he said then, primitive Buddhism dispenses with such things,

as being the product of "maya" and "maha-maya." That is, they are icons and not ultimate truths.

UD

[Bill Hamblin]

Sorry -- there is no such thing.

You might visit a stupa and honor the preserved remains of deceased saints -- or visit a monastery --

or visit a pagoda. You might even visit a Buddhist church here where I live, in Hilo, Hawaii --

But a "Tibetan temple?" -- I have never seen such a thing -- except in USA "Yellow Book" pages.

And yes, you might ask a novice monk, or his mother, if they believe in ghosts and gremlins; good

and evil spirits, and they might say "yes." --- But ask the abbott or chief monk, or a recognized

spiritual leader, and the answer will be different.

Ask the Dali Lama, and you will get a smile and a lecture on "children's stories," as we did at his

darshan in Houston back in 1979 --- as he said then, primitive Buddhism dispenses with such things,

as being the product of "maya" and "maha-maya." That is, they are icons and not ultimate truths.

UD

Funny, I went to many temples in Tibet. Like, for example, this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokhang_Temple

and this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumbum

There were sure lots of statues of gods in those temples.

Of course everything, including you and me, are mahamaya in one sense. But the gods exist as much as we exist, and are worshipped by Buddhists.

[Irondukesteve]

I have read parts of Christopher Hitchen's book and watched TONS of his youtube videos and I find him absolutely captivating.

When reading Hitchens you must remember that he is writing not to the more pragmatic of readers (of which Dawkins and Sam Harris have already written) he is writing a more poetic and personal attack. I personally think that this wave of atheistic material has much to teach us about our religious arrogance.

Yes...Hitchens dislikes Mormons...and his comments about the church being Racist and Romeny supporting a racist church are examples of his inane polemical attacks. Though poetic, eloquent and persuasive...one must look at a few additional things.

Hitchens brother is a believing Christian and BBC 4 had a fantastic bit of them debating eachother and all Christopher Hitchens could say at the end is "This is not going to sell my book". lol He is a funny and nerdy character who was most probably ignored, disliked and even bullyied at school because he was an intellectual attention seeker. Honestly...he is a big nerd as is Dawkins...(The only boys I knew at my school who went to Oxford were Nerds and a debate between Alister McGrath and Dawkins on youtube points this out).

I think Dawkins and Stephen Fry are better spokesmen for Atheism. Dawkins is remarkably kind and fair to moderate Christians in person(see interview with the bishop of oxford on youtube). Fry LOVES the Church of England though he cant bring himself to believe it. I think most Brits now are agnostic and atheist and the ones I have met are not hardliners like Hitchens. He is merely writing a book of eloquent polemics...and though ARROGANT AS CAN BE...is probably a pleasant chap when one knows him on a more familiar level.

[Uncle Dale]

Funny, I went to many temples in Tibet. Like, for example, this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokhang_Temple

and this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumbum

There were sure lots of statues of gods in those temples.

Of course everything, including you and me, are mahamaya in one sense. But the gods exist as much as we exist, and are worshipped by Buddhists.

I am happy that you were able to visit Tibet -- though I suppose you flew in for a few days' visit

and left without learning the language or talking to the people about what they "worship."

My own visit was rather more extended than that, and entailed crossing the Himalayas at Manang Pass

and trekking up through Mustang -- all in the company of a long-time resident who spoke Tibetan and

Nepali. We saw no Buddhist "mandirs," nor did the local people refer to any such edifices -- nor did

they refer to any such worship. They did fear (and try to placate) "evil spirits" however. That is,

the common people did. Theirs is a religion so intermixed with Bon (a precurser sect) that it is difficult

to separate out the actual mahayana teachings in some instances.

However, I did not just visit southern Tibet -- I and my wife also lived with Buddhist people, for more

than three years total. For part of that time our residence was next door to a monestary. We

frequented the Tibetan refugee camp at Pokhara, Nepal. We participated in the local life fully -- were

married by a Lhasa lama in a mahayana wedding.

So, I think I have some slight acquaintance with both the popular religion and the faith of the more

learned (or experienced) religious leaders and teachers.

I also spent some time in what used to be called Burma -- and made a lengthy exploration of the

ancient ruined city of Pagan -- once the greatest Buddhist city in the world. The modern guidebooks

called the extant Buddha-image shrines there "temples," but the local people did not. They were in

no way "mandirs" -- they were shelters for images portraying the Buddha-nature -- places of

spiritual contemplation, and not for "worship."

So, you can spend all day long quoting translated texts, to try and make it look like primitive Buddhism

is a religion where gods are worshipped in temples, etc.

That is misleading, and misses the point altogether, of why anybody should shovel earth over atheists.

UD

[Scott Lloyd]

I have read parts of Christopher Hitchen's book and watched TONS of his youtube videos and I find him absolutely captivating.

When reading Hitchens you must remember that he is writing not to the more pragmatic of readers (of which Dawkins and Sam Harris have already written) he is writing a more poetic and personal attack. I personally think that this wave of atheistic material has much to teach us about our religious arrogance.

Yes...Hitchens dislikes Mormons...and his comments about the church being Racist and Romeny supporting a racist church are examples of his inane polemical attacks. Though poetic, eloquent and persuasive...one must look at a few additional things.

Hitchens brother is a believing Christian and BBC 4 had a fantastic bit of them debating eachother and all Christopher Hitchens could say at the end is "This is not going to sell my book". lol He is a funny and nerdy character who was most probably ignored, disliked and even bullyied at school because he was an intellectual attention seeker. Honestly...he is a big nerd as is Dawkins...(The only boys I knew at my school who went to Oxford were Nerds and a debate between Alister McGrath and Dawkins on youtube points this out).

I think Dawkins and Stephen Fry are better spokesmen for Atheism. Dawkins is remarkably kind and fair to moderate Christians in person(see interview with the bishop of oxford on youtube). Fry LOVES the Church of England though he cant bring himself to believe it. I think most Brits now are agnostic and atheist and the ones I have met are not hardliners like Hitchens. He is merely writing a book of eloquent polemics...and though ARROGANT AS CAN BE...is probably a pleasant chap when one knows him on a more familiar level.

Well, if you can excuse the sort of gross errors Hitchens is making in the name of it being "poetry," I suppose that opens up whole new dimensions. Who needs accuracy when you can be entertaining, right?

[jwhitlock]

When reading Hitchens you must remember that he is writing not to the more pragmatic of readers (of which Dawkins and Sam Harris have already written) he is writing a more poetic and personal attack. I personally think that this wave of atheistic material has much to teach us about our religious arrogance.

I think that Hitchens' book has more to teach us about atheists - IF he is representative of more than a small minority of atheists. I am curious - what do you think that atheistic arrogance can teach us about religious arrogance?

He is merely writing a book of eloquent polemics...and though ARROGANT AS CAN BE...is probably a pleasant chap when one knows him on a more familiar level.

Most of us will never have a chance to meet him in person and can only judge him from what he writes. Face to face, most people will tone down their true feelings - but behind a book, or posting on a board, the true person many times is made manifest.

[Bill Hamblin]

I have visited Buddhist temples in Mongolia, Tibet, China, Japan, India, Thailand, Cambodia and California. They sure seemed like temples to me, and are generally called "temples" in English Buddhist literature (see, for example http://www.buddhist-temples.com/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_temple). If you want to call them something else, feel free, but it's simply the semantic fallacy. It doesn't change the substance of what they are.

To make your point you would need to study the semantics of each specific term in each specific language. For example, in Chinese the standard word for a Confucian or Toaist temple is si. Buddhist temples in China are likewise regularly called si as well, such as the Guangji si (Temple of Universal Rescue) or the Baita si (White Dagoba Temple) in Beijing. Why is a si a temple when it is Taoist, but not a temple when it is Buddhist?

They are places of:

pilgrimage

worship

study

offerings

prayer

veneration of gods

Sounds like a temple to me.

[Uncle Dale]

Sounds like a temple to me.

All of that sophistry, just to distract our attention away from the idea of shoveling earth over atheists?

My -- you must have far too much free time on your hands -- just like some Gentiles who think

that Mormon temples are nothing more than big chapels, and make similarly absurd statements.

However, next time I am able to speak with the Zen master here on the Big Island, I'll ask

somebody to translate into Japanese for him the fact that there are USA mainlanders who

suppose that he "worships gods" in "temples" and that Gautama was a "Theist."

That should bring a wry smile to his implaccable countenance.

You win -- I lose.

Uncle "Time for me to go sit a for a few hours and stare at the wall again" Dale

[jwhitlock]

The Buddhist / temple discussion sounds like it might be the same logic Hitchens used in claiming Martin Luther King was not a theist.

And did I miss something, or was Buddha not even on the list being discussed in posts #45 and #47?

[Bill Hamblin]

All of that sophistry, just to distract our attention away from the idea of shoveling earth over atheists?

My -- you must have far too much free time on your hands -- just like some Gentiles who think

that Mormon temples are nothing more than big chapels, and make similarly absurd statements.

However, next time I am able to speak with the Zen master here on the Big Island, I'll ask

somebody to translate into Japanese for him the fact that there are USA mainlanders who

suppose that he "worships gods" in "temples" and that Gautama was a "Theist."

That should bring a wry smile to his implaccable countenance.

You win -- I lose.

Uncle "Time for me to go sit a for a few hours and stare at the wall again" Dale

You're right. I've wasted far too much time on this.

Remember, however, that Zen is not Buddhism, it is one branch of Buddhism.

Remember that all Buddhists are not Zen masters.

And remember that modern Zen is not necessarily the same as traditional Zen.

And Western Zen is not necessarily the same as traditional Zen.

Oh, and check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

Bye

[Bill Hamblin]

The Buddhist / temple discussion sounds like it might be the same logic Hitchens used in claiming Martin Luther King was not a theist.

And did I miss something, or was Buddha not even on the list being discussed in posts #45 and #47?

Siddhartha Gautama is the personal name of the Buddha, which is a title.

[Irondukesteve]

I think that Hitchens' book has more to teach us about atheists - IF he is representative of more than a small minority of atheists. I am curious - what do you think that atheistic arrogance can teach us about religious arrogance?

That our position is not as strong as we think...and that we need to remember that we act by faith not knowledge.

quote name='jwhitlock' date='Aug 10 2007, 02:48 PM' post='1208237035']

Most of us will never have a chance to meet him in person and can only judge him from what he writes. Face to face, most people will tone down their true feelings - but behind a book, or posting on a board, the true person many times is made manifest.

[jwhitlock]

Siddhartha Gautama is the personal name of the Buddha, which is a title.

Thanks.

[jwhitlock]

That our position is not as strong as we think...and that we need to remember that we act by faith not knowledge.

I disagree. Our position is very strong. And there is a great deal of knowledge involved, in addition to faith.

Thank you for laying out the point. Hitchens is not an advocate for violence against religion but an advocate for violence for those who practice violence in the name of religion. He is free to express his disdain against "the supernatural" but it doesnt mean that he is violent or overly aggresive.

I find "advocate for violence" and "doesn't mean that he is violent" contradictory. Nor does the viciousness of his attacks -->on religion<-- (again, see the Slate excerpts) give me a particularly warm and fuzzy feeling about how he would view me as a person.

What is deemed to be violent is often in the eye of the beholder, and I do not have confidence in Hitchens' ability to be particularly discerning in this regard. Again, we have before us what he has written. Conjecture about what he might actually be like in person is speculation.

[Monte Jefferson]

Christopher Hitchens, the sesquipedalian prosaist without loyalties has no doubt secured his eternal infamy amongst those who speak names such as "Christ" with dutiful reverence. If it were not enough for him to stand before the Vatican and testify against Mother Theresa in the trial for her sainthood, dispute the personhood of the debilitated Terry Schiavo, or to aggrandize his worldly stature with smoking pictures, he's now gone on to eviscerate not only the moral superiority, but the morality -- period -- of the entire believing world. It's as if he would fix his sights on whatever icons of The Beatitudes the faithful can celebrate and without mercy, dispatch them. The poor in spirit, the sick, and the merciful be damned, none of them find favor with this advocate for the unholy. Hitchensâ??s illustrious career as the dramatic antitheist heel seconds only the Devil's as we might find him portrayed in all his comical arrogance standing before the Lord, waiting to take eloquent pleasure in a no-holds-barred revenge campaign against Job.

Hitchens is not a professional historian, philosopher, naturalist, or (damn them too) peacemaker. But his book, god is not Great is a work of sheer brilliance. Does Hitchens represent a common atheist position? Perhaps in some ways he does, but atheists do disagree with one another and I think Hitchens, for those who'd deprive him of even a minimal perspective of the world, understands clearly that the religious are a heterogeneous bunch and the opinions of Pope Ratzinger don't necessarily represent the views of Mohammad. Perhaps they share common frailties, but they are not left and right side, respectively, of a mathematical identity expression. Likewise, the critic of atheism, rather than impugning Hitchens's every failing upon "the atheist community", is obliged to demonstrate how certain key failings of Hitchens are common to atheist expositors or a significant segment of the atheist population.

There is a time for historiography proper where the narrative of past times and places struggle against Hans-Georg Gadamer's hermeneutical limitations, and there is a time to take stock of some of the norms we seem to collectively prize and argue for the best way to run a planet. And this may call for a critical examination of historical figures, even cherished ones. We can't exactly scold the Edomites as mere fools, but we might ask what historical counterfactuals would have made for the betterment of the world, how might things been different sans the child sacrifice? And to the extent that a modern man or woman looks to the priestly classes of savage history elbow deep in animal entrails for insights on how to better humankind, it's not without expedience that commentators like Hitchens take issue. It's exactly within the scriptural redaction of modern mystery cultus that the Edomites, Ammonites, or Israelites rightfully become fools, even mere fools.

I respect the sentiments made by others in this thread yet I respectfully disagree with most. Hitchens's book is a masterpiece. And it's exactly the right fit for popular consumption. Not every well-considered book needs to plumb the depths of the most rigorous and current academic publications on the topics it surveys in order to be of significant value.

The main disagreement I have with Hitchens is I believe while in many respects religion is a plague, that plague represents deeper failings that would have, has, and will express itself in non-religious ways, and we shouldn't focus too hard on curing one manifestation of the pathogen while losing sight on how the strain might evolve. I am probably more optimistic about the situation than Hitchens. I think the trend is for educated people to pay lip service to religious ideals without operating in a daily religious mindset. And as long as this trend continues, I find it easier to embrace my religious peers as brothers.

[jwhitlock]

Monte:

In response to your prose:

You ignore the stunning inaccuracies, mischaracterizations, and outright falsehoods that are rampant through the book. These both disqualify it as a work of "sheer brilliance" and call its conclusions into question.

There has been a tendency among some posters to speculate about Hitchens' real character (he's probably actually a nice guy) in order to deflect the obvious vitriol against religion recorded for us to read in his book. I don't think he's a nice guy at all, and I can point to his book to prove it.

There has been no attempt here to "impugn[e] Hitchens's every failing upon the atheist community"; indeed a careful read of the thread will reveal that the purpose was to try to fathom how extensively Hitchens' conclusions are accepted by the atheist community. And "atheist community" refers to those who call themselves atheists, nothing more, nothing less. Just as most atheists refer to "theists" as a general term for those who believe in some type of God.

Again, you state "Not every well-considered book needs to plumb the depths of the most rigorous and current academic publications on the topics it surveys in order to be of significant value." But it does need to be accurate. Hitchens' book is not, and as such, it does nothing to further understanding through "popular consumption".

"...I believe while in many respects religion is a plague, that plague represents deeper failings that would have, has, and will express itself in non-religious ways." I find this statement interesting. Non-religious would indicate atheism, and so the same plagues that you would find in religion are also, by your admission, found in atheism. I agree with that.

Just in reading more on the Internet and from some of the responses here, I get the impression that there is more than minimal admiration for Hitchens among atheists. Conversely, there do not seem to be a great number of Evangelicals who admire fringe preachers such as Decker, Keller, or street screechers (to refer back to the original premise of this thread). While it is evident that not all atheists agree with or admire Hitchens, the evident quantity of those who do is disappointing - and cause for concern.

[Daniel Peterson]

his book, god is not Great is a work of sheer brilliance.

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

The sheer awfulness of the thing still continues to astonish me.

Hitchens, for those who'd deprive him of even a minimal perspective of the world, understands clearly that the religious are a heterogeneous bunch and the opinions of Pope Ratzinger don't necessarily represent the views of Mohammad.

Actually, his wretched book persistently ignores religious variety.

Just as people speak French, Chinese, Spanish, or Tagalog rather than "language," nobody simply does "religion." Believers are Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Catholics, Protestants, and etc. But such distinctions are largely absent from god is Not Great.

Hitchens's book is a masterpiece.

Of what, exactly?

Not every well-considered book needs to plumb the depths of the most rigorous and current academic publications on the topics it surveys in order to be of significant value.

What does that have to do with god is Not Great?

Hitchens's book doesn't merely fail to "plumb the depths of the most rigorous and current academic publications." It's crammed to the bursting point with elementary (and lethal) historical errors, and it seldom if ever engages actual data.

The book has virtually no redeeming qualities. It's an offense against trees.

[Uncle Dale]

The book has virtually no redeeming qualities. It's an offense against trees.

I think we can even eliminate the word "virtually" here ---- but the volume has achieved its purpose.

We are right now talking about Hitchens instead of visting the sick, assisting widows and orphans,

and reading to our kids from the Scriptures.

Score one for the bad guys.

UD

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think we can even eliminate the word "virtually" here ---- but the volume has achieved its purpose.

We are right now talking about Hitchens instead of visting the sick, assisting widows and orphans,

and reading to our kids from the Scriptures.

Score one for the bad guys.

UD

Way to play to what you see as the "weaknesses" of posters on the board, Unk.

[Daniel Peterson]

To my shame and condemnation, unlike other posters here I spend several hours daily in activities other than visiting the sick, assisting widows and orphans, and reading to my kids from the Scriptures.

[Uncle Dale]

To my shame and condemnation, unlike other posters here I spend several hours daily in activities other than visiting the sick, assisting widows and orphans, and reading to my kids from the Scriptures.

score one for the good guys

UD

[Mighty Curelom]

Christopher Hitchens, the sesquipedalian prosaist...

Hitchens has six legs?