Hitchens - Spokesman For Atheism?

[The Dude]

What is Hitchens' evidence that there is no certainty?

I take it this is LOP's devastating argument, which Pahoran says I'm avoiding and LOP thinks I cannot answer. Is this correct?

[Pahoran]

Yes, a plate would be flatter than a globe, but that's not what I meant.

Well, as a play on his screenname, it's actually rather clever. (All the more so because I missed it first time around.) But for anything else...?

By global I meant the whole of humanity taken into consideration.

Do you have any idea just how absurdly obsequious it sounds to suggest that Hitchens, of all people, is somehow uniquely placed to speak for "the whole of humanity?" Having gone to the trouble of writing a whole book about the inferiority of absolutely all belief-based world views, he simply despises them too much to bother getting his easily checkable facts right. Never mind how arrogant and condescending that makes him come across; the fact remains that such triumphant ignorance shows him to be hopelessly provincial and small-minded. As such, he is totally unqualified to speak for "the whole of humanity" for any purpose or at any level.

More particularly, to understand where Hitchens is coming from (in the quote we are discussing) you have to step out of your Mormon shoes and look at it from everybody else's perspective. I said this in response to jwhitlock:

If you claim to know X because God told you so as a personal revelation, that only carries meaning to other people who share your beliefs about God, who are followers of your same religion. It carries no weight to people who have a different belief or who don't believe in God at all. In a secular setting where people of different beliefs must interact socially (like a court of law, or the practice of medicine), there is no place to assert "God told me so" as a basis for some decision you would like other people to accept. To even try to do that makes one look childish or crazy.

It's just as well, then, that that's not what we do.

Now if Hitchens had written something like the above, given his very smug ignorance on the subject of how believers think or operate, I could easily understand it. But you, The Dude, who pretends to know some actual Latter-day Saints, really are without excuse. Nevertheless, and knowing the futility of the exercise, I will try to explain it to you anyway.

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.

To put it simply: if I as a Latter-day Saint were ever to say anything equivalent to "God told me X" it would simply never be intended "as a basis for some decision [ I ] would like other people to accept." Rather, it would be nothing more or less than the explanation for why I believe X to be true. Nothing more than that.

Now you ask "Why does it need to? Why would you even want it to?"

Good questions, Pahoran. For some people it does need to; they want it to because they are spiritually arrogant fundamentalists. If the shoe doesn't fit you (or jwhitlock, or LOP) then please don't feel obligated to wear it. I haven't come picking a fight but here you three are, bristling because I dared to quote Christopher Hitchens. Bwaaah ha ha ha!

No, Dude. Not because you dared to quote him. Because you quoted with approval, if not admiration, a rather ignorant and judgemental assertion made by him. You seemed to think it a self-evident truism. You called it "pithy."

And to think that all this time I never knew you had such a bad lisp.

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.

Really? Are you certain we are talking about the same quote?

Here is the one that I suppose us to be talking about:

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

I see "is certain," not "who tries to make others swallow whatever he is certain about."

Now if perhaps this is not the quote to which you refer, then we are clearly talking past each other. But if it is, then that "thrusting" you have interpolated into it appears be be a bit of apologetic spin, doesn't it?

Just what do you think that is?

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

Regards,

Pahoran

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think Pahoran summed it up sufficiently.

[The Dude]

Well, as a play on his screenname, it's actually rather clever. (All the more so because I missed it first time around.)

You missed it? No, I missed it until you pointed it out. LOL. We sure make a good team, don't we?

Do you have any idea just how absurdly obsequious it sounds to suggest that Hitchens, of all people, is somehow uniquely placed to speak for "the whole of humanity?"

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.

If you claim to know X because God told you so as a personal revelation, that only carries meaning to other people who share your beliefs about God, who are followers of your same religion. It carries no weight to people who have a different belief or who don't believe in God at all. In a secular setting where people of different beliefs must interact socially (like a court of law, or the practice of medicine), there is no place to assert "God told me so" as a basis for some decision you would like other people to accept. To even try to do that makes one look childish or crazy.

It's just as well, then, that that's not what we do.

And like I already said in the post you are responding to... if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

<snip blustering explanation of something that doesn't need to be explained because I never said it applies to you>

I see "is certain," not "who tries to make others swallow whatever he is certain about."

Now if perhaps this is not the quote to which you refer, then we are clearly talking past each other. But if it is, then that "thrusting" you have interpolated into it appears be be a bit of apologetic spin, doesn't it?

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.

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

Yes, I see very much here that pertains to the "thrusting" of religion 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.

[Bill Hamblin]

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

Two things are worth noting. First, as I noted before, Hitchens has absolute certainty--based on very, very limited knowledge--that ALL religions are completely man-made. (Not, I should note that all religions have man-made elements.) This is an extraordinary assertion to make.

Second, Hitchens's solution is to "exclude 'belief' from the debate." Not all belief--obviously not his belief. Only religious belief. (He repeats this "solution" in his conclusion on p. 283, "that we banish all religions from the discourse.") Of course this is only possible if we can distinguish "certainty" from "belief." I find this tyrannical viewpoint quite shocking, frankly.

It is also rather astonishing that being "man-made" should somehow prohibit religion from the "debate," since all atheistic ideologies are equally man-made. They are certainly no better than religion on that score.

Hitchens's book is, quite frankly, appalling.

[Bach]

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.

I don't think this is entirely accurate. 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. 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. If Mormons truly understood their religion to hold the less-inflammatory position of "it's true to us", things would look much different.

To put it simply: if I as a Latter-day Saint were ever to say anything equivalent to "God told me X" it would simply never be intended "as a basis for some decision [ I ] would like other people to accept." Rather, it would be nothing more or less than the explanation for why I believe X to be true. Nothing more than that.

I'm extremely skeptical of what you said here. 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.

[The Dude]

Two things are worth noting. First, as I noted before, Hitchens has absolute certainty--based on very, very limited knowledge--that ALL religions are completely man-made. (Not, I should note that all religions have man-made elements.) This is an extraordinary assertion to make.

Is he absolutely certain? Where do you find that quote? Or do you infer that from what he said about himself: â??I now know enough about all religions to know that I would always be an infidel at all times and in all placesâ? If he means he is absolutely certain that all religions are entirely man-made, then I have to disagree in some way. Either "certainty" or "entirely" or "all" would have to go. We could make a good argument that most of them are *ahem* entirely made up by humans.

Second, Hitchens's solution is to "exclude 'belief' from the debate." Not all belief--obviously not his belief. Only religious belief. (He repeats this "solution" in his conclusion on p. 283, "that we banish all religions from the discourse.") Of course this is only possible if we can distinguish "certainty" from "belief." I find this tyrannical viewpoint quite shocking, frankly.

Here you have an advantage over me because I haven't read that far in the book yet. It will be interesting to see what is the problem for him, that it requires this solution.

It is also rather astonishing that being "man-made" should somehow prohibit religion from the "debate," since all atheistic ideologies are equally man-made. They are certainly no better than religion on that score.

No better? There is a difference between knowing the man-made origin of your "ideology" versus believing incorrectly (some would say fancifully) that your religious ideology A (or B, C...X, Y, Z) was created and is now directed by an extra-human entity. Wouldn't you say it makes a difference to get that correct, right from the start if possible?

Hitchens's book is, quite frankly, appalling.

How ironic.

[Bach]

It is also rather astonishing that being "man-made" should somehow prohibit religion from the "debate," since all atheistic ideologies are equally man-made. They are certainly no better than religion on that score.

There's an important difference between the two, though, in that secular (a more accurate word here than "atheistic", certainly) ideologies don't systematically place their origins and rationalizations above the scrutiny of mere mortals. As such, religions are inherently less conducive to public discourse than secular ideologies.

[Bill Hamblin]

There's an important difference between the two, though, in that secular (a more accurate word here than "atheistic", certainly) ideologies don't systematically place their origins and rationalizations above the scrutiny of mere mortals. As such, religions are inherently less conducive to public discourse than secular ideologies.

Of course, any religion unable to present their position in the public discourse in a way that is understandable to non-believers would be ignored by non-believers, and hence have little impact. But, the question is: is unprovable belief grounds for excluding discussion of such beliefs from the public discourse?

In practical terms when a scientist makes proclamation on DNA or string-theory, or the nature of homosexuality, the reasons are beyond the understanding of the vast majority of people who accept those proclamations. They believe it on faith.

[Bill Hamblin]

Is he absolutely certain? Where do you find that quote? Or do you infer that from what he said about himself: â??I now know enough about all religions to know that I would always be an infidel at all times and in all placesâ? If he means he is absolutely certain that all religions are entirely man-made, then I have to disagree in some way. Either "certainty" or "entirely" or "all" would have to go. We could make a good argument that most of them are *ahem* entirely made up by humans.

From reading his book, much of it several times, I'm confident that that is exactly what he means. Based on an extraordinarily small sampling and numerous misconceptions, Hitchens is certain that all religions are entirely man-made. Hitchens is consistently quite dogmatic and binary in his thought--at least regarding religion.

No better? There is a difference between knowing the man-made origin of your "ideology" versus believing incorrectly (some would say fancifully) that your religious ideology A (or B, C...X, Y, Z) was created and is now directed by an extra-human entity. Wouldn't you say it makes a difference to get that correct, right from the start if possible?

Tell that to Marxists, who believe their position is founded on the absolute truths of science. It is quite clear that the New Atheist movement is just as dogmatic in the belief that they have discovered their Absolute Truth--there is no God--as any believer is.

[Bach]

Of course, any religion unable to present their position in the public discourse in a way that is understandable to non-believers would be ignored by non-believers

This is true.

and hence have little impact.

I wish this were true. How many votes on abortion are decided on (ostensibly) religious grounds? Gay marriage? School prayer? Evolution? Don't kid yourself, man -- religion still has plenty of influence in places it probably shouldn't. And that's just in the United States.

But, the question is: is unprovable belief grounds for excluding discussion of such beliefs from the public discourse?

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. Secular ideologies, on the other hand, are always at least possibly publicly justifiable.

In practical terms when a scientist makes proclamation on DNA or string-theory, or the nature of homosexuality, the reasons are beyond the understanding of the vast majority of people who accept those proclamations. They believe it on faith.

Lol. This is the most clear fallacy of equivocation I've seen in a while. The "faith" that people place in science derives directly from the results it has quite reliably produced in the past. 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.

[Bach]

Tell that to Marxists, who believe their position is founded on the absolute truths of science.

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."

[The Dude]

Hitchens is consistently quite dogmatic and binary in his thought--at least regarding religion.

Eh, there's definitely some of that with Hitchens. We'll see about the rest. I mostly prefer Dawkins, and wonder what Carl Sagan would say.

It is quite clear that the New Atheist movement is just as dogmatic in the belief that they have discovered their Absolute Truth--there is no God--as any believer is.

You gotta be making this up!

I'm extremely skeptical that non-believers are, by any significant measure, just as certain in their un-belief as religious people are in their particular beliefs. We had a poll on this not too long ago: Spectrum of Belief

There's a good post from PhysicsGuy later in the thread.

I am equally surprised at the amount of votes for the first option. I think it is possible that we as a society have a warped meaning of 100%. I don't see how anyone could have absolutely 100 percent knowledge about anything (although you could come indeterminately close I guess).

In the context of this question, I would think you would need to have God himself manifest himself to you to even say you were close to 100% sure, but maybe I just interpreted the question differently. I assumed the question was asking about actual knowledge, and not "testimony".

Don't know if he was a TBM or not, but his comment makes a lot of sense to me.

In practical terms when a scientist makes proclamation on DNA or string-theory, or the nature of homosexuality, the reasons are beyond the understanding of the vast majority of people who accept those proclamations. They believe it on faith.

That's really sad if true. Maybe it is true. But it doesn't have to be that way in practical terms because scientists can explain what they are doing and are required to do so to get public money and patent their discoveries.

As far as I know, religion is the only human activity that explicitly requires faith in principle as well as in practice. Am I wrong? Why is that a good thing?

[The Dude]

I think Pahoran summed it up sufficiently.

Yeah, but did you see my reply to the two of you?

post #204

...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.

[LifeOnaPlate]

If there can be no certainty about God, how can Hitchens claim to be certain on a subject dealing with God? How infantile.

[Bill Hamblin]

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. Secular ideologies, on the other hand, are always at least possibly publicly justifiable.

All knowledge is intrinsically personal. Political positions based on religious belief still need to be publicly justifiable. All sorts of arguments can be made on both sides of the abortion issue, for example. Even if one rejects abortion for religious reasons, it doesn't mean there are no other reasons in addition to religious ones.

So, you seem to be agreeing with Hitchens that religion should be banned from public discourse? That is the issue at hand, and that, it seems to me, is an appalling prospect.

[Bill Hamblin]

As far as I know, religion is the only human activity that explicitly requires faith in principle as well as in practice. Am I wrong? Why is that a good thing?

First, all disciplines have fundamental unprovable assumptions and presuppositions that must be accepted on faith. Uniformitarianism in science, for example.

Second, all knowledge is not scientific knowledge. Science is one form of knowledge, that is very efficient at letting us know certain types of things. But there are many branches of human knowledge--music or philosophy for example--that can never be scientific. Should we exclude philosophy from the public discourse as well?

Hitchens believes we should exclude religion from the public discourse. Do you agree?

[Bill Hamblin]

You gotta be making this up!

I specifically referred to the New Atheist movement, of which Hitchens seems to be a part. Not all atheists are New Atheists. Agnostics, by their very nature, are obviously uncertain.

You should read McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion.

[The Dude]

First, all disciplines have fundamental unprovable assumptions and presuppositions that must be accepted on faith. Uniformitarianism in science, for example.

Second, all knowledge is not scientific knowledge. Science is one form of knowledge, that is very efficient at letting us know certain types of things. But there are many branches of human knowledge--music or philosophy for example--that can never be scientific. Should we exclude philosophy from the public discourse as well?

Hitchens believes we should exclude religion from the public discourse. Do you agree?

I'm not sure I agree that it should be officially banned, or whatever you/he means by "exclude". I do think everybody should be as skeptical of religion as I am. I agree there's way too much politeness and deference to religions claims -- I'd like to see them put up or shut up. Special pleading in the name of narrow religious faith has no part in public discourse. Now if religion has something else to offer public discourse...? help me out here, Bill.

You sure danced around my question about faith. Fundamental unproven assumptions = faith? and therefore all disciplines rely on faith (even though religion is the only one that adores it as a principle of progress). I hope Bach has room over his mantle for another "fallacy of equivocation" trophy.

[The Dude]

If there can be no certainty about God, how can Hitchens claim to be certain on a subject dealing with God? How infantile.

So before Hitchins was wrong (by your deft argument) because he claimed certainty (you thought). Now you say Hitchins is wrong because he doesn't claim certainty. How infantile.

[thesometimesaint]

The Dude:

I think that LDS are comfortable with a certain amount of uncertainty in their certainty.

[LifeOnaPlate]

So before Hitchins was wrong (by your deft argument) because he claimed certainty (you thought). Now you say Hitchins is wrong because he doesn't claim certainty. How infantile.

That's what I get for trying to follow The Dude's equivocation on the quote.

[jwhitlock]

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.

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.

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

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.

If The Dude is unwilling to consider us as worthy of participation in the contest for not having read the Hitchens book, perhaps he can regard us as spectators on the sidelines. And from my seat, it's a runaway game for Professors Peterson and Hamblin so far.

[jwhitlock]

If The Dude is unwilling to consider us as worthy of participation in the contest for not having read the Hitchens book, perhaps he can regard us as spectators on the sidelines. And from my seat, it's a runaway game for Professors Peterson and Hamblin so far.

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.

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.

Both are arbitrary boundaries set in an attempt to control the rules of a game that cannot otherwise be won by them on fair grounds.