Christopher Hitchens on the Atheistic "Positivism"

[smac97]

I have listened to a number of recorded statements by Christopher Hitchens and find him to be an interesting and intelligent fellow.  

As some of you may know, Daniel Peterson, whom I admire, was not a fan of his:

• 2007 FAIR Presentation (video and transcript)
• 2007 FARMS Review: “God and Mr. Hitchens”
• May 17, 2016: “Christopher Hitchens was shaky in his atheism, new book suggests”
• April 3, 2019: Christopher Hitchens gets it wrong, yet again.
• February 12, 2020: “God and mr. hitchens, again”
• April 29, 2020: For your “Christopher Hitchens Memorial ‘How Religion Poisons Everything’ File”
• May 29, 2020: On the late Christopher Hitchens

DCP, it seems, took particular exception to Hitchens' poison penned God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.  The same goes with William Hamblin, who in 2009 wrote a review of the book: The Most Misunderstood Book: Christopher Hitchens on the Bible.  In it Hamblin characterizes Hamblin as an "antitheist," which I think is apt insofar as Hitchens situated himself as affirmatively opposing theism.

Anyway, I just saw this video of Hitchens on YouTube:

A homespun transcript:

Quote

Is it nonetheless possible for an atheist to say, a proclaimed atheist to say, as I do proclaim myself to be, that God positively can be said not to exist?  No.  It's a very common misunderstanding my fraternity [and] sorority.  I'll take just a moment to clear it up. 

The atheist says "No persuasive argument for the existence of God has ever been advanced or adduced without convincing rebuttal.  That no argument in favor {of the existence of God} stands or has been found to stand the test of argument and evidence."

We cannot say that we know that there could be no such entity.  Among other things, we are too reverent of the extraordinary time of discovery, innovation, pushing back of the frontiers of knowledge and understanding that's taken place just in our own time, to make any such remark.  But, by saying this, we say, I think, quite a lot.   

Despite this, it seems like atheists rather frequently "positively" deny the existence of God.  And in a Latter-day Saint context, our critics often "positively" deny the foundational claims of the Restoration.  For example, @Teancum has recently declared our beliefs to be "a lie," that "there were no gold plates. It is a total fabrication.  A lie."  Then there are the endless references to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which seem to be positive denials dressed up as ridicule and scorn (see, e.g., here, here).  From our own @HappyJackWagon : "I can't prove that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist somewhere in the universe yet I can't believe that either."

So what is going on here?  Am I wrong in my assessment?  That atheists may seem to - as Hitchens does above - rhetorically distance themselves from affirmatively (or "positively") denying the existence of God, but then nonetheless affirmatively/positively deny the existence of God?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Vanguard]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have listened to a number of recorded statements by Christopher Hitchens and find him to be an interesting and intelligent fellow.  

As some of you may know, Daniel Peterson, whom I admire, was not a fan of his:

• 2007 FAIR Presentation (video and transcript)
• 2007 FARMS Review: “God and Mr. Hitchens”
• May 17, 2016: “Christopher Hitchens was shaky in his atheism, new book suggests”
• April 3, 2019: Christopher Hitchens gets it wrong, yet again.
• February 12, 2020: “God and mr. hitchens, again”
• April 29, 2020: For your “Christopher Hitchens Memorial ‘How Religion Poisons Everything’ File”
• May 29, 2020: On the late Christopher Hitchens

DCP, it seems, took particular exception to Hitchens' poison penned God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.  The same goes with William Hamblin, who in 2009 wrote a review of the book: The Most Misunderstood Book: Christopher Hitchens on the Bible.  In it Hamblin characterizes Hamblin as an "antitheist," which I think is apt insofar as Hitchens situated himself as affirmatively opposing theism.

Anyway, I just saw this video of Hitchens on YouTube:

A homespun transcript:

Despite this, it seems like atheists rather frequently "positively" deny the existence of God.  And in a Latter-day Saint context, our critics often "positively" deny the foundational claims of the Restoration.  For example, @Teancum has recently declared our beliefs to be "a lie," that "there were no gold plates. It is a total fabrication.  A lie."  Then there are the endless references to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which seem to be positive denials dressed up as ridicule and scorn (see, e.g., here, here).  From our own @HappyJackWagon : "I can't prove that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist somewhere in the universe yet I can't believe that either."

So what is going on here?  Am I wrong in my assessment?  That atheists may seem to - as Hitchens does above - rhetorically distance themselves from affirmatively (or "positively") denying the existence of God, but then nonetheless affirmatively/positively deny the existence of God?

Thanks,

-Smac

Nice OP. It reminds me of a famous clip I listened to yet again just a few weeks ago (please excuse the petty, disparaging captions against Mr. Hitchens that show up on the screen throughout) - 

 

Edited May 10, 2023 by Vanguard
grammar fix

[Hamilton Porter]

That dude never took care of his body. He smoked and would enter interviews drunk.

If only he knew his body was a temple, he'd probably still b with us today.

[Hamilton Porter]

There are a lot of things we believe without proof too.

[Vanguard]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have listened to a number of recorded statements by Christopher Hitchens and find him to be an interesting and intelligent fellow.  

As some of you may know, Daniel Peterson, whom I admire, was not a fan of his:

• 2007 FAIR Presentation (video and transcript)
• 2007 FARMS Review: “God and Mr. Hitchens”
• May 17, 2016: “Christopher Hitchens was shaky in his atheism, new book suggests”
• April 3, 2019: Christopher Hitchens gets it wrong, yet again.
• February 12, 2020: “God and mr. hitchens, again”
• April 29, 2020: For your “Christopher Hitchens Memorial ‘How Religion Poisons Everything’ File”
• May 29, 2020: On the late Christopher Hitchens

DCP, it seems, took particular exception to Hitchens' poison penned God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.  The same goes with William Hamblin, who in 2009 wrote a review of the book: The Most Misunderstood Book: Christopher Hitchens on the Bible.  In it Hamblin characterizes Hamblin as an "antitheist," which I think is apt insofar as Hitchens situated himself as affirmatively opposing theism.

Anyway, I just saw this video of Hitchens on YouTube:

A homespun transcript:

Despite this, it seems like atheists rather frequently "positively" deny the existence of God.  And in a Latter-day Saint context, our critics often "positively" deny the foundational claims of the Restoration.  For example, @Teancum has recently declared our beliefs to be "a lie," that "there were no gold plates. It is a total fabrication.  A lie."  Then there are the endless references to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which seem to be positive denials dressed up as ridicule and scorn (see, e.g., here, here).  From our own @HappyJackWagon : "I can't prove that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist somewhere in the universe yet I can't believe that either."

So what is going on here?  Am I wrong in my assessment?  That atheists may seem to - as Hitchens does above - rhetorically distance themselves from affirmatively (or "positively") denying the existence of God, but then nonetheless affirmatively/positively deny the existence of God?

Thanks,

-Smac

And regards to the Flying Spaghetti Monster - 

 

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"I can't prove that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist somewhere in the universe yet I can't believe that either."

I don't think Hitchens is saying anything much different from this.  

[smac97]

I am also not sure what to make of Hitchens' reasoning:

Quote

Is it nonetheless possible for an atheist to say, a proclaimed atheist to say, as I do proclaim myself to be, that God positively can be said not to exist?  No. 

I think this is a candid admission, and it ought to be noted.

Quote

It's a very common misunderstanding my fraternity [and] sorority.  I'll take just a moment to clear it up. 

The atheist says "No persuasive argument for the existence of God has ever been advanced or adduced without convincing rebuttal.  That no argument in favor {of the existence of God} stands or has been found to stand the test of argument and evidence."

This is where he loses me.  It's too conclusory.  Too pat.  What does phrases like "without convincing rebuttal" and "the test of argument and evidence" mean?  What is the context?  What are the evidentiary parameters?  Who gets to decide whether a rebuttal is "convincing" or not?  Whether "argument and evidence" is sufficient or insufficient?

I suspect Hitchens wants to keep the "burden of proof" on the shoulders of the theists, which is why he concedes that atheists cannot "positively" deny the existence of God.  And that's a reasonable approach, as long as the non-existence of God is not asserted.  I think that is where many atheists get ahead of themselves.  

Quote

We cannot say that we know that there could be no such entity.  Among other things, we are too reverent of the extraordinary time of discovery, innovation, pushing back of the frontiers of knowledge and understanding that's taken place just in our own time, to make any such remark.  But, by saying this, we say, I think, quite a lot.   

I would like to hear the rest of his comments after this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

"I can't prove that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist somewhere in the universe yet I can't believe that either."

I don't think Hitchens is saying anything much different from this.  

Well, I hope not, as this is a logically fallacious Appeal to Ridicule:

Quote

Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ad absurdo, or the horse laugh)^[1] is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration.

Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a nuanced circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace occurrence or to some other irrelevancy on the basis of comedic timing, wordplay, or making an opponent and their argument the object of a joke. This is a rhetorical tactic that mocks an opponent's argument or standpoint, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight any counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by making a mockery of the argument's foundation that represents it in an uncharitable and oversimplified way. The person using the tactic often utilizes sarcasm in their argument.

"Absurd" = "wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate."

"Ridiculous" = "deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd."

"Not worthy of serious consideration."

It is also a patent Appeal to Emotion, as it is intended to provoke and offend theists by disparaging their intelligence and proximity to rational thought and reality.

And it comes across as a passive aggressive - but nevertheless affirmative - denial of the existence of God.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, I hope not, as this is a logically fallacious Appeal to Ridicule:

"Absurd" = "wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate."

"Ridiculous" = "deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd."

"Not worthy of serious consideration."

It is also a patent Appeal to Emotion, as it is intended to provoke and offend theists by disparaging their intelligence and proximity to rational thought and reality.

And it comes across as a passive aggressive - but nevertheless affirmative - denial of the existence of God.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not so confident that the spaghetti statement by HappyJackWagon was used to ridicule.  I see it more as an attempt to show in an exceedingly obvious fashion that lack of proof of non-existence is not enough to believe in something. 

Either way, I still think it is saying essentially the same thing, without any apparent ridicule. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is where he loses me.  It's too conclusory.  Too pat.  What does phrases like "without convincing rebuttal" and "the test of argument and evidence" mean?  What is the context?  What are the evidentiary parameters?  Who gets to decide whether a rebuttal is "convincing" or not?  Whether "argument and evidence" is sufficient or insufficient?

It means arguments for theism are as convincing as arguments for the flat earth, Flying Spaghetti Monster or unicorns. 

[Hamilton Porter]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suspect Hitchens wants to keep the "burden of proof" on the shoulders of the theists, which is why he concedes that atheists cannot "positively" deny the existence of God. 

The person who established that the burden of proof falls on theists, Anthony Flew (in "The Assumption of Atheism") became a Deist before he died.

[Hamilton Porter]

Also, why are we still talking about new atheists when they're not relevant anymore?

Hitchens: died

Dawkins: I love his science, but he got cancelled for sexist and alleged transphobic comments

Harris: Allied with alt-right now

Dennett: Moved onto other projects 

Krauss: cancelled for sexual harassment 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So what is going on here?  Am I wrong in my assessment?  That atheists may seem to - as Hitchens does above - rhetorically distance themselves from affirmatively (or "positively") denying the existence of God, but then nonetheless affirmatively/positively deny the existence of God?

I think it has a lot to do with how "God" is defined. If somebody asks if I believe in "God", my generic answer is that I lack belief in "God" because not only have I not been presented with sufficient convincing evidence, I don't even know what, specifically, "God" means. It isn't a well-defined term. 

But if somebody presents a detailed description of their conception of God, I can evaluate whether that conception contradicts what we know about reality, and even whether than conception is internally consistent. I am confident that some conceptions of God don't exist for the same reason I'm confident that round triangles don't exist. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It means arguments for theism are as convincing as arguments for the flat earth, Flying Spaghetti Monster or unicorns. 

Appeals to ridicule, then.  Got it.

Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Appeals to ridicule, then.  Got it.

Smac

Nope. No ridicule. Just things you don’t believe in. I could have said Thor and Zeus. Is that an appeal to ridicule too?

Edited May 11, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[blackstrap]

I heard an atheist ask a Christian if he believed in the gods of the Romans or the Aztecs or the Hindus. The Christian said no, of course not. The atheist then said , " well I just don't believe in one more god than you . "  Hmmm. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Appeals to ridicule, then.  Got it.

Nope. No ridicule.

Nothing but.

Smac

 

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, blackstrap said:

I heard an atheist ask a Christian if he believed in the gods of the Romans or the Aztecs or the Hindus. The Christian said no, of course not. The atheist then said , " well I just don't believe in one more god than you . "  Hmmm. 

That's just dumb.

Should've listened to missionaries. "Most people believe in a supreme being, even though they may call him by different names."

That argument should never make sense to anyone who's ever served a mission seriously.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Analytics]

1 minute ago, Hamilton Porter said:

That's just dumb.

Should've listened to missionaries. "Most people believe in a supreme being, even though they may call him by different names."

Do you think Jehovah and Baal are two different names for the same God?

[Hamilton Porter]

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Do you think Jehovah and Baal are two different names for the same God?

Baal is a separate deity.

Both were once junior deities under the Syro-Palestinian high God El.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, blackstrap said:

I heard an atheist ask a Christian if he believed in the gods of the Romans or the Aztecs or the Hindus. The Christian said no, of course not. The atheist then said , " well I just don't believe in one more god than you . "  Hmmm. 

That’s a popular atheist argument. I see it on social media a lot.

Not believing in a god is different than not believing in any higher power though.

It’s like the difference between not believing that so and so loves you and not believing that love exists.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Nothing but.

Smac

 

 

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Nope. No ridicule. Just things you don’t believe in. I could have said Thor and Zeus. Is that an appeal to ridicule too?

You guys—along with a few others—should probably just put each other on ignore. When you are replying to each other it’s not adding anything to the discussion anymore.  There is too much bad blood between you.

(And to cement my intrusion as a board nanny, it’s really annoying for those who are interested in the thread to have to wade through all your back-and-forth stuff trying to get to the substantive posts.)

[Analytics]

17 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Baal is a separate deity.

Both were once junior deities under the Syro-Palestinian high God El.

So, you think there are at least three Gods: El, Jehovah, and Baal. Are all three real?

[Hamilton Porter]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That’s a popular atheist argument. I see it on social media a lot.

Not believing in a god is different than not believing in any higher power though.

It’s like the difference between not believing that so and so loves you and not believing that love exists.

Some guy said to me once, Do yOu bELIeve in ALlaH too?

I was like, Allah just means God, Billy.

[Hamilton Porter]

7 minutes ago, Analytics said:

So, you think there are at least three Gods: El, Jehovah, and Baal. Are all three real?

El is the Father and Jehovah is Jesus. There are other gods as well.