Posts Tagged ‘Christopher Hitchens’
Video: Hitchslap in Action
My definition of the hitchslap: the antidote to that which poisons everything.
Stiffen the sinews by watching the two videos.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
A neo new atheist?
Theo Hobson in The Spectator has written Richard Dawkins has lost: meet the new new atheists whose arguments will not be too new for those familiar with this blog. That Dawkins is crude (see Mein Kampf/Boteach blogs), creating caricatures of religion rather than looking at the religious experience that a believer has.
Hobson holds up a different sort of atheist thinker from those that brought you the literary success of The God Delusion and God is not Great. That of Alain de Botton who stresses the religious roots of secular humanism, and the human condition that benefits from rituals and community.
Thing is these ideas already existed before that – Sea of Faith stresses the human creation of religion but welcomes people of all faiths that value the practise and heritage in the 1980s. It started from a book, TV programmes to gathering of like minded thinkers.
No doubt we could go back even further. The thinking is not new nor is it a generational thing either as Hobson suggests which looks for complexity and nuance. Anyone that read Dawkins before The God Delusion knew this book was in him waiting to come out. It’s success blazed a trail for others to follow, and detractors a set of coat tails to cling on to.
Now the gravy train is looking for something new, a halfway house, and the spotlight has come onto others. I also think the death of Christopher Hitchens left a void that opponents are trying to fill. However, there is a new horseman in the form of Lawrence Krauss, appearing in a film with Dawkins out soon. The box office will tell us if there is still life in the old Darwin Rottweiler.
Thing is we atheists have never been a homogenous bunch. The herding cats metaphor exists for a reason regarding organising atheists. No one wants to be a follower or disciple of anyone. We have a non belief in the existence of god having been proved by theism – that is as much as can be said of knowing someone is an atheist. The sliding scale Dawkins uses of 1-6, and the humanist percentage quiz, simplifies a wide range of views on religion, the nature of a secular state, religious freedom, whether utopian or realist regarding the end of faith.
Where we are critical of fellow free thinkers, it is an honest debate over issues and how to debate. The hammer or feather approach. With others like Sam Harris, it is philosophical in nature.
The biggest problem is often a lack of understanding of religions and what makes people religious (beyond parents’ faith and geography). An impartial examination is in order to fully understand these things. That was what made it surprising that Dawkins had not read the Koran. If Islam really is a threat beyond Christianity to enlightenment values, then it pays to study, weigh and consider. To be as informed as you can be on the issue without necessarily setting yourself up as an authority.
As my blog states very clearly – condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Christopher Hitchens’ B’day
On what would have been Christopher’s birthday, thought I would share with you the e-mail I sent him.
I first met him while talking to another volunteer at a conference about who we were looking forward to hear. I mentioned Christopher, and getting his book signed later. A voice behind me said “I can sign it for you now if you like.”
Dear Christopher Hitchens,
We briefly met when I was helping out the Richard Dawkins Foundation at the American Atheist International Conference 2007 just outside DC. In the attached photo I am sitting opposite you. I am originally from Aldershot and mentioned your recent appearance there for “Question Time”. Your filming commitments for the “Four Men of the Apocalpyse” prevented you from joining the walk from Jefferson’s Memorial to the White House with us on the last day of the conference.
I hope that whatever the merits of this e mail, you see it stems from an appreciation for not only what you have written and said but how you have done so. This young contrarian sees you as the ne plus ultra in public debate and of the printed word. In this world we do not need to fantasise about heroes – supernatural or mortal – but require people to speak out and hold others to account for what they do for and to humanity.
While I hate the idea of anyone’s life being lived by a score card, let alone one enforced by someone else, you have excelled at the above. If ever you are keeping score yourself please add this rather short note of thanks.
Regards to you and your family.
John
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Sam Harris – mistackles critics
Having seen Sam Harris misrepresented at an atheist conference, though fortunately in a Q and A so he could quickly correct and explain that no he did not believe in a soul nor that we should not be atheists (just do not use in public policy debate) it was about time he responded to current critics. The articles in question should you want more background are:
Glenn Greenwald: Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus
Sam Harris: Response to Controversy
PZ Myers: Head and Heart Atheists
All quotes from articles come from above sources.
My contention is Sam does well in parts, but does shoot himself in the foot on some key issues as PZ Myers mentioned. It’s an impressive looking tackle in flight till you realise the critics are still going to score. Largely because of how Harris wrote his thoughts on an unsuspecting public his clarifications really do not recover the ground well enough.
Say what you think
In debates with people on twitter I have been called a colonialist by some Muslims for suggesting that a secular state allows people to have their faith without anyone imposing religion or atheism by law on others. I have been told that being critical of an Islamic belief is islamophobia. This is nonsense. Discrimination and hatred based on someone’s faith, and treating people as a group not an individual would be. Criticising a belief or practise is not the same as oppressing a people. Sam observes:
The truth is, we have already lost our First Amendment rights with respect to Islam—and because they brand any observation of this fact a symptom of Islamophobia, Muslim apologists like Greenwald are largely to blame.
Remember we face this sort of view as tweeted by the Muslim Brotherhood:
Suggesting faith is a private belief not enforceable by the state on it’s citizens is enough to have insults thrown at you – at all times in public you must adhere to the faith. As bloggers in Bangladesh are sadly finding out.
Think how you say it
It does however become harder when you say things as Sam does on torture, far right on immigration making more sense, killing people for a belief. When you need paragraphs to put in context, even then Harris’ observations still stick out as uncomfortable reading. Take how he dismisses qualms about water boarding:
Again, which is worse: water-boarding a terrorist or killing/maiming him? Which is worse, water-boarding an innocent person or killing/maiming him? There are journalists who have volunteered to be water-boarded. Where are the journalists who have volunteered to have a 5000-pound bomb dropped on their homes with their families inside?
I suppose it is too much to suggest that those journalists water boarded once like Christopher Hitchens suggest a very different view point on using such torture for example in a ticking time bomb situation (link to Hitchens’ Vanity Fair piece on). Speaking of Hitchens his remark on Sam saying the far right only ones making sense on immigration “not while I’m alive they’re not” sums up a horrible line by Harris. With Hitchens’ passing others are making the positive case for immigration.
The military command hopefully aim to reduce civilian casualties – torturing a person is about applying the level of torture necessary to get information on purpose. That suffering is potentially limitless, deliberately intended and doubtful whether reliable or not once extracted.
Killed for a reason
Did that point a few paragraphs back where I mention Harris saying people can be killed for their belief sink in? It is a bold claim for one so quick to say their own first amendment rights are restricted by the behaviour of others. To quote Sam:
The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.
His following response to critics misses that we would still target a terrorist leader for reasons beyond their belief. They intend to organise further terrorist attacks unless hindered, arrested or killed. We would not ask what is their theological motivation when considering such action against them:
This paragraph appears after a long discussion of the role that belief plays in governing human behavior, and it should be read in that context. Some critics have interpreted the second sentence of this passage to mean that I advocate simply killing religious people for their beliefs. Granted, I made the job of misinterpreting me easier than it might have been, but such a reading remains a frank distortion of my views. To someone reading the passage in context, it should be clear that I am discussing the link between belief and behavior. The fact that belief determines behavior is what makes certain beliefs so dangerous.
When one asks why it would be ethical to drop a bomb on Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of al Qaeda, the answer cannot be, “Because he killed so many people in the past.” To my knowledge, the man hasn’t killed anyone personally. However, he is likely to get a lot of innocent people killed because of what he and his followers believe about jihad, martyrdom, the ascendancy of Islam, etc. A willingness to take preventative action against a dangerous enemy is compatible with being against the death penalty (which I am). Whenever we can capture and imprison jihadists, we should. But in many cases this is either impossible or too risky. Would it have been better if we had captured Osama bin Laden? In my view, yes. Do I think the members of Seal Team Six should have assumed any added risk to bring him back him alive? Absolutely not.
He is dangerous because he is a terrorist, and the leading terrorist at that. Otherwise, what Harris is implying is reading and believing the Koran could make you a terrorist – save for cherry picking, being less devout and secular. So belief is enough for suspicion and the use of state power against you (McCarthy suggested that on the left and Sam also uses such thinking for profiling too). In reality, religion is a powerful idea for hegemony and legitimising unthinkable suffering in the name of the old ideas of territorial conquest. Notice Al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq calling for them to become one nation as part of a growing one empire – an Islamist one naturally allied and run by Al Qaeda.
Foreign Policy
Greenwald is right to be concerned that Harris believes Arab international relations is based mainly on devout Muslim literal understanding of the Koran and Hadith. Glenn mentions a particular quote of Sam’s:
“The outrage that Muslims feel over US and British foreign policy is primarily the product of theological concerns. Devout Muslims consider it a sacrilege for infidels to depose a Muslim tyrant and occupy Muslim lands — no matter how well intentioned the infidels or malevolent the tyrant. Because of what they believe about God and the afterlife and the divine provenance of the Koran, devout Muslims tend to reflexively side with other Muslims, no matter how sociopathic their behavior.”
Polls suggest what we may expect; the majority of people are political animals and the Arab world is no exception, with a long history of the world being involved in it’s affairs. So before we say its down mainly to an ancient manuscript it may be useful to take account of history, sociology, economics, culture, and politics not just religion.
Sam while not saying whether Iraq was a good or bad thing mentions my concern that it was a distraction from other things (dealing with Afghanistan, nuclear non proliferation eg North Korea, Iran).
End of Suffering
Perhaps the real issue is Harris trying to rationalise what are on the face of it horrendous propositions: legitimate use of torture, being targeted for elimination based on your belief let alone extra security measures at an airport, the far right being more spot on about immigrants than everyone else.
PZ Myers makes a good point that new atheism should be empathising traditional humanist principles – key ones being an abhorrence for war and the suffering of others:
No excuse can justify nuking or torturing my people, so no excuse can justify nuking or torturing anyone else…especially considering that the United States has more blood on its hands than any other nation.
This is not the time to invent elaborate philosophical justifications for abhorrent actions — it is time to unhesitatingly reject them, to express our grief and shame and horror at these options. It is not enough to bloodlessly pretend it’s a philospher’s penchant. We need to consider the human cost, and weight that most heavily.
I wish Sam well as he studies further the wisdom of Buddhist philosophy on this point. It sounds like he has further to go for enlightenment.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Should you pray for an atheist?
The real question is would an atheist be offended if you told them that you had prayed for them? The answer depends on the sensibilities of the person concerned, but my attitude is it cuts both ways. So pray it if it makes you feel better. The only harm may be if prayer stopped you from doing something more useful for the atheist. Like calling for an ambulance, or performing CPR. Less drastic, do something for them they would appreciate.
Once a student showed me their pendant that said “I am a Catholic, in an emergency please contact a priest.” This provoked the quip that I needed a pendant that said “I am an atheist, in an emergency please contact the appropriate emergency service.”
The focus for an atheist is on this mortal coil of flesh rather than the safety of their immortal soul finding heaven. To my aid, I shall not limit myself to people cut of a certain frock, ideology or particular hobbies. Key is that they can perform the necessary life saving procedure due to their expertise and training. Hopefully, I will have the chance to thank them. Rather than first thank someone I never thought was there to begin with. The reserves of mental strength to be called on will be the positive reinforcements of memories of those I love and future plans, rather than a call to the mystic forces of the cosmos to see my hour of need. We all know though that at some point, our course will be run. While the energy never dies, what made up this carbon based entity will be spent in this incarnation.
My gratitude, beyond thanking those responsible for helping me pull through, would be to thank goodness. As Daniel Dennett mentioned on recovering from a life saving emergency operation:
Yes, I did have an epiphany. I saw with greater clarity than ever before in my life that when I say “Thank goodness!” this is not merely a euphemism for “Thank God!” (We atheists don’t believe that there is any God to thank.) I really do mean thank goodness! There is a lot of goodness in this world, and more goodness every day, and this fantastic human-made fabric of excellence is genuinely responsible for the fact that I am alive today. It is a worthy recipient of the gratitude I feel today, and I want to celebrate that fact here and now. [Source]
The late Christopher Hitchens on Christians organising a prayer for his soul:
“I don’t mean to be churlish about any kind intentions, but when September 20 comes, please do not trouble deaf heaven with your bootless cries,” the atheist author wrote in a first-person article for Vanity Fair’s October 2010 issue.
“Unless, of course, it makes you feel better,” he added, echoing a past comment. [Source]
That last point is the thing. By all means pray. But rather than offer just them to the person, give something more tangible. Goodness is goodness whatever we think happens after this life.
Related Blog: Say a Little Prayer For You
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
“Unhitched” biography shoots and misses
Christopher Hitchens knew how to put the final boot into a corpse; he said of Jerry Falwell being so full of bullshit “if you gave him an enema you could burry him in a matchbox” as a parting shot on Fox News. Hitch mentioned that if you spoke ill of someone during their life time why stop when they are six feet under?
A year since the world lost this most prosaic of contrarians comes a biography: “Unhitched: The Trial of Christopher Hitchens” by Richard Seymour. It has a lot to say – accusing him of plagiarism, and being the pamphleteer of the Dubbya administration having prior to which Hitch had already moved to the right. “Amanuensis” is the actual accusation of propaganda. With this book be prepared to find new words to casually drop into everyday conversation to be considered an ostentatious nitwit.
However:
Undergirding all of these accusations is the assertion that Hitchens was an opportunist, and that his supposed transformation from a radical into a “left-wing defector with a soft spot for empire” was a conscious rebranding assumed for reasons of self-promotion. Seymour claims that the narrative of a left-to-right shift, however, was wildly overstated, particularly by Hitchens himself, and that “not only was Hitchens a man of the right in his last years, but his predilections for a certain kind of right-wing radicalism … pre-dated his apostasy.”
My advice would be, if you have not already, read “Hitch22″ for what Hitchens had to say about his detractors, and to read James Kirchick’s review of “Unhitched” where the above quote comes from. He points out that being against a right wing military junta invading a British Territory is not a matter of left or right, that the sources used in the book disprove the author’s conclusions, and that being against militant Islamification – which is killing three thousand people in two office towers is in stark contrast to militant atheism which at it’s best was Hitchens talking.
James Kirchick’s review can be found here.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Christopher and Peter Hitchens – Video Debate
The Hitchens brothers buried the hatchet, and proceeded to debate each other on such things as God to the Iraq war in 2008. They were both on Question Time in the UK 2007, and today in 2013 Peter was on there again. Which reminded me of this debate they had.
Enjoy!
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Christopher Hitchens – Ten Commandments Video
Remember not to swallow your commandments in tablet form. Christopher Hitchens video looking at the Ten Commandments, and updating them.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
The Pope – get thee to a police station
The pope wishes to retire to a monastery, rather than serve out his term to death, as his mind and body decay. This is a break from tradition, rather than exceptional which is a superlative not to be used for this pontiff.
Citing wavering strength of mind and body, Pope Benedict XVI announced his decision to resign from the papacy at the end of February. He will be the first pope to abdicate in nearly six centuries. In 2010, as allegations of pedophilic priests continued to swirl, Christopher Hitchens decried individual and institutional corruption within the church’s sacred walls. His original article is [available at this link here]
One would hope that a new pope would deal with corruption, open up church records to bring child abusers, rapists, their allies to temporal justice, and put in place the best child safeguards the secular world has ever had. Then we can deal with the dogma and attitudes which I have dealt with in this blog. Some highlights feature below:
Which rights would he not like to see equal? Being at the death bed of the person you love? To have the wishes of your will honoured? To have the same pension rights in your old age? To let society know how much you passionately love someone? To be notified and treated as next of kin?
To be treated as a human being with human rights?
Let the pope speak – his words reveal a black heart lacking compassion more then we could write. With every word he not only becomes a relic of a persecuting age, but a figure of actual hate. At a time of peace to men of good will he has spent it all some time ago,
His words on World Peace Day tell us everything we need to know.
The news seem to be suggesting that the use of a modern social communication platform shows the Catholic Church in a good light. Well, the Spanish Inquisition used the latest technology at their disposal. It is what you do with it that counts.
I rather hope the first tweet would start with the word “Sorry”. What follows that word is an almost inexhaustible list.
When people die for the creed espoused being refused a life saving abortion, families are torn apart because their sexual orientation is considered immoral, when sex is less sinful when sexually transmitted diseases are easier to transfer, when poorly new born babies face purgatory without a ritual, when the view of women prevents the very empowerment they need to end poverty, covering up abuse and allowing paedophiles to continue to have access to children rather than face justice …
Angry … does not being to cover it.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Christopher Hitchens on 1984
Today is the anniversary of George Orwell’s death. So what better excuse then to spend about 15 minutes of your time listening to Christopher Hitchens talking about 1984 on a radio show:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
