Slate excerpts Hitchens’s new anti-religion screed
posted at 6:54 pm on April 25, 2007 by Allahpundit
I’m in blog limbo at the moment, caught between important stories that you’ve already seen elsewhere, good news that requires little or no comment, and yet another sick-making item about Rosie and the celebrity cretin to whom she’s now playing confessor. Let’s hope he means it this time.
In lieu of all that, here’s Hitch railing eloquently and obnoxiously against religion. I’m like a kid on Christmas morning! — so to speak. Don’t worry, I won’t quote it; please do skip it if the subject doesn’t interest you, although judging by the number of comments in the religion threads this week, it really, really does. There’s the link, to take or leave as you see fit.
For the record, even I find him a bit strident.
In the interests of equal time, I’ll pass along a Christian book recommendation from our pal KP — “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony,” by Richard Bauckham. It examines the gospels from an evidentiary standpoint, to gauge how credible they are as a record of actual events. Verdict: pretty credible. The book’s only available in hardcover at the moment, though, and KP tells me it’s a pretty dense read, so caveat emptor.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Hitchens has always been strident and obnoxious in his writings about anything. And considering he villified even Mother Teresa for God’s sake, this is no surprise.
I suppose the only thing I would say to him is the opposite is true for me personally. In my life faith and religion has transformed a loved one from a drunken pathetic creature into a wonderful and loving father. It has healed my child of cancer. It has led me on a very different path than the one I was choosing. One filled with selfishness and narcissm to one of selflessness, love, and compassion for those who suffer on this earth.
To me religion has never been poison, but life giving water that always leaves me with peace and happiness at the end of the day.
Rightwingsparkle on April 25, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Hitch was on a roll, arguing for a non-religious perspective because it is cognitively superior, but then he got to this and, I think, made one of the typical mistakes that atheists make:
Assuming the primary target here is Christianity, which it typically is, that’s not really the corollary at all. The corollary would be that the religion has clearly not prevented innumerable people from behaving badly. That it has caused people to do terrible things is an argument to made about religious institutions, not the religious ideals themselves. This is a proposition well supported by the history: Widespread Christian-based unpleasantness of the sort I think Hitchens alludes to–like the sort usually associated with the Middle Ages–were the result of Church policies and religiously-based political movements, not scriptural edicts or individual exercises in spiritualism.
The error, then, is to shift from arguing against religion as a cognitive model to arguing against religion as a social institution, as if those arguments are somehow the same or even similar. They aren’t.
Blacklake on April 25, 2007 at 7:13 PM
(Insert eyeroll emoticon here)
Professor Blather on April 25, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Oy, I hope the rest of the book isn’t that nasty and fact-free.
jdpaz on April 25, 2007 at 7:21 PM
Meanwhile in North Korea, a charming proponent of Hitch’s creeds–atheism and socialism–is pouring molten f***ing iron on Christians who refuse to recant their beliefs.
Oh, things will be just peachy when we get that silly God stuff behind us.
see-dubya on April 25, 2007 at 7:21 PM
He’s not saying they’ll be peachy. He’s saying they’ll be peachier.
Allahpundit on April 25, 2007 at 7:23 PM
He loses me right here:
The history of communism, past and on-going, is led by atheism. How is the world could Hitch simply ignore this in his statement?
laelaps on April 25, 2007 at 7:27 PM
The problem with Hitchens – and many atheists, specifically including AP – is that what I just quoted, every single word of it, in relation to that kind atheist, is a complete lie.
Every word in the above quote is the exact opposite of the truth. Not just a lie – it’s the polar opposite of their every word and action.
It reminds me of liberals who claim to support free speech. The principle is the same.
Hitchens – and too many atheists – are as dogmatic as any fundamentalist. He proves it, both eloquently and obnoxiously, in this essay.
It is a logical impossibility to be both open-minded and absolutely sure that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. In fact, it’s a logical impossibility to claim to be anti-dogmatic, open-mindeded, or respectful of free inquiry … and be so certain that YOU are right.
What Hitchens – and too many atheists – has is faith. A religious faith of his own. A dogmatic, narrow-minded, exclusionary, arrogant, divisive religion.
Period.
That they even pretend otherwise is as laughable as global warming zealots pretending they support open scientific debate and inquiry. In fact, it is a perfect analogy.
Global warming and atheism. Dogmatic. Religious.
And always, for some reason, angry.
Professor Blather on April 25, 2007 at 7:27 PM
Is Hitchens even making an argument here? All I see is schoolboy rage and perhaps a little too much Johnny Walker Black talking.
The Colossus on April 25, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Hitchens thinks the world is an 11 year-old girl he is Alec Baldwin.
Stephen M on April 25, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Whatever. A blanket condemnation of “religion” as universally corrupt and maleficent–lumping in Aztec heart-hackers with C.S. Lewis–is about as honest, useful, and sensible as a blanket condemnation of Jews for all the world’s troubles.
see-dubya on April 25, 2007 at 7:32 PM
The behavior of us Christofascist godbags must be pretty bad in order for it to be less peachy than being doused with molten iron ;-)
Misha I on April 25, 2007 at 7:35 PM
And it’s really pretty trivial, all things considered. I’m a little more worried about the Kim Jong Il’s iron smelter than I am Hitchen’s latest attempt to shoehorn everything he doesn’t like into a single ill-formed strawman, soak it in bile, rum, and vitriol, and then light it up in the Piazza della Signoria.
see-dubya on April 25, 2007 at 7:36 PM
Hitch’s new opus will get special mention here.
laelaps on April 25, 2007 at 7:40 PM
Allah has a Thing for Hitchens, so this won’t be the last such post–where the acolyte pays due homage to the Master
Ten bucks says this thread brings the Christian-haters out of the Woodwork–again. Is this gonna go on every night now?
Janos Hunyadi on April 25, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Hitch gets it close enough to right for me. The only thing I share with other atheists is non belief in gods. While I do like a nice theological dust-up from time to time, it certainly doesn’t rule my life.
That doesn’t mean some Atheists haven’t cast aside traditional religions for shiny new ones, Garble Warmenization being the big one (earth worship). I would also include socialism in the mix, as that is state worship. They don’t believe in God, yet they think that carbon credits will save the earth. They don’t believe in God, but have no problem with the notion of a nearly infallible state.
Krydor on April 25, 2007 at 7:48 PM
Great. Now that we have that established, can we move once again to the presuppositional standpoint, AP?
PRCalDude on April 25, 2007 at 7:49 PM
Odd, last post didn’t turn up. Anyway, to recap: The only thing shared amongst atheists in non belief in God(s).
The problem is that far too many atheists have transferred their belief structure from traditional stuff to new religions, those being Garble Warmening and Socialism. Earth Worship and State Worship.
Krydor on April 25, 2007 at 7:51 PM
There it is now… Damn and I refreshed TWICE before reposting.
Krydor on April 25, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Man is an idol factory. He’ll easily manufacture new religion if another one falls out of favor.
PRCalDude on April 25, 2007 at 7:53 PM
If man is merely a cosmic joke, then there’s simply no reason to avoid cruelty. Any talk from an atheist about “morality” is incoherent metaphysical mush.
Mojave Mark on April 25, 2007 at 7:58 PM
Read the article. He apparently hasn’t interacted with any decent apologists, let alone read Van Til. He declares himself and other like minded atheists as the standard for behavior, and fails to distinguish between the claims of different religions. He should stick to what he knows.
PRCalDude on April 25, 2007 at 8:00 PM
Yes. He’s arguing that the methods science has developed for resolving disputes actually work to expand the overall body of human knowledge, rather than leading to more-or-less permanent factionalism, which is the only recourse for disagreements rooted in dogma (and I don’t mean “dogma” in any perjurative sense, only a literal one). This is a rather straightforward acknowledgement of the obvious reality of scientific progress, and a compelling argument that the empirical perspective is highly functional, inherently creative, and more productive than religious ones.
He wanders from this thread by the end, though, and suggests that religion sometimes “causes” unethical behavior, which is at best a difficult and needless case to make, granted the strength of the cognitive argument.
Blacklake on April 25, 2007 at 8:01 PM
So, Hitchens never read St Augustine or ol’ Tom Aquinus, or Neuhaus?
This isn’t even ‘Serious Criticism’………..
Janos Hunyadi on April 25, 2007 at 8:01 PM
Exactly. In order for you to have credibility in an argument, you need to interact with the best the other side has to offer, and be able to represent their position honestly and accurately.
PRCalDude on April 25, 2007 at 8:02 PM
What a rambling ranting screed!! Basically Hitchens has proved nothing and has said nothing that hasn’t been said in the 2000 year history of Christianity all that has proven to be false. An example of his wrongness is this comment
The mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and the most devastating one. Religion is man-made.
Balderdash!! The religion of Christianity was created by Jesus Christ who Christians believe was both God and man. He encharge the apostles and envangelists to take the Word to the Jews and gentiles which they did with great success.
docdave on April 25, 2007 at 8:06 PM
It’s my experience that every single person who rants about sexual repression is a weirdo who should be repressed.
Atheism is a somewhat logically arguable concept, but so many who lead on the subject make atheism look like something that should be in the DSM-IV next to other social disorders.
frankj on April 25, 2007 at 8:08 PM
By the way:
How much you want to bet she hasn’t even read it herself, but passed it on knowing that now you’ll have to, just to keep alive your hopes of having a shot at her? If you fall for this one, maybe next week it’ll be
.
You gotta watch out for the hot chicks, AP. They’re
Blacklake on April 25, 2007 at 8:11 PM
Bah, beaten by the buttons again. “Principia Mathematica” and “Mean” were meant to be itallicized. Infernal machines!
Blacklake on April 25, 2007 at 8:12 PM
So.. Christianity isn’t ‘man-made’ because you choose to believe that Jesus wasn’t a man.
Um.
Hmm.
Each to their own, but really..
Reaps on April 25, 2007 at 8:12 PM
I’ll have to agree with Frank, though. ‘Atheism’, or many of the outspoken proponents of such (although why people ‘choose’ to ‘be’ ‘atheists’ is still.. odd) reminds me of a lot of bands out there – I find myself disliking the band simply because the fans of the band are such obnoxious elitist dickheads..
Reaps on April 25, 2007 at 8:14 PM
Mwahahah. Could be. It’s the intellectual equivalent of having to go skydiving or whatever to impress the chick you have your eye on.
Allahpundit on April 25, 2007 at 8:14 PM
It’s not man-made because God intervened in history at various points of time to give revelation regarding a coming Saviour. The revelation culminated in Christ, who died for our sins and was raised again for our justification, just as the Scriptures said he would.
PRCalDude on April 25, 2007 at 8:15 PM
I’ve noticed her left hand has no ring. A crime, AP, a crime.
PRCalDude on April 25, 2007 at 8:16 PM
.
Well, frankj, maybe 90 % or so: all those Psych majors sutdying up on why they’re not happy; or happy enough, etc.
Wankers……..
Janos Hunyadi on April 25, 2007 at 8:16 PM
Blacklake,
I don’t doubt that science has its merits. It builds bridges, it cures diseases.
But how does it speak to ethics? Science is a two-edged sword; it can be used for evil as well as good. Zyklon-B can be beneficial as a pesticide, properly used, or can be on one’s bill of indictment in a war crimes trial, improperly used.
Science is not an unvarnished good, and anyone who even lived through part of the twentieth century can never pretend it is. Torquemada is villified for torturing heretics and Jews, and properly so. But Torquemada’s butcher bill was far smaller than any of the top twenty dictators of the twentieth century, who applied the benevolent scientific method to their problems.
You can argue that that is the exception, rather than the rule. And I can argue just as easily that Torquemada is the exception, rather than the rule. Hitchens’ ranting otherwise does not make it so.
The Colossus on April 25, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Well put. I like Hitchens, but this sort of over-generalizing, fulminating, frothing-at-the-mouth stuff is a departure from what I’ve often enjoyed about him: his clear thinking and incisive commentary. He says he arrived at most of his conclusions about the evil of religion “before his boyish voice even began to crack,” and it seems that his thinking abilities re: religion got stuck in time at around that point–that is, all he knows how to do is rage and stomp and say nyah nyah.
ThanksMo on April 25, 2007 at 8:22 PM
Strident, schmident. The question for you, AP, is not what you think of his tone, but what you think of his premise: that religion, categorically, is not only imaginary, but bad both for society and the individual. Because in the past although we’ve received the message loud and clear that you don’t believe and consider it rationally unsupportable to do so, I’ve never really gotten the impression you thought the net impact, either to group or singleton, was so terribly negative as Hitchens does.
Anwyn on April 25, 2007 at 8:48 PM
Hitchens for years has done basically what Allah is doing: Striking the atheist/agnostic pose as a pickup trick.
This works with chicks two ways. If the chick is herself a hellspawn, then the dude who declares himself a fellow traveler on the highway to hell is in like Flynn. On the other hand, if the chick is a (somewhat lonely) Christian, the defiant skeptic offers the whole “bad boy” frisson.
As I said previously, Allah’s e-mail inbox is filling up with e-mails from Christian chicks offering to do “missionary dating” to covert him.
Ali-Bubba on April 25, 2007 at 8:57 PM
It’s also filling up with redundant redundancies.
Ali-Bubba on April 25, 2007 at 8:58 PM
*DINGDINGDINGDING*
Winner!
Bad Candy on April 25, 2007 at 9:16 PM
Bravo!
As O’Reilly pointed out the other night, the biggest mass murderers of the 20th century (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) were all atheists. Some Peachy world the have in mind for us huh?
TheBigOldDog on April 25, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Oh Hitch, talk dirty to me some more.
Enrique on April 25, 2007 at 9:36 PM
AP, as per your own commentary about yourself, I believe you examine things with an open mind. So if you agreed with the conclusion of the book, what would the ramifications be for you? I’m not being snarky, I’m just curious.
Spirit of 1776 on April 25, 2007 at 9:37 PM
**yawn**
Until Hitchens improves both his prose and his logic, he has no right to criticize the likes of Lewis, on either a literary or a theological issue.
That said, I’d sooner read a good strong attempt at intellectualizing atheism than anything from Sully.
Freelancer on April 25, 2007 at 9:42 PM
Like being certain there is no God and claiming the certainty of man? The hubris of man never ceases to amaze me. It’s like Timmy Treadwell in Alaska “protecting” the bears right up to the point where they eat him. It’s like man being “certain” the planet is cooling only to change that to “heating” a few decades later. Please. One thing you realize when you train in the sciences is how little man really knows and how quickly “certainty” can change.
TheBigOldDog on April 25, 2007 at 9:42 PM
I don’t think he read the book. I think he summarized the book’s own conclusion in the claim of “Verdict: pretty credible”. I think it would be an error to suppose that AP agreed with that conclusion, as all he was doing was passing along the book recommendation from KP. Otherwise, your question would be a serious sticking point for him.
Freelancer on April 25, 2007 at 9:45 PM
Ah, I haven’t read it. Haven’t read Hitch’s either and doubt I will. I’m not much of a book reader, alas. No time.
Allahpundit on April 25, 2007 at 9:47 PM
There are some issues with certain messianic prophecies, which led to Jesus rejection by the Jews of the time. As an aside: the intervention of God, in the larger sense, never seems to go well for us mortals.
There are no contemporary Roman historians commenting on some Nazarine raising people from the dead, or taking a walk 3 days after burial. That’s news, and there was a pretty well thought of historian there when all this was going on (Josephus).
We can be almost certain that Jesus did exist, but he plenty of other possible Messiahs mucking about in Judea. Heck, his apostles met one. I want to say “Thomas”, and I think that’s correct. Not that doubty fellow, but a guy historians mention outside of biblical reference. He used his powers to get the ladies. I would do the same…
Krydor on April 25, 2007 at 9:50 PM
I admire your openness and honesty, Big A!
major john on April 25, 2007 at 9:52 PM
And the point must be made…
When man takes God’s words and twists them for his own ends, the results are always bad. That doesn’t give anyone the right to blame God. And it’s just as easy for the evil in men to twist God’s purposes as to twist say, the Constitution.
Religion doesn’t poison everything. Man’s misguided attempt to use religion for his own gain, that poisons everything.
When a person honestly surrenders to God’s design, and puts their own appetites last, there is nothing on earth so noble as what results. The fun part of it all is, when someone does that God also feeds their appetites, insofar as they are not evil.
Freelancer on April 25, 2007 at 9:52 PM
Heh, well I hope KP doesn’t see that comment. I was cheering for you in that particular cause. But honestly, probably just b/c I enjoy the associated screen-caps.
Spirit of 1776 on April 25, 2007 at 9:53 PM
Or like claiming that anyone who is at all uncertain about the existence of god is certain that there is none.
Watcher on April 25, 2007 at 9:53 PM
What was I just saying about the hubris of man and this whole notion of certainty?
Qld research questions evolution theories
After identifying about 10,000 genes, they believe coral could contain more genes than humans who posses about 20,000.
Coral is considered to be a simple animal.
However, Professor David Miller says its genetic complexity challenges the notion that life started out simple then evolved to become more sophisticated.
TheBigOldDog on April 25, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Um, who is it that thinks well of Josephus? His Mom & Dad?
Can anyone say Roman Tool?
Janos Hunyadi on April 25, 2007 at 10:19 PM
I have a thing for him, as well. However, I am also a devout Christian and I though I know his beliefs (or lack of) regarding religion, he is one of the few out there who have an absolute understanding about the nature of the enemy we face in radical Islam, thus, I just cannot throw the baby out with the bath water. It has caused me more than a little torment.
Glynn on April 25, 2007 at 10:20 PM
I notice you left out this part: Prof Miller says another surprise has been that coral shares many genes with humans, including those related to the development of immune systems.
And you want to use this study to prove what, exactly?
Watcher on April 25, 2007 at 10:22 PM
The most illuminating statement in the article:
In truth, from my vantage point, the only thing that I can (clearly) see that is poisoned — is Hitch’s soul. He is a hater. Angry, bitter, and lashing-out. Sorry. I’ve got no time for, and I will grant no consideration to a hater. I don’t care what the subject matter is, or what other ideas that he is peddling. Whether its politics, religion, business, science, or even (purported) comedy — haters deserve to be dismissed out-of-hand, without further consideration. I have two words for Hitch, viz. “zero credibility”.
CyberCipher on April 25, 2007 at 10:27 PM
Yeah, I like Hitchens once he stops his Anti-Christ rantings
( Anti–Christ: get it? ), but on the subject of religion he’s an Atheist Fanatic; and tiresome, and annoying,,,,,,,,
Janos Hunyadi on April 25, 2007 at 10:40 PM
New Class, elitist snob.
Openmindedness?? He’s just so much better than everyone. His freedom of inquiry, and pursuit of ideas is specifically and uniquely, a direct product of the Judeo-Christian teaching, not found in other religions in the world, but he thinks he came up with it all by himself and either is ignorant of the Judeo-Christian foundation or he ignores it. A more honest rendering would have required some research, a straight side-by side comparison of his beliefs versus any select other, but that would be more work. More accurate, more informative, but harder work.
Pagan religions do not permit meddling in the known world. That’s why other cultures sat in ruts for centuries. Get into a contemporary pagan culture – spiritism, witchcraft, idols worshippers, whatever and discover what we take for granted is not the norm for everyone else. Altering beyond what is already known is bad and discouraged, lest one provokes the spirits to anger. If one goes to work with even simple developmental issues(vaccinations, clean water, health, agriculture etc. etc.) at the grass roots in tribal cultures, one will find out the hard way that what we think is universal and normal logic, does not apply. Cause and effect as we know them are not understood. Individual responsibility is also not understood. Life is series of disparate and unfathomable occurances, the person is just battered about at the whims of fickle spirits. All mishaps are unpreventable, just fate. No comprehension that changing things can reduce accidents or problems.
The list goes on and on of concepts that are absent, those ones that we live and breath in our culture, and count on to function. Hitchens inadvertently reveals his ignorance of the world beyond the Western Civ boundries he is ungratefully steeped in.
naliaka on April 25, 2007 at 10:42 PM
I had a big comment written, but then I realized I was about to debate religion on the interwebs and decided to delete everything. That was a close one.
The Unabrewer on April 25, 2007 at 10:52 PM
Just leave it in the bathroom. :o)
jjjen on April 25, 2007 at 10:55 PM
I guess it is just pure random chance that the countries with highest standards of living, equality of sexes and races, and greatest freedoms of religion and thought are based on Judeo-Christian foundations whereas the poorest, most backward, and least free countries are primarily Muslim and atheist.
Paul in Poco on April 25, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Janos, for what it’s worth, so do I. Just not when he goes on one of his atheism benders. I can see him singing “I’ve been drinkin’ again…”
Jaibones on April 25, 2007 at 11:03 PM
I agree with much of what you wrote, but I can’t let this go. The Egyptians, Greeks and Romans were all technologically advanced. The list of ancient pagan scientists is long, like Archimedes (287BC), Euclid (300BC), Hippocrates (460BC), Ptolemy, Pythagoras, etc., etc.
TheBigOldDog on April 25, 2007 at 11:13 PM
I can’t help but think this happens more often than not…
PinkyBigglesworth on April 25, 2007 at 11:14 PM
…..it should be “atheist’s mouth”…….
PinkyBigglesworth on April 25, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Okay, folks, you have the Money Quote. Shut the lights off on your way out the door, as All That Needs To Be Said has just been said
and Jailbones, see my post previous to yours, wherein I said I like Hard-Drinkin’ Chris too, exceptin’ when he starts snarling at God
Janos Hunyadi on April 25, 2007 at 11:25 PM
HItchens is a strange bird. The man can seem simultaneously drunk or brilliant based upon your agreement or disagreement with him.
Matticus Finch on April 25, 2007 at 11:31 PM
I didn’t realize that Socrates was a product of the Judeo-Christian teaching.
Watcher on April 25, 2007 at 11:31 PM
To be fair and balanced I’d offer the last words of the hypocritical christians who live their lives judging others and rejoicing in their eternal damnation:
“Thank God I made it…..waaaait a minute what’s that burning sensation”
Bradky on April 25, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Thanks. I appreciate that very much.
Regarding your comment, you’d have to check this of course, because it’s been quite awhile since it was fresh for me, but I had understood that Hippocrates was Jewish and many/most of these thinkers were indeed influenced in some part by the freedom of inquiry as presented by Jewish thought and scriptures.
The bottom line is, there can be exceptions to the rule, but paganism/spiritism/idol worship is very rigid and unchanging. It produces rigid societies as well. India’s caste system is frightfully rigid and has locked down that nation for centuries. A recent Boston Globe article linked thru I think Instapundit, stated that the techno centers of India were experiencing a employee shortage. The booming expansion of the call centers and so forth requires a growing pool of skilled high tech people. Unsuspecting foreign planners just assumed that with a billion Indians, they would have no trouble finding help. What they didn’t catch was that only a couple castes work at that kind of level. The education system in India is caste segregated. The lower castes never mix with the higher castes, and the schools which will take lower castes, don’t have the quality of education of the schools that cater to the higher castes. That means, no upward mobility. Therefore, the percentage of the population in India that will ever get an opportunity to be educated at the necessary level to get those jobs is not that big – I think no more than about 100,000,000 (men, women and children) out of a billion, and of course here are other white collar jobs that compete for workers at that level. About 300,000,000 are lowest castes. These are rough figures, but they present the problem well enough.
Well, if Hitchens had put a little more effort into experincing life without Christianity by living in a remote Third World village for year – give him a project to do and just sit back and watch the fireworks as he discovers everything he thought was a given, isn’t. Like don’t poison your neighbor’s fish pond just because you’re jealous of his efforts to make something of himself.
naliaka on April 25, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Well, now you’re essentially just pointing out the problem I was criticizing Hitchens for stumbling into. The arguments for the superiority of science as a cognitive tool hold up–the proof is in the pudding (and we are, after all, typing on frakking computers). But historical arguments for either religion or science as social institutions tend to produce bountiful lists of both horrors and triumphs.
That’s why I think Hitchens erred in suggesting that religion “caused” the attrocities he alludes to (particularly the ones he suggests are on a par with ethnic cleansing). That makes just as much sense as arguing that secularism “caused” Pol Pot’s killing fields–which is to say, not much.
And that’s not what I think he needed to be getting at, anyway. The point he seemed to be making is that non-religious ethical systems are possible, and it’s not like religious ethical systems are perfect, anyway, as they obviously don’t prevent all allegedly religious people from engaging in personally unethical acts (like say, having an affair with the secretary).
Blacklake on April 25, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Bradky, my son, you are just too Dense to be on this thread, so what I said yesterday about you needs repeating:
I’ve discovered the multi-leveled Essence of Bradky: no mention or knowledge of history beyond pop culture, the opposite of ‘higher intellect’, ad hominem and straw man arguments ( the favorite crutch of weak and lazy minds ) and relentless mis-representation of everyone and everything he cannot uderstand or doesn’t agree with
he DOES have moral outrage, but it is unfocused: sprayed like a spit-take onto various targets with no clue as to what others are actually saying to him
For dimwits like him, intelligent people who argue intelligently are speaking in a code which he cannot break
I wouldn’t call him and those like him ( they are legion ) a hypocrite, because he does not have enough principle to violate his own principles.
irony: if the jihadis every take over here, fools like him will be among the first to be beheaded
Janos Hunyadi on April 25, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Janos,
That would be me who thinks that Josephus was a fairly well thought of historian. I don’t think the Jews, in general, have much of a beef with him either. I would think they might have the biggest problem, but they seem to like him.
What he wrote way back when is pretty comprehensive and quite accurate, accounting for the fun and games of historians of the time.
That’s just my opinion. However, I would think that a guy who was the governor of Judea and spent a great deal of time telling the Romans how neat Jews actually were might have made more of this son of a carpenter who could raise the dead. What does Josephus say about Jesus?
I would think that Christians would be quite pleased with this. Too bad you think he sucks. Overall, though, Josephus doesn’t seem to be too impressed. A reason or two for that, as there always are.
Krydor on April 25, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Watcher -
Jewish thought did inform/interest at least in some ways, Greek and later Roman philosophers. But most pagan cultures do not produce any sort of condusive atmosphere for introducing new ideas. They just don’t. It’s conform, flee or be killed.
naliaka on April 25, 2007 at 11:52 PM
So, Krydor, what do think of the theory that Josephus was a “composite”, –a blended chorus of several actual historical accounts, edited by……Romans or people acting on behalf of Rome
Janos Hunyadi on April 25, 2007 at 11:52 PM
Ja, Watcher, Athens was maybe the Exception Which Proves the Rule ( naliaka’s rule ) ??
Janos Hunyadi on April 25, 2007 at 11:58 PM
Someday when you grow up you may be able to afford an operation to have a sense of humor implanted into your thick skull.
Bradky on April 26, 2007 at 12:02 AM
Haha!
I think it was something more like “The Canon of Western Culture” or some similar tome.
naliaka on April 26, 2007 at 12:06 AM
Me no have sense of humour? Maybe this will get a few laughs:
Winston Churchill wrote it a century ago
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”
—Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages
248—50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).
Janos Hunyadi on April 26, 2007 at 12:12 AM
Janos,
I would say that some of that is a distinct possibility. That his accounts may have been altered later on has been shown by the differences in Testimonium Flavium, one kept relatively pristine in Arab hands and another unquestionably edited by someone wishing to prove Jesus was actually the Messiah.
I don’t think that Josephus was some Roman invention, however.
Damn, now I have to look into that.
Krydor on April 26, 2007 at 12:14 AM
Hitchens should stick to what he knows: global politics and the WOT. Religion, is not his forte.
thedecider on April 26, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Okay, Krydor, it is possible that the Roman authorities were able to alter or manipulate the writings, and then others, inspired by example, also added and edited–so that “Josephus” became…….something other than the account of one actual man who witnessed his times and simply wrote down what he say
‘history’ as the methodology we understand it as only emerged in the late 1800s. Before that, history was as much art and literature as it was ‘scientific’
I have a book written in the 1860s which was published as a biography of Oliver Cromwell ( another Euro with no sense of humour ) but by the third page the author is telling us what Young Oliver thought and felt and longed for. More than a few “Historians” would put themselves in the mind–the ‘actual being’–of the people they were writing about and just start writing whatever came into their head
Janos Hunyadi on April 26, 2007 at 12:29 AM
The bogeyman in Hitchen’s article can be summed up in one word: faith.
Atheists find the word abhorrent, because it requires that they put themselves in the hands of an unknown, unseeing entity – God.
And because Atheists consider themselves intellectuals, they require no such entity but themselves. They are, in fact, their own God.
As he pillories religion, he doesn’t explain why it makes his life so uncomfortable, other than the fact of its mere existence. He makes no suggestion that religion ever did anything untoward to him, so the question remains: Why his vehement loathing of it?
God only knows.
pocomoco on April 26, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Krydor, Josephus was an historian. The quote just states the fact of what was going on with Jesus at that time. He mentions the miracles and devotion of His followers as would an historian. He isn’t acting as a cheerleader for Jesus. However, he also isn’t disputing what the followers of Jesus had said regarding his resurrection. He is not responding as a witness but as an historian.
Rose on April 26, 2007 at 1:24 AM
Thank God I’m an agnostic. (Rimshot.)
Who needs such a kneejerk “positive” that’s as dogmatically silly as the jihadozombies’ “negative”.
For all of its human faults, most religion has been “the heart of a heartless world”.
I’ll take Jesus’s wit over Hitchens’.
profitsbeard on April 26, 2007 at 1:50 AM
He’s always brilliant, and sometimes drunk at the same time. I adore his talent for writing and his courage. He hid Salman Rushdie in his DC apartment, at the risk to his entire family, until that ‘bright’ Maureen Dowd just had to talk about it.
Sometimes I don’t agree with every word but it’s always a delight to read him. I’m so happy we have him in our time, and on our side on the WoT.
Entelechy on April 26, 2007 at 2:18 AM
Some pretty informed debaters herestrong> I would love to see what you have to offer PRCalDude or any others up to the challenge.
frreal on April 26, 2007 at 8:05 AM
Here is the link
frreal on April 26, 2007 at 8:05 AM
I want to see the pressupositional debate between the two…
jp on April 26, 2007 at 9:42 AM
From the heading I was expecting something more original from Hitchens.
Hitchens is really good at building a argument against religion (or at least what he thinks religion is) and then building an enticing straw-man religious perspective that justifies his argument.
Maybe Hitchen’s next effort might be to actually first learn some real theology, and then pose an argument based on real religoius views.
Hitchen’s views are neither new or enlightening. The American Humanist magazine publishes arguments like this all the time. And this magazine is not a credible theological source.
The only people who buy into these arguments are people who already agree with Hitchens. There is nothing credible in his writings to justify his position to the truly religious community.
The four maxims Hitchens lists are grounded on what he calls “wish-thinking”. While this may be true in certain circumstances, it by no means represents the theology of most religions.
Maybe Hitchen’s should study up on “hope-thinking” and “faith-thinking”, the difference between these and “wish-thinking” is pretty significant.
Lawrence on April 26, 2007 at 9:47 AM
I am constantly amazed at the need to hotly contest others’ religious views, if atheism is actually a religious view, guess it is.
What conceivable difference does Hitchins’ lack of belief make to anyone beyond himself? He makes an eloquent argument, one I don’t share, but by definition faith can’t be proved or disproved. That’s why they call it “faith”.
(This is less a comment on this particular thread than the many others that have clogged HA. This one hasn’t (yet) wandered into wrath of God/my God’s better than your God territory/only idiots believe or don’t believe/only believers have morals/and the ever popular our country is a Christian nation (wink and nod) etc etc ad nauseum.
honora on April 26, 2007 at 10:33 AM
Janos,
Oh, I know that history, as we know it, wasn’t done the same way. This is part of the reason that that Josephus’ dry blurb regarding Jesus is so darn important. Historians loved to add the interventions of God and their own biases into their writings. Didn’t happen, but he found Christians, for lack of a better word “interesting”, so he made some notes.
Josephus was, by most accounts, a good Jew who spent his time rehabbing the Jewish image in Rome. I have zero problem with alterations of his work over time. I have no issue with the notion that Jesus was a real person. I don’t buy into the divine/miracle aspect.
Krydor on April 26, 2007 at 10:57 AM
Hysterical. Hitchens makes an absolute statement and then says anybody else who does is an infant in the same breath.
PRCalDude on April 26, 2007 at 11:28 AM
I see a bunch of stuff thats already been refuted by Christian scholars. Generally, on boards like that, the posters avoid interacting with any conservative Christian scholars on the subject in question. The same is true for Muslims in their criticisms of the Bible. They don’t care to read the arguments that differ from their own because they might be wrong, and the Bible might be true, i.e, there is a God, and he is the judge.
PRCalDude on April 26, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Hitler was a Christian. Arguably not a good Christian, to make an understatement. Naturally he was driven more by Nazism than religious beliefs, in the same way that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were driven by Communism than atheism.
dorkafork on April 26, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Well that’s one excuse I guess PR. =)
frreal on April 26, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Which forum over there do you want me to research and address? They’re all quoting critical scholars and no conservative Christian scholars. They’re preaching to their own choir. Why do you think that is?
PRCalDude on April 26, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Overall, though, Josephus doesn’t seem to be too impressed. A reason or two for that, as there always are.
Krydor on April 25, 2007 at 11:46 PM
I agree with Rose’s assessment that Josephus is writing from the detachment and impartiality attributed to good historians. Additional, he may have been exercising some caution since the Christians were probably being persecuted by the orthodoz Jews at that time.
docdave on April 26, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »