13 posts tagged “christopher hitchens”

You know when Christopher Hitchens goes on Fox News it's going to be entertaining. Hitchens doesn't take any shit from these guys.

"If you gave Falwell an enema he could be buried in a matchbox." — Christopher Hitchens

Did this women think she was going to prove anything with this hideous remark? When atheists ask for open dialogue this is not what they want. Hitchens handled it very well, I think, and with a lot of dignity.

I didn't think much of the man, but upon his death I decided not to discuss it here on the blog. I think I'll let Christopher Hitchens do my talking for me on this one.

In a Huffington Post review of Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great, Leora Tanenbaum takes Hitchens to task for ignoring the good things religion has done and unfairly characterizing religion on the actions of a few bad apples.

Fundamentalism, not religion per se, is the real culprit. Hitchens confuses the part for the whole: not all believers are fundamentalists. In fact, most of us aren't. Believe it or not, for all of his influence in creating the "religious right" as a formidable political force, even the late Jerry Falwell did not represent all evangelical Christians (those who consider themselves "born-again" and embrace a personal relationship with Jesus). Millions continued to find Tinky Winky of the children's program Teletubbies adorable despite Falwell's trashing of the character's gender-bending, and cringed when he blamed political liberals for September 11. Millions of evangelicals today defiantly align themselves with the political left, are appalled by religious attempts to control their votes, and want nothing to do with the Bush administration's hypocritical born-again political agendas.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. The point is not fundamentalism, to take Tanenbaum's phrase, "per se" but virulent adherance to a false dogma on the basis of faith while disregarding evidence to the contrary. "Fundamentalism" would not be an issue if the doctrines of Christianity were true, the problem stems from them being quite obviously not true, and as Christopher Hitchens points out, quite obviously man made.

A sort of fundamental belief that aspirin is going to aid one in getting rid of a headache is not a harmful belief, because it is in fact true that aspirin is going to help, or likely help, ones headache. A fundamental belief that hydrogen cyanide may produce similar results, is in fact harmful not because of the fundamental belief itself that hydrogen cyanide is able to alleviate headache but in the inherent qualities of hydrogen cyanide (main that it is poisonous) coupled with that belief (and then the tendency to act upon it).

She goes on to say that a better approach would be to "reform" these false religions into something more palpable (and she does seem to acknowledge them as indeed false or presumably reform would not be necessary):

We all know that religion often leads to oppression. But instead of ditching their faith, millions of believers are doing something much more challenging and worthwhile: working on reform. Sister Joan Chittister, a Benedictine nun and tireless lecturer and writer, asked 3,000 Catholics assembled in Milwaukee last November celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of the reform organization Call To Action: Why should Catholics speak up for reform? Her thunderous answer was that "What happens in the world and in the Church does not depend on God. It depends on us. It is not God's fault if things we have done already do not change. It is our fault!... We cannot blame God for what we do not do to save ourselves." Whether or not God is great is not the issue. Reforming our institutions, including but not limited to our religious ones, is the task before us.

Of course, the most radical, cleansing, and overall beneficial (in my humble opinion) reform of the church would be to reject faith in supernatural deities it and build social institutions based on empirical inquiry, scientific research, and the innate morality found within human beings granted to us both by our cultural history and by the development of alturistic characteristics and tendencies through millions of years of evolution. 

As Christopher Hitchens' notes, we have a much better tradition on which to build our society, one based on the ideas of the enlightenment and principles of liberty.  We should be looking back to insights of these great men, rather than religious icons, and with our own insight come to a greater society that is beneficial to all.

Here is the video of the Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens debate for anyone who wants to watch it.

The debate from the New York Public Library between Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton that I covered before has ignited some controversy. Sharpton (apparently) made biogoted remarks towards Mormonism. Personally, when I first listened to the debate and heard this statement, I found it to be in bad taste and a moot point but I'm not sure if this is biogotry or not (I'd love to hear your thoughts on if it is). At any rate, I think it's all very telling of the status of the religion debate in this country (that is that it's not very good). Hitchens appeared on Lou Dobbs' CNN program to discuss what happened at the debate.

What I find most outrageous about this whole thing is that there was so much more to discuss besides that one (fairly insignificant) remark. That this petty BS takes precedent over the actually issues makes me nearly sick.

I also must say that I'm becoming more and more impressed with Lou Dobbs, he seems like a thoughtful guy.  

Christopher Hitchens recently debated the Reverend Al Sharpton. One thing is clear to me: either Sharpton doesn't listen or he can't understand Hitchens. Hitchens repeatedly answered Sharpton's primary question and Sharpton repeatedly goes back and beats on the same old drum.

What was the question? What is Hitchens problem with god, as he spends a lot of time talking about how people's religious convictions are harmful.

The answer? There is no way to disprove god, but since there is no evidence for the existence of such a god it follows as acceptable to think no such god exists.

Why is that so hard to understand? It seems to me that there is a lot of people who need to start listening. This includes Al Sharpton in his debate with Christopher Hitchens, this includes Madeleine Bunting and her article on "New Atheism," this includes Jim Holt and his hideous review of Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion," this includes Andrew Sullivan and his debate with Sam Harris, and countless others. I'm tired of it.

Another thing that strikes me is the disrespect, most strikingly voiced by the first audience questioner (who took the opportunity not to ask a question but to instead voice her apparent contempt), that was occasionally directed at Hitchens.

You can listen to the recording on The New York Public Library's website.

Lou Dobbs recently interviewed Christopher Hitchens and discussed his new book God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. It's a fantastic interview. Bill O'Reilly could learn a thing or two from Lou Dobbs. And congratulations to Christopher Hitchens on becoming an American citizen.

I went and picked up Christopher Hitchens' latest book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. I am already through the first chapter and this book is quite exciting. Hitchens' prose alone is worth the price of admission. Rest assured I'll be posting some excerpts as I plow through this one.

God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

Christopher Hitchens