Nicker on 17/12/2011 at 09:33
Quote Posted by Independent Thief
Never had much use for the guy-the man had no real understanding of what he was attacking for all his bluster. My prayers go out for his family in their time of loss however.
He had a greater understanding of the religions he dissected and the holy hypocrites and shysters he eviscerated, than they had of their own pathological superstitions. But you’d know this if you had ever given his work more than a cursory glance in order to satisfy some barely minimum requirement granting you permission to dismiss him.
Save your prayers – display a shred of respect and intellectual honesty instead.
(It seems I may be piling on but what the fuck, it's entirely deserved.)
Beleg Cúthalion on 17/12/2011 at 11:05
The mere stating that a religion is so-and-so, completely monolithic and a believer is either a "full member" or nothing, is a simplification so absurd and ridiculous, is so ignorant of the actual plurality of faith for hundreds of years, that I have a hard time considering someone bright in other fields of his activities. Negotiating religion and science (since this is the most prominent point nowadays, even if Hitchens got stuck on the theodicy thing) is not about breaking down religion until it doesn't collide with science, it's for instance about re-defining some of the worldy/outer elements of it... since one cannot provide religion to the people based on abstract philosophy and leave it to them to transfer it to their daily lives. On the other hand, the Creationists made a good example of what happens when you don't re-think these worldy/outer elements AND don't have a moderating central force.
But most of those prominent figures don't look at this complexity and shove it away with some sloppy accusation of either blurring the facts, evasion etc. or not being religious. Just like...
Quote Posted by Muzman
It isn't really for Hitch to explain how the religious could sidestep or ignore the origins of their faith and then still hold to its books, ceremonies et all you know guys.
And that's what Hitchens did, what Dawkins did, and the guy whose name I have forgotten... Sam Harris, that's the one!
The funny thing is, the manifest of the most prominent German atheist foundation lists charity among its rules, while Hitchens repulsed it for being considered compulsory (or maybe even impossible, but that's not in the video above).
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Speaking of weasilyness and failing to identify the bleeding obvious - the Hague just found Catholic Church Clergy responsible for, what was it, 10s of thousands of cases of child abuse in Holland.
And the Dutch Health Council (roughly translated) reports up to 100,000 child abuses in all forms every year. But I believe there already is a thread where we can bombard each other with figures and statistical evidence.
Sulphur on 17/12/2011 at 11:28
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
And the Dutch Health Council (roughly translated) reports up to 100,000 child abuses in all forms every year. But I believe there already is a thread where we can bombard each other with figures and statistical evidence.
I don't really give a shit about Hitch and theological debates and this thread in general except for my condolences to the family and may the man RIP, but I'm amazed at this abhorrent little line you took the time to trot out.
Do you
really think you can wave away cases of priests sexually abusing children with the argument that 'it happens more at home'? Do you think you can actually sweep away the context and causality behind it just like that, to look good on your side of a fucking argument?
I'm sincerely amazed.
Beleg Cúthalion on 17/12/2011 at 11:43
Yeah, of course giving a context MUST mean waving away the severity of the cases. I knew this kind of reply would come, so, to make it clear: No, I didn't want to dilute the cases, I even think a religious institution has more responsibility to handle these things carefully than secular ones. But this media truncation sucks big time.
I'm just waiting for the next football coach being accused of child abuse to start bitching about how wrong and fake this whole football milieu is...:p
Sulphur on 17/12/2011 at 11:58
Not the point. I know jay's post wasn't completely reflective of the debate at large and, while it might have its pertinent points in this particular debate, I'm not shooting for them and I don't really care about devaluing organised religion: it's done that pretty well all by itself.
It's just incredible to see that you're trying to fling statistics at jay's point in an attempt to invalidate it. Moral relativism does not work this way. It's like someone on death row saying, 'Yeah, I killed five people. But those guys over there? They killed twenty.' Well, they're all still on death row.
Get a better argument.
Scots Taffer on 17/12/2011 at 12:10
I dont think it's necessarily two-faced, passive aggressive or mean spirited to say you didnt really care for a person's body of work but offer condolences to their loved ones in whatever fashion you see fit, however it is certainly bad taste in any situation. The only polemic involved here is the obvious and ironic one, which is fervent anti-religious types (as distinct from athiests) taking umbrage with a religious person expressing something in a way that references their faith. Theirs is a valid response and one that should absolutely be allowed. In fact, those attacking it read far more directly aggressive and vitriolic than the perhaps ill-advised intentions of the religious types. You need only look as far as jay's spittle-soaked ridiculously tenuous rant about child abuse in the church to see that.
Honestly, imagine IT's post was of a similar ilk in a RIP MJ thread. Would there have been the same reaction? I doubt it.
Kolya on 17/12/2011 at 12:47
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
I'm just waiting for the next football coach being accused of child abuse to start bitching about how wrong and fake this whole football milieu is...:p
If there were thousands of child abuse cases in youth football you can bet we'd see this discussion.
Regarding Hitchens' tendency to deal with religions as monolithic and going the route of
"If you don't believe it all you're not really a believer.":
While that is a crass simplification it is perfectly understandable and even justified in a way. Because whenever you approach a Christian about any of the lies, the hatred, the contradictions and the inhumane elements in his faith, the answer will invariably be this:
"That's not what the REAL Christian faith is about. You don't know what you're talking about. Here, let me bury you under a mountain of bible quotes, theological references and my own interpretations thereof, that all say something else."Seeing as the Christian belief has some 2000 years of re-interpretations to draw from, he's bound to find something that supports his case. Whether that's some agreeable feel-good-faith or a murderous vision. In that regard the Christian faith is really very diverse. And I understand why any single Christian will feel unfairly dealt with, when you don't acknowledge his own personal version of Christian faith.
However this diversity only exists on a small scale. Ask them what party they vote for, how they spend their money and who they adore and you'll see how all these various people give power to the same stupid ideology, that on a whole is reprehensible and dangerous.
So that's why Hitchens was justified to go this route of simplification. But it will never work, because the largest part of any religion is concerned with active immunisation strategies and have been for thousands of years.
Declaring anything that receives too much critique or just isn't up your alley as "not really Christian" and then go on as before is just one of these strategies. You see, immunising your religious ideas is what you have to do when you believe in an imaginary being. Otherwise any fool could prove you wrong, just by pointing at the sky and saying: "So? Where is your God? Is he over there? Or over there?" (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXJq6oD4CY4) :D
And that's where any atheist could stop his critique really. Discussing religious beliefs on their inside (like: If your god is so good how can all these bad things happen?) means to take the hallucinations of a psychotic person seriously and try to prove their incongruity inside the dream.
Kuuso on 17/12/2011 at 14:31
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
I dont think it's necessarily two-faced, passive aggressive or mean spirited to say you didnt really care for a person's body of work but offer condolences to their loved ones in whatever fashion you see fit, however it is certainly bad taste in any situation. The only polemic involved here is the obvious and ironic one, which is fervent anti-religious types (as distinct from athiests) taking umbrage with a religious person expressing something in a way that references their faith. Theirs is a valid response and one that should absolutely be allowed. In fact, those attacking it read far more directly aggressive and vitriolic than the perhaps ill-advised intentions of the religious types. You need only look as far as jay's spittle-soaked ridiculously tenuous rant about child abuse in the church to see that.
Honestly, imagine IT's post was of a similar ilk in a RIP MJ thread. Would there have been the same reaction? I doubt it.
Prayers concerning Hitchens death are nothing but hilarious giving the context. In a way, if one understands the hilarity, he gets a glimpse into Hitchen's world-view.
Rug Burn Junky on 17/12/2011 at 19:06
Christopher Hitchens was a man who once said about Jerry Falwell, before his corpse was even cold and in the ground "If you gave that man an enema, you could bury him in a matchbox."
I don't think delicacy and respect for the dead is a tradition worth honoring in his memory, he'd be the first to call you out for doing so.
But even worse is the idea that one can reduce him to just anti-religious zealotry, when he was so much more than that. Most comical is the dismissal of his arguments as mere polemic, when the hubris of which should be self evident and he indubitably knew the subject matter better than you do. Dave Weigel of Slate nails it:
Quote:
Hitchens was the best kind of essayist. You'd start reading, unsure what position he was going to take. You'd finish knowing just why he took it, and you'd be wondering why you didn't, or spitting with frustration at how wrong he was, how you just knew it, how you could prove it if you, well, you'd need a few minutes to sort this out, first you needed some paper...
Seeing this piss poor attempt at rehashing his arguments from either side is like watching a bunch of paraplegic sports fans argue over which team is better by replaying the game themselves. A pitiful pantomime of an intellectual endeavour replayed as a simplistic "no true scotsman" exerciise. A whole shitload of people here truly don't understand a fraction of what he's written, whether they agree with him or not.
Again, remembering him merely as anti-religion is the surest sign you didn't understand the man. The most touching tributes I've read are from Andrew Sullivan - a devout catholic and one of Hitch's longer lasting friends. A man who, just the day before,
sincerely offered exactly the same "pray for him" so sanctimoniously on display here.
He was anti-totalitarian. Anti-zealot. Anti-fundamentalist. Where ever those values were run roughshod. Yeah, the internets know him because of the atheism debates, but that was actually a small fraction of his oeuvre. If you throw out "God is Not Great," "The Missionary Position," and "The Portable Atheist" entirely and ignore the last five years of public appearances, his body of work was still that of one of the great thinkers of our time. Orwell, Clinton, Kissinger - three crucial figures of the 20th century, and he wrote
definitiveindispensable works on each of them.
A man who fervently spoke the truth as he saw it, not because of simple belief, but because he could reason it out logically and rigorously. And he saw it better than most everyone else because, quite frankly, he was often the smartest man in the room.
I don't think it should come as any surprise that I idolized the man. The highest compliment I can pay any writer is to say "I wish I wrote that," but not only does Hitch earn more of those spots in my pantheon, he's the only person of whom I could look on his life and say "I wish I lived that."
This is the only "celebrity" death that I can honestly say moved me to tears, and repeatedly so. Probably because I know the man better than most of my own friends - I've lived with his thoughts. I've digested volumes of the man's writings in the past 15 years, and because he was so prolific it's still just a fraction of what he wrote.
To say that I've (quite subconsciously) patterned myself after him would be an understatement. I was drawn to him because for each philosophical discovery I've made in my own life, I was repeatedly reminded that Hitch had gotten there first, and with more style than I could hope for.
The easy dismissal of those beneath contempt. The bombastic logic grenades that leave 40% of your audience snickering. A good glass of Johnny Walker, in a Waterford Lismore rocks glass. I don't believe any of these are affectations on my part, but I'm never quite sure whether I idolize the man because of the commonalities, or I adopted the commonalities because I idolize the man, the archetype.
And yes, narcissistic sense of self worth should probably be added to that list, but I can't even pretend to be a fraction of the man. And that is one of the things that has moved me to tears the past two days. In him I see my ideal, and I realize my own failings, not in supplication, but merely as a guide. Is there any higher credit I could pay the man?
Kolya on 17/12/2011 at 20:52
No need to hide your own light under a bushel. You got the uncompromising attitude and narcissistic sense of self-importance right at least.
