Christopher Hitchens and his debates

[JGL53]

An man of letters? possibly. Several scholarly tomes? Not really.

Are you actually familiar with the Hitchens opus? Somehow I doubt it.

Here I list some articles that Hitchens wrote for various magazine and also several of his books - and this list is far from comprehensive. I think if you read them you would find them well researched and documented:

Love, Poverty, and War: Journeys and Essays

A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq

Prepared for the Worst: Selected Essays and Minority Reports

Blood, Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship

Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question

The Elgin Marbles: The Case for Restitution

Hostage to History: Cyprus from the Ottomans to Kissinger

Blood, Class, and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies

Cyprus

Inequalities in Zimbabwe

The Monarchy

Left Hooks, Right Crosses: A Decade of Political Writing

Why Orwell Matters

Thomas Jefferson: Author of America

The Trial of Henry Kissinger

Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man: A Biography

 

[igotbegot]

Hitchens focuses on Christianity as an example of all that is wrong with primitive, mythological religion.

 

[JGL53]

Hitchens focuses on Christianity as an example of all that is wrong with primitive, mythological religion.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Hitchens focuses on western monotheism, more so on Christianity, somewhat less on Islam and least on Judaism.

I think his focus on the problem of taking mythic and poetic and allegorical and metaphorical language as literal and historical - and he also focuses on the problems that arise from extreme sectarianism, i.e., the belief that there is one "true" religion and all the rest are false. Hitchens sees all literalism as equally mistaken.

I think he is on to something.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

I agree with Recovering, to a degree.

Hitchen's views are not exactly out of line in their essence. But i do find his tactics to be rather extreme, and, as it seems to be, quite overly malevolent. He speaks of the Christian population as if they're studies, not people. And that's what i don't like.

 

[JGL53]

I agree with Recovering, to a degree.

Hitchens' views are not exactly out of line in their essence. But i do find his tactics to be rather extreme, and, as it seems to be, quite overly malevolent. He speaks of the Christian population as if they're studies, not people. And that's what i don't like.

One can surely disagree with his tactics or approach to various issues, but to what degree does Hitchens not tell the truth?

Hitchens is constantly accused by his detractors as unnecessarily generalizing, painting with a broad brush, mixing apples with oranges, lumping all "religious" into one nutshell (pun intended), using the false logic of "guilt by association", etc.

However, when confronted with this charge in an interview he always makes perfect sense in refuting this charge. Or am I missing something - i.e., is THAT where he lies?

And I find your use of the word "malevolent" rather an exaggeration. Is it malevolent to denounce malevolence, including religious malevolence? How and where does Hitchens' promote murder, genocide, rape, child molestation, lying, stealing, cheating, and criminality in general? No, I think he opposes all such - and even puts in a good word for human compassion now and then. Is there something wrong, i.e., malevolent, with all that?

Hitchens' states, when asked of such things, that he believes that concerning oneself with ideas of the "transcendent and the numinous" are perfectly fine, as opposed to the superstition of "faith" in the "supernatural", and the fears and the threats that seem to crop up a great deal in association with such. Again, is there something wrong with that.

As for your use of the put down word "extreme" I will refer you to Barry Goldwater's famous quip; "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice…Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

Also, it would seem that “extremism” (in its pejorative sense) is in the eye of the beholder.

Have a nice day.

 

[DailyBlessings]

One can surely disagree with his tactics or approach to various issues, but to what degree does Hitchens not tell the truth?

Hitchens is constantly accused by his detractors as unnecessarily generalizing, painting with a broad brush, mixing apples with oranges, lumping all "religious" into one nutshell (pun intended), using the false logic of "guilt by association", etc.

However, when confronted with this charge in an interview he always makes perfect sense in refuting this charge. Or am I missing something - or is THAT where he lies?

Not so much "lies" as "is wrong." Especially since 9/11, as his beliefs about Islam and fundamentalist Christianity have wandered further and further from reality.

 

[JGL53]

Not so much "lies" as "is wrong." Especially since 9/11, as his beliefs about Islam and fundamentalist Christianity have wandered further and further from reality.

Have they REALLY - how so? Please exposit.

 

[NeverClever]

Hitchens is quite well educated, highly intelligent, an eloquently articulate speaker, and an man of letters and accomplished author of several scholarly books - in other words, he's like the absolute very opposite of George Bush the Lesser.

Nice backhand comment on someone who is not very relevent to the thread.

The problem with Hitchens is that, while educated and well spoken, he doesn't specialize in some feild that comes in contact with Western Religions. He is not a Philospher like Michael Martin or Daniel Dennet He is also not a Scientist like Steven Gould or Richard Dawkins. He is also not a Biblical Scholar or Historian like Hector Avalos or Bart Ehrman.

He is a journalist and literary critic. While he may be entertaining on debates and lectures with other Pundits and other Public Intellectual, he isn't going to fair very well against Christian Philosphers/Thinkers such as Alister McGrath and Richard Swineburne.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

One can surely disagree with his tactics or approach to various issues, but to what degree does Hitchens not tell the truth?

I didn't say he doesn't tell the truth, but to a degree also i find it that his concept of truth is grotesque. Though i agree with many of this points, i do not, in all fairness, agree with his tactical way of expressing it. If he is what the rationalists and logicians that seem to be the mainstay of contemporary atheism represent through, i would much rather be with religion than with the free-thinkers.

Hitchens is constantly accused by his detractors as unnecessarily generalizing, painting with a broad brush, mixing apples with oranges, lumping all "religious" into one nutshell (pun intended), using the false logic of "guilt by association", etc.

However, when confronted with this charge in an interview he always makes perfect sense in refuting this charge. Or am I missing something - i.e., is THAT where he lies?

Again you seem to be addressing me as if I accused him of being a liar, which is quite opposite. I agree with many of his views, with many of his anti-theistic concepts, but his expression, again, is not appealing at all. He seems to represent a dogmatism in-itself.

And I find your use of the word "malevolent" rather an exaggeration. Is it malevolent to denounce malevolence, including religious malevolence? How and where does Hitchens' promote murder, genocide, rape, child molestation, lying, stealing, cheating, and criminality in general? No, I think he opposes all such - and even puts in a good word for human compassion now and then. Is there something wrong, i.e., malevolent, with all that?

I do not agree with religious malevolence, or religious intolerance, but what then if the atheists show this too(which they do)? What makes us any better if we greet fundamentalism with condescending views? Fundamentalists are human beings too, you know.

Hitchens' states, when asked of such things, that he believes that concerning oneself with ideas of the "transcendent and the numinous" are perfectly fine, as opposed to the superstition of "faith" in the "supernatural", and the fears and the threats that seem to crop up a great deal in association with such. Again, is there something wrong with that.

But he should know perfectly well that those who wish to pursue concepts of the 'transcendent and numinous' will, in many cases, lead to superstition and a faith in that pursuit. That's undeniable, and if he wishes to state that pursuing a transcendent is perfectly fine, then he yields a variable in his argument where he will allow the possibility of faith and superstition to confound within.

 

[JGL53]

…

The problem with Hitchens is that, while educated and well spoken, he doesn't specialize in some feild that comes in contact with Western Religions. He is not a Philospher like Michael Martin or Daniel Dennet He is also not a Scientist like Steven Gould or Richard Dawkins. He is also not a Biblical Scholar or Historian like Hector Avalos or Bart Ehrman.

He is a journalist and literary critic. While he may be entertaining on debates and lectures with other Pundits and other Public Intellectual, he isn't going to fair very well against Christian Philosphers/Thinkers such as Alister McGrath and Richard Swineburne.

If the debating was purely on high brow philosophical questions, then surely Hitchens would be at a disadvantage if opposed by any practicing professional academic philosopher.

But so far no theologian has attempted to drag Hitchens into a “philosophy of mind” debate, or explore the differences of nominalism vs. realism, epiphenomenalism vs. neutral monism, and so forth. The topic of debate is pretty simple and straight forward. I’d love to see some theologian who is was also trained as a secular philosopher try to flummox Hitchens with three-dollar words and hair-splitting. Most listeners to the debate don’t care to hear such – they just want to know about reasons to believe there’s an uber-powerful old man up in the sky watching us and whether our ghosts will one day fly away to party hardy with him forever in some rock ‘n roll heaven – or whether we should just view such ideas as some sort of weird wish-dream.

Theology debate isn’t physics or biology; it is a very narrow and primitive form of philosophy. Hitchens should be able to hold his own against the world’s greatest theologians – or witch doctors – or shamans. Bring them all on.

 

[JGL53]

I didn't say he doesn't tell the truth, but to a degree also i find it that his concept of truth is grotesque. Though i agree with many of this points, i do not, in all fairness, agree with his tactical way of expressing it. If he is what the rationalists and logicians that seem to be the mainstay of contemporary atheism represent through, i would much rather be with religion than with the free-thinkers...

OK – so you’re not saying he isn’t truthful, you just “do not…agree with his tactical way of expressing it.” Fair enough, so far.

However, two things to consider;

• We must remember that Hitchens is not a civilian when it comes to religious debate, but rather is in the business of making money through his words, both written and oral. He knows what his public demands and he knows what sells books and what his publisher will accept. Would he be as successful if he were Mr. Milquetoast, who bends over backwards to be non-controversial and completely fair to all, who qualifies every statement with a “It’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.”? Maybe. Maybe he should err on that side of tactics and manner of expression. But…
• He has a certain combative personality, I would say. He is who he is. If you don’t like him, ok. But he is who he is. Many people prefer a person to be very positivistic rather than some guru who just smiles, hands out flowers and mouths platitudes of love and compassion, 24/7. Hitchens decidedly errs on the side of assertiveness regarding discussion of the subject of religion. If he puts you off that much, you may exercise your free will choice not to watch him or read him.

Again you seem to be addressing me as if I accused him of being a liar, which is quite opposite. I agree with many of his views, with many of his anti-theistic concepts, but his expression, again, is not appealing at all. He seems to represent a dogmatism in-itself...

Having strong opinions and being assertive in expressing them does not, as such, constitute dogmatism or intolerance or authoritarianism or anything similar.

But you insinuate he "goes too far" - is that it? So - give me an example of his morally questionable dogmatism, please.

I do not agree with religious malevolence, or religious intolerance, but what then if the atheists show this too(which they do)? What makes us any better if we greet fundamentalism with condescending views? Fundamentalists are human beings too, you know...

Any atheist, so-called, who actually expresses intolerance or malevolence, or who is dogmatic and absolutist, is doing a bad thing, just like any religious fundamentalist who engages in such. That should be obviously true. But many times, if seems to me, many a religious person, upon hearing someone express utter doubt as to the truth of the religious person’s religious beliefs, gets upset and accuses the unbeliever of intolerance, extremism and/or dogmatism merely for expressing the non-belief.

That’s sort of whacked, dude.

But he should know perfectly well that those who wish to pursue concepts of the 'transcendent and numinous' will, in many cases, lead to superstition and a faith in that pursuit. That's undeniable, and if he wishes to state that pursuing a transcendent is perfectly fine, then he yields a variable in his argument where he will allow the possibility of faith and superstition to confound within...

The problem is that Hitchens, when speaking of supernatural belief, or faith in the existence of the supernatural, is referring to those concepts that atheists all identify as belief in magical beings who interfere in humans’ daily lives, to special “revelations” that lead to political and organized radically sectarian religions that in turn produce, necessarily, divisiveness and disruption in society that have no scientific OR ethical justification.

Hitchens is speaking of ineffable personal experience that is perfectly fine. There is no necessary conflation of such with what I outlined above.

 

[uberd00b]

I'm quite a fan of Hitchens. He is fantastically pompous, but well read and his points are well made.

 

[JGL53]

I'm quite a fan of Hitchens. He is fantastically pompous, but well read and his points are well made.

He is not perfectly pompous - yet. I.e., he occasionally comes out with a self-depreciating remark, and sometimes defers to those like Dawkins who have science backgrounds.

 

[uberd00b]

There's a whole long talk called "The Moral Necessity of Atheism" on youtube which is very interesting.

 

[JGL53]

There's a whole long talk called "The Moral Necessity of Atheism" on youtube which is very interesting.

Thanks much for the link. The title reminded me of Percy Shelley’s book “The Necessity of Atheism” and sure enough, in the first segment, Hitchens states that the title of his talk is a take-off on that book's title.

There are eight parts or segments, each about 10 minutes long, and I’ve just watched the first three. The second part is particularly good. In it, I was quite amused by Hitchens’ reference to the "hideous" film of Mel Gibson's that displayed "a disgusting appeal to the gay Christian sadomasochistic niche market”. (Though I can’t see why gay non-Christian sadomasochists would not have enjoyed it almost as much.)

 

[NeverClever]

If the debating was purely on high brow philosophical questions, then surely Hitchens would be at a disadvantage if opposed by any practicing professional academic philosopher.

Why the use of "highbrow" here?

But so far no theologian has attempted to drag Hitchens into a “philosophy of mind” debate, or explore the differences of nominalism vs. realism, epiphenomenalism vs. neutral monism, and so forth.

Is there a reason to? Do you feel the crowds at those debates or those who watch them on Youtube have their minds changed? More to the point, is a public timed debate a good method for finding Philosphical truths?

The topic of debate is pretty simple and straight forward. I’d love to see some theologian who is was also trained as a secular philosopher try to flummox Hitchens with three-dollar words and hair-splitting.

I am not impressed with flamboyent use of rhetoric, much like the Hitchen's style. Second, I don't think most high brow academics are either. Debates are won or lost by charisma and rhetoric, not by the strength of reason. Hitchen's is a trained journalist, who is at home speaking in front of people and doing to so persuasivly. Most Academics are not. Most of their public speaking happens unchallenged in a classroom, where their job is not dependent on how entertaining they are.

Most listeners to the debate don’t care to hear such – they just want to know about reasons to believe there’s an uber-powerful old man up in the sky watching us and whether our ghosts will one day fly away to party hardy with him forever in some rock ‘n roll heaven – or whether we should just view such ideas as some sort of weird wish-dream.

I think the above statement is guilty of reductionism. Also, you are reframeing iportant and complex ideas and putting them into mocking terms.

This is similiar to what Hitchen's does and I think he is just trying to appeal to the lowest common demoninator.

 

[JGL53]

…I think the above statement is guilty of reductionism…

No. Hitchens is fully aware of other ontologisms, such as pantheism, animism, deism, etc. And he is well aware of variations between secular philosophies. He addresses the view of god and life after death that is popular among the, uh, populace.

…Also, you are reframing important and complex ideas and putting them into mocking terms…

Theism is an important idea? That is your opinion. It is certainly complicated, so I agree with you there. And as for “mocking terms”, I will tell you just like Hitchens constantly says – that there is no good reason religious ideas should be treated any differently than ideas in any other category. If a religious idea is funny the, like a secular idea that is funny, it is entirely appropriate to make fun of it. And if a religious concept is disgustingly immoral, then same thing.

…This is similar to what Hitchens does and I think he is just trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator…

And who would this “lowest common denominator” be, uh, pray tell? Hitchens is not trying to convince atheists of anything, so to whom are you referring? And why oh why would you “mock” such people?

 

[NeverClever]

No. Hitchens is fully aware of other ontologisms, such as pantheism, animism, deism, etc. And he is well aware of variations between secular philosophies. He addresses the view of god and life after death that is popular among the, uh, populace.

I see.

Theism is an important idea?

Given it's impact on World History, I don't see why any one would doubt this. For Good and for Evil, Theism has played a role.

And as for “mocking terms”, I will tell you just like Hitchens constantly says – that there is no good reason religious ideas should be treated any differently than ideas in any other category. If a religious idea is funny the, like a secular idea that is funny, it is entirely appropriate to make fun of it. And if a religious concept is disgustingly immoral, then same thing.

I think he does it to sell books and get T.V apperances. I've come to discover about people like Hitchens, Ann Coulter or Al Franken is that they throw respectful Public Discourse out the window. Granted, Hitchen's is not nearly as bad as the latter two examples, but never the less, he reminds me of them.

And who would this “lowest common denominator” be, uh, pray tell? Hitchens is not trying to convince atheists of anything, so to whom are you referring? And why oh why would you “mock” such people?

I don't think Hitchen's is trying to convince anyone, I think he just wants to sell books while venting some personal opinions. I wish I could do the same, but when people start rallying behind "Public Intellectuals" and adapting that method of discourse, they are asking to get mocked.

Rationa Reasponse Squad is a fine, fine example.