God is not (so bad after all)

[Ecurb]

Here’s a Salon article castigating the late Christopher Hitchens for his lack of argument in “God is not Great”. The author excuses Richard Dawkins (inexcusable!), because he is a mere scientist. But he can’t excuse Hitchens’ “intellectual dishonesty”.

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/23/chri...ism_no_favors/

[The Atheist]

Quite amusing that the person accusing Hitch of intellectual dishonesty then goes on to be egregiously intellectually dishonest himself.

This is gold:

Might we suggest that Hitchens begin with Hoffmeier’s Israel in Egypt and Ancient Israel in Sinai?

I'm pretty sure if Hitch were alive he wouldn't bother reading a book written by an Old Testament scholar whose "evidence" consists of cherry-picking history then jumping to a conclusion that nobody outside of theological colleges supports. The writer also exposes his ignorance by presuming that just because something is printed by Oxford it cannot possibly be non-factual. Possibly he is unaware that the college's name is a little more than "Trinity" and that the full name includes "The College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity." Highly reliable.

Hitch rightly viewed the evidence of anthropologists, archaeologists and historians as somewhat more reliable than the rantings of biblical scholars.

One of the most hypocritical and inane pieces I've ever read - little wonder he waited until after Hitch's death to write it - a live Hitch would destroy him.

[Ecurb]

You are nit picking, Atheist. Your post is as intellectually dishonest as Hitchens book.

White's argument is that Hitchens intentionally ignored educated Religious opinions, and attacked the ignorant ones. In addition, White says,

What I want to describe is how irresponsible his thinking is within his own professed area of expertise, Western literature and philosophy. I have “four irreducible objections” (Hitchens’s phrase): he does not acknowledge, and may not recognize at all, his own brand of metaphysics and magical thinking; he does not admit to the destructiveness of this metaphysic; he ignores the spiritual and anti-rational contributions of 19th-and 20th-century literature and philosophy; and his own thinking is ultimately an expression of faith.

If you want to ignore the essentials and quibble about achaeological details (I have no opinion either way here, and am wholly unfamiliar with Hoffmeier's book), go for it. But that is merely obfuscating the issue through distraction. Who cares whether archaeological evidence supports the Jewish Exodus from Egypt? This is important only to Fundamentalists and the New Atheists (and archaeologists and historians, of course, for different reasons).

Here's another key point in White's article:

Hitchens’s second metaphysical claim has to do with conscience. He counters the claim that without religion we would have no ethics by saying that conscience is innate. He writes, “Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.”

Well, as Hitchens likes to say, this is “piffle.” After all, what is a conscience? Does it light up on a brain scan when we think virtuous thoughts? And if it is innate (and just what exactly does it mean to be innate?) why was Crassus’s crucifixion of six thousand Spartacans lined up along the Appian Way from Rome to Capua in 71 BCE thought by the people of Rome to be an expression of Roman vertù and a very good reason to honor Crassus with a full triumphal procession back into the city? Are we to imagine that the citizens of Rome threw garlands in the path of the conquering hero against their better judgment?

Since this is a literary board, it seems appropriate to quote another essential piece of the article:

As Wallace Stevens wrote about truth claims of this variety, “The world is ugly, /And the people are sad. /… / Have it your way.” (“Gubbinal”) For Stevens, the good and bad of things was not to be determined by religion, or science, or reason, or by a hispid Marxist-cum-neo-con like Hitchens, but by poetry, which at least has the honesty to acknowledge it is making it all up.

Here's the beautiful Wallace Stevens poem:

That strange flower, the sun,
Is just what you say.
Have it your way.

The world is ugly,
And the people are sad.

That tuft of jungle feathers,
That animal eye,
Is just what you say.

That savage of fire,
That seed,
Have it your way.

The world is ugly,
And the people are sad.


For anyone interested, here's a link to another article on Hitchens, Dawkins, et. al.: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...books_gottlieb

[Darcy88]

You are nit picking, Atheist. Your post is as intellectually dishonest as Hitchens book.

White's argument is that Hitchens intentionally ignored educated Religious opinions, and attacked the ignorant ones. In addition, White says,



If you want to ignore the essentials and quibble about achaeological details (I have no opinion either way here, and am wholly unfamiliar with Hoffmeier's book), go for it. But that is merely obfuscating the issue through distraction. Who cares whether archaeological evidence supports the Jewish Exodus from Egypt? This is important only to Fundamentalists and the New Atheists (and archaeologists and historians, of course, for different reasons).

Here's another key point in White's article:



Since this is a literary board, it seems appropriate to quote another essential piece of the article:




Here's the beautiful Wallace Stevens poem:

That strange flower, the sun,
Is just what you say.
Have it your way.

The world is ugly,
And the people are sad.

That tuft of jungle feathers,
That animal eye,
Is just what you say.

That savage of fire,
That seed,
Have it your way.

The world is ugly,
And the people are sad.


For anyone interested, here's a link to another article on Hitchens, Dawkins, et. al.: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...books_gottlieb

Of course conscience is innate and exists independently of religion. Why did those same Romans White in that article so stupidly invokes castigate Nero and other emperors for their iniquities? How is it intellectually honest to bring up the pagan crucifixion of Spartacus and yet ignore the evils of the Spanish Inquisition? Prior to the advent of Christian morality the ancient peoples around the Mediterranean possessed a conception of what was right and just. The Chinese were no less morally developed during the thousands of years their civilization existed before Christianity ever made it to Eastern Asia. Atheists these days are no less moral than are religious people.

[Ecurb]

What are you talking about, Darcy? All the article is suggesting is that morality is culturally constituted, not "innate". This is so obvious that we need hardly argue about it.

You are arguing against straw men. Neither I nor White makes any suggestion that Christianity (or religion in general) is essential to morality; White mentions the Roman populace approving of the crucifixion of former slaves to show that culturally constituted morals (and the consciences that arise from them) differ dramatically from one era (and one culture) to the next. If this is the case, and if our "conscience" is based on our morals, conscience cannot be "innate". (I'll grant that it is possible that White is being intellectually dishonest here, since I find it hard to imagine that Hitchens actually claimed that conscience is innate. I haven't looked at Hitchens' book recently, and don't remember. White quotes Hitchens as saying, "Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.” But that doesn't imply that Hitchens thought conscience is "innate".)

Of course since conscience arises from culturally constituted moral beliefs, religion CAN be a factor (I'm sure Hitchens would agree that stoning adulterers to death with a clear conscience provides evidence of that, as does torturing accused heretics in the Spanish Inquisition).

[thescream]

There is no definitive answer as to how conscience originated within the human psyche, or even what it is exactly. This is a hotly contested subject. There are religious and secular views, there are evolutionary and neuro scientific explanations, and there are philosophical view points as well.

[Ecurb]

Here's a link to Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling", which White suggests that Hitchens ignores out of intellectual dishonesty.

http://www.ccel.org/k/kierkegaard/se.../trembling.htm

Kiergegaard tells four stories about Abraham's adventure in sacrificing Isaac. He explores the distinction between "ethics" and "faith". It's well worth reading.

Here's White on Hitchens' approach to the same story:

At one point he calls the story of Abraham and Isaac “mad and gloomy,” a “frightful” and “vile” “delusion,” but sees no reason to mention Kierkegaard’s complex, poetic, and deeply felt philosophical retelling of the story in “Fear and Trembling”. In this way, Hitchens is often as much a textual literalist as the fundamentalists he criticizes.

That's the crux of my objection to New Atheist approaches to religion: they are (often, although not always) as literalist as those of the Fundamentalists.

[The Atheist]

You are nit picking, Atheist. Your post is as intellectually dishonest as Hitchens book.

What a stupid comment.

How is it nit-picking to point out that the central argument of the first part of the article is based on completely false premises?

The writer claims that Hitchens was intellectually dishonest because he ignored one book, written by one theist, that claims there really were Israelis in Egypt. It is completely against the evidence presented by dozens of actual historians and archaeologists and Hitch was 100% correct to completely ignore it, along with other claims based on fantasy.

If you want to ignore the essentials and quibble about achaeological details (I have no opinion either way here, and am wholly unfamiliar with Hoffmeier's book), go for it. But that is merely obfuscating the issue through distraction. Who cares whether archaeological evidence supports the Jewish Exodus from Egypt? This is important only to Fundamentalists and the New Atheists (and archaeologists and historians, of course, for different reasons).

What utter nonsense.

How are fact and evidence only of interest to historians and these mythical "new atheists" you mention? When writing about Israelis in Egypt, there is only fact and evidence. Only a moron would examine The Little Mermaid for evidence on mermaids, and likewise only a moron would look at religious texts for evidence of an Israeli exodus.

It doesn't change or negate any alleged teachings around the mythical exodus, but from a historical or realistic perspective, there is only reality to fall back on.

Your continual attempts to denigrate and label atheists who disagree with your personal worldview are very amusing, however.

I mean, this is pure gold: But that is merely obfuscating the issue through distraction.

Yeah, facts and evidence are so darned distracting, aren't they? One of the funniest sentences I've read in a long time. I'm sure if another famous atheist - D N Adams - were still alive, he'd be poaching that to go along with "...counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor of umm..."

Here's another key point in White's article:

Apologetics so good it could have been written by a theist. It is highly ironically amusing that the writer attacks Hitch for ignoring evidence, then fails to present any himself! That which is stated without evidence can be safely ignored without evidence.

I'm pleased you used the quote you did, because one bit is hilarious: Does it light up on a brain scan when we think virtuous thoughts?

If you ever wanted to show ignorance, that is a classic example of how to do it: indignantly ask a question not realising the answer is a simple "Yes". Virtuous thoughts, religious thoughts, love even, light up on brain scans. The author really ought to do a little 5th Grade research before trying to attack a dead legend.

No matter, his hypocrisy and errors demean himself enough that I'm confident honest readers of the article will come to the same conclusion - a small man consumed by jealousy towards someone who sold more books than the article writer could comfortably add up on a calculator.

Just while we're on the subject, can you tell me what - in your opinion - constitutes a "new atheist".

[Ecurb]

Just while we're on the subject, can you tell me what - in your opinion - constitutes a "new atheist".

Since you ask, anyone who thinks Dawkins or Hitchens critiques of religion are reasonable.

I don't know if you are one or not, and I don't care. You are, however, rude, ignorant and boring, prating the same endless nonsense over, and over, and over again.

[cafolini]

Regarding morality, it requires understanding that grows with maturity. I know very moral people all over the world. Yet, their cultures, as established by despots and nepotists are far from moral. It is true that there is no amorality, but the globe is full of immorality and morality not imparted by culture. But it is nice to live in USA. Most people would come to USA in a minute if it were possible to open our doors to anyone.

[Cioran]

Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and several other of the so-called "new atheists" are poor at philosophy, and even disdain it. Their incompetence at philosophy hampers their arguments.

[Darcy88]

What are you talking about, Darcy? All the article is suggesting is that morality is culturally constituted, not "innate". This is so obvious that we need hardly argue about it.

You are arguing against straw men. Neither I nor White makes any suggestion that Christianity (or religion in general) is essential to morality; White mentions the Roman populace approving of the crucifixion of former slaves to show that culturally constituted morals (and the consciences that arise from them) differ dramatically from one era (and one culture) to the next. If this is the case, and if our "conscience" is based on our morals, conscience cannot be "innate". (I'll grant that it is possible that White is being intellectually dishonest here, since I find it hard to imagine that Hitchens actually claimed that conscience is innate. I haven't looked at Hitchens' book recently, and don't remember. White quotes Hitchens as saying, "Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.” But that doesn't imply that Hitchens thought conscience is "innate".)

Of course since conscience arises from culturally constituted moral beliefs, religion CAN be a factor (I'm sure Hitchens would agree that stoning adulterers to death with a clear conscience provides evidence of that, as does torturing accused heretics in the Spanish Inquisition).

White was most likely responding to Hitchens' own response to the theistic argument, oft put forth, that without God there can be no right and wrong. I hear religious apologists make this assertion frequently. It is bogus. Much of morality is no doubt attributable to the manner in which evolutionary biology has shaped our behaviours and our brains, and so in a sense morality, to an extent, can be called innate. Of course culture, history, environment, and a host of other things exercise great influence upon morality, but at bottom, all circumstances being equal, there is going to be a certain concordance in how right and wrong are across time and place commonly conceived.

[Drkshadow03]

Here’s a Salon article castigating the late Christopher Hitchens for his lack of argument in “God is not Great”. The author excuses Richard Dawkins (inexcusable!), because he is a mere scientist. But he can’t excuse Hitchens’ “intellectual dishonesty”.

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/23/chri...ism_no_favors/

Have you read Hitchens' work?

White was most likely responding to Hitchens' own response to the theistic argument, oft put forth, that without God there can be no right and wrong. I hear religious apologists make this assertion frequently. It is bogus. Much of morality is no doubt attributable to the manner in which evolutionary biology has shaped our behaviours and our brains, and so in a sense morality, to an extent, can be called innate. Of course culture, history, environment, and a host of other things exercise great influence upon morality, but at bottom, all circumstances being equal, there is going to be a certain concordance in how right and wrong are across time and place commonly conceived.

And yet in some society's people can justify crucifying the rebel slaves and view it as a moral good, while other societies would find such an event horrific and abominable.

Quite amusing that the person accusing Hitch of intellectual dishonesty then goes on to be egregiously intellectually dishonest himself.

This is gold:

Might we suggest that Hitchens begin with Hoffmeier’s Israel in Egypt and Ancient Israel in Sinai?

I'm pretty sure if Hitch were alive he wouldn't bother reading a book written by an Old Testament scholar whose "evidence" consists of cherry-picking history then jumping to a conclusion that nobody outside of theological colleges supports. The writer also exposes his ignorance by presuming that just because something is printed by Oxford it cannot possibly be non-factual. Possibly he is unaware that the college's name is a little more than "Trinity" and that the full name includes "The College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity." Highly reliable.

Hitch rightly viewed the evidence of anthropologists, archaeologists and historians as somewhat more reliable than the rantings of biblical scholars.

One of the most hypocritical and inane pieces I've ever read - little wonder he waited until after Hitch's death to write it - a live Hitch would destroy him.

You seem to be suggesting Hoffmeier is merely just a textual critic; meanwhile, Hoffmeier from what I can tell is an archaeologist who has been the head of two major archaeological projects in Egypt. I read four reviews of his book (three from academic journals) and it received mostly favorable reviews. His argument seems to be not that there is any DIRECT record of Israelites, but that archaeological evidence supports certain general events in Exodus as plausible (such as foreigners being given high positions like Joseph and Semitic immigration to Egypt in response to famines and the practice of conscripting labor and archaeological remains of houses that were typical of Israel, accurate geographic details, records of habiru (wandering people) that some believe might have morphed into the word Hebrew, etc.)

[The Atheist]

You seem to be suggesting Hoffmeier is merely just a textual critic; meanwhile, Hoffmeier from what I can tell is an archaeologist who has been the head of two major archaeological projects in Egypt.

His postulates are still not evidence, and the overwhelming body of historical and archaeological opinion still says "no Exodus" so I'm happy to stick with it.

[JCamilo]

And yet in some society's people can justify crucifying the rebel slaves and view it as a moral good, while other societies would find such an event horrific and abominable.

To be honest, this argument seems off. Ethics, conscience (which are the words quoted) are not the same as moral. And romans saw crucifying as something horrible and abominable, hence a roman citzen was spared of it. Crassus was not honored for crucifixation either, but for defeating an enemy. Not much different from moderm world, America can throw a enemy body in the sea and be heroic, rebels can take pictures as trophy of Khadaffi body and be heroic and there goes. Specific historical and social moral codes are probally not what we should see as conscience or empathy.