# Christopher Hitchens has Died



## Polednice

It doesn't matter what you thought of his books and journalism, whether you agreed with him or not, a titan of modern critical thinking has passed away and we are immeasurably worse off now that he is gone.


----------



## science

He wasn't a perfect man, but learned a lot from him, and I admired the way he handled his impending death very much.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

I do feel really sad for his passing.


----------



## graaf

I was shocked when I saw his coverage on mother teresa - how little we know and how easy it is to sell us anybody for a "saint". As George Orwell said, saints are guilty until proven otherwise. I didn't like his support to 2003 Iraq invasion, but I enjoyed watching him ripping apart "professional christians".


----------



## Rasa

Man, who's going to put down institutionalised christianism now?


----------



## Guest

Rasa said:


> Man, who's going to put down institutionalised christianism now?


Right, like there is any shortage of such people.

I enjoyed Hitchens, although I disagreed with him in quite a number of ways. I thought his criticism of religion, while at times very well informed, was often bordering on the hyperbolic, the way he would willingly ignore any good that came from religion. All in all, though, a great mind, always an interesting read, and a joy to listen to him speak. I very much enjoyed the clip where he told off Bill Maher's audience.


----------



## starthrower

I'm sorry to hear this news. I greatly enjoyed listening to his monologues and debates whenever I saw him on television. Usually on C-Span's Book TV, and Free Speech or Link TV. I admired many of his positions with the exception of supporting the horrible war in Iraq. His command of the English language being greatly appreciated in the age of "I was like". He will be missed.


----------



## Ukko

About 95% of my knowledge of him is from reading "God Is Not Great". The book is informative, iconoclastic, fixated, polarized, and an excellent read.


----------



## larifari

I hope he enjoys the afterlife whose existence he always denied.


----------



## starthrower

Sarcasm at a time like this is in terribly poor taste.


----------



## lou

If you've never read his article in Vanity Fair, where he describes his initial entry into the world of a cancer patient, it's a powerful and beautifully written piece. http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/09/hitchens-201009


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Sarcasm at a time like this is in terribly poor taste.


On the contrary - the man who was so scathing of Mother Teresa at her death would probably not care for a bunch of people getting all sentimental at his passing.


----------



## starthrower

Probably right, Dr. Mike. I'm sure Hitchens had no time for sentimentality, but when someone has just died, personal attacks and sarcastic remarks are inappropriate, Hitchens's remarks included.


----------



## Polednice

Perhaps the characters of Theresa and Hitchens should be taken into consideration. Theresa was much more deserving of scathing remarks, but certain religious folk can't help but take intellectual criticism as personal insult, choosing to play the persecution card as if they even know the meaning of the word.


----------



## skalpel

Big loss to humanity today. Brilliant writer, critic, thinker and debater who influenced countless people for the good. Of course, as many people have said we did not always agree with _every_ opinion of his, but this is true of all people.
His cutting and straight for the throat approach to writing was what made him _the_ best contemporary critic of religion particularly but I do hope he isn't only remembered as a witty atheist because his political writings are brilliant and very worth reading too.
I'm very rarely bothered by the death of somebody I didn't know personally, but today is an exception.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> Perhaps the characters of Theresa and Hitchens should be taken into consideration. Theresa was much more deserving of scathing remarks, but certain religious folk can't help but take intellectual criticism as personal insult, choosing to play the persecution card as if they even know the meaning of the word.


Oh please - Hitchens spent his entire career criticizing others. He was no wilting flower. And he was no perfect angel - he did plenty that was worthy of criticism. I don't think there is any one group, other than perhaps atheists, that is completely happy with his utterances.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Oh please - Hitchens spent his entire career criticizing others. He was no wilting flower. And he was no perfect angel - he did plenty that was worthy of criticism. I don't think there is any one group, other than perhaps atheists, that is completely happy with his utterances.


As has already been expressed by some people in this thread, many atheists take issue with his stance on Iraq, so it's unfair to paint the atheist community as being a loved-up flock.

My point is that some people find it very difficult (/choose not) to distinguish between Criticism Type 1 (intellectual commentary/journalistic approach to highlighting good points as well as flaws) and Criticism Type 2 (being mean). Too many people assume that _all_ criticism is type 2, but Hitchens, as sharply eloquent as he was, almost always remained firmly in type 1.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

DrMike said:


> . I don't think there is any one group, other than perhaps atheists, that is completely happy with his utterances.


I'm not sure how I'm supposed to feel about his utterances. I think I missed the weekly atheist newsletter.


----------



## Vaneyes

CH quotes...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/dec/16/christopher-hitchens-quotes-bons-mots?newsfeed=true

My favorite...

"I became a journalist partly so that I wouldn't ever have to rely on the press for my information." - Hitch-22, 2010


----------



## Ukko

I hope he enjoys the afterlife whose existence he always denied. {_Iarifari_



starthrower said:


> Sarcasm at a time like this is in terribly poor taste.


Actually, I echo the sentiment, with no sarcasm intended. I only hope there are facets of it which engage the spirit he brought with him.


----------



## Polednice

If some of you insist on remarking on Hitchens' fate in death, sarcastic or not, perhaps you can have the humility to word your sentiments in such a way that suggests you aren't completely and utterly certain of his destination, with a hint of smugness that you're right and he was wrong. If you _are_ certain, I'd like see the evidence!


----------



## Guest

I pray that Hitch has been pleasantly surprised.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> If some of you insist on remarking on Hitchens' fate in death, sarcastic or not, perhaps you can have the humility to word your sentiments in such a way that suggests you aren't completely and utterly certain of his destination, with a hint of smugness that you're right and he was wrong. If you _are_ certain, I'd like see the evidence!


There ain't a lick of evidence that I know of. That seems to have been Hitchens' point. But I don't abide by his rules, or yours.

[In honor of your reading at Oxford, I'd like to modify that 'yours' to 'your'n' , which may be an Appalachian relic from Old English - or maybe not.]


----------



## regressivetransphobe

> I pray that Hitch has been pleasantly surprised.


We'll see in about 80- years. In the meantime, hey, I heard somebody died? :O


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Polednice said:


> If some of you insist on remarking on Hitchens' fate in death, sarcastic or not, perhaps you can have the humility to word your sentiments in such a way that suggests you aren't completely and utterly certain of his destination, with a hint of smugness that you're right and he was wrong. If you _are_ certain, I'd like see the evidence!


To demonstrate to the living that there is an afterlife, what you need to do is to die, and then report back to us, if you have the means to do so. The stage magician Harry Houdini promised to do this, but so far nobody has heard from him.

Of course, this lack of word from him doesn't mean that there is no afterlife. There could be, without Houdini having any means to communicate with us. He was well-known for being able to get out of tight situations, though, so it would be premature to count him out. A day's work in heaven could be a year on earth.


----------



## Guest

Fsharpmajor said:


> To demonstrate to the living that there is an afterlife, what you need to do is to die, and then report back to us, if you have the means to do so. The stage magician Harry Houdini promised to do this, but so far nobody has heard from him.
> 
> Of course, this lack of word from him doesn't mean that there is no afterlife. There could be, without Houdini having any means to communicate with us. He was well-known for being able to get out of tight situations, though, so it would be premature to count him out. A day's work in heaven could be a year on earth.


Not that I pay them much attention, but there are numerous anecdotal accounts of people proclaimed officially dead, who then returned to life and reported of their experiences while dead. I don't know what to make of such accounts, and personally don't care one way or another for them, but there you go.


----------



## larifari

While I posted on this thread, I still don't know why the passing of an atheist journalist, not particularly known for any affinity to classical music, earned the attention of classical music enthusiasts.

Somebody, please explain. 

Or are we about to enjoy the obituaries of everybody else in the future?


----------



## jalex

larifari said:


> While I posted on this thread, I still don't know why the passing of an atheist journalist, not particularly known for any affinity to classical music, earned the attention of classical music enthusiasts.
> 
> Somebody, please explain.
> 
> Or are we about to enjoy the obituaries of everybody else in the future?


You are in the...

*Community Forum
*_This is the place for those fun, and not so serious threads, birthday greetings, & *general chit-chat*. Above all, be respectful to your fellow forum members as they have a right to their own opinions too ... Opinions are just that, opinions, nothing more, nothing less!!_


----------



## Polednice

larifari said:


> While I posted on this thread, I still don't know why the passing of an atheist journalist, not particularly known for any affinity to classical music, earned the attention of classical music enthusiasts.
> 
> Somebody, please explain.
> 
> Or are we about to enjoy the obituaries of everybody else in the future?


As jalex said, this is the community forum. I decided to post mainly because of our numerous religious threads, showing that there is an interest in this stuff, and also because member _science_ recently expressed an interest in Hitchens and other similar writers.

Besides, he was no ordinary journalist (as I was writing that, I mistakenly wrote: "he was no ordinary genius"!).


----------



## Vaneyes

There are those who have maybe got as far as the hallway of the hereafter, and then come back to tell us how good that part was.
That's what critics said of the movie's first five or ten minutes, before lambasting the remaining two hours.


----------



## larifari

I am relatively new to this forum, therefore I may not be able to comprehend why the passing of a journalist who probably could not whistle a tune deserve a thread on a forum that is devoted to not only music, but classical music. I am also at loss to understand how I was not respectful of other forum members, as jalex implies/accuses.

OK, this is a Community Forum. So, I am sure everybody will be glad to hear that due to the upcoming Christmas Day and Boxing Day holidays, our garbage collection day will be two days later than usual. Only in our COMMUNITY, mind you!


----------



## Polednice

larifari said:


> I am relatively new to this forum, therefore I may not be able to comprehend why the passing of a journalist who probably could not whistle a tune deserve a thread on a forum that is devoted to not only music, but classical music. I am also at loss to understand how I was not respectful of other forum members, as jalex implies/accuses.


It's good of you to admit your ignorance on this matter. :tiphat:


----------



## Fsharpmajor

DrMike said:


> Not that I pay them much attention, but there are numerous anecdotal accounts of people proclaimed officially dead, who then returned to life and reported of their experiences while dead. I don't know what to make of such accounts, and personally don't care one way or another for them, but there you go.


I wasn't being entirely serious (as I think you realize). I doubt very much that anybody has ever returned to physical life after complete death of the brain (as opposed to death as defined by terminal cardiac arrest). But if we're talking about somebody in a long coma, on long-term life support, where exactly are they, in terms of life or death?

I can't think of any way for science to prove the negative--that there is no life beyond the existence of the body. Houdini's idea was, essentially, to try to prove the positive, if he could.

If he had indeed seemed to have come back from the afterlife, he would probably have been accused of faking his own death, though, and knowing him, he might well have done that.


----------



## jalex

larifari said:


> I am relatively new to this forum, therefore I may not be able to comprehend why the passing of a journalist who probably could not whistle a tune deserve a thread on a forum that is devoted to not only music, but classical music. I am also at loss to understand how I was not respectful of other forum members, as jalex implies/accuses.


 Sorry about that! I just copied and pasted the forum description from the main 'Forum' page. No accusation intended.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

The death of Christopher Hitchens exercises the minds of people interested in classical music because people interested in classical music aren't only interested in classical music.

Hitchens' articulacy was phenomenal, and the best tribute to him would be to learn from him (for example, in our posts to TC).


----------



## larifari

Polednice said:


> It's good of you to admit your ignorance on this matter. :tiphat:


Your explanation why the obituary of a left-wing journalist, who has never been known to be a classical music fan, let alone a self-declared classical music expert, such as yourself, deserved a thread on a forum dedicated to classical music, was all one needed to know how you feel about your fellow forum members.

Ignorance? I "admitted" mine. Will you admit yours??


----------



## Polednice

larifari said:


> Your explanation why the obituary of a left-wing journalist, who has never been known to be a classical music fan, let alone a self-declared classical music expert, such as yourself, deserved a thread on a forum dedicated to classical music, was all one needed to know how you feel about your fellow forum members.
> 
> Ignorance? I "admitted" mine. Will you admit yours??


I will certainly admit my ignorance of what the above means. It was devoid of meaning to my eyes.


----------



## Rasa

DrMike said:


> I very much enjoyed the clip where he told off Bill Maher's audience.


Yeah, loved that too. The Maher audience is a bunch of conditioned monkeys who laugh on cues finely tuned to flash words like Bush and Conservatism.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> I will certainly admit my ignorance of what the above means. It was devoid of meaning to my eyes.


Anyone who criticizes _Poley_ should be aware of his sig. ("You can't catch me")

Aside from that, _Poley_ has demonstrated that he cares about TC members. It's just that he is a bit bitchy. From my reading, I gather that's endemic with Oxford scholars.


----------



## mamascarlatti

This is the community forum, and therefore is open to threads that do not deal with classical music.

I suggest that any members who are not interested or don't see the point in these topics, avoid them in the future, rather than criticise the OP for posting them in the first place.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> Anyone who criticizes _Poley_ should be aware of his sig. ("You can't catch me")
> 
> Aside from that, _Poley_ has demonstrated that he cares about TC members. It's just that he is a bit bitchy. From my reading, I gather that's endemic with Oxford scholars.


I don't mind criticism, in fact I _love_ criticism - it's healthy - but what use is it if I can't bloody understand a word you're saying?!

And I'm not bitchy. I just hate people.


----------



## NightHawk

I am sorry that Christopher Hitchens has left us. I will miss his style as regards his considerable intelligence. I hope that he got to hear Schnittke's _Concerto for Piano and Strings (1979)_ before he checked out (and there is no sarcasm in that).


----------



## samurai

Polednice said:


> I don't mind criticism, in fact I _love_ criticism - it's healthy - but what use is it if I can't bloody understand a word you're saying?!
> 
> And I'm not bitchy. I just hate people.


You Go, Brother! :cheers:


----------



## samurai

In line with what Dr.Mike said--coming at it from the other end of the political spectrum--if William F. Buckley had died whilst I had been a member of this forum, I would have thought it to be just as appropriate for any member who had learned of this unfortunate fact to post it and share it with his/her fellow members, just out of respect for a great intellect. I didn't often find myself in aggreement with him--except maybe for his arguments against the "Drug War"--but I was in awe of his intelligence and his command of the English language. For our new member, Mr. Buckley was in fact a great fan of classical music, but even had he not been, *IMHO*, he deserved to be mentioned around these boards as the world is a much poorer place without his sharp wit and articulate voice. For those of us old enough to remember the wonderful repartee between himself and a young whippersnapper named Jeff Geeenfield on his show *Firing* *Line*, no more needs to be said.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Polednice said:


> It's good of you to admit your ignorance on this matter. :tiphat:


I'm probably the most ignorant here - following a thread devoted to a man I've never heard of! Do I need to rectify this?


----------



## Polednice

elgars ghost said:


> I'm probably the most ignorant here - following a thread devoted to a man I've never heard of! Do I need to rectify this?


Oh absolutely! One of the best thinkers of his generation! And don't think he's only a master on one topic - he wrote a substantial amount on political, religious, and literary topics, so take your pick!


----------



## elgar's ghost

Thanks, Polednice - I will investigate in due course.


----------



## science

I don't think Hitchens would mind if he got a whole lot of biting criticism at the time of his death - he'd just like it to be very well-reasoned, that's all. 

And besides, as he expressed over and over in his life, there are people who he considered enemies, and I can't believe he would want their pity or respect.


----------



## science

Here is perhaps the kind of "obituary" (it is not an obit really) that Hitchens might have appreciated - intellectual rather than hagiographical - though I'm sure he would have wanted to be around to offer a response!

Christopher Hitchens and the protocol for public figure deaths

That's Glenn Greenwald. It's too long to copy here, and anyway, it's worth reading in the original because Mr. Greenwald uses a lot of text effects that I would be too lazy to insert, and he also provides links to support many of his claims.


----------



## Ukko

I find it interesting that I was unaware of any of Hitchens' Iraq war stuff. Maybe it didn't spread to the sticks? I only knew about the anti-Religion bias because of a few atheists who posted to RMCR.

So, maybe his fame was not universal; maybe it was another of those urban-specific things?


----------



## kv466

Hey, Trolls. Should I really be moved by this? I'll go with you, man.


----------



## Philip

I haven't read or really heard of Hitchens much, but i see a strong parallel between him and my favourite living philosopher, _Michel onfray_. Onfray is a very humble, down-to-earth, no nonsense kind of philosopher. he's written a treatise on atheism (_Traité d'athéologie_), but he's most recently been known for his attack on Freud and psychoanalysis -- i find it interesting how they both committed themselves to shattering the image of a 'saint' and their widely accepted methods.


----------



## Polednice

kv466 said:


> Hey, Trolls. Should I really be moved by this? I'll go with you, man.


When I make threads, on whatever subject, I don't expect _everyone_ to care or be interested.


----------



## kv466

Polednice said:


> When I make threads, on whatever subject, I don't expect _everyone_ to care or be interested.


I know, buddy...I was seriously asking him, though, as I have come to very much respect his opinion on things. Hey, so weren't you supposed to be on sabbatical? You're fiercer than ever! Glad you're around, though.


----------



## mamascarlatti

That article by Glenn Greenwald is very interesting. 

I read "God is not Great" as someone who should be already converted by its arguments - I found it rather rabid.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Here's an obituary (of sorts) from The Daily Mash, a British satire website--language warning, discretion advised:

*http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...ncer-not-intelligently-designed-201112164685/*

This is where I first heard about Hitch's death.


----------



## Polednice

kv466 said:


> I know, buddy...I was seriously asking him, though, as I have come to very much respect his opinion on things. Hey, so weren't you supposed to be on sabbatical? You're fiercer than ever! Glad you're around, though.


It's Christmas, I can do whatever I like! Don't you like my TC mulled wine anger?


----------



## Ukko

kv466 said:


> Hey, Trolls. Should I really be moved by this? I'll go with you, man.


I can only go by "God Is Not Great", which is probably wholly Hitchens; the other things I receive 2nd or 3rd hand. I admire him as an iconoclast, not so much as a shatterer of idols but as a looker behind them. He was an extremist in the 'cause' of atheism, but he gave the facts on the way to his biased analyses of them.

I think that humanity desperately needs for its iconoclasts to be heard. The internet gives them the opportunity. It is up to them to provide the foundations on which their conclusions are based. Hitchens did a good enough job at that to make me regret that he isn't still 'looking behind'.


----------



## Ukko

mamascarlatti said:


> That article by Glenn Greenwald is very interesting.
> 
> I read "God is not Great" as someone who should be already converted by its arguments - I found it rather rabid.


Hah; "rabid" may be an overstatement. His indictment of Organized Religion is certainly negatively weighted. He criminalizes the hierarchies without acknowledging the social benefices of the religious communities. It seems to me, as a non-Religious person, that those hierarchies are highly vulnerable, and deserving, of criticism. They should not get a free pass.


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> I pray that Hitch has been pleasantly surprised.


Hitchens was actually quite clear in interviews in his later days that he was adamantly an atheist in a foxhole.

I don't know why you would think Hitchens - a man who spent his entire life rallying against religious authoritarianism - would find waking up to an eternity of exactly that "pleasant". There is no heaven for freedom-loving people.


----------



## Sid James

I don't know much of his work, except his docos/critiques of Mother Theresa and the British Royals. I know he was a staunch atheist and kind of anti-religion. From reading this thread, it seems that despite his stong views, he had widespread respect and basically journalistic chops. I think that is kind of what speaks loads of a man's integrity, when both sides of the divide respect his work. So RIP Mr. Hitchens, although I didn't "know" you that well...


----------



## starthrower

Book TV is re-airing a Hitchens interview this evening.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Couchie said:


> Hitchens was actually quite clear in interviews in his later days that he was adamantly an atheist in a foxhole.
> 
> I don't know why you would think Hitchens - a man who spent his entire life rallying against religious authoritarianism - would find waking up to an eternity of exactly that "pleasant". There is no heaven for freedom-loving people.


I took that to be a thoughtful and respectful statement from DrMike. Hitch could be wrong about the existence of an afterlife, but does that mean that he is going to Hell when he dies, if he's incorrect? I don't think that all, or even most Christians would think so.


----------



## Ukko

Couchie said:


> Hitchens was actually quite clear in interviews in his later days that he was adamantly an atheist in a foxhole.
> 
> I don't know why you would think Hitchens - a man who spent his entire life rallying against religious authoritarianism - would find waking up to an eternity of exactly that "pleasant". There is no heaven for freedom-loving people.


I (very personally) think that Hitchens' soul was surprised -pleasantly - that 'heaven' is not what it's cracked up to be.


----------



## Philip

Hilltroll72 said:


> I (very personally) think that Hitchens' soul was surprised -pleasantly - that 'heaven' is not what it's cracked up to be.


right about now Hitchens is thinking the exact same thing as before he was born: nothing


----------



## science

If the god of Christianity exists, it was certainly not a pleasant surprise for Hitchens, as it would not be for the majority of us.


----------



## Polednice

It's fun to imagine Hitchens confronted with any of the thousands of supposed Deities suggested by our species. "Oh I see, well..." I think he'd be let through the gates soon enough: "Surely I can have credit for the integrity of leading a life based on evidence. If you wanted so badly for me to praise you, why did you make it so hard to believe in you?"


----------



## Couchie

Fsharpmajor said:


> I took that to be a thoughtful and respectful statement from DrMike. Hitch could be wrong about the existence of an afterlife, but does that mean that he is going to Hell when he dies, if he's incorrect? I don't think that all, or even most Christians would think so.


It's not that I necessarily doubt DrMike's sincerity, but if such a comment was sincere it necessitates a level of ignorance on understanding what Hitchens was all about on the most fundamental level: anti-authoritarianism, which explains his stance on everything from religion to the Iraq War. So there's no afterlife situation offered by any of the major branches of Christianity that Hitchens would have found particularily pleasant, since even "heaven" at its core is eternally glorifying a dictator.


----------



## Sid James

I think it's more respectful to Mr. Hitchens just to focus on his life not his afterlife or the possibilities or lack of it happening. What's important is what happens_ in between _when we are born and die. The meat in the sandwich. Who cares about all this stuff, eg. whether he's in heaven cos he's an atheist, etc.?

Today it's reported former Czech dissident and leader VAclav Havel is dead. I don't see on that thread these kinds of issues arising. I don't even know if he was religious or not. Does that matter, now that he's dead. These guys legacies, good or bad, can be separated from their religion or lack of it.

I think just get over it guys, you're beating a dead horse, basically...


----------



## World Violist

I saw this news and immediately started looking through Youtube videos and interviews and such, since I had never though much about him. Now I realize that the world has lost one incredible human being. Sure, I might not entirely agree with him, but the fact is that he stood for them with incredible strength and reasoning. Watching him debate is really inspiring somehow.

The world is better for Christopher having been here, I'm thoroughly convinced. He can be loved or hated, but never ignored.


----------



## Couchie

Sid James said:


> I think it's more respectful to Mr. Hitchens just to focus on his life not his afterlife or the possibilities or lack of it happening. What's important is what happens_ in between _when we are born and die. The meat in the sandwich. Who cares about all this stuff, eg. whether he's in heaven cos he's an atheist, etc.?
> 
> Today it's reported former Czech dissident and leader VAclav Havel is dead. I don't see on that thread these kinds of issues arising. I don't even know if he was religious or not. Does that matter, now that he's dead. These guys legacies, good or bad, can be separated from their religion or lack of it.
> 
> I think just get over it guys, you're beating a dead horse, basically...


The difference is that Christopher literally spent his whole life discussing religion and the afterlife... doesn't really make sense to draw the parallel you just did.


----------



## Sid James

^^Well then fair enough, but then what I say is don't use him as like part of an agenda, either pro or anti religion, atheist, etc. WE know people's ideas about that here, we have had heaps of arguments & bunfights about this before, specific threads, etc. It can become a bit tedious to go over and over to rake over the old coals. Esp. in terms of using a dead guy as some front to whatever is one's personal belief or lack of it, etc. I mean I'm not a fan of Steve Jobs or his Apple empire, I can criticise him, but I think I'll just leave it, not speak ill of the dead, etc., or use him as some tool to prove some point...


----------



## Couchie

Sid James said:


> ^^Well then fair enough, but then what I say is don't use him as like part of an agenda, either pro or anti religion, atheist, etc. WE know people's ideas about that here, we have had heaps of arguments & bunfights about this before, specific threads, etc. It can become a bit tedious to go over and over to rake over the old coals. Esp. in terms of using a dead guy as some front to whatever is one's personal belief or lack of it, etc. I mean I'm not a fan of Steve Jobs or his Apple empire, I can criticise him, but I think I'll just leave it, not speak ill of the dead, etc., or use him as some tool to prove some point...


No concern for that sort of thing with Christopher! You should view his interviews following the death of Jerry Falwell. Hitchens didn't revere the dead, and he would never have expected to be revered in return. He didn't suffer fools and he had no time for respecting social pleasantries and norms. As I said, he spent his entire life trying to increase public dialogue around religion and atheism, and wouldn't at all be offended being used "to fight to good fight" so to speak.


----------



## Ukko

Couchie said:


> No concern for that sort of thing with Christopher! You should view his interviews following the death of Jerry Falwell. Hitchens didn't revere the dead, and he would never have expected to be revered in return. He didn't suffer fools and he had no time for respecting social pleasantries and norms. As I said, he spent his entire life trying to increase public dialogue around religion and atheism, and wouldn't at all be offended being used "to fight to good fight" so to speak.


According to your theory, he couldn't be offended anyway, being dead. According to my theory, he isn't offended because there is a lot of other stuff going on.

"Practically speaking", there is no difference there. Except that I am happy for him, and you are not.


----------



## Couchie

Hilltroll72 said:


> According to your theory, he couldn't be offended anyway, being dead. According to my theory, he isn't offended because there is a lot of other stuff going on.
> 
> "Practically speaking", there is no difference there. Except that I am happy for him, and you are not.


I'm happy for him! He's enjoying a pleasant, well-earned rest of nonexistence and not suffering an eternity of somebody's shortsighted conception of utopia.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> According to your theory, he couldn't be offended anyway, being dead. According to my theory, he isn't offended because there is a lot of other stuff going on.


That's an interesting perspective. Should we give a **** about respecting the dead when they can't care anyway? I worded it unpleasantly, but it's a genuine question.


----------



## Ukko

Couchie said:


> I'm happy for him! He's enjoying a pleasant, well-earned rest of nonexistence and not suffering an eternity of somebody's shortsighted conception of utopia.


Both 'eternity' and the various 'utopias' are uniquely human concepts. So both notions are by their nature shortsighted.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> That's an interesting perspective. Should we give a **** about respecting the dead when they can't care anyway? I worded it unpleasantly, but it's a genuine question.


You aren't "respecting the dead" by the actions you refer to, you are respecting the living. Whether you give a damn about that is your call.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> You aren't "respecting the dead" by the actions you refer to, you are respecting the living. Whether you give a damn about that is your call.


How is it respectful of the living to not speak ill of the dead?


----------



## science

BTW, I think we have a Czech person or two on the site, and they'd know much more than I do about Vaclav Havel. A couple decades ago when I was a young(er) person, an older guy who had a lot of influence over me went to the Czech Republic for a few months, teaching English and worshipping Kafka. He came back with all kinds of stories and a lot of interesting stuff about Mr. Havel, who seems to have been a truly great man. Of course everyone has feet of clay, so let's not lose all our cynicism, but as humans go, he seems to have been among the best of us.

Here is a sample - I think it was the top article in Google News - of someone's remembrances of Mr. Havel:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/12/18/vaclav-havel-a-life-almost-too-full-to-be-true/


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> How is it respectful of the living to not speak ill of the dead?


If the dead is their dead? Come now, _Poley_.


----------



## samurai

edit to post # 44: The "young whippersnapper" to whom I refer in this post is *Jeff* *Greenfield*. Sorry for the typo.


----------



## Guest

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/03/AR2007050301907.html

Review from the Washington Post of Hitchens' "God is Not Great." While normally highly informed, it seems that this book was a case of Hitchens not letting good investigation get in the way of dogma.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/03/AR2007050301907.html
> 
> Review from the Washington Post of Hitchens' "God is Not Great." While normally highly informed, it seems that this book was a case of Hitchens not letting good investigation get in the way of dogma.


The review (written by a religious) reveals some of Hitchens' extremism, but in the process ignores what is rational in the book. I consider the reviewer's report too biased to be useful. Maybe you ought to read the book yourself, _DrMike_. It is unlikely to contaminate you.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

I haven't read the entire book, only some excerpts that were published in a British newspaper, but (even though I'm an atheist) I found them too strident and polemical for my taste. I'd like to read the section on intelligent design, though, if it's as good as that reviewer says it is.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> The review (written by a religious) reveals some of Hitchens' extremism, but in the process ignores what is rational in the book. I consider the reviewer's report too biased to be useful. Maybe you ought to read the book yourself, _DrMike_. It is unlikely to contaminate you.


Many reviews I have read have said the same - great read, makes short work of some of the more ludicrous religious claims, but Hitchens, for all of his crusade against religion, seems to reduce his arguments to absurd characterizations, and follow a narrative that only bad comes from religion and only good comes from atheism, and that all the evils committed by atheists were actually not truly atheistic, but rather another form of religion.

I have read excerpts, enough to know that it doesn't interest me greatly to read it any time soon. But if you dismiss the critique of a religious individual of a book trashing religion, would you grant Hitchens more credence, given his extremism for atheism? He hardly seems an unbiased source. Should I accept one biased source over another?


----------



## Polednice

I think it is perhaps just an off-putting flaw in Hitchens's writing (to some, anyway) that actually very good, reasonable points are given in polemical language. If you look past the vitriol, the fundamentals stand up, though perhaps you'd just be better off getting those fundamentals from a calmer voice like Richard Dawkins.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> [...]
> I have read excerpts, enough to know that it doesn't interest me greatly to read it any time soon. But if you dismiss the critique of a religious individual of a book trashing religion, would you grant Hitchens more credence, given his extremism for atheism? He hardly seems an unbiased source. Should I accept one biased source over another?


You could look for an unbiased review, at least. Perhaps your reading of excerpts (seldom unbiased selections) has intimidated you? Personally, I found that his more vitriolic attacks tend to drift from reality into a pink haze, and are easily set aside. There is other stuff there too, though, stuff verifiable from other sources, that may be worthy of your attention. It won't be in those excerpts, because those things favor the inflammable.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> The review (written by a religious) reveals some of Hitchens' extremism, but in the process ignores what is rational in the book. I consider the reviewer's report too biased to be useful. Maybe you ought to read the book yourself, _DrMike_. It is unlikely to contaminate you.


Here you can also read a critique of the book that gives specific examples of how poor Hitchens' reasoning in the book is, and actually cites evidence to the contrary of what Hitchens puts in his book, which, Hitchens conceded, was researched primarily through the use of Google.
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=2&id=653


----------



## Guest

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=21&num=2&id=773

This link also provides a critique of Hitchens book, relating numerous instances of Hitchens wrongly portraying Biblical scholasticism and history - most likely due to his rigorous research on Google.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=21&num=2&id=773
> 
> This link also provides a critique of Hitchens book, relating numerous instances of Hitchens wrongly portraying Biblical scholasticism and history - most likely due to his rigorous research on Google.


OK, _DrMike_, stick with the reviews and 'critiques'. No skin off me.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> OK, _DrMike_, stick with the reviews and 'critiques'. No skin off me.


Out of curiosity, have you read the religious texts that Hitchens denounces? The Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or any of the other religious texts he ridicules? Or do you just read his critiques of them?


----------



## Guest

In the interest of shutting down this criticism of me, I went and picked up a copy of the book at my library on the way home from work. Already by page 13 I happened on this juicy tidbit, "As I write these words, and as you read them, people of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hard-won human attainments that I have touched upon." Wow - no idea I was so nefarious!


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> In the interest of shutting down this criticism of me, I went and picked up a copy of the book at my library on the way home from work. Already by page 13 I happened on this juicy tidbit, "As I write these words, and as you read them, people of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hard-won human attainments that I have touched upon." Wow - no idea I was so nefarious!


He doesn't say _all_ people of faith, and if you go on to read more there are compelling arguments about why a foundation of certain religious beliefs can lead to such enmity. Although it may not be clear, I think the main objection of all these anti-theist books is not that _all_ religious people are vile, horrible, and stupid, but that if we allow a precedent for believing anything on faith, then we allow some people to acceptably believe in some extremely dangerous ideas.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> Out of curiosity, have you read the religious texts that Hitchens denounces? The Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or any of the other religious texts he ridicules? Or do you just read his critiques of them?


To assuage your curiosity as best I can... I have read some of the Old Testament, most of the New Testament, and some of the old Oxford translation of the Koran, all of that many years ago. I also checked the Book of Mormon out of my community library at approximately that time and 'read in it'. A few years ago a couple young LDS missionaries gave me a copy of the Book, and I read in it some again. They were also helpful in a more general Christian way. If I could commend them to the honchos in Salt Lake City, I would.

Most of my recent (last decade or so) Christian experience is with a branch of my family that is composed of active-in-the-community Catholics, and they influence my opinions on the value of religion much more than those religious tracts you inquire about. Being of 'inquiring mind' (such of it that remains), I have also read various secular histories, some of them featuring religious topics. None of them involve the LDS (Twain doesn't really count), but all of them do involve the Roman Catholic Church and various Protestant offshoots.

Mostly all of that reading just adds a background bulwark when reading "God Is Not Great". It makes it easier to detect when he 'goes into pink' (when he goes red, that's easy).

Once again, with little hope of persuading you, I suggest you check the book out of your local library. There's no shame in it.

[edit - Oops, I see that you have it. Try not to get exercised - keep reading.]


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> He doesn't say _all_ people of faith, and if you go on to read more there are compelling arguments about why a foundation of certain religious beliefs can lead to such enmity. Although it may not be clear, I think the main objection of all these anti-theist books is not that _all_ religious people are vile, horrible, and stupid, but that if we allow a precedent for believing anything on faith, then we allow some people to acceptably believe in some extremely dangerous ideas.


In that particular spot, not, he isn't relating this to all people of faith. However, a few years back, I watched a discussion that included, I believe, Hitchens, Dawkins, Adams, and one other individual whose name at the moment eludes me. Dawkins was willing to at least concede that in this day and age, some religions were relatively harmless, and not as "evil" as others - Hitchens could not join him in that, and suggested that they all were evil, if not openly violent.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> In that particular spot, not, he isn't relating this to all people of faith. However, a few years back, I watched a discussion that included, I believe, Hitchens, Dawkins, Adams, and one other individual whose name at the moment eludes me. Dawkins was willing to at least concede that in this day and age, some religions were relatively harmless, and not as "evil" as others - Hitchens could not join him in that, and suggested that they all were evil, if not openly violent.


Are you referring to the Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris/Dennett talk? I've seen that as well and I can vaguely remember the part you're quoting. I think that probably stems from Hitchens' line that "even if the claims of religion could be proven, I still wouldn't want it to be true", so I can understand his characteristic objection. So, yes, perhaps Dawkins would be better read.


----------



## Guest

A whole chapter on the injunction by certain religions against eating pork? Really? And his theory is that, due to the close relationship between pigs and humans (based on the fact that pigs squeal horribly when you slaughter them and you can transplant pig hearts into humans), the injunction against eating pork was because it was so close to eating humans, including taste? Seriously? This is what atheists consider significant criticism of religion? Kooky theories on dietary commandments? And then at the end he concedes that humanists and rational individuals are now also coming around to the idea that eating pigs is bad! So people not tied to religion are now also coming to the same conclusion as religious groups, but it was bad when it was a religious idea, but good when it is a humanist idea? 

I don't know how much more of this I want to read - it is actually diminishing my opinion of the man. Usually I was impressed by his intellectual strength. That is not on display here, as of yet.


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> A whole chapter on the injunction by certain religions against eating pork? Really? And his theory is that, due to the close relationship between pigs and humans (based on the fact that pigs squeal horribly when you slaughter them and you can transplant pig hearts into humans), the injunction against eating pork was because it was so close to eating humans, including taste? Seriously? *This is what atheists consider significant criticism of religion?* Kooky theories on dietary commandments? And then at the end he concedes that humanists and rational individuals are now also coming around to the idea that eating pigs is bad! So people not tied to religion are now also coming to the same conclusion as religious groups, but it was bad when it was a religious idea, but good when it is a humanist idea?
> 
> I don't know how much more of this I want to read - it is actually diminishing my opinion of the man. Usually I was impressed by his intellectual strength. That is not on display here, as of yet.


You mean all atheists?


----------



## Guest

science said:


> You mean all atheists?


Well, Hitchens doesn't seem to differentiate between different religions - in his mind, if one particular religion is guilty of something, they all are, or at least that is how he writes his book - so why should I differentiate between atheists? After all, if "people of faith" are all one homogeneous group, then we can assume that those without faith are also homogeneous.

I think the book is really one great joke by Hitchens to see how far he could go. He knew it would inflame religious people, and went out of his way to do some truly shockingly poor research, so they would rail against it, and drum up publicity for it. He also knew that the atheists would gobble it up, hook, line, and sinker, because they are always looking for a good book that trashes religion, and probably wouldn't dig too deep into his assertions to see how paper thin they are.

For example, he prides himself, in his first chapter, about how as a child in school he was weekly asked to take a scripture from the Bible and interpret it for the class. He would always read before and after the verse to learn the context of the quote, and always did very well with this. He prides himself in still being able to do so. Yet in Chapter 5 "The Metaphysical Claims of Religion are False," he cites a quote from Thomas Acquinas - "I am a man of one book" - to show how lacking in intellectual rigor religious people are. Except there is no record of Acquinas ever having said that. One reviewer of this book contacted a prominent scholar of Acquinas to see if he had ever come across that quote - nope, he hadn't. In fact, there is evidence, but no direct proof, of a quote from Acquinas which says, "Beware the man of one book." And any reader of Acquinas knows that he regularly referenced numerous sources, including Aristotle, greek commentators on Aristotle, Avicenna, and other Arabic philosophers. By the standards of the time, or even now, he was clearly a very learned man who did NOT limit himself to one book.

I came to this book expecting to completely disagree with Hitchens' conclusions, but impressed by the way in which he argued them - which is how I would describe my typical response to Hitchens on most topics. But I am getting a very sour taste in my mouth of what appears to be a book, heralding the immense superiority of rational people over religious people, but which seems to be so intellectually void of sincere research.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> [...]
> I came to this book expecting to completely disagree with Hitchens' conclusions, but impressed by the way in which he argued them - which is how I would describe my typical response to Hitchens on most topics. But I am getting a very sour taste in my mouth of what appears to be a book, heralding the immense superiority of rational people over religious people, but which seems to be so intellectually void of sincere research.


You also seem to be taking it way too seriously. I am not an atheist (I consider the general run of them to be overconfident), but I got quite a few laughs out of reading the book. Maybe you are immune to the humor in hyperbole - even when the humor is unintended?


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> You also seem to be taking it way too seriously. I am not an atheist (I consider the general run of them to be overconfident), but I got quite a few laughs out of reading the book. Maybe you are immune to the humor in hyperbole - even when the humor is unintended?


That's a Hitchens characteristic many people miss - the polemic for effect, but with a wry smile. Possibly more of a British thing.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> You also seem to be taking it way too seriously. I am not an atheist (I consider the general run of them to be overconfident), but I got quite a few laughs out of reading the book. Maybe you are immune to the humor in hyperbole - even when the humor is unintended?


On the contrary, I am taking it less seriously the more I read. But how should I read this? Is it meant merely as adolescent poking in the eye of religious people, or a sincere rebuttal of faith in a deity? What parts should I just dismiss as intending to induce laughter? I understand very well the way that Hitchens writes/speaks. I have read a great deal of his works, and watched him whenever I could. And while he certainly does have a dry, ascerbic wit, I have rarely found that he says things he does not mean.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> [...]
> I have read a great deal of his works, and watched him whenever I could. And while he certainly does have a dry, ascerbic wit, I have rarely found that he says things he does not mean.


This is why I indicated that much of the humor in his hyperbole is unintended. He doesn't think he's funny, but I do. He often reminds me of that emoticon - :scold:

There's a lot of chaff in the book, _DrMike_, but there is grain in there too; at least I took it as such. YMMV.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> This is why I indicated that much of the humor in his hyperbole is unintended. He doesn't think he's funny, but I do. He often reminds me of that emoticon - :scold:
> 
> There's a lot of chaff in the book, _DrMike_, but there is grain in there too; at least I took it as such. YMMV.


But at what point is the chaff so overwhelming that it causes you to question the worth of what little grain that therein exists? Hitchens himself was ready to overlook any good done by religion due to the bad he saw in them. By his own way of measuring, we should extrapolate from his shoddy workmanship here that the entire book is simply drivel. All it turns into is the uninformed rantings of one who claims to be speaking from a knowledgeable position, but who in reality has taken so little time to really research a subject - at the risk of sounding callous, merely to make a buck off of those who would so readily swallow anything negative he would say about religion. Ultimately, the greatest joke is the one perpetrated against atheists, who might have hoped for an impressive rebuttal to religion that they could refer to. Anybody who would bring this book into a discussion regarding religion would be so quickly laughed out of the room. His claims that the Q text was the origin for all four of the gospels is either a patent lie on his part, or a revelation of how he isn't even informed on some of the simplest of biblical scholarship. And his assertion that religions have long sought to suppress the publication of their sacred texts into other languages is also based on no credible evidence that we have. Indeed, the Bible, and its components, have been translated into other languages for centuries, dating back to even prior to the life of Christ. Consider also the simple fact that, while for centuries latin was the official language of the Catholic church, the Bible in Latin was, itself, a translation into the common language of the literate people who would be reading it. At that time, those who could read, could read Latin. Thus by translating to a single language, the book could almost universally be read by literate believers. Those who could not read Latin were also more than likely not able to read any language, Latin or otherwise. Yet Hitchens passes off such blatantly false accusation as facts to support his contentions - essentially, he is saying that because X happened, religion is bad and poisons everything, except that X didn't happen, at the very least not in the way Hitchens describes it, and frequently completely the opposite. So of what value are the assertions he makes that "seem" true if the evidence he provides to justify those assertions is so easily refuted?


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> OK, _DrMike_, stick with the reviews and 'critiques'. No skin off me.


Honestly, I will admit that some of my reticence to read the book myself would be my inability to rebut any of Hitchens arguments. I take no pride in finding that a false assumption. Better I had not read it and continued to believe that, regardless of how much I might disagree with the man, I could at least admire his scholarship. This book reads like the quickly crafted postings that get thrown onto these forums by people who look no further than Google searches and wikipedia to formulate their arguments.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike, what do you think is the best point Hitchens makes in the book?


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> DrMike, what do you think is the best point Hitchens makes in the book?


Let me turn that around and ask you what you think is the best point in the Bible.

And let me dissect your question here for clarification - do you mean to ask what point Hitchens most successfully argues, or what point sounds the best to me? Because arguably there is not likely to be a point that sounds best to me, rather one that I find least objectionable. And in terms of what he most successfully argues, again, that would be where he actually will have done some substantial research.

Either way, it would be best to wait until I have completed the book to give any "best" comments.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

DrMike said:


> Honestly, I will admit that some of my reticence to read the book myself would be my inability to rebut any of Hitchens arguments


That's a very interesting answer (and I'm not being sarcastic here--I know that you're a scientist, and I think I know what you mean). I should read the book myself, obviously, but I'm a bit worried that I would find it to be a histrionic hatchet job, and I can't honestly say that I find atheism, in itself, to be a much more involving subject than that of water or air.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Let me turn that around and ask you what you think is the best point in the Bible.


I don't the think the question is applicable to the Bible because it doesn't have 'points'. The Bible is a series of statements and truth-claims, not arguments. Hitchens provides arguments about truth-claims, thus they can either be convincing or unconvincing.

With regards to clarification, I just to mean to ask if there is a point that has given you more pause than others; has made you think; or, if neither of those, is just the least objectionable. I know you won't be converted, I'm just curious about any arguments that you see at least being legitimate for upholding the atheist position even if it doesn't shatter your faith [P.S. when writing that, I accidentally wrote "shatter you face" - I hope that would never happen  ]


----------



## Polednice

P.P.S For extra clarification, if I were to respond to your Bible question instead on the subject of what theistic arguments I find most convincing, I would say that the thing that gives me greatest pause is the notion of 'fine tuning' in the universe. This would never lead me to believe in a personal god that humans could actually describe, but it makes a certain deistic perspective more viable.


----------



## Guest

Fsharpmajor said:


> That's a very interesting answer (and I'm not being sarcastic here--I know that you're a scientist, and I think I know what you mean). I should read the book myself, obviously, but I'm a bit worried that I would find it to be a histrionic hatchet job, and I can't honestly say that I find atheism, in itself, to be a much more involving subject than that of water or air.


I have no doubt that, were I to go head to head with Mr. Hitchens in a debate, he could talk circles around me and do it so eloquently I wouldn't know whether to thank him or curse him after it was all over. This book is not written by that same person. This is written to sell books and make money, guaranteed to generate enough controversy with the title alone that religious people would denounce it vehemently, thus giving him free press, and consequently driving skeptics to lap it up. Apart from some amusing comments so far, this is not a scholarly work that I would think worthy of his name (and I hesitate to even call it a scholarly work, as if I were to submit such a poorly researched document to a college professor, I should be ashamed).


----------



## Ukko

"And his assertion that religions have long sought to suppress the publication of their sacred texts into other languages is also based on no credible evidence that we have."

If I recall correctly, his assertion was about a reluctance to publish the 'texts' in the 'language of the people'. Not the same sense, is it?

The question isn't that most of the common people couldn't read their language, it is whether _any_ of them could. It seems to me that some of them could, lest _Poley_ reading in Old English be completely farcical.

Perhaps your objection on that subject should regard motive. That may be 'soft' enough to be debatable.


----------



## Polednice

William Tyndale anybody? [Burnt at the stake for translation]


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> "And his assertion that religions have long sought to suppress the publication of their sacred texts into other languages is also based on no credible evidence that we have."
> 
> If I recall correctly, his assertion was about a reluctance to publish the 'texts' in the 'language of the people'. Not the same sense, is it?
> 
> The question isn't that most of the common people couldn't read their language, it is whether _any_ of them could. It seems to me that some of them could, lest _Poley_ reading in Old English be completely farcical.
> 
> Perhaps your objection on that subject should regard motive. That may be 'soft' enough to be debatable.


Here is the verbatim quote, taken from pages 124 and 125 of the hardbound edition:


> . . . it can I suppose be granted that god is in fact multilingual and can speak any language he chooses. (He opted in both cases to use the Archangel Gabriel as the intermediate deliverer of his message.) However, the impressive fact remains that all religions have staunchly resisted any attempt to translate their sacred texts into languages "understanded of the people," as the Cranmer prayer book phrases it. There would have been no Protestant Reformation if it were not for the long stuggle to have the Bible rendered into "the Vulgate" and the priestly monopoly therefore broken. Devout men like Wycliffe, Coverdale, and Tyndale were burned alive for even attempting earlier translations.


From the review from the BYU professor that I cited earlier, we have the following translations into the language of the people:


> According to the United Bible Societies, parts of the Bible have been translated into 2,426 languages, with hundreds more in process.9 And this is by no means merely a modern phenomenon: the Bible was the most widely translated book in the ancient world. It was translated into Greek (the Septuagint) in the second century BC; Aramaic by the first century BC; Old Latin by the second century AD; Syriac (the Peshitta) in the third century AD; Coptic (Egyptian), fourth century AD; Old German (Gothic) in the fourth century AD; Latin (Jerome's Latin Vulgate), late fourth century; Armenian, early fifth century; Ethiopic, fifth century; Georgian, fifth century; Old Nubian by the eighth century; Old Slavonic by the ninth; and Christian Arabic and Jewish Arabic (Saadia Gaon's Jewish Arabic version) by the tenth century.


Furthermore, his history is simply wrong. Wycliffe was not burned alive. He had a stroke on Dec. 28, 1384, while attending mass at a local church, and died by the end of the month. The church later exhumed his body and burned it, but they did not kill him. Coverdale died Jan. 20, 1569, and not by being burned alive. He was buried in St. Bartholomew's by the Exchange church. Tyndale actually was first strangled at the stake, and then burned - but it most likely had more to do with the fact that he had published a tract that denounced Henry VIII's divorce from Catherine of Aragon, and subsequently had to flee the country. This got him labeled a traitor and a heretic - it certainly doesn't seem that his translation of the Bible into English was the cause for his being put to death, given that within 4 years of his death, 4 translations of the Bible into English were published, including Henry's official Great Bible, and all 4 were based on Tyndale's.

So if you were to read Hitchens' account, you would think how evil the church was, burning people for translating the Bible into the language of the people - except that the people he cites as examples of this were not burned alive for translating the Bible, and in fact only one of them actually suffered an unnatural death, but that was due to opposing the adulterous tendencies of his monarch.

And that is why this book is so horrible. If, in fact, religion poisons everything, as Hitchens contends, then surely he could find some REAL proof. Go ahead an look any of this up. Tell me, if I were to come to you, arguing the truthfulness of my position with such blatantly false evidence, which could be proven wrong with a simple reference to Wikipedia, what would you think of my argument in general? Why should I bother finding something I like in this book when it is riddled with falsehoods as blatant as these? And he wasn't saying these things to be funny or ascerbic. Why couldn't he come up with even one single accurate account of a person put to death by the church for publishing the Bible in a language of the common people. After all, he said that "all religions have staunchly resisted any attempt." He doesn't say some religions, or that they moderately resisted, or that they only went after certain attempts. So why can't he provide actual evidence, rather than falsehoods? And where did he even come up with the notion that those three were burned alive for translating the Bible into English? Certainly not from any historical evidence.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> The church later exhumed his body and burned it, but they did not kill him.


Hahahahahaha, priceless humour!


----------



## Ukko

The church later exhumed his body and burned it, but they did not kill him.


Polednice said:


> Hahahahahaha, priceless humour!


Yeah, I wonder what _that_ was about. They must have been PO'd about something.

_DrMike_ is right though, in that the book is a polemic without much respect for facts. Even less respect than I thought. Seems to me that organized religion has committed plenty enough sins against humanity, without inventing any.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> Hahahahahaha, priceless humour!


Yes, I will definitely concede that desecrating the dead is bad. Still, not quite on par with burning alive. Exhuming a body to incinerate it is outrageous. Burning a person alive is a crime.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> The church later exhumed his body and burned it, but they did not kill him.
> 
> Yeah, I wonder what _that_ was about. They must have been PO'd about something.
> 
> _DrMike_ is right though, in that the book is a polemic without much respect for facts. Even less respect than I thought. Seems to me that organized religion has committed plenty enough sins against humanity, without inventing any.


I will finish the book, but based on the shoddy reasoning and rampant abuse of the facts, I don't think that it is a worthwhile book for anybody to read. A poorly written book does nobody any good. Ironically, his abuse of the facts could do more damage to his arguments than any attack on his arguments by religious people.


----------



## Polednice

Although you may well have been put off all atheist books now, have you ever read any others? If ever I were to recommend one to anybody, I think I would recommend Dan Dennett's _Breaking the Spell_, or indeed any number of Dan Dennett's talks available online. Compared to the rest of them, Dennett is the loveliest man you could hope to meet! Incredibly intelligent, and you _know_ he has done research far beyond anyone else and has an incredible understanding of science. He is the one I have most intellectual respect for.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> Although you may well have been put off all atheist books now, have you ever read any others? If ever I were to recommend one to anybody, I think I would recommend Dan Dennett's _Breaking the Spell_, or indeed any number of Dan Dennett's talks available online. Compared to the rest of them, Dennett is the loveliest man you could hope to meet! Incredibly intelligent, and you _know_ he has done research far beyond anyone else and has an incredible understanding of science. He is the one I have most intellectual respect for.


Ordered a used paperback. We'll see if you atheist dudes can get it right.


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> Let me turn that around and ask you what you think is the best point in the Bible.


It'd be hard for me to answer this question, because there are so many good points in the Bible.

I love the prophets, for example, and most of the teachings of Jesus (which of course he derived largely from the prophets) - for example, his version of the Last Judgement is incomparably better than most Christians' versions. Paul gets an unfairly bad rap, his vision of Christianity was really profound (not merely "faith" vs. "works" and not really about everybody being sent to hell, but a vision of a generous God's plan for salvation for the world), and of course the same goes for the authors of the book and letters of John, who were also philosophically fairly subtle. The stories of Genesis are full of really great symbolism, and are clever retellings of the dominant West Asian myths of their time. The Psalms are also full of wonderful expressions of trust and praise. Brilliant and inspiring stories and teachings abound. Haven't even mentioned the imagery of the prophets--Ezekiel's valley of bones, Isaiah's way in the wilderness, swords being beaten into ploughshares, the long-suffering lover still pursuing his unfaithful wife, and so on.

In the end, I think my favorite part of the entire Bible would have to be the opening chapter of Isaiah, though Jesus' prayer and last teachings for his disciples just before the crucifixion in John is close, and the book of James as a whole is not far behind that.


----------



## science

Polednice said:


> Although you may well have been put off all atheist books now, have you ever read any others? If ever I were to recommend one to anybody, I think I would recommend Dan Dennett's _Breaking the Spell_, or indeed any number of Dan Dennett's talks available online. Compared to the rest of them, Dennett is the loveliest man you could hope to meet! Incredibly intelligent, and you _know_ he has done research far beyond anyone else and has an incredible understanding of science. He is the one I have most intellectual respect for.


I would've gone with Carl Sagan's _The Demon-Haunted World_, but this was a good choice. I didn't read Hitchens' book, so unfortunately I can't come to its defense - or perhaps I wouldn't be able to anyway. I did read Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion," and it's ok at best.


----------



## mamascarlatti

science said:


> II did read Dawkins' book, "*God is Not Great*," and it's ok at best.


*The God delusion


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> DrMike, what do you think is the best point Hitchens makes in the book?


If you could point me to a particular point that you think he makes well, I will keep an eye out for it. I will admit that I am reading this a lot more critically than perhaps others might have. I don't apologize for that - after all, Hitchens was a firm believer that we should hold things up to tight scrutiny. But I would like to think that he at least does something well in the book - to restore some faith in his abilities.


----------



## Guest

No offense, people, but I don't read science books written by theologians. Why would I want to read critiques of religion by scientists and atheists? I decided to man up and read Hitchens' book, and sad to report it is one of the worst books I have read in a while. The atrocious attention to facts makes it even difficult to enjoy Hitchens' prose, knowing that he didn't put that much effort into this work. I have to believe that, because the alternative is that he was willfully lying.

So no - I don't particularly care to read what atheists think of my beliefs. I know the arguments - the good arguments - against me. Hitchens was a respected member of this new, more assertive atheist movement.


----------



## Guest

Another error - on page 112 Hitchens says, "There is no mention of any Augustan census by any Roman historian . . ."

This is wrong. In Tacitus' Annals, Tacitus references a document by Augustus talks about the number of citizens and allies under arms, of the fleets, of subject kingdoms, provinces, taxes, etc. In addition, in The Deeds of the Divine Augustus, written by Augustus himself, he states that there were three censuses conducted, 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D. Most scholars believe that the birth of Christ more than likely occurred between 6 and 4 B.C., and a census begun in 8 B.C. would likely just be concluding by 6 B.C.


----------



## Guest

Anyways, I'll stop beating a dead horse. I'll finish this book, then I might read his memoirs, "Hitch 22," as I have read that it is actually quite a good book. I'm glad that god is not Great is not the last written word he left us. And my appreciation of the man was never contingent on my believing everything he said, or agreeing with everything he said. Nobody seems to be defending this book anymore, so I'll drop it.


----------



## science

mamascarlatti said:


> *The God delusion


Yes, that was it.


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> No offense, people, but I don't read science books written by theologians.


I thought you were a creationist, so don't you indeed do this?


----------



## science

I don't know if Dr. Mike counts himself as a creationist, but I remember him saying something like evolution by natural selection is the theory that best explains the diversity of life. As far as I am concerned, if he admits that, he's not the ridiculous kind of creationist that reads theology as science.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> No offense, people, but I don't read science books written by theologians. Why would I want to read critiques of religion by scientists and atheists?


Scientists because religion makes truth claims about the world and science is the major tool we use to discover the truth. With regards to my suggestion of Dennett, he's a philosopher, so you may find it more tasteful.

_Science_, DrMike can correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember him actually saying that he accepts microevolution but is suspicious of macroevolution.


----------



## science

Polednice said:


> Scientists because religion makes truth claims about the world and science is the major tool we use to discover the truth. With regards to my suggestion of Dennett, he's a philosopher, so you may find it more tasteful.
> 
> _Science_, DrMike can correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember him actually saying that he accepts microevolution but is suspicious of macroevolution.


Oh, maybe I don't remember correctly.

Anyway, moving along....

I think we are getting closer to a scientific understanding of religion. I'd bet there are still a lot of surprises in store for the people who think they've got it figured out, but the basic idea that religion (that is, the capacity for religious experience and the behavior of emphasizing it) evolved as a method of coordinating the activity of groups too large to be held together effectively by things like kin selection or "*** for tat" reckoning. [Edit: I understand the need for censorship and approve of it this case, but still, sometimes censorship is unintentionally funny.] The theory now emphasizes the advantage religious groups would have over nonreligious groups, but I'd suspect that religious behavior was frequently enough advantageous for individuals within the group as well - though that is a more complicated story, as I'd also suspect that skepticism was at least occasionally advantageous, so that most of us have the ability to be more ore less religious or skeptical as our social needs require (this would be mediated subconsciously, so you wouldn't expect yourself to be aware of it, though there is probably at least some genetic variation as well), and that for most of us most of the time religious is better.

If our insight into the brain and the genetics of behavior continues to grow, it might not be long before any thoughtful person will have to read what scientists say about religion.


----------



## Polednice

science said:


> Oh, maybe I don't remember correctly.
> 
> Anyway, moving along....
> 
> I think we are getting closer to a scientific understanding of religion. I'd bet there are still a lot of surprises in store for the people who think they've got it figured out, but the basic idea that religion (that is, the capacity for religious experience and the behavior of emphasizing it) evolved as a method of coordinating the activity of groups too large to be held together effectively by things like kin selection or "*** for tat" reckoning. [Edit: I understand the need for censorship and approve of it this case, but still, sometimes censorship is unintentionally funny.] The theory now emphasizes the advantage religious groups would have over nonreligious groups, but I'd suspect that religious behavior was frequently enough advantageous for individuals within the group as well - though that is a more complicated story, as I'd also suspect that skepticism was at least occasionally advantageous, so that most of us have the ability to be more ore less religious or skeptical as our social needs require (this would be mediated subconsciously, so you wouldn't expect yourself to be aware of it, though there is probably at least some genetic variation as well), and that for most of us most of the time religious is better.
> 
> If our insight into the brain and the genetics of behavior continues to grow, it might not be long before any thoughtful person will have to read what scientists say about religion.


A little twist in human perspective that I like is that, at one time (though some people obviously still say it now), we would have thought that the very idea of a Creator is imprinted on our minds by the Creator. Now we know that we possibly have the idea of a Creator imprinted on our minds by evolution, making the idea false. It's an intuition that we have to learn to ignore, like our innately poor sense of statistics, and our often misleading search for patterns where they don't exist.


----------



## science

Polednice said:


> A little twist in human perspective that I like is that, at one time (though some people obviously still say it now), we would have thought that the very idea of a Creator is imprinted on our minds by the Creator. Now we know that we possibly have the idea of a Creator imprinted on our minds by evolution, making the idea false. It's an intuition that we have to learn to ignore, like our innately poor sense of statistics, and our often misleading search for patterns where they don't exist.


I don't know that I'd jump to "making the idea false," but at least to making it questionable. For instance, the hypothetical creator could have used evolution to realize minds capable of perceiving it.

But I don't think the idea of a creator is a "human universal" anyway. Particularly famous counter-examples could be the Sumerians or the ancient Egyptians, and Buddhism officially refuses to comment on it.

Edit: Forgive me for also saying that the idea that some kind of monotheism is universal is at best a distortion by people (such as Huston Smith) who generally intend to imply that in effect their own tradition is not a particular, contingent tradition, but at least a manifestation of the one great tradition, which must (it is assumed) be true.


----------



## Guest

To clarify:
I do believe in creation - i.e. that there is a God who is the Creator. How he accomplished this, I don't know. I don't believe he literally accomplished it in 6 days (i.e. 24-hour increments), rather he labeled each creative period a "day."

I do believe in evolution, and that living organisms can change. The verdict is still out for me regarding macro-evolution - the notion that all the variety of life on this planet is the result of millenia of subtle genetic variations from some original microscopic organism.

I do believe that evolution is the best SCIENTIFIC explanation for the origin of the diversity of life on this planet, although I don't accept that all this was accomplished without some Creator. I don't buy into the popular "intelligent design" narrative, as I think it is simply a ploy by some religionists to make religion palatable to scientists. I accept what I believe, and don't require trying to mold it to accomodate others if they can't accept it. It is, or it isn't, true. No amount of bending and re-shaping will make it any more or less so.

I accept that a large number of scientists reject what I believe. As a scientist myself, I am confronted with this daily. However, the more distant, as well as contemporary, history of science continues to show us that for many scientists, indeed, many notable scientists, the concepts of science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I accept that many people will try to prove to me the error of my beliefs. Some will do it respectfully and with well thought out arguments - others, like the late Christopher Hitchens, with lies, falsehoods, distorted facts, and polemics. I don't need to read every book on the subject, any more than I believe that most atheists bother to read most of the religious texts they dismiss.

And that is me.


----------



## Guest

^Ahh, Hilltroll, you really DO like me. It's a Christmas miracle! Every time DrMike gets a like, an angel gets a bike! And no, we aren't having a party at work where alcohol is involved.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> ^Ahh, Hilltroll, you really DO like me. It's a Christmas miracle! Every time DrMike gets a like, an angel gets a bike! And no, we aren't having a party at work where alcohol is involved.


Firstly, I like most everybody here. The humanist job is easier on me than on some.

Secondly, aren't bikes wasted on angels?

Thirdly, booze shouldn't be in the vicinity of folks who can't handle it, so your party meets my approval.

Lastly, you're on the threshold of 2000. I crossed it (yesterday) and nothing happened.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> Firstly, I like most everybody here. The humanist job is easier on me than on some.
> 
> Secondly, aren't bikes wasted on angels?
> 
> Thirdly, booze shouldn't be in the vicinity of folks who can't handle it, so your party meets my approval.
> 
> Lastly, you're on the threshold of 2000. I crossed it (yesterday) and nothing happened.


On the contrary, something is going to happen when I hit 2000. It will be be huge! Something wonderful for the world of Talk Classical!


----------

