Christopher Hitchens

[Guest wake]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Made up shit is made up shit.

 

 

Wordplay is not evidence that a statement is true.

 

 

 

This Im not as sure about,

 

but

 

 

in the context of what my child is being taught in schools, Id rather they be taught what our human senses have discovered to be true, rather than what may be true because of a book that was written two thousand years ago.

Daniel Dennett proposed the idea that instead of teaching nothing about religion in schools, which would be doing a disservice to the education system, all religions should be taught in school. Since religion is such an important part of culture and society, I think this is a brilliant idea. It also shows how similar and also contradictory religions are, and would give children the ability to decide what they want to think rather than be told what they should think.

[keltoi]

i much prefer this guy's tone...

 

and check out the name of the lecture!

 

"It is as equally ‘deluded’ to believe that Science has all the answers as it is to profess a belief in God. Both are critically important in the history of humanity and both religion and science have important and valuable contributions to make about the nature of the world around us."

[luke viia]

in the context of what my child is being taught in schools, Id rather they be taught what our human senses have discovered to be true, rather than what may be true because of a book that was written two thousand years ago.

 

Agreed. This would have saved me a lot of confusion and hostility as a child. Teaching religious stories as fact is not suited for schools.

 

Daniel Dennett proposed the idea that instead of teaching nothing about religion in schools, which would be doing a disservice to the education system, all religions should be taught in school. Since religion is such an important part of culture and society, I think this is a brilliant idea. It also shows how similar and also contradictory religions are, and would give children the ability to decide what they want to think rather than be told what they should think.

 

A+ idea

[SR4]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Made up shit is made up shit.

 

 

Wordplay is not evidence that a statement is true.

 

 

 

This Im not as sure about,

 

but

 

 

in the context of what my child is being taught in schools, Id rather they be taught what our human senses have discovered to be true, rather than what may be true because of a book that was written two thousand years ago.

Daniel Dennett proposed the idea that instead of teaching nothing about religion in schools, which would be doing a disservice to the education system, all religions should be taught in school. Since religion is such an important part of culture and society, I think this is a brilliant idea. It also shows how similar and also contradictory religions are, and would give children the ability to decide what they want to think rather than be told what they should think.

 

definitely, though the way you are describing teaching religion is very different from what "teaching religion" meant earlier in the thread...because religion in that context is historical, sociological...so I would absolutely support that.

 

but let's not kid ourselves into thinking thats what evangelical christians want for schools.

[Guest wake]

That's true, harsh language has its place - but I think my point about using gentler language to convert people still holds true. Would you read a critically acclaimed book called The Science Delusion?

There are plenty of people writing books about the same subject using a gentler, more polite tone...but you've never heard of them, because they don't get the press and the popularity that Dawkins and Hitchens get, specifically because of their harsh, often derisive tone. I welcome the rock-the-boat method that has been brought on by these two, because it's helped speed up the conversation of religion in America, at the very least, and hopefully the rest of the world.

 

Press and popularity among who? Among literalist religious folks - the very people that would benefit most from the ideas - or among people who already doubt religion and are interested in solidifying their beliefs that they're right and that religions are wrong?

 

Either camp is fine to appeal to, but the question can't really be ignored. Even among my friends who are fans of Dawkins, there is no attempt to understand any value that religion has held for humans over the past 5000 years. They dismiss it altogether, and I think that dismissing any school of thought entirely is a bad idea. IMO it is better to attempt to understand the things you oppose than it is to rail against them.

 

Like jim, I was raised in a religious environment and I lost my faith before 4th grade. It wasn't until I was 20 that I even began to see religious experience as something that could be useful at all, to anyone, anywhere, but my mind has changed. In the likely off-key words of Dam Funk, "toeachizown"

 

As far as understanding religion, see my above post on education.

 

As for your question about who the books are being read by, here is a really interesting study done by Dan Dennett called Preachers Who Are Not Believers: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP08122150.pdf

Many of the preachers who were interviewed for this said that books like these (specifically The God Delusion) were the reason they lost their faith.

[SR4]

i much prefer this guy's tone...

 

and check out the name of the lecture!

 

"It is as equally ‘deluded’ to believe that Science has all the answers as it is to profess a belief in God. Both are critically important in the history of humanity and both religion and science have important and valuable contributions to make about the nature of the world around us."

 

 

Ive argued that to people so often and got nothing but grief for it.

 

Religion and science were practically the same thing for much of early history...most of our greatest thinkers and mathematicians were Muslim and christian priests/monks

[luke viia]

I hate to quote the Simpsons, but...

 

 

in the words of Superintendent Chalmers,

 

A Prayer? GOD has no places in these walls, just like FACTS have no place in organized religion!

 

 

Thanks for that link wake, I'm going to read that when I get home from class today.

 

I think we're actually all coming pretty close to an agreement here.

[Guest wake]

I think we're actually all coming pretty close to an agreement here.

Essentially, yes. But I want it done MY way! NO ONE ELSES!

[SR4]

the science delusion

 

 

also

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Peter-Wilberg/e/B0034NUHQM/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1

 

he has two books on heidegger and medicine...did i call it or what!

 

2 pts. for me.

 

*scuttles back into basement*

[Guest wake]

Since this thread got so ridiculously derailed, I figured I'd attempt to bring it back home. Here is his most recent video interview on 60 Minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkAMOrnyy30

[keltoi]

more on dawkins, hitchens, et al from robert winston.

[Freak of the week]

I think that the problem with the modern world is that people think toolittle for themselves. Eventually, whatever you hear, read or see

comes down to your own, personal, subjective experience, and how can you be truly sure in the correctness of it? Even Sagan, in one of his books

at one point mentions that he believes in afterlife no matter what evidence against it someone presents before him, and at other point (in the same book) he says that he doesn't believe in any "spiritual" stuff without material evidence. That just shows you how eventually everything you read, see, hear or feel in any way is kind of relative. I think that what is most important is to start thinking for yourself and, of course, always be open-minded, for no matter how absolutely sure you are in something at the present, in the future you may think of it as a complete nonsense.

 

After all, whenever you're talking with somebody, or reading somebody's writings, you must always bear in mind

that he's a human, just like you.

[Guest ezkerraldean]

more on dawkins, hitchens, et al from robert winston.

yeah he's right. Dawkins' polemic crusade began as a counter to hardcore-bible-bashing creationism, certainly something worth stamping out because it's fucking retarded. but he's gone on from there to attack religion in general. i'm certainly not religious and i strongly detest literal interpretations of religion, but this New Atheism or whatever just annoys me. Dawkins should get back to writing pure science books (which he kind-of has now thankfully).

 

i've never read any Hitchens actually lol

[MildewOnRice]

It should have been Dawkins.

fucc you

[luke viia]

So after watching that video, I gathered that Hitchens believes:

 

1. Religion is the source of all tyranny, and

2. Religion springs from a "desire to be a slave."

 

To anyone here that's read his books - is that accurate?

[Guest wake]

So after watching that video, I gathered that Hitchens believes:

 

1. Religion is the source of all tyranny, and

2. Religion springs from a "desire to be a slave."

 

To anyone here that's read his books - is that accurate?

That's an unfair assumption, wouldn't you say? Or was he painted to be that way in that interview? He's a journalist and he's got books on a wide range of topics. Most everything I've read by him has not had to do with religion.

 

edit: Also, while there are many things I disagree with Hitch about, this is definitely not one of them:

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/01/hitchens200701

[Guest jim]

It should have been Dawkins.

fucc you

 

LOL

 

Anyway, to elucidate my point: It is hardly surprising that Dawkins and Hitchens, a biologist and a political journalist lack any insight into the idea of personally held/ subjective truths, as espoused by Kierkegaard. That Dawkins calls himself a “humanist” is laughable. His constant babbling about empirical evidence sickens my stomach. Through his extremely narrow mindset he is (hopefully unwittingly) seeking to destroy the very kernel of the human mind, the imagination.

 

I remember a particularly dumb passage in his book where he references Bach's St. Matthew Passion (obviously in a lame attempt to appear cultured). Olivier Messiaen, a genius far beyond the scope of either Hitchens or Dawkins, was a fervent believer in Catholicism and this belief had a very palpable effect on much of his work. How is it that, even with the advance of scientific knowledge, most creative people still return to the Myths of Ancient Greece ( e.g. Joyce/ Birtwistle), of the Bible (insert any major composer), the wisdom of Buddhism (John Cage, Allen Ginsberg) and so forth? Only a philistine like Dawkins could fail to see this. His mind couldn't even stretch to come up with a decent metaphor so he had to borrow the teapot thing from Bertrand Russell.

Yes the Universe, as it is explained by science, is a truly marvellous thing. Yes there is a certain degree poetry in the symmetry of leaf or how patterns appearing in the natural world conform to the fibonacci sequence. I don't need Richard Dawkins to tell me this.

[Freak of the week]

Even the science itself is an art. An art of describing the world we can perceive with our physical senses. Whether it is real or not we cannot possibly know for sure. The modern science is based on the informations we collect via our physical senses, and is therefore limited in it's way. The question is can we actually truly ever perceive the absolute truth, or ourselves for starters, since we are using ourselves (our mind) to explain ourselves, and the world around us. Maybe the best we humans can come up with with this kind of approach are just models, but not the reality. After all, maybe that is the whole purpose of everything, acquiring better models.

[Guest Z_B_Z]

this is too bad. aside from his militant atheism, which bores the shit out of me, i kind of like his fuck you attitude. he doesnt look good at all in that 60 minutes interview.

[Guest wake]

It should have been Dawkins.

fucc you

 

LOL

 

Anyway, to elucidate my point: It is hardly surprising that Dawkins and Hitchens, a biologist and a political journalist lack any insight into the idea of personally held/ subjective truths, as espoused by Kierkegaard. That Dawkins calls himself a “humanist” is laughable. His constant babbling about empirical evidence sickens my stomach. Through his extremely narrow mindset he is (hopefully unwittingly) seeking to destroy the very kernel of the human mind, the imagination.

 

I remember a particularly dumb passage in his book where he references Bach's St. Matthew Passion (obviously in a lame attempt to appear cultured). Olivier Messiaen, a genius far beyond the scope of either Hitchens or Dawkins, was a fervent believer in Catholicism and this belief had a very palpable effect on much of his work. How is it that, even with the advance of scientific knowledge, most creative people still return to the Myths of Ancient Greece ( e.g. Joyce/ Birtwistle), of the Bible (insert any major composer), the wisdom of Buddhism (John Cage, Allen Ginsberg) and so forth? Only a philistine like Dawkins could fail to see this. His mind couldn't even stretch to come up with a decent metaphor so he had to borrow the teapot thing from Bertrand Russell.

Yes the Universe, as it is explained by science, is a truly marvellous thing. Yes there is a certain degree poetry in the symmetry of leaf or how patterns appearing in the natural world conform to the fibonacci sequence. I don't need Richard Dawkins to tell me this.

 

Wank, wank, wank. I realize that in an online forum you are no one unless you have an opinion, but you end up sounding like a desperate hypocrite when you post shit like this. If you're saying that you dislike Hitchens and Dawkins because of their style of execution, then you've done a wonderful job of recreating it, albeit with less eloquence. It's also fucking lolworthy of you to say that most creative people reference religious mythology while at the same time ridiculing Dawkins for lack of imagination for using someone else's idea.

Stop trying to sound academic when we all know that you're just rubbing one out in your angry-chair. You're not fooling anyone.

[TwiddleBot]

It should have been Dawkins.

fucc you

 

LOL

 

Anyway, to elucidate my point: It is hardly surprising that Dawkins and Hitchens, a biologist and a political journalist lack any insight into the idea of personally held/ subjective truths, as espoused by Kierkegaard. That Dawkins calls himself a “humanist” is laughable. His constant babbling about empirical evidence sickens my stomach. Through his extremely narrow mindset he is (hopefully unwittingly) seeking to destroy the very kernel of the human mind, the imagination.

 

I remember a particularly dumb passage in his book where he references Bach's St. Matthew Passion (obviously in a lame attempt to appear cultured). Olivier Messiaen, a genius far beyond the scope of either Hitchens or Dawkins, was a fervent believer in Catholicism and this belief had a very palpable effect on much of his work. How is it that, even with the advance of scientific knowledge, most creative people still return to the Myths of Ancient Greece ( e.g. Joyce/ Birtwistle), of the Bible (insert any major composer), the wisdom of Buddhism (John Cage, Allen Ginsberg) and so forth? Only a philistine like Dawkins could fail to see this. His mind couldn't even stretch to come up with a decent metaphor so he had to borrow the teapot thing from Bertrand Russell.

Yes the Universe, as it is explained by science, is a truly marvellous thing. Yes there is a certain degree poetry in the symmetry of leaf or how patterns appearing in the natural world conform to the fibonacci sequence. I don't need Richard Dawkins to tell me this.

 

Wank, wank, wank. I realize that in an online forum you are no one unless you have an opinion, but you end up sounding like a desperate hypocrite when you post shit like this. If you're saying that you dislike Hitchens and Dawkins because of their style of execution, then you've done a wonderful job of recreating it, albeit with less eloquence. It's also fucking lolworthy of you to say that most creative people reference religious mythology while at the same time ridiculing Dawkins for lack of imagination for using someone else's idea.

Stop trying to sound academic when we all know that you're just rubbing one out in your angry-chair. You're not fooling anyone.

 

I agree with the bit about metaphorical thinking which is why I personally subscribe to agnosticism, not hardcore atheism (I am not religious, but I do appreciate various religions as metaphors and glimpses into the human psyche).

 

But just because one is a great musician, one is not an expert on religion. Likewise Albert Einstein was a genius at physics but that does not imply he was a great brain surgeon. Intelligent designers frequently use the 'appeal to false authority' to 'prove' why evolution is wrong (Look at this rock star who doesn't believe in evolution!) I used to see this all the time when it was preached at me growing up (under a different name back then).

 

Also, I can say I've met 100's of creative people in my life, and few of them subscribe to any particular religion. Although rarely I'll meet someone who is a genius at one artistic field who likewise lacks any sort of rational methodology for separating facts from fantasy and winds up preaching about 2012 or aliens from venus. Which honestly is a belief and is therefore just as valid as any other religion out there.

[Guest jim]

It should have been Dawkins.

fucc you

 

LOL

 

Anyway, to elucidate my point: It is hardly surprising that Dawkins and Hitchens, a biologist and a political journalist lack any insight into the idea of personally held/ subjective truths, as espoused by Kierkegaard. That Dawkins calls himself a “humanist” is laughable. His constant babbling about empirical evidence sickens my stomach. Through his extremely narrow mindset he is (hopefully unwittingly) seeking to destroy the very kernel of the human mind, the imagination.

 

I remember a particularly dumb passage in his book where he references Bach's St. Matthew Passion (obviously in a lame attempt to appear cultured). Olivier Messiaen, a genius far beyond the scope of either Hitchens or Dawkins, was a fervent believer in Catholicism and this belief had a very palpable effect on much of his work. How is it that, even with the advance of scientific knowledge, most creative people still return to the Myths of Ancient Greece ( e.g. Joyce/ Birtwistle), of the Bible (insert any major composer), the wisdom of Buddhism (John Cage, Allen Ginsberg) and so forth? Only a philistine like Dawkins could fail to see this. His mind couldn't even stretch to come up with a decent metaphor so he had to borrow the teapot thing from Bertrand Russell.

Yes the Universe, as it is explained by science, is a truly marvellous thing. Yes there is a certain degree poetry in the symmetry of leaf or how patterns appearing in the natural world conform to the fibonacci sequence. I don't need Richard Dawkins to tell me this.

 

Wank, wank, wank. I realize that in an online forum you are no one unless you have an opinion, but you end up sounding like a desperate hypocrite when you post shit like this. If you're saying that you dislike Hitchens and Dawkins because of their style of execution, then you've done a wonderful job of recreating it, albeit with less eloquence. It's also fucking lolworthy of you to say that most creative people reference religious mythology while at the same time ridiculing Dawkins for lack of imagination for using someone else's idea.

Stop trying to sound academic when we all know that you're just rubbing one out in your angry-chair. You're not fooling anyone.

 

Psch, that was at least as eloquent as Dawkins.

Anyway I'm not saying I don't like their style of execution, I'm saying that I actively disagree with a lot of what they're saying in that style. Also the use of religious iconography in artistic works amounts to a little more than simply quoting it so you're drawing an obvious false parallel there in your little flame attempt. I doubt you lol'd at all.

[Guest nene multiple assgasms]

if any of you had grown up in the southern u.s. you would realize why we need people like dawkins and hitchens. try living your life surrounded by people who believe in magic and consider willful ignorance a virtue. the religious people you've dealt with probably don't actually believe most of the stuff in their holy book. the people I'm surrounded by believe every word of it even if they they haven't actually read it.

[Guest wake]

Psch, that was at least as eloquent as Dawkins.

Anyway I'm not saying I don't like their style of execution, I'm saying that I actively disagree with a lot of what they're saying in that style. Also the use of religious iconography in artistic works amounts to a little more than simply quoting it so you're drawing an obvious false parallel there in your little flame attempt. I doubt you lol'd at all.

 

That's cause you don't know me. I lol incessantly at everything I write in WATMM. Especially when people take themselves seriously.

 

 

if any of you had grown up in the southern u.s. you would realize why we need people like dawkins and hitchens. try living your life surrounded by people who believe in magic and consider willful ignorance a virtue. the religious people you've dealt with probably don't actually believe most of the stuff in their holy book. the people I'm surrounded by believe every word of it even if they they haven't actually read it.

 

Atlanta, GA! *high five*

Love that bible belt upbringing.

[Guest Z_B_Z]

im tired of people framing the debate as "you either believe that an old man in the sky created you, and rules you, or you believe in nothing." such an appalling lack of imagination, on both sides. life is infinitely weirder and more complex than the models we create to interpret it. "the map is not the territory."