Christopher Hitchens' apology

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...hitchens200709

May 17, Coral Gables, Florida: I owe an apology. It is absolutely not true, as urban legend has it, that Orthodox Jews conduct sexual congress through a hole in the sheet. I should never have mentioned this slander, even in passing, in my book. (It won't appear in the reprint.)

[Steve]

He also included the urban legend of the Texas governor saying "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" Also, he made two errors in a single paragraph about the Scopes trial. I mean, I liked the book, I just think someone should have spotted the mistakes.

[Steve Eisenberg]

In the internet age, errors that used to be overlooked are now pounced on. Lots worse untruths have been said against Jews and Christians than this stuff.

Hitchens, like Ronald Reagan, seems to have gone from left to right without giving up any deeply held beliefs.

[I'mNotDedalus]

Originally Posted by Steve Eisenberg

Hitchens, like Ronald Reagan, seems to have gone from left to right without giving up any deeply held beliefs.

Perhaps, but I appreciate the fact that Hitchens is not easily pegged. Hopefully, it's an indication that he's mulling over the issues without a predestined conclusion in mind, whether or not I agree with his varied end-results.

However, I really can't understand why God is Not Great is making such decent rounds. What authority does Hitchens have on this subject? He's not a scientist or a theologian. I don't particularly categorize him as an historian, either. The man is just...what?...a popular journalist of sorts? Why should we follow his train of thought on this question, in the first place? And yet, even Richard Dawkins is recommending this book.

But, Steve (the former, not Mr. Eisenberg), you said the book was enjoyable. What makes it good?

[Collegefreshman]

Hitchens makes me feel queasy, I just don't like him

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by Steve Eisenberg

Hitchens, like Ronald Reagan, seems to have gone from left to right without giving up any deeply held beliefs.

Reagan was left wing?

However, I really can't understand why God is Not Great is making such decent rounds. What authority does Hitchens have on this subject? He's not a scientist or a theologian. I don't particularly categorize him as an historian, either. The man is just...what?...a popular journalist of sorts? Why should we follow his train of thought on this question, in the first place?

Why not? If he's making a good point he's making a good point, regardless of his "official" discipline.

I'm not saying he *is*, mind, I just don't get the attitude that if your primary role is in one field your views count for less in another.

[Zachary Fizz]

Originally Posted by Tarquin Farquart

Reagan was left wing?

I believe that Mr Reagan was a supporter of FDR's New Deal, and was a registered Democrat until 1962. His move to the right came as a consequence of his view that the Democrats were expanding the state beyond what he considered right (I assume that he was part of the "Stop Nixon" campaign for similar reasons). Didn't he once say "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me"?

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by Zachary Fizz

I believe that Mr Reagan was a supporter of FDR's New Deal, and was a registered Democrat until 1962. His move to the right came as a consequence of his view that the Democrats were expanding the state beyond what he considered right (I assume that he was part of the "Stop Nixon" campaign for similar reasons). Didn't he once say "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me"?

That is interesting, I never knew that. I'm guessing that predates his becoming Governor of California.

[I'mNotDedalus]

Originally Posted by Jonny T

Why not? If he's making a good point he's making a good point, regardless of his "official" discipline.

I'm not saying he *is*, mind, I just don't get the attitude that if your primary role is in one field your views count for less in another.

I agree insomuch as this is not an attitude I'd adopt in every setting concerning every subject/discipline. In informal conversation, for example, I wouldn't ignore someone's opinion during a scientific, artistic, etc. discussion if they had never been schooled in the subject. (Although, I must admit, I'd probably be inclined to ask more questions if the person I was speaking with was trained in the topic.)

I don't think it's quite out of hand to apply intellectual filters throughout life. There are obvious cases where we all do: Going into surgery, we'd all want a practiced surgeon and not just anyone who had only ever gutted a fish or had once taken an undergrad course in anatomy/physiology.

Deciding to read a book is obviously not wholly analogous to undergoing surgery. But time is finite, and under this constraint we all have to choose who and what to read, who is worth our time and who can provide the most learned arguments.

In the case of Hitchens: I view "the God question" as one which evolution has the most fascinating answers/hints/implications for, at present. Not in evolution's ability to describe "ideal" morphological designs, of course, but in its mind-blowing evidence for describing the oddest biological arrangements (i.e., the structure of orchids, a giant panda's enlarged radial sesamoid, a peacock's tail, etc.). I'm not particularly interested in someone who simply (and broadly) philosophizes about the history and question of God. Nearly anyone can do that. But in a vested, scholarly argument about the subject, I prefer to follow the thoughts of someone who has a vested, scholarly history of experimenting with the subject, someone who is in a greater position to teach me something new.

Hitchens is not a scientist. I haven't read his book, so he may offer something in way of a bibliography. But, overall, he doesn't fit my stated criteria. Perhaps you're right though, Jonny. Maybe my criteria is too strict. To read everything or not to read everything.

nah, I do take your point - I like to read informed, well-written material, and someone who has spent a lot of time studying a particular subject is (in general) more able to create such material than someone who has a passing interest or idle curiosity on it. my issue is that I see a lot of people simply dismiss an opinion out of hand based on someone's academic credentials and little else.

there's a world of difference between "I pay more attention to X because X has a background in this field and is a noted expert" and "Y is just a journalist, why bother reading them?"; the former I've got no problem with, the latter I do, and unfortunately encounter it a lot.

my favourite example for this is Douglas Adams. academically, he might not have been that qualified, but his writings (particularly on mathematics and religion) have influenced me a lot.

[ULTRAGOTHA]

I dunno. Dorothy L. Sayers, C.S. Lewis and Madeline L'engle were all authors. Not theologians. Not Scientists. Yet they have some well-worth-reading books on the subject of religion (and I don't mean their fiction).

Mind of the Maker, Creed or Chaos, Surprised by Joy and The Rock that is Higher offer insightful commentaries on religion.

I don't see why someone else who's not a trained theologian or scientist can't write a good book. Not that I've read Hitchens to know whether his book is good or not.

[Tarquin Farquart]

And then there's Christopher's brother, Peter. Makes me wonder how those people can spring from the same parents.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by I'mNotDedalus

In the case of Hitchens: I view "the God question" as one which evolution has the most fascinating answers/hints/implications for, at present. Not in evolution's ability to describe "ideal" morphological designs, of course, but in its mind-blowing evidence for describing the oddest biological arrangements (i.e., the structure of orchids, a giant panda's enlarged radial sesamoid, a peacock's tail, etc.). I'm not particularly interested in someone who simply (and broadly) philosophizes about the history and question of God. Nearly anyone can do that. But in a vested, scholarly argument about the subject, I prefer to follow the thoughts of someone who has a vested, scholarly history of experimenting with the subject, someone who is in a greater position to teach me something new.

Hitchens is not a scientist. I haven't read his book, so he may offer something in way of a bibliography. But, overall, he doesn't fit my stated criteria. Perhaps you're right though, Jonny. Maybe my criteria is too strict. To read everything or not to read everything.

Well, the better parts of the book don't deal with the question of whether or not there is a god, or with scientific questions. It's true that the first chapter starts off with a refutation of the argument from design (or, at least one quaint version of it), but that's done more to add a bit of religious autobiography rather than to deal with a broad theological issue.

Actually the better parts involve Hitchens being what you give him credit for being, a journalist. The subtitle, "How Religion Poisons Everything" is hyperbolic, but he dscusses at length the effect religion has had on various political issues throughout the world, and in general it's not good.

Here's an excerpt from the book in case anyone is interested. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18503995/site/newsweek/

A week before the events of September 11, 2001, I was on a panel with Dennis Prager, who is one of America’s better-known religious broadcasters. He challenged me in public to answer what he called a “straight yes/no question,” and I happily agreed. Very well, he said. I was to imagine myself in a strange city as the evening was coming on. Toward me I was to imagine that I saw a large group of men approaching. Now—would I feel safer, or less safe, if I was to learn that they were just coming from a prayer meeting? As the reader will see, this is not a question to which a yes/no answer can be given. But I was able to answer it as if it were not hypothetical. “Just to stay within the letter ‘B,’ I have actually had that experience in Belfast, Beirut, Bombay, Belgrade, Bethlehem, and Baghdad. In each case I can say absolutely, and can give my reasons, why I would feel immediately threatened if I thought that the group of men approaching me in the dusk were coming from a religious observance.”

[Collegefreshman]

Originally Posted by Tarquin Farquart

And then there's Christopher's brother, Peter. Makes me wonder how those people can spring from the same parents.

Well, both are pretty conservative except for religious beliefs

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Collegefreshman

Well, both are pretty conservative except for religious beliefs

Christopher's become some sort of ally of the neocons, but I don't think he can really be called a conservative. I know he's backed off his formerly socialist views, but a guy whose obituary of Reagan was called "The Stupidity of Ronald Reagan", and who wants to see Kissinger arrested, isn't really any sort of conservative.