Hitchens (God is not Great) with Sam Smith this weekend

Myksyk

Heard this morning that Sam Smith will have Christopher Hitchens on his programme this week discussing his book "God is not Great" with Eamon McCann and David Quinn. Didn't quite catch the details ... think it's Sunday.

PDN

Recently I was stuck in an airport & was reduced to reading the International Herald Tribune. Amid all the baseball and endless Republican/Democrat waffle of American politics I found this, a reprint of a New York Times article by David Brooks. A bit off subject, I know, but the mention of Hitchens triggered a random connection in my head.

QUASI-RELIGIOUS AND PROSPERING
Catholics create a hybrid culture

The pope and many others speak for the thoroughly religious. Christopher Hitchens has the latest best-seller on behalf of the antireligious. But who speaks for the quasi-religious?

Quasi-religious people attend services, but they're bored much of the time. They read the Bible, but find large parts of it odd and irrelevant. They find themselves inextricably bound to their faith, but think some of the people who define it are nuts.

Whatever the state of their ambivalent souls, quasi-religious people often drive history. Abraham Lincoln knew Scripture line by line but never quite shared the faith that mesmerized him. Quasi-religious Protestants, drifting anxiously from the certainties of their old religion, built Victorian England. Quasi-religious Jews, climbing up from ancestral orthodoxy, helped shape 20th-century American culture.

And now we are in the midst an economic boom among quasi-religious Catholics. A generation ago, Catholic incomes and economic prospects were well below the national average. They had much lower college completion rates than mainline Protestants. But the past few decades have seen enormous Catholic social mobility.

According to Lisa Keister, a sociologist at Duke, non-Hispanic white Catholics have watched their personal wealth shoot upward. They have erased the gap that used to separate them from mainline Protestants.

Or, as Keister writes in a journal article, "Preliminary evidence indicates that whites who were raised in Catholic families are no longer asset-poor and may even be among the wealthiest groups of adults in the United States today."

How have they done it?

Well, they started from their traditional Catholic cultural base. That meant, in the 1950s and early '60s, a strong emphasis on neighborhood cohesion and family, and a strong preference for obedience and solidarity over autonomy and rebellion.

Then over the decades, the authority of the church weakened and young Catholics assimilated. Catholic values began to converge with Protestant values. Catholic adults were more likely to use contraceptives, and fertility rates plummeted. They raised their children to value autonomy more and obedience less.

The process created a crisis for the church, as it struggled to maintain authority over its American flock. But the shift was an economic boon to Catholics themselves. They found themselves in a quasi-religious sweet spot.

On the one hand, modern Catholics have retained many of the traditional patterns of their ancestors -- high marriage rates, high family stability rates, low divorce rates. Catholic investors save a lot and favor low-risk investment portfolios. On the other hand, they have also become more individualistic, more future-oriented and less bound by neighborhood and extended family. They are now much better educated than their parents or grandparents, and much better educated than their family histories would lead you to predict.

More or less successfully, the children of white, ethnic, blue-collar neighborhoods have managed to adapt the Catholic communal heritage to the dynamism of a global economy. If this country was entirely Catholic, we wouldn't be having a big debate over stagnant wages and low social mobility. The problems would scarcely exist. Populists and various politicians can talk about the prosperity-destroying menace of immigration and foreign trade. But modern Catholics have created a hybrid culture that trumps it.

In fact, if you really wanted to supercharge the nation, you'd fill it with college students who constantly attend church, but who are skeptical of everything they hear there. For there are at least two things we know about flourishing in a modern society.

First, college students who attend religious services regularly do better than those who don't. As Margarita Mooney, a Princeton sociologist, has demonstrated in her research, they work harder and are more engaged with campus life. Second, students who come from denominations that encourage dissent are more successful, on average, than students from denominations that don't.

This embodies the social gospel annex to the quasi-religious creed: Always try to be the least believing member of one of the more observant sects. Participate in organized religion, but be a friendly dissident inside. Ensconce yourself in traditional moral practice, but champion piecemeal modernization. Submit to the wisdom of the ages, but with one eye open.

The problem is nobody is ever going to write a book sketching out the full quasi-religious recipe for life. The message "God is Great" appeals to billions. Hitchens rides the best-seller list with "God is Not Great." Nobody wants to read a book called "God is Right Most of the Time."

Dades

Good heads up, Myksyk.

I often listen to Sam Smith on that show. Today FM's Sunday Supplement I think?
I recall David Quinn was the subject of some vitriol here after his meeting with Richard Dawkins a while back.

Should be interesting!

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

Good heads up, Myksyk.

I often listen to Sam Smith on that show. Today FM's Sunday Supplement I think?
I recall David Quinn was the subject of some vitriol here after his meeting with Richard Dawkins a while back.

Should be interesting!

David Quinn is actually a very good debater. He is one the brightest intellectuals in the Catholic Church. Obviously I don't agree with his viewpoint but he pretty much destroyed Dawkins in that debate exposing the many Straw man arguments Dawkins uses and cornering Dawkins on Free will showing is inability to even be able to discuss it.

Hitchens, flip flops on many of his political opinions. He used to be a wooly liberal and was well known for writing: 'The Trial of Henry Kissinger'. It's quite a verbose book and not one of my favourite books. In fact anything Kissinger has writtern is of a far better intellectual quality, for example 'Does America need a foreign policy' or 'Diplomacy'.
Anyway, Hitchens ended up supporting the neo-cons and the Iraq War. He was in also in a famous debate with Galloway about it and ended with a rather caustic closing line which perhaps shows his real motives as a writer:
"Well this is America, so let's sell some books!".

Hitchens was also nominated in the Guardians top 5 intellectuals last year ( a list that also includes Dawkins and Chomsky).
Hitchens is an excellant business man, he's obviously spotted a demand in the market for more theology bashing judging by the amount of books Dawkins sold.
I am not sure I rate him as highly as an intellectual. It's just more rehashing of arguments from Russell and more stating the obvious and occasional straw manning of theology.
Oscar Wilde said the sign of a good debater / intellectual was one who could argue his opponent's side better than him, I don't think Dawkins / Hitchens are good debaters.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

maybe oscar wilde was talking out his ass?

maybe they're not good debaters, but men with good opinions?


you got a link to that dawkins interview you mentioned?a religious person getting the better of him in an argument is something I just have to see

Sapien

Tim Robbins wrote:

David Quinn is actually a very good debater. He is one the brightest intellectuals in the Catholic Church. Obviously I don't agree with his viewpoint but he pretty much destroyed Dawkins in that debate exposing the many Straw man arguments Dawkins uses and cornering Dawkins on Free will showing is inability to even be able to discuss it.

I'll have to disagree with you there. I think Quinn is awful in debate - the difference between him and Jonn Waters amounting to a haircut and a sedative. He suffers from genuinly not understanding the atheist, non-religious, non-conservative mindset and, in fact, is sorely prone to straw men himself.

Tim Robbins

Mordeth wrote:

maybe oscar wilde was talking out his ass?

maybe they're not good debaters, but men with good opinions?


you got a link to that dawkins interview you mentioned?a religious person getting the better of him in an argument is something I just have to see

He also got hammered by Ger Casey on the late late show. Sapien, I agree Waters is out in the clouds at times, but Quinn is a very good debater. He did his homework on Dawkins as did Casey and they both came out stronger. Generally that's the idea in debating. Find your opponents weak spot and go for it. It's nigh impossible to come out with a water tight argument for anything.

Quinn and Casey are the two who have come out strongest in debates against Dawkins and I have seen / heard at least 10.
Who would you say has done best in an argument with Dawkins?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i dunno, i'm about halfway through now.. quinn has been talking for a few minutes and he seems to have missed dawkins points.

his very first point was dawkins set up a straw man by comparing belief in god to belief in faries, how in the hell is that a straw man? it's a bloody perfect comparison.

--edit

wtf? atheists don't believe in free will?

what the **** was that man smoking.. now I'm personally not sure about the idea of free will, but I'd be fairly confident in saying that most atheists do ****ing believe in free will.

i don't think dawkins handled that question very well, but the other chap made a complete arse of himself.

Tim Robbins

Mordeth wrote:

i dunno, i'm about halfway through now.. quinn has been talking for a few minutes and he seems to have missed dawkins points.

his very first point was dawkins set up a straw man by comparing belief in god to belief in faries, how in the hell is that a straw man? it's a bloody perfect comparison.

--edit

wtf? atheists don't believe in free will?

what the **** was that man smoking.. now I'm personally not sure about the idea of free will, but I'd be fairly confident in saying that most atheists do ****ing believe in free will.

i don't think dawkins handled that question very well, but the other chap made a complete arse of himself.

Dawkins straw mans by arguing that theists don't accept evolution theory, Quinn got him on that.
Quinn also pointed out that Science cannot explain the origin of matter and that is the real puzzle i.e. not evolution.
Now while that doesn't mean Religion is correct and atheism is wrong but it shows that Quinn is picking holes in Dawkins not the other way around.

Quinn made a point about objective morality and Dawkins should have hammered him on it but he didn't.

Debating isn't about being right or correct, it's about coming out stronger than your opponent. I think Quinn is wrong, but he came out stronger than Dawkins in that debate.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

he did't argue that theists don't accept evolutionary theory, that's just what quinn said he argued. dawkins said that there were some people who were so adept at mental compartmentalisation (what a ****ing word) that they were able to combine being perfectly good scientists *and* believing that the book of genesis is literally true. This is probably true.

Quinn also pointed out that Science cannot explain the origin of matter and that is the real puzzle i.e. not evolution.

I don't think science ever said it could... I think bonkey would be the man to ask about that. But from what I remember of some of his posts, it doesn't make much sense.. as the laws of physics we have are based upon the universe drummed up after the creation of all this matter. So we have absolutely no frame of reference when we talk about the before time, if there was a before time.. if there was time, before.

Now while that doesn't mean Religion is correct and atheism is wrong but it shows that Quinn is picking holes in Dawkins not the other way around.

of course he is, you;'d have to be a godawful debater indeed not to pick at least a few holes in your opponents argument.. people are incredibly fallable, even when they're right.

I'd have to disagree with you about who came out stronger there, although I watched the pat kenny interview earlier and I did think ger casey (that the name?) made some very interesting points and argued very well for his position, didn't agree with much of what he said though.

Sapien

Tim Robbins wrote:

He also got hammered by Ger Casey on the late late show.

I don't believe that either. I think Casey had the advantage of easy answers and Dawkins was burdened with the task of unravelling tricky abstractions for the benefit of a not particularly enlightened or friendly audience. It would be easy to say that Dawkins, with his occasional pauses and gasps of exasperation, failed to convince - but try to undermine the cause of all causes fallacy on the fly in a brightly lit studio surrounded by a glowering audience, and see how well you do.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Sapien, I agree Waters is out in the clouds at times, but Quinn is a very good debater. He did his homework on Dawkins as did Casey and they both came out stronger. Generally that's the idea in debating.

His first intelligible rhetorical gambit was to accuse Dawkins of believing in the genetic determinism of morality. A more shambolic straw man of Dawkins position, I cannot imagine.

He rather cheaply at one point says, in his best schoolteacher voice, and in reference to his own interpretation of the implications of atheism on free will, "Now Richard, if you haven't gotten to grips with that you seriously need to". And people accuse Dawkins of arrogance?

Tim Robbins wrote:

Find your opponents weak spot and go for it. It's nigh impossible to come out with a water tight argument for anything.

But that's not what he, or Casey, does. They find points in the argument that are abstract or long obfuscated by powerful and widespread misconceptions. They pose problems that Dawkins could dispose of with ease and aplomb given a while to compose a few paragraphs. In fact, all of the "weak points" they find in his books are invariably supported or clarified within the chapter. Just because a point is difficult to make or justify under pressure, doesn't mean it's weak.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Quinn and Casey are the two who have come out strongest in debates against Dawkins and I have seen / heard at least 10.

A combination of style, zeal, unscrupulousness, dishonesty and a tireless obsession with philosophical dead-ends and artifacts of theology like free will and hope that are simply incommensurate with science or even modern moral philosophy.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Who would you say has done best in an argument with Dawkins?

I've no idea. I tend to take note of arguments rather than people, and am inclined to be annoyed when style, personality and oratorical performance get in the way of logical engagement.

Zombrex

I think Dawkins has trouble understanding where people like Quinn are coming from. When Quinn or someone like him says "Ah yes, but why does matter exist in the first place. That must be because of God?" it stumps Dawkins.

Its not because it is a particularly intelligent or clever point, but for the exact opposite reason, it is such a stupid conclusion, that sets up the implication that there must be a purpose in the first place and then answers it by definition (there must be a purpose to the universe, who ever gave the universe purpose is God, therefore God must exist).

All Dawkins can do is stare with a rather bewildered look on his face as he realises he is debating an idiot. Or worse, he gets annoyed because Quinn is asking him such ridiculous questions. But that unfortunately leads to Quinn looking like he has caught Dawkins out with his cleverness, and makes Dawkins come across as someone who is getting annoyed his theories are being picked at.

Dawkins, if he wants to come across better in debates like this, needs to understand better the faulty logic someone like Quinn is using if he is going to be successful in coming back against this faulty logic in public debates.

Which is why I hang around the Creationism thread a lot

Tim Robbins

Mordeth wrote:

I'd have to disagree with you about who came out stronger there, although I watched the pat kenny interview earlier and I did think ger casey (that the name?) made some very interesting points and argued very well for his position, didn't agree with much of what he said though.

The fact is theology doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to logical discourse. Dawkins should be able to destroy Quinn or Casey. I think many of the posters on this forum would. I think Dawkins get tongue tied quite quickly.
He refuses to do debating officialy where you debate under agreed rules. I would guess this is an admission on his part he is a perhaps a better writer than debater.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

The fact is theology doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to logical discourse. Dawkins should be able to destroy Quinn or Casey

oh come on..

I'm going to college in September (hopefully) to study philosophy... a bloody discipline devoted to the defense of indefensible positions. People can find excuses, arguments, rationalisations or proof anywhere they want to if they look hard enough.

Tim Robbins

Myksyk wrote:

Heard this morning that Sam Smith will have Christopher Hitchens on his programme this week discussing his book "God is not Great" with Eamon McCann and David Quinn. Didn't quite catch the details ... think it's Sunday.

Sorry getting back to the OP.
Eamon McCann is in his own words a "radical atheist". But he a committed supporter of the Palestinians, almost to the point you would think he is a supressed Muslim. Should be an interesting show, can you give time, and date details?

Dades

I'm assuming this is the show.

11.30 – 1.00 Sunday morning.

Orizio

David Quinn and Eamonn McCann?Embarassing to say the least.

Tim Robbins

Mordeth wrote:

oh come on..

I'm going to college in September (hopefully) to study philosophy... a bloody discipline devoted to the defense of indefensible positions. People can find excuses, arguments, rationalisations or proof anywhere they want to if they look hard enough.

I think it's the other way around, philosophy questions what appears to the lay person a reasonable good argument and shows that it's not.

Following this, I would say Richard Dawkins would be better off in debates letting his opponent try to argue his theological hypotheisis and then pick at it. Instead he argues atheism and then allows his opponent to pick at it.

There are other problems with his debating techniques, I really don't think he understands the human condition and why humans tend to like saftey crutch of religion.

I also don't think he understands the philosophical concept of consequentialism.
He tends to think Religion is bad, primarily because it's irrational. However, many things are irrational. Adopting a consequentialist's hat: something isn't bad because it's irrational, something is bad usually because of a bad consequence.

It is irrational for me to support Leinster rugby team but what's the consequence of it, it's a bit of fun and excitement.

It is irrational for someone to accept a theological hypotheisis but so what it might help deal with a depressing humdrum life.

It it irrational for someone to accept a theoglogial hyoptheisis, and become biggoted to those who accept a different one. This can produce consequences of hate, violence etc.

So a better argument would be: Religion is a bad thing if its taught in way that the believer does not fully respect those who don't accept the same hypotheisis as the believer.

aidan24326

Tim Robbins wrote:

So a better argument would be: Religion is a bad thing if its taught in way that the believer does not fully respect those who don't accept the same hypotheisis as the believer.

Well that's a fair point. But I find it odd that you think David Quinn 'beat' Dawkins in the radio debate. All he did from what I could hear was make the same tired old argument of 'there is a universe therefore god made it'. In my opinion it's difficult to have an intelligent debate/discussion with someone who so obviously fails to see the flaw in that 'logic'. Quinn can be a good speaker on other issues and isn't quite in the same pseudo-intellectual category as Waters but when it comes to religion he is blinkered by his own steadfast adherence to his christian faith, and like many believers he won't allow something as awkward and annoying as the truth to get in his way.

Tim Robbins

aidan24326 wrote:

Well that's a fair point. But I find it odd that you think David Quinn 'beat' Dawkins in the radio debate. All he did from what I could hear was make the same tired old argument of 'there is a universe therefore god made it'. In my opinion it's difficult to have an intelligent debate/discussion with someone who so obviously fails to see the flaw in that 'logic'. Quinn can be a good speaker on other issues and isn't quite in the same pseudo-intellectual category as Waters but when it comes to religion he is blinkered by his own steadfast adherence to his christian faith, and like many believers he won't allow something as awkward and annoying as the truth to get in his way.

Well my background my explain some of my "unusual" reasoning.
I did a lot of debating in School and I remember when you were given a motion you didn't agree with, which you had to argue. It turnt out to be a pain in the h8le. But you see the art of debating and some of the techniques in arguing.

The way I would look at Christian / Atheist debate is that Christianity or Theism is way way way way harder to argue (because it contains no logical argument) and if in a competition I would hate to have to argue it.

Quinn did very well, Dawkins should have hammered him. Dito Casey. To not get hammered in a debate with an acclaimed academic (Dawkins) in a debate about something where you have to argue the harder side is an achievement.
Their techniques were clever and something I would point out to anybody who wanted to learn the art of debating.
For example, they went in the debates letting Dawkins argue atheism first and then went on to pick holes in his arguments.

More specifically, they read his book, let him speak about it and then picked holes in it as you can pick holes in any argument. This was quite clever. They controlled the conversation this way. Dawkins should of let them argue their theology first and then pick holes in it.

Quinn also knew that Dawkins doesn't like talking about "free will" so he made him talk about it. Not that Quinn had a better explaination but he made Dawkins look like he didn't know something he should.

Again good debating tactics.

Both Quinn and Casey controlled the discussion much more than Dawkins did.
Clever stuff. Neither had to rely on quoting scripture like some of our friends in C forum have to rely on when debating with us. Because they know quoting scripture can be easily rebutted.

Basically if I had to argue against Dawkins I would be happy enough with either Casey or Quinn's performance.

Remember, if Dawkins was a good debater these debates we are discussing, would be convincing those who aren't committed theists to arrive as atheism. He has persuaded very few people. He is generally preaching to the converted and to people who just think people like Quinn or Casey are *ssholes and are unprepared to give them any credit at all.

I sometimes thinks it's more a business enterprise than an intellectual one.

Tim Robbins

Just had a listen to the discussion, all the usual stuff nothing great.
Quinn went for the usual strategy, avoiding reference scripture and just came out with his usual
* Many respected Scientists belief in God
* The uncaused cause argument
* Nitpicked a few of Hitchens arguments.

Hitchens appears to be piggy backing Dawkins, who just piggy backed other atheist intellectuals. Nothing really new. A good question to put to Hitchens, would have been what is the difference between your arguments and those of other atheists e.g. Dawkins - do you offer anything new to the debate?
Sam Smyth could have put this to him.

aidan24326

Tim Robbins wrote:

I sometimes thinks it's more a business enterprise than an intellectual one.

That would always be a concern, what motivation lies behind the whole enterprise. In fairness to Dawkins though I don't think he's just in it for the money. He wouldn't be short of a few quid already and doesn't need the money at this stage. What he's achieved is itself open to debate but at least he has helped to put the issue in the public mindset and get people thinking. Those of a srong faith won't be swayed by anybody, we all know that, but it's still no harm to expose the flaws in what they believe, lest they profess to have all the answers while actually having none at all.

radiospan

Anyone got an mp3?

It might show up on this podcast during the week I suppose: http://audio.todayfm.com/sundaysupplement.xml

mike65

Hitchens was on Newstalk this morning, at the start presenter Karen Coleman
actualy warned those of a religious persuasion that the interview might offend! I would have texted her but I could remmeber the number and was pretty busy.

Mike.

Tim Robbins

aidan24326 wrote:

That would always be a concern, what motivation lies behind the whole enterprise. In fairness to Dawkins though I don't think he's just in it for the money. He wouldn't be short of a few quid already and doesn't need the money at this stage. What he's achieved is itself open to debate but at least he has helped to put the issue in the public mindset and get people thinking. Those of a srong faith won't be swayed by anybody, we all know that, but it's still no harm to expose the flaws in what they believe, lest they profess to have all the answers while actually having none at all.

Fair enough, but I think there should be more emphasis on respecting alternative viewpoints. I find Dawkins totalitarian.
I bought Hitchens book today, just read the first two chapters, nothing special so far.

Dades

mike65 wrote:

Hitchens was on Newstalk this morning, at the start presenter Karen Coleman
actualy warned those of a religious persuasion that the interview might offend! I would have texted her but I could remmeber the number and was pretty busy.

That is fascinating on so many levels.

Maybe next time they'll provide buckets of sand for people to bury their heads in.
I think I would have tried to text too.

Myksyk

I was at the John Waters v Chris Hitchens debate in the Gate Theatre yesterday afternoon. I was quite impressed with Hitchens who was articulate and erudite ... albeit pretty strident ... and it would be fair to say he wiped the floor with Waters. I think he's best described as Dawkins with a (wicked) sense of humour. When asked by the interlocutor Brenda Power if he had ever prayed his reply was "once ... for an erection"! He stepped out of line once or twice with the audience questions ... there were a few people there with obvious agendas not related to the debate and Hitchens actually told one of them to F*** off. Overall, I thougth he was convincing, humorous and a strong debater. Well worth the effort to attend ... just to see John Waters roundly spanked!

Tim Robbins

Myksyk wrote:

I was at the John Waters v Chris Hitchens debate in the Gate Theatre yesterday afternoon. I was quite impressed with Hitchens who was articulate and erudite ... albeit pretty strident ... and it would be fair to say he wiped the floor with Waters. I think he's best described as Dawkins with a (wicked) sense of humour. When asked by the interlocutor Brenda Power if he had ever prayed his reply was "once ... for an erection"! He stepped out of line once or twice with the audience questions ... there were a few people there with obvious agendas not related to the debate and Hitchens actually told one of them to F*** off. Overall, I thougth he was convincing, humorous and a strong debater. Well worth the effort to attend ... just to see John Waters roundly spanked!

I find it embarassing as an atheist that an atheist can't argue his point of view just by using logic and intellectual arguments and as to resort to what you described.

Was there many people there?
Sounds like he was preaching to the converted and not many people who went would change their opinion. What type of intellectualism is that?
Just finished Chapter 4 of his book last night, so far I would rename it to
"This book is not great".

Múinteoir

Tim Robbins wrote:

Just finished Chapter 4 of his book last night, so far I would rename it to
"This book is not great".

Myksyk

Tim Robbins wrote:

I find it embarassing as an atheist that an atheist can't argue his point of view just by using logic and intellectual arguments and as to resort to what you described.

Was there many people there?
Sounds like he was preaching to the converted and not many people who went would change their opinion. What type of intellectualism is that?

I think your point is fair Tim ... as I said it was out of line. However, his intellectual arguments were strong and well articulated. He should have stuck to them.

Regarding the audience, it was hard to read but based on the 'clapometer' response, probably half and half.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

I find it embarassing as an atheist that an atheist can't argue his point of view just by using logic and intellectual arguments and as to resort to what you described.

What, atheists can't have a sense of humour?

Tim Robbins

Myksyk wrote:

I think your point is fair Tim ... as I said it was out of line. However, his intellectual arguments were strong and well articulated. He should have stuck to them.

Regarding the audience, it was hard to read but based on the 'clapometer' response, probably half and half.

Well I up to chapter 4 of "This book is not great" and I haven't read one intellectual argument that I haven't heard 1,000 times before.
Hitchens is no theologian, no philosopher, no Scientist. His academic background is a third class degree from Oxford. It annoys me these people get so much airtime simple for being sensationalist not intellectual.
Put it this way, name his best point you haven't heard before?

In Chapter 4 of "This book is not great" he gets confused between the Talmud and the Torah thinking the Talmud is the Old Testament for flips sake. At least that's how it reads.

Myksyk

Hmmm ... I'm not an apologist for Hitchens ... I don't know enough about the man. I said I was impressed with quite a bit of his presentation yesterday (notwithstanding his occasional arrogance). The quality of that presentation for me is not that he can come up with new intellectual arguments against the faith position or anti-science position but that he could iterate the existing arguments in a coherent, articulate fashion and rebut/respond to the counter-arguments put forward by the opposing side of the debate. I'm pretty sure you're not suggesting that the onslaught of fundamentalist, anti-intellectualist texts that flow out of every two-bit publishing house in the world should be met with the response - "We wrote a book answering all these questions and claims in 1984, please refer". Repetition of arguments from different sources is key it would seem to me in getting those ideas more widely known and read. You may be well read enough in the atheist position to make such repetitions tedious but I would contend that this is not generally the case.

Tim Robbins

Myksyk wrote:

Hmmm ... I'm not an apologist for Hitchens ... I don't know enough about the man. I said I was impressed with quite a bit of his presentation yesterday (notwithstanding his occasional arrogance). The quality of that presentation for me is not that he can come up with new intellectual arguments against the faith position or anti-science position but that he could iterate the existing arguments in a coherent, articulate fashion and rebut/respond to the counter-arguments put forward by the opposing side of the debate. I'm pretty sure you're not suggesting that the onslaught of fundamentalist, anti-intellectualist texts that flow out of every two-bit publishing house in the world should be met with the response - "We wrote a book answering all these questions and claims in 1984, please refer". Repetition of arguments from different sources are key it would seem to me in advancing the cause of any position. You may be well read enough in the atheist position to make such repetitions tedious but I would contend that this is not generally the case.

Yes that is what I figured, he reiterates other people's arguments. Perhaps a performer as opposed to an intellectual.
My point is it saddens me to see these peopel get the air time people like Colin McGinn or Daniel Dennett should get.

Myksyk

Well ... there are probably very few true intellectuals. By your definition, everyone on boards is a performer - I've certainly read no new arguments here but have enjoyed hearing old arguments put in different ways. The fact is that arguments against the faith position are fairly standard at this stage. New developments in science are generally only adding new examples of why the same arguments should prevail. And of course there is an ever changing audience to hear these ideas so repetition is not a bad thing.

Myksyk

At the risk over-egging the pudding I offer the example of creationist arguments against evolutionary theory. I believe the counter-arguments from biology are absolutely bog-standard and have been heard by those interested a million times at this stage. Nonetheless, I'm of the opinion that the arguments need to be published often and presented from various different angles so that they are not lost to the general public.

Tim Robbins

Myksyk wrote:

At the risk over-egging the pudding I offer the example of creationist arguments against evolutionary theory. I believe the counter-arguments from biology are absolutely bog-standard and have been heard by those interested a million times at this stage. Nonetheless, I'm of the opinion that the arguments need to be published often and presented from various different angles so that they are not lost to the general public.

Yes that is one way of looking at it. From my own perspective, it annoys me to see arrogant or miltant atheist representing athiesm. As when I say I am an atheist people think I hate religion. I do not hate religion, I see it's purpose and value and fully respect someones right to believe in an afterlife and God.
You can push the points you describe by not laughing at people.

Tim Robbins

Myksyk wrote:

Well ... there are probably very few true intellectuals. By your definition, everyone on boards is a performer - I've certainly read no new arguments here but have enjoyed hearing old arguments put in different ways. The fact is that arguments against the faith position are fairly standard at this stage. New developments in science are generally only adding new examples of why the same arguments should prevail. And of course there is an ever changing audience to hear these ideas so repetition is not a bad thing.

I think McGinn has come up with some interesting arguments why people believe. His cosmic lonliness argument is clever. He has also argued the difference between rationalism critism and just attacking people.

Dawkins has come up with a provoking argument about indoctrination. So there is room for looking at things.
Bruce Hood has some interesting thought on why people believe in the supernatural even atheists.
Some people on boards.ie have come up some very interesting thoughts both on Christian and Atheist side.
I don't think Science nullifies religion. Why are international class Scientists such as Robert Pollock and John Hughton still opting for both Science and Religion?

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

Yes that is one way of looking at it. From my own perspective, it annoys me to see arrogant or miltant atheist representing athiesm. As when I say I am an atheist people think I hate religion. I do not hate religion, I see it's purpose and value and fully respect someones right to believe in an afterlife and God.
You can push the points you describe by not laughing at people.

That is rather ridiculous, since "atheism" isn't a belief system and doesn't imply what someone does believe or think. You and someone like Dawkins can believe in completely different things, just because you are atheists doesn't mean anything. To complain that Dawkins or Hitchens is reflecting badly on you is really your problem.

Its ironic that you are facilitating the same ignorance towards what is atheism that you are complaining about.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

That is rather ridiculous, since "atheism" isn't a belief system and doesn't imply what someone does believe or think. You and someone like Dawkins can believe in completely different things, just because you are atheists doesn't mean anything. To complain that Dawkins or Hitchens is reflecting badly on you is really your problem.

Its ironic that you are facilitating the same ignorance towards what is atheism that you are complaining about.

There are problems with the word atheism. It can be unspecific, to some people it is a belief system to some others it is not.
Robert Winston use Strong and Weak atheist in his book to differentiate. colin McGinn uses Post theist and Militant atheist to differentiate between different viewpoints with atheism.

Basically you are on a slippery slope once you start trying to argue someone doesn't understand the word atheism as well as you.

The second problem with the word atheism it has negative conatations.
Evidence to support this:
1. Jonathan Millar's Rough history to disbelief where he and many other intellectual are afraid to used the word atheist because of it negative conations.
2. Dawkins joke that he uses at many public speaking engagements about the girl who told her Mum her boyfriend didn't believe in God, her Mum didn't mind but when the girl told her he was atheist, she screamed "An Atheist!"

Now reverting back to your point about my point ridiculous. I don't follow you here. You say we can believe in completely different things but so can Christians. So if Christians can give out about the Pope or Ian Paisley Junior's comments about homosexuality surely I can take issue with Dawkins and Hitchens. In fact, surely I can take issue with Paisley and the Pope. I don't see your logic.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

Basically you are on a slippery slope once you start trying to argue someone doesn't understand the word atheism as well as you.

Well to be honest I think you are on more of a slippery slope when you start arguing that other atheists should be more like Atheism X because they are misrepresenting you, an Atheists X.

Instead of arguing that I feel the energy should be put into the argument that atheism isn't a belief system at all and that two atheists can have completely different ideas about almost anything without that fact reflecting on each other.

Tim Robbins wrote:

The second problem with the word atheism it has negative conatations.

Yes but you only help to continue the negative connotations when you say that other atheists are giving "atheists" a bad name. It is playing by the stereotypes of the people who lump atheists together in the first place.

Tim Robbins wrote:

So if Christians can give out about the Pope or Ian Paisley Junior's comments about homosexuality surely I can take issue with Dawkins and Hitchens.

You can certainly take issue with Dawkins or Hitchens, but when you do you should take issue not as fellow atheists, as if that means you should be agreeing on what you are debating.

Dawkins or Hitchens are not straying from atheism, or what it means to be an atheists, as a Christian might argue the Pope is. There is no such thing as what it means to be an atheists in the first place. Dawkins isn't "representing athiesm", he is representing secular humanism and anti-religious belief.

For example (granted a rather extreme example), it would be ridiculous for a vegetarian to debate why they are or are not like Hitler, or to say that Hitler should have done a better job representing vegetarianism. No one would dream associate a person with Hitler just because they are both vegetarians, or expect them to have to distance themselves from Hitler.

The habit where we associate the beliefs of two people with each other just because they are both atheists is in my view ridiculous, and does in itself lead to the negative connotations associated with atheism.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but you only help to continue the negative connotations when you say that other atheists are giving "atheists" a bad name. It is playing by the stereotypes of the people who lump atheists together in the first place.

You can certainly take issue with Dawkins or Hitchens, but when you do you should take issue not as fellow atheists, as if that means you should be agreeing on what you are debating.

Dawkins or Hitchens are not straying from atheism, or what it means to be an atheists, as a Christian might argue the Pope is. There is no such thing as what it means to be an atheists in the first place. Dawkins isn't "representing athiesm", he is representing secular humanism and anti-religious belief.

For example (granted a rather extreme example), it would be ridiculous for a vegetarian to debate why they are or are not like Hitler, or to say that Hitler should have done a better job representing vegetarianism. No one would dream associate a person with Hitler just because they are both vegetarians, or expect them to have to distance themselves from Hitler.

The habit where we associate the beliefs of two people with each other just because they are both atheists is in my view ridiculous, and does in itself lead to the negative connotations associated with atheism.

Put it this way, are my allowed get annoyed that Dawkins and Hitchens get a lot of airtime on radio on tv when there are clearly better and more intellectual atheists who could do a better job explaining atheism and not having to laugh at people who believe in God?

bonkey

Tim Robbins wrote:

Put it this way, are my allowed get annoyed that Dawkins and Hitchens get a lot of airtime on radio on tv when there are clearly better and more intellectual atheists who could do a better job explaining atheism and not having to laugh at people who believe in God?

Sure you are...but I hope you're not labouring under the misconception that they get airtime because someone thinks they explain atheism well?

Tim Robbins

bonkey wrote:

Sure you are...but I hope you're not labouring under the misconception that they get airtime because someone thinks they explain atheism well?

No I argue they get airtime because they are just sensationalist. I am now on about Chapter 8 of Hitchens "This book is not great" it just reminds me Michael Moore a sensationalist polemic.

radiospan

Today FM: http://audio.todayfm.com/audio/SS17_06_07.mp3
Newstalk: http://www.newstalk106.ie/podcasts/library/wangle/1706Hitchens.mp3

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

Put it this way, are my allowed get annoyed that Dawkins and Hitchens get a lot of airtime on radio on tv when there are clearly better and more intellectual atheists who could do a better job explaining atheism and not having to laugh at people who believe in God?

Well again you are missing the point. When Dawkins and Hitchens rant about how bad religion is they aren't attempting to "explain atheism", because ranting about how bad religion is has little to do with atheism. It is anti-religious secularism or humanism. There are plenty of atheists who think religion is perfectly fine and who wouldn't share anything in common with Dawkins. Arguing over which of these groups represents the true meaning of atheism is pointless, since neither do because there is no true meaning of atheism. Atheism is simply not believing in deities. It is not a belief system in itself. Knowing someone is an atheists doesn't tell you anything about what they actually believe in.

Instead of thinking that Dawkins, or someone better than him, should be representing atheism in a different way, people need to realise that they aren't representing atheism in the first place.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

Well again you are missing the point. When Dawkins and Hitchens rant about how bad religion is they aren't attempting to "explain atheism", because ranting about how bad religion is has little to do with atheism. It is anti-religious secularism or humanism. There are plenty of atheists who think religion is perfectly fine and who wouldn't share anything in common with Dawkins. Arguing over which of these groups represents the true meaning of atheism is pointless, since neither do because there is no true meaning of atheism. Atheism is simply not believing in deities. It is not a belief system in itself. Knowing someone is an atheists doesn't tell you anything about what they actually believe in.

Instead of thinking that Dawkins, or someone better than him, should be representing atheism in a different way, people need to realise that they aren't representing atheism in the first place.

I think you are missing a few points. Humanism is not anti Religion per se. Have you read through any Humanist documentation? It is more a liberal philosophy of being able to provide choice, fairness and equity.

You are also straw manning me. I am not calling for "true meaning" of atheism. In a previous post I outlined the problems with the ambiguous nature of the word so how can I be arguing for the true meaning.
I am simple calling for a more intellectual discourse.
Some people prefer Chomsky some people prefer Michael Moore when it comes to discourse attacking American foreign policy it is the same with nearly every popular subject matter you will get a intellectual version and you will get a sensationalist version.

Now while Dawkins isn't quite Michael Moore (that would be gorssly unfair) he certainly gets flashes of the Michael Moores.
Have you read "This book is not great?" yet?

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think you are missing a few points. Humanism is not anti Religion per se.

Neither is atheism. What humanism is is a belief system. Atheism isn't a belief system. If you want to group people like Dawkins or Hitchens you should be focusing on what they believe in, not what they don't believe in.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Have you read through any Humanist documentation? It is more a liberal philosophy of being able to provide choice, fairness and equity.

It is but it is also a rejection of the dependence on supernatural faith based religious for moral teaching and guidance. Which is pretty much what both Dawkins and Hitchens (as far as I can tell, I've yet to read his book) are calling for.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I am simple calling for a more intellectual discourse.

Well no offense Tim but in your call for more intellectual discourse you are dismissing the points raised by people like Dawkins as sensationalist head line grabbers without proper discussion as to whether they actually have a valid points or not (the example being the idea of teaching religion to children as being a bad idea).

Now I haven't read Hitchen's book, and I'm not a fan of his. But if he has valid points to make then that is irrelevant. A valid point is a valid point, no matter who is making it.

You are calling for intellectual discourse but by that you seem to mean that the discourse should take a softly softly approach as to not offend the religious. The two are not linked. Intellectual discourse can often be brutal in how it deals with a subject. A valid point has no requirement to apologise for itself

Tim Robbins wrote:

Have you read "This book is not great?" yet?

I have, but without having read his book it didn't mean much to me

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

Neither is atheism. What humanism is is a belief system. Atheism isn't a belief system. If you want to group people like Dawkins or Hitchens you should be focusing on what they believe in, not what they don't believe in.

I group them because they are intolerant and almost totalitarian in the abject rejection of religion. I group them because they got a lot of media as if they are the spokepersons for atheism. This is something we both dispute for different reasons.

It is but it is also a rejection of the dependence on supernatural faith based religious for moral teaching and guidance. Which is pretty much what both Dawkins and Hitchens (as far as I can tell, I've yet to read his book) are calling for.

But they are telling Religious people to f*ck off or infering they are child abusers.

Well no offense Tim but in your call for more intellectual discourse you are dismissing the points raised by people like Dawkins as sensationalist head line grabbers without proper discussion as to whether they actually have a valid points or not (the example being the idea of teaching religion to children as being a bad idea).

No I have discussed many times in this forums and threads the problems with their arguments. I have discussing the child abuse one right now in another thread.

Now I haven't read Hitchen's book, and I'm not a fan of his. But if he has valid points to make then that is irrelevant. A valid point is a valid point, no matter who is making it.

Well then, why not elaborate on why you dismiss Hitchens yourself and not just ask me to elaborate into proper discussion about it?

You are calling for intellectual discourse but by that you seem to mean that the discourse should take a softly softly approach as to not offend the religious. The two are not linked. Intellectual discourse can often be brutal in how it deals with a subject. A valid point has no requirement to apologise for itself

Oscar Wilde said a sign of a good debater is someone who can argue his opponents side better than him. I would agree.
Dawkins seems to have no concept of the human condition and need for religion and why people turn to it. He appears incapable of seeing any good in it, except for the chapter in his book where he says he likes some of the literature in the KJV Bible.

I would just expect better than this, from an Oxford academic, a softy softy approach isn't what I am looking for. Better put arguments and a bit more respect is what I am suggesting.

The biggest problem with any Religion is when it refuses to give any respect to another Religion, this is when the biggotry, sectarianism starts.

Atheism should be above that.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

I group them because they are intolerant and almost totalitarian in the abject rejection of religion.

Well you are wrong about that (if you think Dawkins is totalitarian you need to read his interviews about democracy and freedom of choice) but I've no problem with you doing that, grouping them on what at least you think they believe.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I group them because they got a lot of media as if they are the spokepersons for atheism.

I do have a problem with that, since they aren't (and I don't think claim to be) spokespersons for atheism.

Your issue should not be at Dawkins or Hitchens, your issue should be with the people who say they "speak for atheism"

Tim Robbins wrote:

But they are telling Religious people to f*ck off or infering they are child abusers.

I haven't read Hitchens book, but I assure you Dawkins never says "f*ck off" to any religious person in his writing, at least the ones I've read. Dawkins knows a large number of religious people who is frequently interviews for writings or documentaries and as far as I can tell he is polite and friendly to them.

What Dawkins can't stand is nonsense arguments, or arguments from a state of ignorance. This does seem to get him rather annoyed. But that comes across in his public debates rather than his writing.

Hitchens seems to be a bit of a dick, at least anytime I've seen him on TV, so I can imagine him saying "f*ck off" to a religious person. But again that is rather irrelevant. What is relevant is how valid his points are.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well then, why not elaborate on why you dismiss Hitchens yourself and not just ask me to elaborate into proper discussion about it?

I don't dismiss Hitchens. Dismissing someone because you don't like them without listening to what they say is part of the problem. I'm not a fan of his because of his writings on the Iraq war.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Dawkins seems to have no concept of the human condition and need for religion and why people turn to it.

That's not true, Dawkins has written at length on the subject of why people turn to religion, despite the fact that that is ultimately irrelevant to the issue of if the religion is actually true or not.

Tim Robbins wrote:

He appears incapable of seeing any good in it

Again, not true. Dawkins has written at length at the good elements of religion, often exasperated that the so called "followers" of the religion don't actually hold to the good teachings in it. He is often seen wearing a "Atheists for Jesus" T-Shirt (http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,Atheists-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins)

Dawkins sees religious as unnecessary supernatural mumbo-jumbo baggage wrapped around often pretty good moral teachings. And ultimately that is the point. Humans can be good or bad, and religion as a reflection of humanity can be good or bad. But it is unnecessary. That is Dawkins ultimate point.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I would just expect better than this, from an Oxford academic, a softy softy approach isn't what I am looking for.

Well maybe if you expanded out your reading of Dawkins you might be pleasantly surprised.

Tim Robbins wrote:

The biggest problem with any Religion is when it refuses to give any respect to another Religion, this is when the biggotry, sectarianism starts.

Well you need to define what you mean by "respect"

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

Well you are wrong about that (if you think Dawkins is totalitarian you need to read his interviews about democracy and freedom of choice) but I've no problem with you doing that, grouping them on what at least you think they believe.

I said almost totalitarian. I argue he is totalitarian in his view that all religion his bad. He has no flexibility in his argument. For example he doesn't say Religion + X = bad, Religion + Y = ok, Religion + Z = irrelevant.
He just says
Religion + anything = bad because Religion = bad always.
that is totalitarianism.

I do have a problem with that, since they aren't (and I don't think claim to be) spokespersons for atheism.

Your issue should not be at Dawkins or Hitchens, your issue should be with the people who say they "speak for atheism"

I've loads of issues.

I haven't read Hitchens book, but I assure you Dawkins never says "f*ck off" to any religious person in his writing, at least the ones I've read.

I was referring to the Hitches in his recent debate. I think you know that.
In Dawkins when asked in a recent beyond belief why he was so antagonistic he said he may be harsh but he is not as harsh as a former editor of the New Scientist who when pressed as to why he did what he did said "We like Science and if you don't like it, you can f*ck off". It was actually hillarious. Youtube it.

What Dawkins can't stand is nonsense arguments, or arguments from a state of ignorance. This does seem to get him rather annoyed. But that comes across in his public debates rather than his writing.

Agree his writing is better than his debating.

Hitchens seems to be a bit of a dick, at least anytime I've seen him on TV, so I can imagine him saying "f*ck off" to a religious person. But again that is rather irrelevant. What is relevant is how valid his points are.

Yes and F*ck off ain't a point.

I don't dismiss Hitchens. Dismissing someone because you don't like them without listening to what they say is part of the problem. I'm not a fan of his because of his writings on the Iraq war.

Well I would agree with you there. But, I am reading his book and so far it's cr*p.

That's not true, Dawkins has written at length on the subject of why people turn to religion, despite the fact that that is ultimately irrelevant to the issue of if the religion is actually true or not.

Well I disagree on that. Very little of it, if any at all, was in "The God Delusion".

Well maybe if you expanded out your reading of Dawkins you might be pleasantly surprised.

I have read four of his books, and I have watched or listened to him at least 20 times in the media. That should be enough to form an informed opinion.

Well you need to define what you mean by "respect"

From the dictionary:

1. a particular, detail, or point (usually prec. by in): to differ in some respect.
2. relation or reference: inquiries with respect to a route.
3. esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment.
4. deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly.
5. the condition of being esteemed or honored: to be held in respect.
6. respects, a formal expression or gesture of greeting, esteem, or friendship: Give my respects to your parents.
7. favor or partiality.
8. Archaic. a consideration.
–verb (used with object) 9. to hold in esteem or honor: I cannot respect a cheat.
10. to show regard or consideration for: to respect someone's rights.
11. to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with: to respect a person's privacy.
12. to relate or have reference to.
—Idioms13. in respect of, in reference to; in regard to; concerning.
14. in respect that, Archaic. because of; since.
15. pay one's respects, a. to visit in order to welcome, greet, etc.: We paid our respects to the new neighbors.
b. to express one's sympathy, esp. to survivors following a death: We paid our respects to the family.

16. with respect to, referring to; concerning: with respect to your latest request.


I a referring to 10.