Christopher Hitchens has died

Cú Globach - Do you agree that it is different to know that something will happen, than directly causing something to happen? That's the distinction I'm making in terms of this. Augustine in his De Libero Arbitrio (On the Free Choice of the Will) makes the same argument in book 3 chapters 3 and 4, you should be able to Google it and read online if you want a closer look at what he says.

I don't believe it is accurate to say that foreknowledge is the same thing as predestination, or at least not in every case.

Nothing needs to be missing. God can be all powerful, and God can know something will happen without being directly responsible for it. Particularly in the case of free will.

MagicMarker wrote: »

There you are moving the goalposts again, typical of your kind so I forgive you.

You said god made them famous, you are wrong.

The End.

It is people like Dawkins who moved the goalposts to get more time on TV. I turned on Sky news yesterday to see Richard Dawkins giving out about David Cameron saying the UK is a Christian country.

This is what he is far more famous for these days, you claimed "Both, Dawkins especially, were famous long before their writings on religion. Not that you knew that, but then you don't really seem to know much of anything."

I knew what he did for a living, it is his atheism and promotion of atheism that he is best known for these days.
One could say he evolved into this preacher of atheism which has given him far more media exposure, through his preachings on TV programs, books to spread his gospel, advertising on things like buses and marches against religiion.


Far more people talk about his God delusion than his selfish gene.

He was a particularly scathing polemicist, so at the very least he kept it interesting. It’s neither the time nor the place to voice my opinion on the man in his condolences thread, so I’ll keep my thoughts to myself. As a journalist though, while occasionally accused of playing up his opinions to be point of being a pantomime villain, I thought the guy was just unapologetic and as close to fearless as modern journalists get.
His work should come secondary to the fact that a father, husband and inspiration to many died today, so condolences to them.

I might as well- while I think his eloquence was occasionally overstated, at least he had some tact when he attempted to dismantle an argument, unlike some of the previous posters who are blurring the margins between atheism and intelligence, and theism and ignorance, without acknowledging how childish the argument is. Hitchens lived his life without apology, and while I feel he wasn’t by any stretch one of the great minds, although potentially one of the loudest, most stirring voices, I feel he was a dying breed in journalism and discourse, so it’s a shame to see him pass. To the person who said he abused his children by smoking and drinking; that’s the worst thing I’ve seen today and I watched a video of a python eating a kitten earlier, don't come out with such a base unsubstantiated insult in a condolences thread. Also, side note, fair dues to philio for standing up so unwaveringly for his beliefs, however controversial they may be. At least he's expressing his opinion and accepting the consequences of unpopular opinion. Even Hitchens himself said there's enough time to be silent in the grave. For that statement alone, I will miss his VF articles.

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

I'm no fan of Dawkins, I think it's difficult for anyone to be, he's so lacking in humour and charm, but just because he wasn't a great interviewee doesn't diminish his intellect. I'm not convinced by the use of evolution as a grand narrative for absolutely everything, but his early ideas have a convincing claim to originality, and were hugely influential in his field and beyond. I thought he was quite good on Channel 4's Inside Nature's Giants, but then the material was so interesting to begin with.

I have a lot of respect for Dawkins given all he has achieved in his area of research, and I have sympathy for him since the area he has dedicated his life to is being repeatedly undermined and attacked by some idiots. I can see how that could be extremely grating. True, he's not particularly charming or funny, but he knows exactly what he's talking about.

Zillah wrote: »

He never claimed they were original thoughts. The purpose of his book was to allow closet atheists to feel more comfortable and confident in their non-belief.

Says who?

Certainly Dawkins refers to the Darwinian motivations for altruism which make religion redundant in the modern world, and quite rightly says that atheists ought not be ashamed of their lack of belief - but to claim this is the purpose of the book is a bit of a leap.

It is very clear to anyone reading The God Delusion that Dawkins spends quite an amount of time examining and attempting to criticise Christian philosophy. My point is simply that his critique of Christian thought is a little deficient and repetitive from a rhetorical point of view. It seems that whenever he gets on to something interesting from a philosophical point of view, for example original sin, he just ends up getting super defensive, ignores the genesis of the idea, and once again pulls out the card that 'God is a statistical improbability anyway, so lets not discuss theology'.

In that regard, for me, the book was massively unsuccessful.

Basically what I'm saying is that your disappointment is irrelevant to everyone.

This is a message board.

Do you know how that works?

If it's irrelevant to you save us both the time and don't bother engaging with it.

philologos wrote: »

Cú Globach - Do you agree that it is different to know that something will happen, than directly causing something to happen?

I do.
But what about committing an action while knowing what the results of that action will be? In that case you are choosing to cause that result.

I don't believe it is accurate to say that foreknowledge is the same thing as predestination, or at least not in every case.

In the case of a deity creating something while at the same time knowing what the results of his actions are, means he is predetermining what will happen, because everything he creates is under his control and formed by him, otherwise, there goes omnipotence.

Nothing needs to be missing. God can be all powerful, and God can know something will happen without being directly responsible for it. Particularly in the case of free will.

How can you say he is not responsible for it, when what he creates is up to him.
When god (supposedly) gave Hitler life, he already knew what he would get up to, if he didn't know this and Adolf could have possibly become a mechanic instead, then there goes omniscience. He had to have known what would happen in the 1930's and 40's and known it well before AH :eek: was born, right back to the beginning of time 6,000 years ago.
It really is quite simple.
There is no logical argument for omniscience, omnipotence and free will.

By the way, I'm pretty sure Christopher would absolutely love to see his RIP thread become a logical discussion around religion.

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

Who do you consider an eminent thinker?

You want a list?

Noam Chomsky
Jakob von Weizsäcker
William D Hamilton

I don't really know if there's something specific you want..?

later10 wrote: »

But you see I'm not criticising Dawkins specifically any more than I would criticise those who write the 'for Dummies' series. I'm criticising what I consider a popular opinion among a cohort of atheists that as a thinker, Dawkins (or Hitchens for that matter) are particularly brilliant.

Dawkins talent for evolutionary biology is not something I am questioning. I understand that he is a talented scientist in his private life. But his more recent books, linking science with atheism were unremarkable from my viewpoint. Unless one had not previously understood evolution or had not understood the rational basis for atheism, I'm not really sure why one might find them so impressive.

Dawkins makes it clear in his most recent books that they are a response to the rise of fundamentalism and the sheer number of people who discount evolution, mainly in The States and to a lesser extent in Europe.