Christopher Hitchens Debates Mark Roberts (Part 02/12)

[LordShivasServant]

Einstein was a what? Did anyone catch that?

I thought the term for this was Deist.

[TomVodkaCollins]

@LordShivasServant He said "Spinozists". "Wikipedia says, "Spinozism (also spelt Spinoza-ism or Spinozaism) is the monist philosophical system of Baruch Spinoza which defines "God" as a singular self-subsistent substance, and both matter and thought as attributes of such. Spinoza claimed that the third kind of knowledge, intuition, is the highest kind attainable." It's a specific Deist philosophy.

[LordShivasServant]

@TomVodkaCollins Cheers :)

[LordShivasServant]

Science hasn't actually explained the origins of the Cosmos OR the origins of Consciousness (which is never brought up by ANYONE) - nor has religion. I thought Hitchens would be smarter than to make a stupid proclamation like THAT.

[thinlizzybone]

@Lichtspielhaus234 Are you serious?

[MamaMario13]

@Lichtspielhaus234 that doesnt make the religion any more true or moral. plus who wants to be with a god who wants to torture people forever for not believing in him? Your god is a total psychopath

[MamaMario13]

@Lichtspielhaus234 yes, but he admitted it was only out of fear of hell

[Useless2112]

Why do Americans put the emphasis in the sentence "God is not great" on the word "not"? Am I missing something here?

[mjr256]

Mark Roberts: I have a better explanation for morality. Some invisible magic dude told me to. Checkmate atheists!

[kevrs2]

i love the way these sky psycho believers call themselves DR.

[adamredwine]

Man I hate that crypto-christian bullcrap.

[rudenoodle]

Not thjat it maters in relation to your statement, but Hitchens no longer smokes.

[DoomTone11]

You just called everyone who smokes "not smart". In other words, that all smokers are idiots. You used ad homonym, non sequitur, and sweeping generalization all at once. Fantastic.

[TheConciseStatement]

NOMA is a complete red herring. Sam Harris nails it when he says that you cannot avoid the clash between science and religion because a religious claim about the virgin birth of Jesus is also a claim about biology - such claims overtly trespass on the territory of science (see Harris V Wolpe debate).

[peaceric]

btw i think this is a very interesting debate

mark roberts is a little self deprecating but i can tell he's a pretty thoughtful person

it's refreshing to hear a debate with hitchens that doesn't have one or both sides getting all upset, lol

[baeron84]

Ayn Rand says it best when she says: "Religion allows peaple to think and act irrationally" Morals are a necessity of a stable socioty. Let me say that again. Morals are a NECESSITY of a stable socioty. Thats it, Case closed.

[MrSalamander7]

I love that quote, but let's be honest. Ayn Rand was a pretty big psycho.

[baeron84]

Many have made the observation, but she articulates it well. Whats her mental health have to do with the truth of the statement... but yeah it is a sweet qoute, lol

[MrSalamander7]

I wasn't implying she was actually derranged, merely that most of ideas were terrible. I approve of her stance on religion, though.

[baeron84]

No, I hear ya and agree, lol. I just like reading myself talk. Thanks for the comment MrS

[MrSalamander7]

Always a pleasure, baeron. Stay godless.

[AbbeyNormal]

The other guy suggests that, since our emotions are more than the sum of their parts, we can't deal with them purely with scientific language, and I think that's true. However, he then suggests that religion is a better model, and then I'd have to ask, which one? And what if none are true? Should we believe in something that isn't true, because it gives us a convenient set of language?

[Neanderthalcouzin]

Now, there may very well be a God, but the very fact I am talking about 'a God' comes from my time and culture. Not so long ago, thinking men were debating the existence of communities of intervential Gods and Godesses.

But I firmly believe that an understanding of the cosmos must come from mathematics, theoretical physics, cosmology and other fields. I would encourage an interest in exploring the un-known, not paralysis which is what religion ultimately espouses.

[Neanderthalcouzin]

Has anyone here heard the Quantum Physics expression that we are ultimately limited by our tools in explaining the cosmos: a telescope can only give you a certain picture of the magnificent Universe--eventually you learn more about the limitations of the tool than the true picture of the infinite cosmos.

Now replace the word 'telescope' with our 'human brain'. Our religious, spiritual intuitions about the cosmos bear the stamp of our limited cognitive capabilities, and our evolution.

[Neanderthalcouzin]

Do Christians who say morals come from God stop for a minute to think about all the many different cultures, religions, and moral systems around the world?

Sometimes I want to think there's a God, but your God is so provincial, so petty, so deplorable, so not-something I aspire to.

I have to smile sometimes: we are like ants trying to understand the complexity of their ecosystem. In some ways, we cannot even cognitively make sense of it. But to assume it was all supernatural...

[24LakerGirl]

Thank God for Christopher Hitchens!

[smujismuj]

@24LakerGirl

Tee Hee

[WisdomVendor]

there is no fine scientist that believes in god.

there are a very small amount of people with scientific degrees that believe in god, The two statements are not the same.

A fine scientist, by definition, believes nothing without strong evidence supporting the "belief".

[VarialProductions]

That is not true as an amount of esteemed credited science have admitted belief in monotheistic religion such as Francis Collins of the Human Genome project. However, what Mark Roberts forget to mention about his statistics is that when you make the jump to the inner more respected scientific community the number of agnostic/atheistic scientists jumps up to 90%. Pretty compelling evidence for the inverse relationship between faith and reason if you ask me.

[trog400]

Christopher Hitchens, I love you

[BassicFunktion]

It's an obscure point they always make. But they only attribute the 'good' stuff to him. Everything 'bad', is the image of The Devil. Totally ignoring the fact that The Bible contradicts itself, promotes 'Evil' and then takes it back later on and is forgotten by the typical believer today.

[lollygager3664]

To say otherwise is to appeal to the totalitarian impulse: truth is vested in a single consciousness.

That is silly enough, but they claim to understand this mind.

[CBUEngineer]

I am an engineer raised in a christian home with all christian friends in the bible belt. I am now an agnostic seculartist. I must not exist.

[baalChrist]

I'm tired of this 'proof by numbers', just because people believe dosent make it true. People used to believe and still do in all kinds of things, like phrenology, the ether wind, the golden fleece and imps. Pied piper anyone? (oh and Einstein flatly refused to believe in Quantum physics, so how is his opinion truth in any regard?)

[NOWYOURGONNABURNHOE]

ACCIDENT OF EVOLUTION!!!?!?

motherfucking pastor cunt

[brokennarcissist]

Lol, this comment captures the new atheist movement in a nutshell. Its appeal is inflammatory langauge that draws out the lower levels of ego. Boasting about intellegence while bullying a easy target, religion.

There is a reason you can profile a Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris alongside of Trey Parker and Matt Stone. The appeal of thier work is humiliation disguised as valueing reason. They just happen to be rightwing pro war conservatives.

[NOWYOURGONNABURNHOE]

you've put too much thought into that comment

you shouldn't be so obsessed with the "atheist movement" as you people like to dub it

it's just a simple statement- if you think the biochemical process that birthed humans into existence is an accident- you're a bit of a cunt

[DanC9189]

"if you think the biochemical process that birthed humans into existence is an accident- you're a bit of a cunt"

Bravo!

[Grak70]

Present a better target if you don't want your target lambasted. In the marketplace of ideas, some ideas are doomed to extinction. Being fed up with the tenacity of an idea whose time has come isn't bigotry: it's a sign of imminent progress.

[brokennarcissist]

Are you kidding? Modernism hasn't survived the marketplace of ideas. The enlightenment is a dead project that the idols of the new athiest movement (Dawkins, Harris & Hitchens) cling to.

Present a better target? Belittling a target isn't necessisary for progress. Thanks for emphasizing my point that this movement is motivated by adolescent ego flexing and not reason.

How is denying meaning of those who disagree with your viewpoint progressive and not fascist?

[Grak70]

Let me make this clear: you can believe what you want. I'm not going to tell you what to believe. But if you believe something stupid, like oh say, fairy tales from an illiterate desert culture that's been dead for 2000 years, or that American Indians are decended from the tribes of Israel, I'm *going to laugh at you for how dumb your ideas are*. Ideas get vetted for their substance. They don't command respect of their own accord.

[brokennarcissist]

Let me makes this clear, your paticular views are of no interest to me. My criticism is directed at the new athesit movement.

Though, I find it humerous that you offer a childlike self serving oversimplification of religious and cultural identity in one sectence. Then claim to to respect ideas for their substantive merit in the next. Not excalty evidence of a sophisticated reader. In the future, you'd be well served to be more apprehensive in terms of pointing to other's illeratcy.

[Grak70]

Just to bring you up to speed, fascist would be me telling you what to believe and not to believe; what to do and not to do; what to think and not to think. Religion -IS FASCISM- in this respect! So why aren't you opposing it if you hate fascists so much???

[brokennarcissist]

The new atheist movement has made an enemy of political correctness and of showing anything that resembles respect or tolerance for even moderate religious indentity. The movement certainly has a fascist vein runing through it.

Religion is not fascism. In the context of liberal bourgeois culture if one is so inclined to find meaning in a religious context, its their freedom to engage that pursuit. New athiets openly profess their intolerance for such vocabularies.

[Grak70]

Like I said, do what you want. Just don't get all pissy when people make fun of you for believing in the equivalent of santa claus.

And on another level, the moderates aren't excused either because they still cling to this idea of sacred texts and precepts. As long as the Bible says to stone adulterers, the potential is there for someone to pick up the gauntlet no matter what the milksop quasi-christians profess as their personal "take". In disease terms: they carry but don't express.

[brokennarcissist]

I'm not getting pissy at all. I'm not the one struggling when my views are challenged. I'm an atheist, so even if I were juvenile enough to grant agree that Santa Claus and Jesus signified the same thing, it wouldn't be offensive to me.

To suggest that there are moderate religious followers potentially stoning people in the streets is irrational. Even if they did, the crime is stone throwing not religion.

'In disease terms: they carry but don't express.' LMAO, you hold the cure, huh.

[Grak70]

I never said moderates would stone people to death. That was the whole point of my previous statement. The fact that bibles keep getting printed with those words still intact because of continued promulgation by moderates IS my point.

As for cures, I've got nothing on offer. It's up to other people to take off the training wheels. Stop being scared of death and live your life already! Do what you want, but in private; and if you could cut out the bronze-age hate dogma, that would be great.

[brokennarcissist]

If printing bibles is the issue. Then whats the solution? Burning them, editing them? Not letting a parent read one to their kid? That sounds like a word I've used that you don't seem to like. Its up to you to declare where others should find meaning their private projects.

Are religious people stuck in bronze-age dogma? Do they drive cars to work at secular institutions? Do they get educated in public institutions? Who is it that is stuck in bronze-age dogmas?

[Grak70]

"Oh god forbid we *edit* the sacred texts to remove the admonitions about stoning rape victims!"

Seriously. What Christian today believes that? My point is, why NOT remove it of their own accord as a sign of civil progress? I'm not going to advocate forcing removal of it any more than I'm going to tell the KKK they can't have a rally, but Christians who don't advocate removing it or make excuses to keep it are going to invite my scorn (which I will gladly dispense).

[brokennarcissist]

I'm fine with telling the KKK they can't have a rally. I also live in a country where we have free speech with limits on hate speech as we recognize hate speech limits the autonomy of its target's group.

You pride yourself on your hatred of a targeted group, again you emphasize my point that the appeal of the new atheist movement is pandering to emotional base and not reason. Why keep up the charade?

[Grak70]

Well that's where you and I differ. Hate speech as currently legislated in the US is bullshit. It essentially says that you can speak words so vile that you can no longer hold other people accountable for their own actions.  I am all about personal responsibility and free speech, no matter how much I disagree with whatever issue is under discussion.

I don't see how you think I'm appealing to emotion here. Where exactly did I make an emotional appeal?

[brokennarcissist]

Who are the icons of free speech in America? Larry Flynt, Matt & Trey Parker and Howard Stern come to mind. All of them make a living by pandering to base adolescent narcissism, humiliating and degrading others. Kind of hard to respect their work.

You stop yelling, thats a start, you came across as whipped up in a frenzy over this exchange.

[Grak70]

First of all, South Park's authors aren't making serious statements of opinion. They're just stirring the pot for cheap laughs and then reneging in the final segment of every show. It's the pornography of free speech.

How does being featured in mass media make you an icon of free speech any more than it makes "Survivor" quality television? You're confusing popularity with value.

And you still don't seem to understand the rhetorical implications that accompany the phrase "emotional argument".

[brokennarcissist]

'They're just stirring the pot for cheap laughs and then reneging in the final segment of every show. It's the pornography of free speech.'

I'd take issue with pornography.

You're completely missing the point. I'm critiquing pop culture. Where Harris, Dawkins and Hitchen make their appeals. There work exists alongside Oprah, Survivor, South Park etc... They do not contribute to high culture.

I'll simply infered to calm down, this is a safe place, relax and present your case like an adult.

[Grak70]

So who will be the judge of what constitutes high culture? Who will decide what speech is permitted and what is not and by what standard? The mob's preferences at the time?

I think you're setting up an arbitrary "high culture" standard in the interests of discrediting something distasteful to you. Can't we just protect all speech and save ourselves the trouble? It's actions that should be prosecuted, not thoughts.

[brokennarcissist]

Academics discourse establishes high culture. Thats hardly arbitrary. Appereances on Bill Maher, writing for Vanity Fair and debates on BookTV arenas for soft intellectuals.

New athiests co-opt secular humanism. The consequences of this attempt is turning atheism into herd mentality. I don't recall athiests rallies when I was growing up. So spare me the self rightous bs about mob preferences. Denying self creation is dogmatic.

[Grak70]

And holding formal moderated debates on the topic doesn't qualify? I have seen countless debates by Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris on Youtube that are carried out in a perfectly civil manner. Academic discourse doesn't imply capitulation to some middle ground when the two opposing viewpoints are in direct conflict. There are plenty of peer reviewed scientific journals on any number of topics that are just as brusque.

[brokennarcissist]

Its not a manner of how there conducted or where but how they're recieved by academic community. No respectable institution would use their the texts in a classroom. The expection being Dawkins contributions to biology.

For instance, you wouldn't study the God Delusion in a philosophy class, at least not on its own terms (modernism). It isn't philosophy proper.

Many intellectuals take issue with Harris and Dawkins for being irrelevant and generally making people dumber. Zizek comes to mind.

[Grak70]

Maybe you don't recall atheist rallies when you were growing up because they weren't organized like they are today. The interconnectedness of the world in modern times makes this inevitable. You seem to confuse cultural and political organization around an idea for an automatic, stereotypical vapidity of its members. Now who's being the elitist?

What do you mean by "denying self creation"? I don't understand what you mean.

[brokennarcissist]

I don't take issue with elitism when its warrented.

Don't understand self creation? Read some Nietzche, you'll be better for it. This speaks volumes of why we're at odds.

Take Nietzche's proclamation 'God is dead'. He is prouncing the death of God, Truth and Morality. Freeing the subject from the shackles of objectivity to engage their will power, to pursue self creation in an effort to rise above the herd. Sort of the point of living.

In this regard, new atheism is neo Kantianism

[Grak70]

To clarify, I used the word "pornography" to connotate a lack of underlying substance or honesty. I didn't mean to imply that there's something implicitly bad about porn. Far from it.

[brokennarcissist]

After using the example of Flynt and Stern to illustrate how unfettered free speech in practice most often fails to produce edyifying discourse, I'd argue its relevant to this discussion.

[Grak70]

Well, I happen to think they're both dicks. That doesn't mean they don't get to say what they like. It's my responsibility to distance myself from them and say they don't represent me, not the other way around.

[brokennarcissist]

Thats fine, I'm criticizing you, I'm criticizing the movement.

[brokennarcissist]

typo... Thats fine, I'm NOT criticizing you, I'm criticizing the movement.

[Grak70]

"Are religious people stuck in bronze-age dogma?"

I don't know. Is cutting off part of your child's penis a modern development? Is giving 10% of your income to an organization with a reputation for pedophilia and support of *actual* fascism honorable? Is pretending to eat the flesh and drink the blood of a dead man the sign of a sane person?  Is beating your wife or denying her an education a problem? Is forcing your creation myth into public schools as science okay? I could go on...

[brokennarcissist]

The issue is circumsion not Judaism, the issue is pedophilia not Christianity, taking commune is a harmless and does not signify cannibalism to a Christian, the issue is misogyny something biological determinism are aptly criticized for not Islam, creationism isn't taught in public institutions.

Go on you're hollow understanding of these issues are laughable, but pat yourself on the back you toe the party line quite well.

[Grak70]

People do these things *because* their religion tells them to!

And if you think people aren't trying like hell to get creationism into public school, you're just sticking your head in the sand.

[brokennarcissist]

South Park reference, what a shock you turn to comedy central to make a weak point. So people are slaves to religion, huh?

There are people trying to get creationism in public schools and they're failing to do so. Much ado about nothing. Its intellectually dishonest to suggest that religious people are co-opting public education.

[Grak70]

And your failure to recognize inculcation of religious values into secular government as a threat is why your country of P.C. apologizers is about to be overrun by muslim demands for special protection of the shari'a legal system.

And frankly, you wouldn't be so cavalier about ID in public schools if you had to live in the US where school boards are frequently barely able to defeat textbook referendums that advocate teaching creation as science.

Willful ignorance is not a virtue.

[Grak70]

The Torah SAYS to circumcise your male children. The catholic church SAYS priests have to be celibate, building up pent up sexual desire. The Koran SAYS it's okay to beat your wife. Evangelical christianity SAYS that creation is the divine method. These things are PREACHED as unalterable truth to billions. Your ignorance of the threat posed by backward thinking of this magnitude is laughable.

Why must the rest of us stomach this Neanderthal-esque bullshit in the public forum unchallenged?

[brokennarcissist]

Let examine the issue of pedophilia. This is an unfortunate reality and not exclusively a Christian issue. When you have adults around kids this issues arises. There are plenty of secular teachers who have commited this crime. Should we stop being taxed for paying teachers?

Christians condemn pedophilia. I agree celibacy is an issue. I agree circumcision is an issue. However that those issues aren't sufficient to admonish religion as a whole. Don't confuse particulars with the whole...

[brokennarcissist]

You're preaching Neanderthal-esque bullshit. I have little patience for it. The solution isn't dogmatic secularism. The new atheist movement has done nothing in terms of producing edifying discourse. Its simply has served to further alienate people on issues it pretends to rationally critique.

Its basically poorly expressed atheism preached under the idols of intellectual hacks that contribute nothing to high culture.

[brokennarcissist]

I would like to slightly amend my last post. Dawkins does contribute to high culture with his work within the field of biology. Outside of that discipline his work is irrelevant.

Good scientist, piss poor philosopher.

[Grak70]

I'm interested in what you think is "piss poor" about his philosophy. Is it the fact that he's willing to say he doesn't agree with religious dogma? How DARE he!

[Grak70]

If you'd oblige me by enumerating what the "dogma" of secularism is, I'd sure appreciate it because I have no idea what you're talking about.

Atheism is not a dogma. It's a *rejection* of dogma. So what if people are alienated by ideas they don't agree with? Gays alienated plenty of people before they got any respect. You think they were just rabble-rousers too?

[brokennarcissist]

I'm not saying secularism is dogmatic, I'm point to a paticular brand of atheism that is dogmatic. Judging by the cliches you present that I've subjected myself to read in this exchange its clear that these 'memes' have been internalized as slogans within a community of new atheists.

When pressed turn new atheist turn to ready made responses such as 'We're rational, we're progress, religion is backward' etc... while refusing to rationally engage the issue.

(continued)

[brokennarcissist]

There is a refusal to engage the proclaimed standards of reason. So I find it cute when someone says 'I endorse evolution, you cunt' as if to be Christian is to deny evolution.

Atheism is the denial of a metaphysical principle, nothing more.

'Gays alienated plenty of people before they got any respect.'?

The movement you're refering to was a reaction to being alienating, to create cultural space to engage an identity, it was an intellectual appeal for alternative discourse of a culture norm.

[Grak70]

And in societies like ours where the majority of people profess belief in some form of the supernatural, the case of atheists is any different? The objection is not to private practice of religious conviction (though I believe that's damaging anyway, I wouldn't go so far as to say it should be outlawed). It's to the pervasiveness of religion in a society that's supposed to be secular to encourage neutrality on the issue.

[Grak70]

sorry, I should have said "government" not "society"

[brokennarcissist]

Finally getting somewhere. I've been arguing for neutrality. The state should remain neutral on conceptions of the good. That said, religious people have their particular articulations of the good.

I'm not suggesting that there aren't toxic expressions of religion. I'm pointing out that new atheists are capable of toxic expressions of their own.

[Grak70]

Argh. I give up.

[Grak70]

I still don't understand how an atheist can be dogmatic. If you mean in the sense of ascribing an absolute certainty to the non-existence of god, then I agree with you. That is a very foolish position to take. Aside from that common misunderstanding of atheism, what dogma is there?

[Grak70]

The church is supposed to answer for the behavior of its employees. Further, their behavior is a direct result of the religious dogma that defines how they do their jobs. Not only that, but the church beaurocracy is *implicitly implicated* by shuffling the pedophiles around! How can you *not* hold them accountable?

The whole? Name one good thing a religious person can do that a secular person can't. Why do I have to separate the good if there's no added value and demonstrable added harm?

[brokennarcissist]

How is religion necessarily dogmatic? There exists diverse interpretations even within particular religious sects. If a religious person commits a crime, then that they're a criminal, the same is true of an atheist.

Name me a crime a religious person can commit that an atheist (btw, what is a secular person?) cannot? Again we're confronted with treating other's as lesser being unless they subscribe to your particular worldview while exercising pseudo logic to justify this claim.

[Grak70]

How about torturing someone for heresy? Prosecuting someone for eating a cracker without the pope's permission? Issuing a crusade on another religious group for subscribing to the wrong set of religious beliefs? Having sexual intercourse before a holy man says you can? Having the wrong kind of sexual intercourse? Punishing someone for working on a specific day of the week?

The list goes on...

[brokennarcissist]

With this list we see a refusal to actually do the work of properly articulating the issue. To simply label it 'stupid religious stuff' does nothing to address the issues, hence such discourse results in further alienating people on the issue.

Constructing stereotypes in order to mock and belittle others results in lowering overall consciousness, the very thing you criticize, how should be understood as progress?

[Grak70]

And the debates I cited don't go into detail on the specific objections? Even a polemicist like Hitchens doesn't stoop to base, unjustified name-calling.

I completely agree that "fuck you Christians," is a useless sentiment without qualification. Is this fundamentally what you're objecting to? Because I don't think any of my prior arguments stoop to this base level. I detailed my reasons for why religious beliefs are foolish: they're either a) barbaric or b) epistemologically bankrupt.

[brokennarcissist]

I'm objecting to that attitude, however that is one of numerous issues I take with the movement. You haven't made that argument outright, however you have suggested that you value mocking and hateful speech directed at a specific target (religion) and now have set up a false dichotomy to do so.

[Grak70]

What else could it be but dogmatic? Dogma as I'm using it is a set of standard institutionalized beliefs. What religion doesn't have at minimum a set of unalterable statements of percieved truth? I guess you could be a deist and say that god exists in an isolated sense or "is the universe" but that's bordering on tautology.

[brokennarcissist]

Dogmas aren't exclusive to religions. There ideologies.

Can religion be dogmatic? Of course, any literal reading of a text (not matter what the text) will likely be dogmatic.

To deny the diversity of literal, cultural and philosophical theory of a particular religious text is an example of unsophicated reading. You cannot put a text in crucible and produce a single meaning. New atheists mistakenly treat religious texts as something there are not; objects of science.

[Grak70]

How is a religious text any more exempt from the burden of proof than any other assertion? It claims to have knowledge about reality, yet sets itself outside the realm of responsibility for justifying its claims. Don't you see something fundamentally wrong with that?

And I reject wholesale this idea that undifferentiated "diversity" is somehow beneficial. As if 50 death cults was somehow better than 3 simply because people have been more creative in thinking up BS.

[brokennarcissist]

Religious texts aren't not objects of scientific discourse. They're history, myth and philosophy interwooven. I wouldn't go to a physics class to understand Orwell, nor would I turn to a biologist to understand a religious text.

Prioritizing science over all other disciplines isn't progressive or desirable.

[fctchk]

Yet religious texts rather stridently hold forth on matters involving science and technology with an authority that brooks no challenge: Cosmology - the Genesis narrative, Biology - human parthenogenesis, Medicine - the resurrection, Oceanography - the parting of the red sea, Physics - the burning bush, Zoological ventriloquism- the talking snake, boat building Noahs Arc, crypto-zoological avionics - the black winged horse, Chemistry - transformation of water into wine

[brokennarcissist]

So authors of the Bible written two thousand years ago weren't being fair to modern technology and biology?

I'll repeat myself from on earlier post. Religious texts are myth, history and philosophy interwooven. Not object of science. Science produces and evaluates its own object, religious texts aren't examples of those objects.

No one would study Moby Dick in a marine biology class, that doesn't mean those who find meaning in it are irrational or that it isn't a worth while pursuit.

[brokennarcissist]

Nor would anyone engage theology to better understand cosmology or biology. Religion and science are distinct disciplines.

Tell where is the God Delusion required reading in high culture?

[fctchk]

"Religious texts are myth, history and philosophy interwoven."

The word "history" implies a high degree of factuality - in fact that is how it distinguishes itself from "myth"; it is an effort to get as accurate an account as possible of what really happened in the past. How do we distinguish between myth and fact in the religious texts?

[brokennarcissist]

If you ever taken history, you'd realize that history is a study that concerns numerous perspectives. Again, religious texts aren't exclusively historical or mythological or philosophical. There a combination of all three. Which calls for a more sophisticated reading than what a new atheism suggests.

You can't get an accurate account of a text. Reading is relationship between author(s) and interpreter. There is never a uniform relationship between sign and signified.

(continued)

[brokennarcissist]

Modernists mistakenly make overly reductive readings of texts. These reductive reading are then used to justify universal claims. Reductive reading do not properly engage its subjects hence the universal claims aren't suffiencently justified.

This becomes an issue for the new atheist movement. This is a movement that isn't critical of itself. In this case, its not simply an issue of modernism, but that this brand of atheism is modernism poorly done.

[fctchk]

".. religious texts aren't exclusively historical or mythological or philosophical. They're a combination of all three. Which calls for a more sophisticated reading.."

I would be keen to avail myself of the benefits of a "more sophisticated reading" of religious texts -which I admittedly don't possess and you might provide:

Could you please describe the historical component of the prophet Muhammad's (peace be upon him) black winged horse?

[brokennarcissist]

My educational backround is in philosophy, hence my particular interest concerns religion's philosophical dimensions rather than mythology or history ones. So I'm not qualified to adequately deconstruct a random allusion to the Koran (nor should I be expected to). What I do posses though is literacy which I exercise to understand that there isn't one way to read a paricular text qua texts. There are no Truths.

For some light reading on this issue, I would suggest anything by Reza Aslan.

[fctchk]

My interests are scientific and juristic so I have a clear bias toward the factual and the evidentiary.

"There are no Truths" would not appear to be a sentiment you can come away with reading religious texts au contraire.

For the Koran allusion any - perhaps more familiar - reference from the bible can be substituted where (not likely to be factual) claims of fact are made or at least believed by most of the faithful. The talking snake would do.

Thanks for the Reza tip.

[marsCubed]

brokennarcissist, might I suggest that your reading list includes a footnote that; archaeology can be used to falsify the validity of some histories in your study. There is today very clear evidence that the proper interpretation of the old testament(for instance), should depend on the fact that it IS myth. That is, it was written in 600BC as a nation building strategy by Theocratic Judah in Canaan. To understand it you must know about the material conditions in Canaan.

biblical God was a man.

[brokennarcissist]

There is no such thing as a Proper interpretation of the Old Testament.

I never denied the mythical dimension (nor would I suggest ignoring the social context a particular book was written) of the Bible. That said, the Bible cannot understood exclusively as myth.

[Grak70]

Why the hell is political correctness the goal? Tolerate, yes. Respect? That's up to the person who wants respect!

Again ideas DON'T deserve respect! They EARN it. You throw around the word fascist like you think it means something in the context you're using it. What exactly DO you mean and how was my characterization of religious dogma inaccurate?

[brokennarcissist]

Poltical correctness concerns being tolerate of others, not necessarily respecting their views, hence we censor ourselves in publical discourse to show respect for other's personhood by not expressing biogotry for their views we happen not to respect.

I'm suggesting people should be treated with dignity despite their beliefs. Coercing other with boaderline hate speech strikes me as fascist. New atheist objectify religious identities, in doing so they treat them as lesser humans like facists.

[Grak70]

Well sorry. I'm not going to censor myself. People whose faith is strong enough to weather my ridicule won't have a problem with it. And those who feel attacked...maybe they don't believe as strongly as they've led themselves to believe. It's called free speech. Get used to it.

Why would you even bring up the hate speech defense? I don't agree with an idea and think it's stupid and say so and now it's hate speech?  That IS fascist.

[Grak70]

Once again, you keep saying "fascist" like a Klan member would say "nigger". If you're not going to ascribe its actual meaning and instead use it as an epitaph for a philosophical position you don't agree with, you might as well call me "nigger" for all the good it does your argument.

[brokennarcissist]

I'm pointing to the moral regression you're priding yourself on. Ironic since the movement preaches progress.

What philosophical position you think I'm disagring with? Its not atheism.

I would denounce any totalitarian ideology (fascism) or absolute universal claim to truth. Denying other's their subjectivity is a fascist endeavor. The new atheist movement has no sense of irony in their criticisms and make absolute claim on denying personal identity.

Do you need repeated another six times?

[Grak70]

Do YOU? WHO IS DENYING ANYONE ANYTHING??? Seriously! Who is making the case for banning religion? Is that really what you're arguing that I'm up for? Come on!

You're getting bent out of shape because I'm not pulling my punches on a dumb idea. That doesn't mean I'm advocating burning churches!

[brokennarcissist]

No, I find it ironic that you're calling others dumb. Burning the books was a hyperbole. Calm down, use your words.

I've already pointed out that its absurb to expect a Christian to take seriously those passages, however its not up to atheist to decide what is religion proper, but if you want to argue for editing them, thats fine do so. New atheists state a rather narrow position then troll religious people from this narrow view. Hard to respect a movement that isn't very critical of itself.

[jamichelash]

eddie izzard should play hitchens in a bio pic dead ringers!

[19995700]

Check out the bib on wiki "religion and intelligence"

Some interesting research.

[19995700]

The studies that I've read show an inverse correlation between education and religion. That is - the more educated, (generally) the less religious they become. Non belief in professors sits with this premise.

Not meaning to be rude to the religious but these studies do hint at a theme I find common amongst the faithful......

[1n354a]

There are quite a few people who are very well educated and have very strong faiths to boot - take for example Ken Miller (Dover Trial) who is a devote Catholic yet is also highly educated and respected. However, I do agree with you in that a lot of people take the "answers" that their faith provides and are content with that...sad, considering the wealth of knowledge and information that is available.

[19995700]

Absolutely. There are plenty of dumb atheists as well. However that being said I am intrigued by research that points to what I suspect should be obvious to us anyway - and that is religion is mostly a dumb disease.

[1n354a]

I would not disagree - substituting religion for ID in this case, though I don't think it much matters:

"Science is the philosophy of knowledge and Religion is the philosophy of ignorance."

[19995700]

Good quote. Who was that?

[lollygager3664]

Not to equate all Catholics with Nazis, but there were many well-educated, devout National Socialists. It is true that the pre-modern era is rife with examples of the more devout being amongst the working class while the more cynical were amongst the ruling class. Nonetheless, I think that religious belief becomes more a question of sucess at doublethink the highter one ascends the social strata.

[weversonman]

it's true, Hitchens has said and there is lots of evidence of this, that the majority of Waffen SS soldiers were practicing Catholics. Hitchens is right when he says, both bad religious and bad non-religious people will do bad things, but only religion makes good people do bad things when it is commanded by their beliefs, ie. blocking research that will save lives or stoning women to death for adultery. All the so called atheist terrors of the 20th century were really not that at all.

[ugnyteee]

These things actually ARE in the bible. Every religious person has to come across a moment where they have to explain and think of a reason for all those terrible things that are said to be done in gods name in the bible. What kind of faith is that ? You have to justify murdering,sexism...the list goes on. What kind of moral god and moral book is that ??

[ugnyteee]

A lot of people state that our society gets morals from religion,BUT i believe it's vise versa,ACTUALLY religion gets morlas from the society.Just read the Bible, Bible approves of slavery,stoning people to death,killing babies , the list could go on and on. It is said clearly in the Bible that you must kill blasphemers. And that is what religion has been doing for a very long period of time. OUR society has told religion "hey,no,slavery isnt ok" "hey,killing non-believers isnt ok" ..

[CANDYPERFUMEGIRL31]

Hitchens is a neocon warmonger. Anybody who supports Bush and the Iraq War is not a rational human being.

[schmiggen]

Funny thought I just had.... if I'm created in God's image, does God have a natural predisposition to be incredulous about things, including his own existence?

Does God have existential worries?

[fofofofofofofofofo]

If we are made in the image of god, then god is assuredly the most masochistic, selfish, sadistic, vengeful, exploitative, ill-tempered, and irrational creature imaginable. The argument for a moral god crumbles in light of the way the world really is.

[TexasRounder]

Of course god is the most masochistic, selfish, sadistic, vengeful, exploitative, ill-tempered and irrational. Haven't you ever read the Bible?

[idespiseall]

Well its okay for you to say that having perfect knowledge of the universe both before and after the existence on this world in it. Remember...you know why you're here. Do you know why?

[rebby11]

To keep the world supply of chocolate under control...

[lollygager3664]

To dance and raep children.

[belzondium]

Hewitt's desperate effort to color Einstein as a theist, and then his immediately turning to Roberts for help after Hitchens deconstructed his poorly understood quotes, made me cringe for his sake, windbag that he is.

[papavb]

peter is his younger brother

[4449911]

If I had an older brother like Peter Hitchens, I would become a Marxist too :-)

[lollygager3664]

Hitchens was never a Marxist per se. He always described himself as a "Trotskyist", as did Peter. Of course, this is when they were both younger and have since moved on.

[cartapasio]

Thanks for uploading food for the brain.. Thanks!!!!