Ship of Fools: The Hitch Is Dead

Thread: The Hitch Is Dead Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022990

Posted by Tom Paine's Bones (# 17027) on :

Today (13th April) would have been Christopher Hitchen's 63rd birthday, had he not died.

It's as good a time as any to remember and reflect on this remarkable and much-missed man.

Some did not like him because he spoke out. Many did not agree with his atheism. But, personally, I will always admire his ruthless, fearless, uncompromising ability to speak truth to power. He held nothing so sacred as to be beyond criticism.

How do you think we should honour and respond to this man's legacy?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

By propagandizing on behalf of the rich and powerful?

Posted by Rosina (# 15589) on :

Is this a thread about atheism? What do you mean by these words:

"uncompromising ability to speak truth to power".
and

"He held nothing so sacred as to be beyond criticism" ?

He was a fool - "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." Who fooled him into believing there is no God?

I wonder who taught him to deny God and honour man?

Posted by Casineb (# 15588) on :

We should continue to defend faith against other attackers like Hitchens.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
By propagandizing on behalf of the rich and powerful?

He came and went like a comet before I ever read anything he wrote or otherwise paid much attention. So I have little basis for an opinion; but if and when I do form one, I hope that it will be as consistent as he was. It does seem strange for anyone in the West to just sorta dislike him when he fulminated about the threat of Christianity, and really despise him only when he found Islam threatening as well.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
By propagandizing on behalf of the rich and powerful?
He came and went like a comet before I ever read anything he wrote or otherwise paid much attention. So I have little basis for an opinion; but if and when I do form one, I hope that it will be as consistent as he was. It does seem strange for anyone in the West to just sorta dislike him when he fulminated about the threat of Christianity, and really despise him only when he found Islam threatening as well.

Sure, but that wasn't all I was referring to. He beat the drum for war in Iraq for all it was worth, despite the fact that Iraq was probably the least likely Muslim nation to have had anything to do with 9/11, and his views on foreign policy were consistently nationalist and imperialist.

Plus, he was pretty much a dick. Not that I myself am sinless in that regard, but generally when it's pointed out to me that I've been rude, I apologize and try to make amends rather than doubling down on the douchebaggery.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Rest eternal grant unto him, O Lord:and let light perpetual shine upon him. Absolve, O Lord, all the souls of the departed from every chain of sin. And by the help of thy grace, may they be worthy to escape the judgment of condemnation: and attain the fruition of everlasting life.

May his soul and the souls of all the departed through the mercy of God, rest in peace.

(portions of the Requiem Mass slightly edited)

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

I just heard an interview on Youtube in which Hitchens proclaimed that he hated [his word] Henry Kissinger. Kissinger is a neo-conservative, isn't he? And didn't Hitchens become one, too, for all practical purposes? What was Kissinger's opinion about the Iraq war?
Maybe Hitchens wasn't as consistent as I assumed.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Kissinger wasn't a neocon. He could have cared less about making the world safe for democracy. Realpolitik is often used to describe Kissinger's foreign policy. Hitchens was the last pure neocon.

Posted by Tom Paine's Bones (# 17027) on :

I think Hitchens' support for the war, while uncharacteristic in some ways, was nevertheless consistent with his thorough-going opposition to totalitarianism and tyranny in all its forms:

It put him on the same side as the neo-cons on this issue, but it didn't necessarily make him a neo-con. Maybe he saw it as a moral duty to overthrow a vile regime of which he had first hand experience.

This video gives some insight.

[ 14. April 2012, 01:34: Message edited by: Tom Paine's Bones ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
It put him on the same side as the neo-cons on this issue, but it didn't necessarily make him a neo-con. Maybe he saw it as a moral duty to overthrow a vile regime of which he had first hand experience.

This book has portions of an interview in which Hitchens expresses admiration for the neo-cons(calling them by that name), and specifically mentions their roots in trotskyite politics, which Hitchens shared.

I think Hitchens was probably less inclined than were the pure neo-cons to give carte blanche to Israeli policies. Apart from that, though, he was pretty much marching in lockstep with the neo-cons post-9/11.

And yes, insofar as we are talking about the pro-interventionist end of the American foreign-policy spectrum(ie. omitting isolationists and leftists), Kissinger was on the opposite pole from the neo-cons.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

Never read any of his stuff. Heard him debate a couple of times. Reminded me a bit of Roper in a Man for All Seasons. Whichever way the tide was flowing, he wanted to swim the opposite way. Pretty self-obsessed?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Paine's Bones:
I think Hitchens' support for the war, while uncharacteristic in some ways, was nevertheless consistent with his thorough-going opposition to totalitarianism and tyranny in all its forms:

It put him on the same side as the neo-cons on this issue, but it didn't necessarily make him a neo-con. Maybe he saw it as a moral duty to overthrow a vile regime of which he had first hand experience.

This video gives some insight.

Didn't Hitchens also favor NATO involvement in Kosovo? I've read in multiple places Hitchens changed after the fatwa on Rushdie. Don't know if that's true or not. I was too young to be reading Christopher Hitchens before the fatwa against Rushdie. By the end, I seem to remember he became far more critical of the Palestinians than he previously had been. What I mean by saying Hitchens was the last pure neocon was that by the end of his life he was the definition of the pure neocon even though he wouldn't use the term for himself and didn't start out that way. Hitchens was a socialist but believed in military intervention to topple regimes he believed were immoral. The original neocons were Trotskyites who became disillusioned with Communism and embraced the Cold War. I suspect in the beginning many of them had economic views similar to Hitchens.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
I've read in multiple places Hitchens changed after the fatwa on Rushdie. Don't know if that's true or not.

Yes. He was a close friend of Rushdie's, and on numerous occassions mentioned the Iranian fatwa as a turning-point in his attitude toward Islam(though I think he had always disliked religion geherally).

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

I celebrated his birthday last night (thanks to this thread) by listening to the two-hour debate between brothers on Youtube, "Hitchens vs. Hitchens". Christopher supported the Iraq war and opposed religion. Peter did the opposite.

Peter's most telling point, I thought was that we have "luxury atheists" like his brother and Dawkins, cogitating in academic ivory towers, comfortably insulated from the consequences of their ideas. Then we have neighborhoods of the great unwashed, perhaps only a few miles away, where the influence of religion is nowhere to be found, and where you must fear getting kicked to death, and your head being used like a football, by "practical atheists." He said such horrors are reported in the news fairly frequently. Christopher is right (IMHO) that morality does not require religion, in theory. Practice, for a society as a whole, may be another matter. How have the attempted counterexamples fared?

Christopher had a good point, at first blush, when he asked the audience to think of a good deed that required a belief in God to perform. It is hard to think of one, and the very parable of the Good Samaritan points out that religious considerations apparently did not figure in the Samaritan's helping, but they explicitly did so for those who did not help. But if we are asked to think of bad deeds done in the name of religion, or by people who declared that God was on their side, atrocities are too many to name.

If I had been in the audience, however, and had my wits about me, I would have proffered the creation of cities as they are (am I not correct?) defined in Britain. A city is a municipality that has either a cathedral or a university. You don't build a cathedral without believing in God. And it also turns out that our first universities, too, were founded in Christendom to the glory of God, and not otherwise. Sometimes there were town-and-gown disputes or university scholars didn't agree with local prelates and clerics. In such cases, the popes tended to support the universities! The cases in which insights important to science were opposed and threatened until the pope came down on their side outnumber Galileo incidents.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
I would have proffered the creation of cities as they are (am I not correct?) defined in Britain. A city is a municipality that has either a cathedral or a university.

Years ago, I was told to teach ESL from a British textbook that must have dated from the 1950s or early 60s. Among other things, it featured a family dressed in laughably dated clothing, eg. the dad looked like one of those Ulstermen you see parading around on July 12th, bowler hat and brolly, the whole works.

Anyway, yes, in THAT textbook, "city" was defined as a place having a cathederal(I don't think it said anything about a univeristy). But like I say, the book was so retro, I kind of assumed that that definition had fallen out of use.

[ 14. April 2012, 18:39: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Wow. Someone actually made a poster spoofing the Callan Method, the course I was teaching.

Yes, we did teach the phrase "Christian name". I'm taken to understand(maybe from British shipmates?) that that is still commonly used to mean "given name" in the UK. It's nothing I would ever teach my students, though, unless directed to by the textbook.

Posted by Tom Paine's Bones (# 17027) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Christopher is right (IMHO) that morality does not require religion, in theory. Practice, for a society as a whole, may be another matter.

That's a very good point, and an important distinction. Ethics do not require religion - just some basic human empathy and a bit of common sense reciprocity. But maybe religion is very effective at inculcating ethics, especially amongst those who don't like to think.

That said, I've tended to see this view (i.e. that atheism is ok for the educated but bad for the great unwashed) as a fairly weak argument. It comes across as arrogant and condescending, because it denies the rather important question of what's true, and is willing to use religion quite instrumentally (even, perhaps, cynically) for social ends. It is just a modern version of Seneca's view that religion is true for the rustic, untrue for the philosophy, and useful for the statesman. It is basically arguing from the 'noble lie': saying that the philosopher should be quiet because the statesman needs the rustic to believe that the religion is true.

Besides, it seems to me that the proper answer is more education (especially focused on the development of critical thought) so that people can make informed and reasonable ethical decisions, not the inculcation of religion.

However, religion does get one thing (at least) right. Thinking is hard, and takes up time and energy which in many societies must be dedicated to survival. It is much easier if we have a system, a code, an institution, a pattern, a ritual, in which basic ethics can be embedded, taught, re-taught, drummed in, enacted, and taught again. We lose nuance and flexibility, but at least it 'sticks'.

quote:
I would have proffered the creation of cities as they are (am I not correct?) defined in Britain. A city is a municipality that has either a cathedral or a university.

That's pretty weak. Cities have existed in non-Christian and pre-Christian societies. (Err, Paul went to Athens, Rome etc) On the other hand, they don't predate religion, because religion is probably older than homo sapiens (early hominids had burial rituals, for example). Cities have generally been based around some combination of trade and administration, and have long had institutions of learning and piety in them. So I don't think christianity gets the credit there. (Also, my understanding is that the Western, Christian university, like the charitable trust, was imported from the Islamic middle east by crusaders).

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Paine's Bones:
How do you think we should honour and respond to this man's legacy?

I don't know who you mean by 'we'. But maybe his friends and supporters can club together and begin an institute, or erect a memorial, or fund a series of annual lectures or something. That's what people usually do to honour the legacy of people they value, isn't it? I'm sure those who are interested in whatever he contributed to their lives must have plenty of ideas - don't you think?

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Paine's Bones:
I've tended to see this view (i.e. that atheism is ok for the educated but bad for the great unwashed) as a fairly weak argument. It comes across as arrogant and condescending, because it denies the rather important question of what's true, and is willing to use religion quite instrumentally (even, perhaps, cynically) for social ends.

Admitted. But I wouldn't worry about being accused of arrogance by Christopher Hitchens. I can see many virtues in him, but humility isn't one of them. As I recall, someone in the audience asked him to define truth, and his reply was not very precise, but he mentioned objectivity and said that truth is worthy and vital to seek even if we can't define exactly what it is. I'm sure that he was confident of the scientific method as an avenue of inquiry. If we observe something that seems always to be the case, then we look for an explanation. If it seems always to be the case that most people behave morally only in religious societies, then we must consider the possibility that religion has some truth in it. That it is only a useful fiction is not self-evident.

quote:
It seems to me that the proper answer is more education (especially focused on the development of critical thought) so that people can make informed and reasonable ethical decisions, not the inculcation of religion.

Amen. But is it our experience that people turned out of secular secular schools are significantly better educated than the graduates of church-related schools?

quote:
Cities have generally been based around some combination of trade and administration, and have long had institutions of learning and piety in them. So I don't think christianity gets the credit there.

Historically, it must get the credit where most of us live. Furthermore, yes, there were centers of learning in the ancient world and under Islam. All the stranger it is that science as we know it arose only in Christendom.

Posted by 205 (# 206) on :

I keep wondering what got to his throat: the smoke or the booze.

Either way, all too soon. [Votive]

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

@Alagon - a good deed which requires belief in God to perform? An American pastor gave Hitch a knock down answer: "Tithing!"

[ 14. April 2012, 20:23: Message edited by: Ramarius ]

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

A pastor, being the beneficiary of tithing, would obviously see it as a good deed. A peasant who was forced to give up a portion of his meagre produce to support the man with the second biggest house in the village may well have begged to differ.

[ 16. April 2012, 14:01: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]

Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Rest eternal grant unto him, O Lord:and let light perpetual shine upon him....

I'm always highly disturbed when I read invocations like this regarding Hitchins. They seemed to come up quite frequently when he died. I think he was baptised, but I can't quite remember - and I'm certainly not one to criticise prayer for the dead, but, but, but...

He was unrepentant. Utterly. And he died an apostate. He had rejected utterly the saving work of Christ. And this isn't that uncommon - and maybe I should be more charitable, but...

He spent a good amount of his time trying to perusade others to leave the faith. If only one person - one soul, redeemed by the work of Christ, was then led by Hitchins to utterly reject Christ and died, and is now suffering an eternity of being separated from God and whatever torments that entails - FOREVER, UNENDING - well, the very thought of it makes me cringe in horror.

The problem is, I'm not a universalist. The parts of the Gospel that mentions the judgement of the afterlife make my blood run cold and send a chill down my back, but I've never been able to explain them away others can.

Let me try something else. The warning of the BCP ordinal has always struck me, and comes to mind when I think of this situation:

quote:
Have always therefore printed in your remembrance, how great a treasure is committed to your charge. For they are the sheep of Christ, which he bought with his death, and for whom he shed his blood. The Church and Congregation whom you must serve, is his Spouse, and his Body. And if it shall happen that the same Church, or any Member thereof, do take any hurt or hindrance by reason of your negligence, ye know the greatness of the fault, and also the horrible punishment that will ensue.

Obviously, Hitchins wasn't a priest. He wasn't given charge of other people's souls. But in a way, he did take charge of other people's souls - he did his very best to make them question and turn away, and who knows how many people are suffering FOREVER because of it.

Whilst I pray for the departed, it seems unseemly to do so with the prayer of Requiem for Hitchins.

I really hope this doesn't get me called to Hell.

AV

[ 16. April 2012, 19:03: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
He was unrepentant. Utterly. And he died an apostate. He had rejected utterly the saving work of Christ. And this isn't that uncommon - and maybe I should be more charitable, but...

Is this a fair judgment on someone who was possessed? Underneath a diabolical persona, a captive soul is whimpering for rescue. The church has exorcists out of a desire that they be liberated and restored rather than left in their misery.

Of course, I don't know much about personal demon possession, and it is superstitious to make assumptions or jump to premature conclusions. But the possibility is worth considering in his case. There is such a contrast between his rational periods, in which he makes worthwhile points, and his outbursts of raving, particularly in the presence of clergy (such as that notorious encounter with Msgr. George Rutler).

The death of one's mother at an early age can cause great bitterness. It happened to Hitler, among other problematic people. Even C.S. Lewis suffered from that fate and went through his atheistic period.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:
He was a fool - "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." Who fooled him into believing there is no God?
I wonder who taught him to deny God and honour man?
Like all of us he was born an atheist, the fooling comes later

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Whichever way the tide was flowing, he wanted to swim the opposite way.
He described himself as a contrarian

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I would have proffered the creation of cities as they are (am I not correct?) defined in Britain. A city is a municipality that has either a cathedral or a university.
Not exactly – early English cities were created by royal charter although a diocesan cathedral was a consideration. Things have changed over time. You might want to look up “City status in the United Kingdom” in Wikipedia
You don't build a cathedral without believing in God.
Most UK cathedrals were built at a time when, for most fundamental questions, there was no practical alternative to “goddidit”. I don't know where you get the idea that cities were founded to glorify a god - they came into existence for practical (commercial and mutual defence) reasons and, like many other aspects of life, got (to some extent) hijacked by religion.

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
If it seems always to be the case that most people behave morally only in religious societies,
Is there any evidence to suggest this?
Some atheistic societies have, to their shame, been very good at imposing their morality on the populace (I'm no historian but I've heard of the cultural revolution and the Stasi)
then we must consider the possibility that religion has some truth in it.
Who decides what is moral? Tax cuts for the wealthy, affordable healthcare, gun control, no abortion - ever - even for a child who has been incestuously raped and will be killed by her foetus before it becomes viable?

If it turned out that Muslims, Hindus and Wiccans behaved more morally than Christians would that indicate that Christianity had less truth than its competitors?

It would, of course, be a possibility to consider, but being a possibility is not an argument for cause and effect. Christian societies have, for most of their existence, been happy with slavery, content with child labour and seen nothing wrong in treating women as chattels. Has morality changed or were Christian societies institutionally immoral despite their cathedrals?

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I don't know where you get the idea that cities were founded to glorify a god - they came into existence for practical (commercial and mutual defence) reasons and, like many other aspects of life, got (to some extent) hijacked by religion.

That wasn't the smartest thing I ever wrote, but you are making too much of it. My point was mainly to suggest that a center of learning had something to do with official city status. It turns out, on investigation, that Cambridge (which has a university without a cathedral) was declared a city only in the 20th century, but this rather proves the rule, if belatedly.

That the universities which at least prepared the way for science were founded under the church's auspices and defended especially by the pope, you have not disputed.

quote:

quote:
If it seems always to be the case that most people behave morally only in religious societies,
Is there any evidence to suggest this?

In addition to the thuggery that one now risks in some British neighborhoods, Peter Hitchens mentioned a telling neglect of common courtesy in public, in both Britain and Soviet Russia. It was rare in Moscow, and is becoming rarer in Britain, for instance, to hold a door open for someone carrying a heavy load.

You and I will agree, I trust, that moral acts performed only in fear of punishment are not really moral, only prudent. We shouldn't be surprised if most regimes define many crimes in common-- such as murder, theft, and adultery. Obeying the laws out of fear will be most customary in police states inducing the most fear. So for a once-courteous society to be become rude and surly with no material explanation is especially noteworthy, in that public rudeness carries no tangible penalty, nor good manners towards a stranger any likely reward.

quote:
Who decides what is moral?

I doubt that Christopher Hitchens would be happy at all for you to try to defend him by suggesting that there is no objective answer to that question.

[ 17. April 2012, 00:55: Message edited by: Alogon ]

Posted by savedbyhim01 (# 17035) on :

The fools says in his heart there is no God. While he may have been a great man in the eyes of the world, he is not in the sight of God. He is a fool because he denied that which is plainly seen in the universe, that is that God made it.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
If I had been in the audience, however, and had my wits about me, I would have proffered the creation of cities as they are (am I not correct?) defined in Britain. A city is a municipality that has either a cathedral or a university.

It should also be pointed out that, rather obviously, the oldest and largest cities in Britain predate both cathedrals and Christianity (at least in Britain): Londinium (London), Eboracum (York), Lindum (Lincoln), etc.

[ 17. April 2012, 01:08: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
He spent a good amount of his time trying to perusade others to leave the faith. If only one person - one soul, redeemed by the work of Christ, was then led by Hitchins to utterly reject Christ and died, and is now suffering an eternity of being separated from God and whatever torments that entails - FOREVER, UNENDING - well, the very thought of it makes me cringe in horror.

This line of thinking is the way Inquisitions get started.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

That the universities which at least prepared the way for science were founded under the church's auspices and defended especially by the pope, you have not disputed. as I understand it the church pretty much had a stranglehold on learning in the post Roman christian world until the enlightenment (ish?) so it was inevitable that any advances are based on that tradition. Education was provided for those males who would be useful to the church, as priests, clerks, grangers etc. Just as much art and music was commissioned by or for the church - that was where the money and the power was and the choice was work for the church (or a religious patron) or scrape a living at some menial task.

quote:
If it seems always to be the case that most people behave morally only in religious societies,Is there any evidence to suggest this?
In addition to the thuggery that one now risks in some British neighborhoods, Peter Hitchens mentioned a telling neglect of common courtesy in public, in both Britain and Soviet Russia. It was rare in Moscow, and is becoming rarer in Britain, for instance, to hold a door open for someone carrying a heavy load.

You and I will agree, I trust, that moral acts performed only in fear of punishment are not really moral, only prudent. We shouldn't be surprised if most regimes define many crimes in common-- such as murder, theft, and adultery. Obeying the laws out of fear will be most customary in police states inducing the most fear. I agree absolutely, and since, as we agree, the fear of punishment in this world is sufficient to ensure compliance how much more effective is the desire for heaven/the fear of hell in ensuring the servility of believers. When believers behave in accordance with what their religion dictates as right behaviour those believers are not being moral, merely prudent - which leads to the conclusion that only atheists have the option to behave morally.
So for a once-courteous society to be become rude and surly with no material explanation is especially noteworthy, in that public rudeness carries no tangible penalty, nor good manners towards a stranger any likely reward. You are assuming the lack of a material explanation - I suspect that many factors have played a part including in no particular order, but not limited to, feminism, increased disposable wealth and the extension of home ownership, the idealogical assault on socialism/trade unions, corporate/political greed, intolerance of minorities (including women/homosexual priests/bishops)etc.. Society has become harder, being soft is not an option, people (just) older than me complain about the attitudes of those younger but enjoy the pensions that the material environment (must have the latest 'phone/clothes etc.) has delivered to them

quote:
Who decides what is moral? I doubt that Christopher Hitchens would be happy at all for you to try to defend him by suggesting that there is no objective answer to that question. I wasn't aware that I was trying to defend anyone. Our perception of what is moral has changed - slavery, child labour, status of women etc. - does that mean that morality has changed or merely how we define it. In some societies the attitude to women is very different to that in the UK (generalising of course) so who decides how women are treated is relevant to the morality "standard". Claiming a divine source for morality doesn't make things any better because of the "interpretations" and "revelations" that provide incompatible understandings. Even do unto others etc. is simplistic and assumes that we are all clones of a master template. I suppose we can agree on "If it harms no-one, do as you will"? But even that would seem to preclude intervening on behalf of someone who is being attacked.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by savedbyhim01:
The fools says in his heart there is no God. While he may have been a great man in the eyes of the world, he is not in the sight of God. He is a fool because he denied that which is plainly seen in the universe, that is that God made it.

I think you will find that few people would say "There is no god" It's just that, in the absence of any evidence to corroborate the existence of a god or gods which interface(s) with the universe in any way whatsoever, the question of the existence or otherwise of a god or gods becomes irrelevant. Therefore atheism - the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by savedbyhim01:
The fools says in his heart there is no God. While he may have been a great man in the eyes of the world, he is not in the sight of God. He is a fool because he denied that which is plainly seen in the universe, that is that God made it.

Obviously it wasn't plain to see for him. He was no fool either. You may find comfort in your imagined superiority here but the verses following that in Psalm 14 say that we are all in the same boat (Ship [Big Grin]

).
"The Lord looks down from heaven on humankind
to see if there are any who are wise,
who seek after God.

They have all gone astray, they are all alike perverse;
there is no one who does good,
no, not one.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

It's 2012 and people are seriously considering demon possession.

Oh Internet.

Never change.

This talk of atheism being ok for the intelligent upper classes but dangerous for the "unwashed masses" is the most patronising, conceited, bunk I've ever heard. As if not having much money automatically means you lose any capacity to form moral view points or feel empathy and need someone from on high to hand an easy to understand civility package to you. Utter tosh!

Increasing lack of respect from young people in inner city's? For the UK I'd say look to the economic and political fu*k ups we have endured rather than lack of religion. The sad legacy of Thatchers "no society". Young people living in poverty see a lack of options plus people "of the right sort" stealing from the country and getting golden handshakes insted of punishment. Only a big political reform is going to solve this not a promise that if you behave and keep your head down you will receive a mansion in the next life.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I celebrated his birthday last night (thanks to this thread) by listening to the two-hour debate between brothers on Youtube, "Hitchens vs. Hitchens". Christopher supported the Iraq war and opposed religion. Peter did the opposite.

Peter's most telling point, I thought was that we have "luxury atheists" like his brother and Dawkins, cogitating in academic ivory towers, comfortably insulated from the consequences of their ideas. Then we have neighborhoods of the great unwashed, perhaps only a few miles away, where the influence of religion is nowhere to be found, and where you must fear getting kicked to death, and your head being used like a football, by "practical atheists." He said such horrors are reported in the news fairly frequently. Christopher is right (IMHO) that morality does not require religion, in theory. Practice, for a society as a whole, may be another matter. How have the attempted counterexamples fared?

Ah, the "practical atheist" dodge. The religious "we want you to have them whether or not we want to claim their numbers in other places". As for morality in practice, even counting the obvious atrocities and world wars, the 20th Century managed to simulatneously be the least religious and least violent on record in terms of proportion of people who've died from violence. Absolute numbers, of course, the 20th Century had the largest population.

quote:
Christopher had a good point, at first blush, when he asked the audience to think of a good deed that required a belief in God to perform. It is hard to think of one, and the very parable of the Good Samaritan points out that religious considerations apparently did not figure in the Samaritan's helping, but they explicitly did so for those who did not help. But if we are asked to think of bad deeds done in the name of religion, or by people who declared that God was on their side, atrocities are too many to name.

If I had been in the audience, however, and had my wits about me, I would have proffered the creation of cities as they are (am I not correct?) defined in Britain. A city is a municipality that has either a cathedral or a university.

A City in Britain is somewhere with a City Charter. The 1907 act gave three requirements:

A minimum population of 300,000.

A "local metropolitan character"—this implied that the town had a distinct identity of its own and was the centre of a wider area.

A good record of local government

Nothing about Cathedrals or Universities anywhere. Or e.g. Milton Keynes (the Open University) would be one. Of course there are plenty of cities (e.g. St David's and Ely) that have city charters because they have Cathedrals - but this is an older standard and they haven't un-citified places.

But this is an irrelevance. Because this is a legal definition of a city, rather than a reflection of the social status of one. A city in practice is defined by none of the above - but by the size and population.

quote:
You don't build a cathedral without believing in God. And it also turns out that our first universities, too, were founded in Christendom to the glory of God, and not otherwise.

And the more the Universities discovered the more they headed towards atheism. Natural Theology was a genuine attempt to grapple with the world and understand it as a reflection of God. But unfortunately the people who were trying to do so were mistaken. And you certainly don't have to be religious to found a university - it's just that back then almost anyone with any influence was at least overtly religious.

quote:
The cases in which insights important to science were opposed and threatened until the pope came down on their side outnumber Galileo incidents.

Congratulations. You've just pointed out that things have changed.

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
@Alagon - a good deed which requires belief in God to perform? An American pastor gave Hitch a knock down answer: "Tithing!"

Most of my friends who tithe to the Socialist Workers' Party would counter-knock that one down. No one who tithes to the lay Buddhist organisation I support believes in God either.

These American pastors need to get out more.

[ 17. April 2012, 13:26: Message edited by: kankucho ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0