Goodbye Christopher Hitchens

[Amaris]

His attacks on Mother Theresa and Clinton were juvenile,

They were deserved, particularly in regard to Mother Theresa, and I say this as someone who is an admirer of both Bill & Hillary Clinton as well.

writing about Kissinger's war crimes while supporting the Iraq war is utterly inconsistent and he provided no actual insights into religion.

Certainly he does. I once felt the same way, then I started reading his books.

In other words, a fine and eloquent (an Oxford education has to be good for something) polemicist but certainly not an intellectual.

I disagree. He was a man of high intellect, and one of wit and wisdom.

 

[horatio83]

OK, let's focus upon his religious insights. Please mind that I am an atheist so you can be as blunt as Hitchens has been when repeating them.

Let me point out something about religion I learned from actual intellectuals. First of all, the monotheistic revolution ended paganism. The pagan universe is one of day and night, male and female, day and night. When there is a drought you sacrifice something or someone to the fertility goddess to restore the balance. In the Israelite religion on the other hand there was no such natural order anymore, God stands for the law and this law is intrusive, people have to be forced to obey it. Furthermore God stands for the absolute (Think about the Holy of Holies, it is forbidden for anyone but the High Priest to see not because there is something there but precisely because nothing but the stupid ark is there. The nothing has to be covered to create the illusion of a place where the absolute is represented.) which implies a serious leap in human thinking. Without intending too sound too philosemitic, what you could call the secular Jewish spirit, what has made Jews being overrepresented among intellectuals (which has perhaps also impacted Hitchens due to his Jewish ancestry) had its origins in what Hitchens considers to be the simple superstitious thinking of bronze age people.

Think about the Book of Job, God basically says that everything is a mess and out of his control. Christianity goes on step further, God dies! The pagan game of bribing the gods in order to restore balance is undone, there is a radical cut, we are basically on our own.
Note that actual Christians often think like pagans. The ugly things Pat Robertson said after 9/11 imply that we have to be good such that God does not punish us. Or take the masochistic left-liberal who thinks that Islamic fundamentalism is a punishment for Western imperialism.
Judaism and Christianity teach us that this pagan logic is flawed, we can draw no such comfort in the case of a catastrophe. Ironically Hitchens would have totally agreed with the second part of this sentence, totally oblivious of the fact that monotheism first set us free from the pagan logic of 'catastrophes have a meaning'.

 

[Amaris]

OK, let's focus upon his religious insights. Please mind that I am an atheist so you can be as blunt as Hitchens has been when repeating them.

Let me point out something about religion I learned from actual intellectuals. First of all, the monotheistic revolution ended paganism. The pagan universe is one of day and night, male and female, day and night. When there is a drought you sacrifice something or someone to the fertility goddess to restore the balance. In the Israelite religion on the other hand there was no such natural order anymore, God stands for the law and this law is intrusive, people have to be forced to obey it. Furthermore God stands for the absolute (Think about the Holy of Holies, it is forbidden for anyone but the High Priest to see not because there is something there but precisely because nothing but the stupid ark is there. The nothing has to be covered to create the illusion of a place where the absolute is represented.) which implies a serious leap in human thinking. Without intending too sound too philosemitic, what you could call the secular Jewish spirit, what has made Jews being overrepresented among intellectuals (which has perhaps also impacted Hitchens due to his Jewish ancestry) had its origins in what Hitchens considers to be the simple superstitious thinking of bronze age people.

Think about the Book of Job, God basically says that everything is a mess and out of his control. Christianity goes on step further, God dies! The pagan game of bribing the gods in order to restore balance is undone, there is a radical cut, we are basically on our own.
Note that actual Christians often think like pagans. The ugly things Pat Robertson said after 9/11 imply that we have to be good such that God does not punish us. Or take the masochistic left-liberal who thinks that Islamic fundamentalism is a punishment for Western imperialism.
Judaism and Christianity teach us that this pagan logic is flawed, we can draw no such comfort in the case of a catastrophe. Ironically Hitchens would have totally agreed with the second part of this sentence, totally oblivious of the fact that monotheism first set us free from the pagan logic of 'catastrophes have a meaning'.

You're substituting one fantasy for another one of a seemingly more appealing virtue. Monotheism did nothing more than consolidate the worst habits of the gods into one single being. What you're looking at is the illogic of the "one true" religion. Doctrinally, there is so much divergence between Christianity and Judaism alone, that you can't really group them together under one umbrella.

 

[horatio83]

I have not grouped them together, I have compared monotheism with paganism and pointed out the advantages of the former.
I couldn't care less about the existence of god (what Hitchens, Dawkins etc, are obsessed with) or whether Judaism or Christianity or Islam is the one true religion (what fundamentalists are obsessed with). Human rights are also a "fantasy", you don't find them anywhere in nature. They exist, like a God, because we made them up and because we believe in them.

You don't have to channel Hitch rhetoric to convince me of anything, I am already a hardcore materialist. But you have to rephrase an insight by Hitchens which equals the one I just sketched out in order to convince me that he did not merely write some shallow polemics, that he really analyzed religion.
And before you play the stupid persons game that Hitch liked to play, if it were for me we can throw the mullahs and Benedikt and the Greater Israels fanatics in a Klingon gulag. But the liberation theologists, the Martin Luther Kings and so on deserve my uttermost respect. So please, no stupid persons game but actual insights into religion.

 

[Amaris]

I have not grouped them together, I have compared monotheism with paganism and pointed out the advantages of the former.
I couldn't care less about the existence of god (what Hitchens, Dawkins etc, are obsessed with) or whether Judaism or Christianity or Islam is the one true religion (what fundamentalists are obsessed with). Human rights are also a "fantasy", you don't find them anywhere in nature. They exist, like a God, because we made them up and because we believe in them.

You don't have to channel Hitch rhetoric to convince me of anything, I am already a hardcore materialist. But you have to rephrase an insight by Hitchens which equals the one I just sketched out in order to convince me that he did not merely write some shallow polemics, that he really analyzed religion.
And before you play the stupid persons game that Hitch liked to play, if it were for me we can throw the mullahs and Benedikt and the Greater Israels fanatics in a Klingon gulag. But the liberation theologists, the Martin Luther Kings and so on deserve my uttermost respect. So please, no stupid persons game but actual insights into religion.

You were citing two divergent faiths, that you insist are monotheistic, though Christianity is more a polytheistic faith, under a single umbrella against another form of religion and spirituality. As for religious insight, I was a Non-Denominational Christian minister for about 9 years. I could offer you a plethora of insights into religion, particularly the Christian faith.

That said, I'm not going to try and convince you of anything. We're having a simple disagreement, nothing more. You seem geared up like you want a heavier debate, and I don't do that here. Simple disagreements don't amount to much. The rest of your post, regarding stupid people games, is irrelevant to this conversation.

 

[horatio83]

Polytheistic? Sure, if you take orthodox Christianity and the trinity concept you could claim that it is polytheistic but this is pretty far-fetched. But orthodox Christianity is re-pagan-ified via Roman influence, what I meant was the "pure", pre-Nicaean Christianity.
I grew up as a Catholic so I am not totally ignorant about Christianity but of course as a former minister you know far more than me.

You seem to concede that Hitchens did not really analyze religion and merely provided great polemics. I also liked him during my anti-Christianity phase but, sorry to be so blunt, that is really something one has to outgrow. It is perfectly natural for an ex-believer to initially love such polemics but sooner or later it is time for actual analysis of religion, believe or no-believer. Anything else is just the equivalent of rooting for one's sports team, invigorating but dumb.

 

[Amaris]

Polytheistic? Sure, if you take orthodox Christianity and the trinity concept you could claim that it is polytheistic but this is pretty far-fetched. But orthodox Christianity is re-pagan-ified via Roman influence, what I meant was the "pure", pre-Nicaean Christianity.
I grew up as a Catholic so I am not totally ignorant about Christianity but of course as a former minister you know far more than me.

There are many flavors of Christianity. Christianity has strong, pagan roots, and it did well before Rome began to bend it to their POV.

You seem to concede that Hitchens did not really analyze religion and merely provided great polemics. I also liked him during my anti-Christianity phase but, sorry to be so blunt, that is really something one has to outgrow. It is perfectly natural for an ex-believer to initially love such polemics but sooner or later it is time for actual analysis of religion, believe or no-believer. Anything else is just the equivalent of rooting for one's sports team, invigorating but dumb.

I'm not anti-Christianity, and I conceded nothing.

 

[horatio83]

Then I am still interested in Hitchen's non-polemic, actual analysis of religion and, playing the pseudo-scientific game he liked to play, if you provide none I have to conclude that he made none (you are aware of).

 

[Amaris]

Then I am still interested in Hitchen's non-polemic, actual analysis of religion and, playing the pseudo-scientific game he liked to play, if you provide none I have to conclude that he made none (you are aware of).

You're free to conclude whatever you wish. You did so before we ever had this dialogue, so nothing I say is really going to matter. Still, I will gladly give you some direction in learning more about what Hitchens believed. In that vein, I recommend reading the books "Hitch-22", and "God is not Great". They're both excellent, and will give you a general idea of not only his insights into religion, but glimpses into his own personal life.

And a quote from Hitchens himself:

"Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse."

As someone who has studied many a religion's history, he is right on the money about this observation.

 

[horatio83]

On the contrary, if you sum up an actual analysis of religion of the eternal Hitch I will admit that I have been wrong.

About your example, beneath this lovely prose there are two points, what Marx called "religion is the opium for the people" hence his "philanthropy of atheism" as well as the claim that religion is barbaric. The former is a point Marx made long ago and the latter is merely a fact ... unless you present it, as Hitchens has done, as evidence for his actual claim that religion, all in all, does more good than bad things for humankind.
I won't play this stupid game because it is an empirical question beyond my as well as the Hitch's capabilities. I only know one thing, that the monotheistic revolution was beneficial for humankind. Doesn't imply that organized religion is great, only that it maintains one idea which we should cherish.

Think about climate change, there are rational folks who treat it as a technical and political problem and there are environmentalists who think that we raped Mother Earth, this kind of modern Gaiaism. On the first glance this seems to be good, isn't it great if we have a bad conscience if we emit CO2? On the second glance you notice the pagan logic, we messed it up, now we are punished for it so all we have to do is stop "sinning". The proper Judeo-Christian-Muslim logic would be to claim that we did not know enough about CO2 when we started to burn fossil fuels in the 19th century, we will cross the 2° barrier and the future will be a mess. There is no mother nature we can return to, we are on our on and we probably have to mess even more with nature, geo-engineering and so on, in order to reverse the effects ... and messing more implies that there can be again unanticipated consequences.
This is the only idea of monotheism I defend. It is not my idea, it is based upon a real analysis of religion of a real intellectual. Beautiful prose about the barbarism of religion is not an analysis, it is mere polemics that belongs into the belletristic corner of a library. If I wanna read about the Crusades I pick a history book.

OK, there is another great idea in Christianity, namely that it is supposed to be open for everybody. When Jesus says that you should hate your mother and father and so on it means that conventional bounds like family and tribe don't matter anymore. In other words, you are only a real Christian as long as you don't call yourself a Christian. Islamophobe Christians are thus heretics. Atheist Islamophobes like Hitchens who wanted to see the whole Middle East burn are "merely" wicked, evil and utterly rotten (to channel the colourful language of the Hitch).

 

[Amaris]

On the contrary, if you sum up an actual analysis of religion of the eternal Hitch I will admit that I have been wrong.

You speak as if I reverence him. I don't. I respect him and accept him as a fallible human being. It also doesn't matter to me what you admit. You could admit you were wrong and it would hold the same weight with me as if you admitted you like vanilla ice cream.

About your example, beneath this lovely prose there are two points, what Marx called "religion is the opium for the people" hence his "philanthropy of atheism" as well as the claim that religion is barbaric. The former is a point Marx made long ago and the latter is merely a fact ... unless you present it, as Hitchens has done, as evidence for his actual claim that religion, all in all, does more good than bad things for humankind.
I won't play this stupid game because it is an empirical question beyond my as well as the Hitch's capabilities. I only know one thing, that the monotheistic revolution was beneficial for humankind. Doesn't imply that organized religion is great, only that it maintains one idea which we should cherish.

Think about climate change, there are rational folks who treat it as a technical and political problem and there are environmentalists who think that we raped Mother Earth, this kind of modern Gaiaism. On the first glance this seems to be good, isn't it great if we have a bad conscience if we emit CO2? On the second glance you notice the pagan logic, we messed it up, now we are punished for it so all we have to do is stop "sinning". The proper Judeo-Christian-Muslim logic would be to claim that we did not know enough about CO2 when we started to burn fossil fuels in the 19th century, we will cross the 2° barrier and the future will be a mess. There is no mother nature we can return to, we are on our on and we probably have to mess even more with nature, geo-engineering and so on, in order to reverse the effects ... and messing more implies that there can be again unanticipated consequences.
This is the only idea of monotheism I defend. It is not my idea, it is based upon a real analysis of religion of a real intellectual. Beautiful prose about the barbarism of religion is not an analysis, it is mere polemics that belongs into the belletristic corner of a library. If I wanna read about the Crusades I pick a history book.

More power to you.

 

[horatio83]

As I expected you are not interested in an actual discussion nor do you show that Hitchens was more than a brilliant writer and actually provided substantial analysis.

Your Hitchens quote involuntarily shows what he did, write literature. Nothing more and nothing less. Like you I respect him for what he was but not for what he was not: an essayist, an intellectual or a decent human being. As I already recommended you might want to read someone like Hedges who takes on the religious as well as atheist fundamentalists, who has experienced the horrors of war as reporter and thus advocates anything but bombing the sh*t out of first Iraq and then Iran. His prose is not as great as Hitchens but at least he is a decent human being and provides original analysis.

 

[Amaris]

As I expected you are not interested in an actual discussion nor do you show that Hitchens was more than a brilliant writer and actually provided substantial analysis.

Discussion, I'm interested in. What I'm not interested in is debate, or some kind of silly need to "prove you wrong".

Your Hitchens quote involuntarily shows what he did, write literature. Nothing more and nothing less. Like you I respect him for what he was but not for what he was not: an essayist, an intellectual or a decent human being. As I already recommended you might want to read someone like Hedges who takes on the religious as well as atheist fundamentalists, who has experienced the horrors of war as reporter and thus advocates anything but bombing the sh*t out of first Iraq and then Iran. His prose is not as great as Hitchens but at least he is a decent human being and provides original analysis.

And you are perfectly free to feel that way. It doesn't make you right. That's how opinion works.

 

[horatio83]

For me opposing warmongers is not an opinion, it is common decency.
The moment you claim that you can be for or against the Iraq war, for or against a war based on lies and corruption of the worst kind (shall I say Halliburton, shall I say cost-plus contracts) you betray your integrity.
Somebody who advocates a war lead with the help of a private Christian army (Blackwater) while writing at the same time (or later) about the supposed general wickedness of religion is lacking integrity, consistency and decency.

You probably think I am a crazy totalitarian for denying that an opinion is possible in the instance of the Iraq war but if this has not been utterly evil the word becomes meaningless.

 

[Amaris]

For me opposing warmongers is not an opinion, it is common decency.
The moment you claim that you can be for or against the Iraq war, for or against a war based on lies and corruption of the worst kind (shall I say Halliburton, shall I say cost-plus contracts) you betray your integrity.
Somebody who advocates a war lead with the help of a private Christian army (Blackwater) while writing at the same time (or later) about the supposed general wickedness of religion is lacking integrity, consistency and decency.

You probably think I am a crazy totalitarian for denying that an opinion is possible in the instance of the Iraq war but if this has not been utterly evil the word becomes meaningless.

It's usually wise not to assume what I might think, one way or the other.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Strangely, I don't think I ever heard of this guy before today. He sounds like a kindred spirit (I'm certainly familiar with those bewildered responses you get when you follow neither the Left nor the Right). I'll have to do a little research into his works.

In any case, RIP, Mr Hitchens.

 

[RAMA]

What a shame. Could use more like him.