Christopher Hitchens

[miobrien]

British-American author, essayist, journalist as well as orator, polemicist, contrarian. Lifelong scotch drinker and chain smoker. He is now being treated for stage four esophageal cancer. "There is no stage five," he has said.

I'm a fan. I saw him speak a few years ago, and he certainly delivers. Nonetheless, I can see how one can find him an annoying blowhard. At his worst, at least he's entertaining. But, he often also delivers the truth when it is necessary and no one else is saying it.

Though he's been writing for a while, his writing on atheism and religion has really given him a great deal of fame. More than I expected, in retrospect. Even as a fellow atheist, I think he misses the mark with that stuff. He's way too bombastic and arrogant. Though I like him the most out of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. I find myself a lot less satisfied with strict atheism and materialism, and find myself often going back to religious and spiritual sources. There's more there than Hitchens gives credit, in my opinion.

His writing post-diagnosis, however, has a less arrogant attitude with more introspection.

I also enjoy his support for literature in an age when its easy for a famous person to forget it.

[lionel]

Bastards like Hitchens leave the UK when they're ceasing to talk sense as they know they'll make more money in the US by just riding on their former reputation, and the US think they're making an important catch: in reality, the US is receiving UK rejects. A few years ago, I saw a woman walk out of one of Hitchens's talks because he insisted on smoking. The guy is an insult to humanity, as is his friend-enemy-friend again Martin Amis, who has fled the UK for Brooklyn as he knows he's outstayed his presence in the UK. Hitchens is a right-wing former left-wing nobody who thinks he's a great intellectual. He's nothing more than a dying old man who could have remained a dying young man (age being a state of mind) who's made a few great points in the past about the tyranny of religion - and I speak as a staunch atheist - and who just lost it somewhere along the line. Pity, as he's already dead.

BLOG

[waalkwriter]

I think many of Hitchens' right wing points stem from a desire to keep Europe Secular. I was rather peeved at the disrespectful Gore Vidal, during which Hitchens made silly, egotistical claims. That Vidal had 'privately anointed him as his successor' and that kind of bullshit.

[Eric]

I feel sorry for anyone who has cancer, however self-inflicted by lifestyle. But I cannot warm to what Hitchens says. I believe that this is the same Hitchens who appears frequently in The Spectator. As you appreciate, I am more right-wing than many here (when allowed to be), but that does not mean that I automatically prefer a centre-right columnist or publication to a centre-left one. The Spectator has a few more histrionic types.

As someone who does believe in God, I am of course willing to accept the opposite scenario in a spirit of open-mindedness. But some atheists of late have become shrill, as if anyone believing in God is a cross between an idiot and the late bin Laden. I do hope that people don't get too carried away worshipping the tenets of scientific atheism, an ideology that was prevalent in the Soviet Union.

[waalkwriter]

I mainly don't like Hitchens because he always comes off as an ass. And not in a pleasantly brilliant way like Vidal, but in purely douchy way. While I wouldn't be quick to lump all atheists into the same boat, I have found many of my atheist friends to be not only as obsessive about personal beliefs as the Christians I know, but just as narrow-minded. There's a certain lack of wonder when you embrace only logic. I personally don't believe there is a God, and all of the core principles of Christianity seem completely ridiculous to me. However, I'm not going to stake anything on what I believe, nor do I believe that my opinion matters. I'm a passive agnostic because I think that sitting back and appreciating the possible ideas is far more fulfilling, and that, as everything in the world is utterly meaningless, there is no reason for the individual not to chose the path that appeals most to them. On a side note, many of my atheistic friends are disgustingly moralistic as well. I have a former high school teacher who is drenched in humanism.

[Liam]

Hitchens made silly, egotistical claims [that] Vidal had 'privately anointed him as his successor' and that kind of bullshit.

Right, coz that place is reserved by honor for you, my lovely, isn't that right?

[waalkwriter]

As the previously frozen and recently incubated love zygote of Vidal and Jackqueline Kennedy, of course that honor is reserved for me.

[lionel]

This is highly unusual of me, but in parts I find myself agreeing with Waalkwriter: bigots of any persuasion are unbearable, and there are perhaps more thoroughly objectionable atheists around as thoroughly objectionable believers. I've also always defended the present Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams - I really like the guy. But would I prefer to be trapped in a lift with a bunch of atheists, or a bunch of believers? It'll never happen, so I won't ever have to make the choice, is my evasive answer.

In fairness to Hitchens, he was very brave in his stance against the highly dangerous Mother Teresa's poison.

BLOG

[anchomal]

I personally don't believe there is a God, and all of the core principles of Christianity seem completely ridiculous to me.

I believe in God (though not, especially, in religion) but actually the principles of Christianity (love your neighbour, do unto others, the ten commandments etc.) seem to me a pretty solid basis for living your life.
I can empathise with what you say about athiests, though. All the athiests I know tend to be intensely narrow minded.

[Eric]

I try to agree with Lionel and Waalkwriter where possible (e.g. on Nothomb, or obscure pronunciation terms). And, as has been pointed out, there is no point in taking a tub-thumping stance against the existence of God, as we won't know one way or the other for sure until we die. Most of us are not prepared to commit suicide to find out. Sadly for Hitchens, he may be nearer to doing so than many of us are.

I have to say that when considering intellectuals in the area of God and godliness, I prefer the little German theologist Ratzinger to the somewhat pompous Oxford don Williams.

Could Lionel explain about Hitchens and Mother Teresa? I don't remember that one. Sounds like the parlour game, Consequences: Christopher Hitchens met Mother Teresa, in a lift, they... and so forth.

[Bjorn]

I can empathise with what you say about athiests, though. All the athiests I know tend to be intensely narrow minded.

But at least we can spell.

Just kidding. I've tried reading Hitchens once. Didn't agree with me at all, even if I had agreed with him.

[lionel]

I believe in God (though not, especially, in religion) but actually the principles of Christianity (love your neighbour, do unto others, the ten commandments etc.) seem to me a pretty solid basis for living your life.
I can empathise with what you say about athiests, though. All the athiests I know tend to be intensely narrow minded.

This wasn't addressed to me, but I have to say I agree with everything you say (apart from the belief in God). A fervent Christian once told me I'm more Christian than any Christian he's ever met. I imagine Hitchens would have taken that as an insult, but for me it remains one of the most complimentary things anyone's ever said to me.

But what kind of person thinks he's so important that he ignores social rules and deliberately smokes in a non-smoking environment? If he wanted to harm himself (and he obviously has) then that's his prerogative. But to deliberately put others at risk to cancer is contemptible, a triumph of self over others.

BLOG

[waalkwriter]

I believe in God (though not, especially, in religion) but actually the principles of Christianity (love your neighbour, do unto others, the ten commandments etc.) seem to me a pretty solid basis for living your life.
I can empathise with what you say about athiests, though. All the athiests I know tend to be intensely narrow minded.

I just lost about three pages worth of serious response to you because my goddamn computer has a habit of suddenly turning off the text box when I writing, and I backspaced and it sent me to the previous page. And of course, the new version of this site doesn't cache my writing like the old did. If I ever accidentally went backwords while using firefox on the old site format, I could go right back to it. In any case, I don't really want to deal with this anymore because that happened at the end of my last sentence.

Let me just say you're cherrypicking principles that you like from the religion, and ignoring a host of other things and its entire history. They are a package. I also wrote oodles on what the ridiculous concepts of Christianity are, and how I'd rather be studying other, less intellectual idiotic religions, like the Jewish Kabbalah.

[lionel]

Could Lionel explain about Hitchens and Mother Teresa? I don't remember that one. Sounds like the parlour game, Consequences: Christopher Hitchens met Mother Teresa, in a lift, they... and so forth.

OK, funny man, for the benefit of this thread, here's an interview with the great god Hitchens: http://www.secularhumanism.org/libra...hens_16_4.html. I don't think his 'Ghoul of Calcutta' stuff's directly available online.

BLOG

[anchomal]

Let me just say you're cherrypicking principles that you like from the religion, and ignoring a host of other things and its entire history. They are a package. I also wrote oodles on what the ridiculous concepts of Christianity are, and how I'd rather be studying other, less intellectual idiotic religions, like the Jewish Kabbalah.

I think you are missing my point or reading far too much into what I am saying (and apologies for not explaining myself more clearly). I just meant that we have the right to cherrypick. I'm not signing up to any one thing in particular. Of course, large tracts of the history of Christianity is monstrous (I'm Irish so I bear the brunt of aeons worth of brainwashing!). It shouldn't really be about religion at all, I think, because that is just akin to big business. God can be something separate without being 'owned' by any one side. But the basic principles (as with the basic principles of other religions) shouldn't rightfully lead anyone too far astray if taken as guidelines for living.

Oh, and thanks, Bjorn, for the spelling lesson!

[waalkwriter]

I think you are missing my point or reading far too much into what I am saying (and apologies for not explaining myself more clearly). I just meant that we have the right to cherrypick. I'm not signing up to any one thing in particular. Of course, large tracts of the history of Christianity is monstrous (I'm Irish so I bear the brunt of aeons worth of brainwashing!). It shouldn't really be about religion at all, I think, because that is just akin to big business. God can be something separate without being 'owned' by any one side. But the basic principles (as with the basic principles of other religions) shouldn't rightfully lead anyone too far astray if taken as guidelines for living.

Oh, and thanks, Bjorn, for the spelling lesson!

I disagree. They go together as a package. You can't defend the ideas of Christianity, make a statement like, "I think it has admirable philosophy" and say so on the basis of a select group of beliefs taken out of the larger picture. I really wish my passage hadn't had been lost...this is the reason I never write long comments on this site anymore, and if I have a lot to say I generally have to type it on microsoft word, and copy and paste it on to here and correct the formatting, just because the new site format continually makes me lose my work when ever my computer randomly turns off the text box and I press the backspace button. Sorry for still going on about that...it's just something that makes me want to punch a kitten.

[waalkwriter]

I will get back with you eventually though anchomal, probably in the form of a new thread with about 15 pages of writing, and significant biblical quotations, and likely some Bertrand Russell and Frederick Nietzsche.

[anchomal]

I disagree. They go together as a package.

I think they only go together as a package if you call yourself Christian. But why does there have to be rules in all of this, and why does it have to be an all or nothing situation? That to me is taking things to a fundamentalist extreme. I think it is perfectly okay to admire, and even adhere to, the good ideas of Christianity, or Islam or any religion, without having to be shackled by their constraints.
There is no need for you to go citing sundry examples of Christianity's many flaws, waalkwriter, as I am quite well versed in its sordid history (and present). In fact, I can probably consider myself well and truly scarred by it. But it doesn't stop me from being able to acknowledge or recognise the worth of some of its basic core principles.
I think we probably just need to agree to differ!

[waalkwriter]

But I don't think you should give it credit for a few of its core principles. That shouldn't lighten the overall Christian philosophy. You just phrased it better than you previously did. At least say, "I think certain pieces of Christian philosophy are sound principles." But don't make a broad statement such as "The actual principles for Christianity are a solid basis for living your life." That's very broad and very inflammatory in my opinion, at least, it annoys when open-minded, well-informed people make such statements.

I kind of want to start such a discussion, so I might anyway.

[anchomal]

Well, actually I don't think it is inflammatory at all, really. Many things differ in theory than in practice, and I think the basic principles are sound enough. And I do mean the basic ones. I'd be interested to know which ones specifically you find so objectionable, waalkwriter.