Hitchens refutes McGrath

Hitchens wins this debate (video below) handily: Poison or Cure? Religious Belief in the Modern World from the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Hitchens wrote the bestseller, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. McGrath claims to have been an atheist in his youth in Northern Ireland. McGrath admits that some forms of religion are pathological, then goes on to attribute the problems with religion to fringe elements.

McGrath presumes to know what God, a purely hypothetical supernatural entity, is like and what God actually wants us to do. McGrath's arguments, like all apologetic smoke and mirrors, rest upon insistence that there is a God and that Christianity as a religion is excused by this belief. McGrath goes so far as to accuse atheism of being 'wishful thinking' to excuse laissez faire immoral behavior. He fails in this argument because the evidence strongly suggests that atheists are just as moral, if not more moral, than theists, who often behave very badly indeed. In short, McGrath troops out all the tired old apologetic fallacies of logic and appeals to emotion. There is, as ever, something truly pathetic about any argument that claims that we cannot find meaning without resorting to verbiage growing out of mythologies.

However, I repeatedly observe that theists are swayed by emotion. In fact, many theists seem unable to decipher the difference between an emotional argument and logic. Instead, theists feel convinced by any emotional arguments that delivers the desired message. Having been told what they wish to hear, theists then assume that appeals to emotion are logical. Atheists respond more to logical arguments than to emotional arguments.

Alister McGrath is the Director of the Oxford Centre for Evangelism and Apologetics at Wycliffe Hall, and Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University. Evangelism and apologetics translates as concocting excuses for fundamentalist religious dogma. Wycliffe gained some recent notoriety following release of a damning report that recommends ending the admission of school-leavers to some of Oxford's colleges. The study, conducted by a university panel headed by Sir Colin Lucas, a former vice-chancellor, particularly noted that Wycliffe does not resemble “an Oxford experience in its essentials” and is not “a suitable educational environment for the full intellectual development of young undergraduates”.



The full video is posted at Google.

Commentary: Watch Alister McGrath Take a Very Long Time To Say Very Little . Chrisopher Hitchens versus Alistair McGrath . Onward, Atheist Soldiers . discussion (mostly derogatory of McGrath rather than edified) on RichardDawkins.net .

McGrath's critique of Dawkins' book The God Delusion in McGrath's article The Dawkins Delusion? and book Dawkins God : Genes Memes and the Meaning of Life : Deluded about Dawkins (Part I) & Part II .

On YouTube, the presentation is broken into byte size chunks: Christopher Hitchens Debates Alister McGrath 1 of 11 . 2 of 11 . 3 of 11 . 4 of 11 . 5 of 11 . 6 of 11 . 7 of 11 . 8 of 11 . 9 of 11 . 10 of 11 . 11 of 11 .

atheismaudiovisualreligionvideosChristopher HitchensAlister McGrath

'Twas the Troll before Christmess

Why do Christians hang out on atheist blogs? This is a rhetorical question and definitely not an invitation for comments from Christians.

A friend suggested that they are probably there to bait atheists. I cannot imagine that they hope to convert atheists to Christianity.

Whenever I wish to read an opinion that I trust or to discuss a rational viewpoint, then I am delighted that scienceblogs exists and that fellow atheists belong to Mojoey's blogroll. These make it easier to find bloggers with a rational, humanist worldview.

I definitely am not interested in telling my de-conversion story, because I was so young when I decided that God was an invention that I did not suffer any emotional pangs over de-mything. If I wish to understand the emotional reasons for faith, or for pain at loss of faith, I need only read websites and blogs.

I don't lurk on Christian blogs, attempting to proselytize in the name of rationality. I don't go looking for an opportunity to debate Christians so as to prove the strength of my intellectual dedication to atheism, science, or morality. I did recently and inadvertantly stumble into just such a discussion on an atheist site. I came away less impressed than ever by the fallacious arguments so typical of Christian efforts at apologetics.

Perhaps because most believers entertain some secret doubts because there is no evidence to support their faith, theists seem to have great difficulty accepting that atheists do not suffer agonies of doubt over the rationality of logically following the evidence. How dare atheists feel certainty about their reasoned beliefs when theists struggle with doubt?!

Perhaps because so many Christians are fear-motivated, they have difficulty accepting that atheism is not fear-driven. This probably explains why so many theists suspect that atheists are merely trying to deny their fears – when, in fact, atheists suffer no fear about their nonbelief. I do admit that those nonbelievers who are in the process of escaping delusion probably do experience some lingering remnants of fear due to their early indoctrination.

Perhaps because so many theists struggle with self-control, they think that only fear of God and of eternal punishment could make people behave morally. Fundamentalist bigotry and the so-frequent report of religionist lapses from decent behavior certainly leave me suspicious that authoritarian upbringings more frequently precipitate than prevent moral turpitude.

Perhaps this explains why Christians go to such lengths protesting that Christians really are good people and that so much good is done in the name of religion. Jerry Falwell used some of the conscience money that poured into his televangelical ministry to set up charities to help the "fallen". This may have fooled Christians into believing that Jerry was a good man, but it did not fool Christopher Hitchens, and it certainly did not fool me.

I have almost invariably observed that many discussions between Christians and atheists quite quickly devolve into the Christians' directing personal insults at the atheists – not comments on atheistic actions, or the validity of beliefs, but comments on atheistic personhood. I guess that they cannot help themselves, but as soon as Christians start to fling ad hominems, then one knows that they have reached the bottom of their meager supply of logic.

Here's a hilarious example of a barrel-scraping attempt to retreat from a Godwin's Law faux pas:

"Not tu quoque I provided an amplification of YOUR point, that all people create religions."

Actually, no. The point that I had made was that "religions have been created by people."

This theist's "logic" would be equivalent to converting.

......."All children have teeth."

..........................into

......."All teeth have children."

Baby teeth, perhaps?

I'm not confident that he saw the difference even when it had been pointed out, but perhaps my doubt merely stems from my lack of faith in the cognitive capacity that ensures that people remain trapped by inculcated delusions.

Arcanum sums it up: "Most theists whom I have encountered on the Internet could not reason their way out of a wet paper bag."

Those who point out that they know some very intelligent Christians miss the point that in any nation where the majority have been indoctrinated, they are bound to meet some very intelligent Christians. Statistically, atheists are more likely to be intelligent than are Christians.

I too am sick of the polite refusal to acknowledge this statistic. I notice that this politeness concerning theistic intelligence is more often displayed on sites where Christians lurk. Perhaps I simply have not yet read sufficient Christian posts on these sites to be impressed. Having been bombarded with theistic message since I was a kid, I have heard quite enough and don't plan to waste my time reading their comments.

Keeping Bad Company

A number of recent arguments have hinged upon association fallacies – the contention or implication that bad company (or a bad hypothesis) reflects upon the validity of a position.

History is replete with examples of blood spilled, freedom destroyed, hatred aroused, or fear evoked specifically to promote religious ends. As Christopher Hitchens points out, religiously motivated crimes continue to this day. It's understandable that moderate theists who have not participated in such activities wish to distance themselves and their worldview from any blame. Nevertheless, the delusional beliefs that they support, however moderate their personal beliefs, do provide the soil in which illogic and hatred grows.

The flip side of accusations of religious poison and theistic delusions take two forms: claims of converts to theism and claims of atheism-inspired atrocities.

It is a fallacy to argue that deism, theism, or atheism has philosophical truth value according to its popularity or the qualifications of its adherents. The truth of any proposition can only be based upon the evidence or logic that supports it. Although skeptics are typically not fooled by tu quoque accusations, these do appeal to the emotions of believers.

Let's take a look at the 'action' issues. If any worldview is consistently directly associated with negative actions, then, regardless of any philosophical validity, that worldview is potentially dangerous. There are two components to this issue: belief system and directness of association with actions.

"Worldview" is a 'loan translation' from the German philosophical term Weltanschauung, and refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs according to which an individual interprets and interacts with the world. Thus, the term worldview incorporates both ideology (belief system) and action. If a particularly mentally-disturbed individual commits crimes against humanity, the belief system of that individual is irrelevant unless he or she is motivated only by worldview-prescriptions.

“Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things – that takes religion." ¬ Steven Weinberg.

Religions involve not merely prescribed beliefs about the existence of supernatural entities (deism or theism) they also prescribe and proscribe specific behaviors directly associated with the religious worldview. Adherents of religion are expected to participate in particular activities that are laid out within religious dogma – ranging from attendance at prayer right up to jihad.

If a religiously-affiliated individual commits a crime that is not specifically associated with religious prescriptions, then religion per se cannot be held responsible. However, even if an individual acts out of personally disturbed psychology while consciously allowing religious prescriptions to direct his actions, then religion is complicit in the crime.

On the other hand, atheism is nonbelief in the supernatural entities postulated within religions and is not a worldview because lack of belief is not specifically associated with prescribed behaviors. Obviously, atheists are unlikely to attend church services, but such attendance is not prohibited within the atheistic belief set. Atheism is often, though not invariably, associated with worldviews such as secular humanism.

Let's return to the accusations against bad company. The antisocial actions of psychologically disturbed individuals, whether theists or atheists, have no bearing on the truth value of their belief system. Those dictators who have ordered atrocities out of personal megalomania or power-mongering are acting in accord with their personal worldview or political aims, and not directly out of belief or nonbelief in the supernatural.

It is irrelevant whether Catholic Adolf Hitler or seminary boy Joseph Stalin had shifted to atheism at the time of their crimes, or whether dictators such as Pol Pot were raised outside Christianity – because they acted out of megalomania, paranoia, or political ambition and not specifically according to any dictates of nonbelief. (Even if they had acted out of atheistic motivations, this would say nothing about the truth value of atheistic beliefs.) Dictators have historically demonstrated a predilection for claiming divinity for themselves or for setting their regime up as the state religion against any competing religion. Such actions have nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with self-aggrandizement and power consolidaton.

Similarly, so-called Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Charles Darwin or biological evolution beyond the fact that Darwin was inspired to decipher the mechanism of natural selection by Thomas Malthus' study of competition for limited resources. The sociological philosophy could just as appropriately have been termed Social Competitionism or Social Malthusianism as Social Darwinism. However, like so much else that frightens religionists, the label has afforded a convenient target for fallacious arguments.

atheism, deism, theism, religion, Anthony Flew, Christopher Hitchens, Jeffrey Dahmer, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin,

Fecolithology

A fecolith is an ossified 'dropping', so fecolithology is the study of such offerings.


I found this first offering of histrionic boocr*p by Lee Siegel in the LA Times online. It is over-imaginatively titled Militant atheists are wrong: A flurry of literary attacks on God may also be closing the book on imagination.

Nor would anyone know from reading the latest rash of anti-God books that promiscuous sex and polymorphous sexuality are taken for granted in modern-day America (let's see a conservative Supreme Court try to roll that back);

Judging by Siegel's remarks, I'd have to assume that the New Atheists are promoting rampant sexual expression. This implication might boost book sales. I am currently reading The God Delusion by Dawkins and I have yet to come across Dawkins' exciting comments on promiscuous sex and polymorphous sexuality. I can hardly wait! If Richard disappoints on this score, I shall have to trust to Hitchens for titillation.

After all, in a nation where over 90% of the population claims to be religious, the scurrilous antics of "Paris Hilton, HBO, Internet porn and flip-flops" must, judging by Siegel's innuendo, be solely the result of atheistic influences from that so-influential less than 10%. If this were not the case, then why would Siegel be concerned about arguments for rationality and scientific understanding?

But they make me concerned nevertheless, because I think they strike a blow against something more important (at least to me) than belief in God. In their contempt for any belief that cannot be scientifically or empirically proved, the anti-God books are attacking our inborn capacity to create value and meaning for ourselves.

What utter boocr*p! Siegel, probably for the sake of getting his name in print, is jousting with an invisible straw man. This is not mere distortion of an argument made by the 'militant atheists', but it is something that they are not saying at all*. In fact, Dawkins quite clearly says the opposite of this in TV interviews and in the sections that I have already read of The God Delusion. Siegel is either deficient in understanding or has read theistic reviews rather than the books he is thus libeling. Judging by comments around the blogosphere that Siegel denigrated, the explanation lies largely in the former interpretation.

But that campaign against religious faith and superstition triumphed long ago in the West, where we now live in a technological, irreligious age beyond the wildest Enlightenment hopes.

Technology has definitely advanced in those 200 years, but the Founding Fathers, never mind Voltaire, would probably be horrified at the rampant fundamentalist religiosity that, amongst its other dubious manifestations, put Dubaya into power.

Even Siegel appears not to be impressed by Dubaya's administration when he complains, "For instance, Bush and his gang preach Christian values while lying us into a slaughterhouse overseas, ransacking our public coffers and ignoring social inequities and iniquities at home -- and so our heroic anti-religionists attack . . . Christian values."

Look again, Siegel, many religionists continue to approve of Dubaya, while liberals and atheists were among the first to declare horror at the damage to . . . human values. It strikes me as odd that a Jewish writer should be worring about 'Christian' values.

When our anti-religionists attack the mechanism of religious faith by demanding that our beliefs be underpinned by science, statistics and cold logic, they are, in effect, attacking our right to believe in unseen, unprovable things at all. Their assault on religious faith amounts to an attack on the human imagination.

Oh, go read The Sorrows of Young Werther if you want Romantic fantasy, Siegel! You are clearly unaware that science opens up the wonders of the universe to the imagination, whereas the God of the Gaps explains absolutely nothing and religious zealotry kills. Siegel is obviously unaware, or uncaring, that scientific investigation requires creative thinking on the part of hypothesizers and designers of experiments.

Because the existence of God is undemonstrable, unverifiable and the object of an impractical leap of faith, religion, it seems to me, is one of imagination's last strongholds.

Religion is indeed a product of fervent imaginations, but this comment is otherwise utterly and completely unjustified because, as exemplified by the wonders revealed by science and by the creative outpourings of atheists, imagination is not the sole property of religion. Boocr*p yes, creativity and wonder no. Siegel is probably incapable of discerning the difference.

*Mark Hoofnagle sums up the 'militant atheist' position admirably:

Dawkins et al., are not making the argument that we should become robots, tied to cold logic and unable to do anything new because rationality isn't prepared for the unknown. They are making the argument that we should free our minds from dogmatism and illogic which hampers our creativity, our compassion for our fellow men and women, and locks us into patterns of behavior prescribed by ancient texts that are contradictory, bigoted, and irrelevant in our modern age.

Siegel's arguments are absurd, and irrelevant. But then, so is Siegel.

PZ Myers never disappoints:

I love that admission. I wish more theists would make it. It's saying that the value of religion lies in its awesome idiocy — that no rational, reasonable person could possibly believe in that load of tripe, therefore, because so many people do believe in it, it must be valuable (and they so blithely overlook the possibility that the reason so many accept it is that they are irrational and unreasonable). A willingness to believe does not make a fact out of fantasy — it makes you a believer in nonsense, nothing more.

Pharyngulist comments are often worth repeating:

I am amazed that Siegel has never heard of George Carlin, Douglas Adams, Isaac Asimov, Sir Arthur C. Clarke, Terry Pratchett, Salman Rushdie, George Bernard Shaw, Percy Bysshe Shelly, Woody Allen, David Cross, David Gilmour, Billy Joel, and, one of my personal favorites, H.P. Lovecraft. That list does not [even] include agnostics. So either Siegel is staggeringly ignorant of the contributions of non-theists to the arts or he does not consider the works of these people significant or he is aware and considers them important, but is being completely dishonest. Considering his past episode of sock-puppetry, I'm going with the last one. _ Atheotatous_

Websites: Washington Monthly :
Blogosphere: Play whack-a-mole with Lee Siegel : No Imagination Without Religion? Lee Seigel is an idiot. : Militant atheists are wrong - Los Angeles Times : Lee Siegel could try to be open-minded about reading secularist tomes, & : I Can Has The God? : T Bogg

Hardly surprising that rather than criticizing the rampant illogic of Siegel's piece (aside from the acknowledgement that religion requires 'an impractical leap of faith') religionist sites are merely providing links to the rubbish.




atheismmoralityreligionscienceGeorge W BushRichard DawkinsChristopher HitchensLee Siegel

Dawkins

I have been taking a closer look at Richard Dawkins because of a discussion that I recently read between an theist and a theist who contends that Dawkins is a cult figure. Judging by the ad hominem attacks on Dawkins and illogical attacks on his message, his campaign for-science-against-religion is successful.

Dawkins on Hitchens : The Times Literary Supplement features (September 05, 2007) an interesting review by Richard Dawkins of Christopher Hitchens' "God is not great". . . more.

Theistic Fallacies : A variety of illogical attacks against atheism are misdirected toward Richard Dawkins and the New Atheist spokespeople. . . more.

Audiovisual:
Atheist Call to Arms .
Dawkins: CNN interview .
Dawkins: God Delusion and Beyond .
Dawkins on Scripture .
Creationist Distortions: the faked video that so delighted science-ignorant creationists . Creationist Hoax Exposed: how the Australian creationists faked a video in an attempt to discredit Richard Dawkins.







atheism

A Matter of Faith

This segment on atheism was aired on the "CBS Sunday Morning" news program (8/19/07). Interviewees include atheists Christopher Hitchens and Julia Sweeney, and a theist, Stephen Prothero (who pulls out the ridiculous Stalinist-atheist argument).

There is also a clip of the late Madalyn Murray-O'Hair, who so upset religious fundamentalists by her successful legal appeal to have the US Constitution upheld by removing prayer from schools. Madalyn founded American Atheists and, in a case reminiscent of Selena's, she was murdered at age 76 (1995) by David Roland Waters, an employee of American Atheists.

This program was aired on a conservative USian TV network, so it is no surprise that the producers attempt to monopolize on the recency effect by ending on the "faith" note and cutting Julia Sweeney's response short.



The video is available on YouTube and Richard Dawkins' website.



atheism

Hitchens McGrath Debate

Hitchens wins this debate handily: Poison or Cure? Religious Belief in the Modern World from the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Hitchens wrote the bestseller, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. McGrath claims to have been an atheist in his youth in Northern Ireland. McGrath admits that some forms of religion are pathological, then goes on to attribute the problems with religion to fringe elements.

McGrath presumes to know what God, a purely hypothetical supernatural entity, is like and what God actually wants us to do. McGrath's arguments, like all apologetic smoke and mirrors, rest upon insistence that there is a God and that Christianity as a religion is excused by this belief. McGrath goes so far as to accuse atheism of being 'wishful thinking' to excuse laissez faire immoral behavior. He fails in this argument because the evidence strongly suggests that atheists are just as moral, if not more moral, than theists, who often behave very badly indeed. In short, McGrath troops out all the tired old apologetic fallacies of logic and fallacious appeals to emotion. There is, as ever, something truly pathetic about any argument that we cannot find meaning without resorting to the verbiage spewing from mythologies.

Alister McGrath is the Director of the Oxford Centre for Evangelism and Apologetics at Wycliffe Hall, and Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University. Evangelism and apologetics translates as concocting excuses for fundamentalist religious dogma. Wycliffe gained some recent notoriety following release of a damning report that recommends ending the admission of school-leavers to some of Oxford's colleges. The study, conducted by a university panel headed by Sir Colin Lucas, a former vice-chancellor, particularly noted that Wycliffe does not resemble “an Oxford experience in its essentials” and is not “a suitable educational environment for the full intellectual development of young undergraduates”.



The full video is posted at Google.

Commentary: Watch Alister McGrath Take a Very Long Time To Say Very Little . Chrisopher Hitchens versus Alistair McGrath . Onward, Atheist Soldiers . discussion (mostly derogatory of McGrath rather than edified) on RichardDawkins.net .

McGrath's critique of Dawkins' book The God Delusion in McGrath's article The Dawkins Delusion? and book Dawkins God : Genes Memes and the Meaning of Life : Deluded about Dawkins (Part I) & Part II .

On YouTube, the presentation is broken into byte size chunks: Christopher Hitchens Debates Alister McGrath 1 of 11 . 2 of 11 . 3 of 11 . 4 of 11 . 5 of 11 . 6 of 11 . 7 of 11 . 8 of 11 . 9 of 11 . 10 of 11 . 11 of 11 .

atheismaudiovisualreligionvideosChristopher HitchensAlister McGrath

The Nonexistent cannot be Great

Christopher Hitchens: God Isn't Great:



Authors@Google: Christopher Hitchens . Hitchens Bests Hannity in God Debate . George Galloway debates Christopher Hitchens: Part 1 . Lou Dobbs with Christopher Hitchens - Atheist & US Citizen . Sharpton / Hitchens Debate - Can Morality Exist Without God? . The Hour: Interview with Christopher Hitchens (Part 1) . Christopher Hitchens -- Religion . Sharpton / Hitchens Debate - The Persistence of Religion . Christopher Hitchens on Islam . Christopher Hitchens Rules! . Christopher Hitchens on Rushdie (Question Time Part I) . Christopher Hitchens on Christmas . Christopher Hitchens debates Iraq with Reagan Jr. . Anderson Cooper interviews Christopher Hitchens . Christopher Hitchens on Paula Zahn (CNN) about Rev. Falwell's Death . Christopher Hitchens on Tucker Carlson . Christopher Hitchens on Freethought Radio (10/06/07) P1, Christopher Hitchens on Freethought Radio (10/06/07) P2 FFRF talk Christopher Hitchens in Madison, Christopher Hitchens FFRF Talk - part1, Christopher Hitchens FFRF Talk - part2, Christopher Hitchens FFRF Talk - part3, Christopher Hitchens FFRF Talk - part4 .

more on Christopher Hitchens :
Hitchens on Jerry Falwell: Ode on an American Turd




atheism

Ode on an American Turd

Christopher Hitchens makes some delightfully nasty comments about King Bigot, Jerry Falwell. (I personally considered Falwell an abominable ass, so I think that if there is any justice in the universe, Falwell will be reincarnated as a purple teletubby.) Hitchens says that he did not think Falwell was sincere in his bigotry, and here I disagree with him because I think that Jerry was every bit as nasty as he appeared.



This one on FOX has Sean Hannity trying to defend Falwell by outshouting and insulting Hitchens. Hannity, an insulting and none too bright loudmouth, pulls out the Stupid Stalin Atheist Argument and accuses Christopher of not respecting the dead, which is ripe considering Falwell's remarks after 9/11: Christopher Hitchens on Hannity & Colmes about Rev. Falwell's Death.



atheism

Dawkins on Hitchens

The Times Literary Supplement features (September 05, 2007) an interesting review by Richard Dawkins of Christopher Hitchens' "God is not great". Dawkins concludes, "And what a splendid, boisterously virile broadside of a book it is."

The religious, who have too long considered themselves justified in flaunting their empirically unfounded beliefs (as though they really do represent the Gospel Truth) continue to express dismay that someone could dare to repeatedly and publicly express disbelief.

(I have been an atheist for a long time yet I have only recently become aware of the stand up and be counted wave of vocal disbelief. I count myself very fortunate to be Canadian and not American because Canadians are much more secular than Americans and I personally find In Your Face Religiosity quite infuriating and nauseating.)






atheism