1. Comment #33552 by RonnieG on April 20, 2007 at 3:00 pm

And the onslaught continues...

It's funny how on the (US) amazon.com site it suggests near the top "Find books, Bibles and more in our new Christian Books store." Those automated suggestions are so far off sometimes.

Other Comments by RonnieG

2. Comment #33561 by Yossarian on April 20, 2007 at 3:19 pm

hitchens has a lot to offer because he is not a scientist. his arguments against religion are unique and compelling and will hopefully appeal to a completely different community of thinkers (besides just us science-types).

Other Comments by Yossarian

3. Comment #33564 by Fishpeddler on April 20, 2007 at 3:26 pm

My copy has already shipped! I'm leaving the phone off the hook next week.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

4. Comment #33565 by ksskidude on April 20, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Just ordered my copy. Looking forward to it!!!

Other Comments by ksskidude

5. Comment #33568 by Spinoza on April 20, 2007 at 3:38 pm

I'm a little confused about purchasing (a) book(s) that just confirms or reiterates something I already know.

I love these guys for speaking out, but I somehow get the sense that the books are written for someone else... lol.. Like the people who aren't going to read them (or are going to pretend to and then denounce them for no good reason).

Ah well, keep on keeping on. Allied Atheist Alliance or United Atheist League? LOL

Other Comments by Spinoza

6. Comment #33569 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 20, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Ah well, keep on keeping on. Allied Atheist Alliance or United Atheist League? LOL

Neither!!! We must spurn the schimists of the AAA, and reject the false path of the UAL. No these false paths will not do. We must all embrace the Unified Atheist Union, pronounced ohh - ahh - ohh.

This orgasmic sound bite will draw in the masses, bend them to our will and then ... THE WORLD will be OURS for the taking. All too easy ....

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

7. Comment #33570 by SuperStingray on April 20, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Who was the "third musketeer?"

Other Comments by SuperStingray

8. Comment #33571 by William on April 20, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Why is the "God" on the US jacket so small? Are the publishers afraid that Americans will be turned off by the title "God Is Not Great"? Are they hoping they'll just see the "Great" and think it's some kind of positive affirmation, self-help book or something?

Although the U.S. subtitle is more mordant than the U.K.'s.

Other Comments by William

9. Comment #33572 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 20, 2007 at 3:47 pm

7. Comment #33570 by SuperStingray on April 20, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Who was the "third musketeer?"

Daniel Dennett, sometimes considered the third in the holy trinity of Atheism. However, he is a pretender!!! The true trinity (as all UAU members know) is Dawkins-Harris-Sagan. Not Dennett at all. It's a very serious error to fall into:-(

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

10. Comment #33587 by Bookman on April 20, 2007 at 4:37 pm

Hitchens is a good hitman, but I'm not sure that I'd go to him for any lessons on ethics. His nearly- neocon articles in Slate hardly make him the go-to guy for truth about world affairs. I'd take Dawkins, Dennett, or Sagan over Hitchens anyday.

Other Comments by Bookman

11. Comment #33593 by sane1 on April 20, 2007 at 4:47 pm

I nominate Victor Stenger for Musketeer as well:
http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591024811

Other Comments by sane1

12. Comment #33594 by CruciFiction on April 20, 2007 at 4:58 pm

LONG LIVE THE MUSKATEERS!!!

Other Comments by CruciFiction

13. Comment #33603 by Spinoza on April 20, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Very amusing guys... Ahahaha.

Other Comments by Spinoza

14. Comment #33609 by hightrekker on April 20, 2007 at 5:40 pm

While I have some real issues with Hitchens (his support of the war in Iraq or one thing, along with his complicity to take down Pacifica Radio), I am in complete agreement with him on this one-
I think Marx nailed it over 150 years ago (a contemporary of Darwin)-
"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right

Other Comments by hightrekker

15. Comment #33613 by tm45 on April 20, 2007 at 6:00 pm

Nope. The real trinity in Dawkins-Sagan-Randi

Other Comments by tm45

16. Comment #33618 by Greywizard on April 20, 2007 at 6:08 pm

William, I think the reason the word 'god' on the jacket is small is that god is not GREAT!

Other Comments by Greywizard

17. Comment #33619 by Russell Blackford on April 20, 2007 at 6:13 pm

For me it will always be David Hume-Bertrand Russell-J.L. Mackie, with Michael Martin as backup.

That said, I look forward to reading Hitchens' book.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

18. Comment #33621 by Spinoza on April 20, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Russell, if you like Mackie, check out Blackburn's version of expressivism (Quasi-realist projectivism)... that is, if you haven't already... I think he provides a better ethical stance than Mackie's "meh", though Mackie is of course right to think objective moral values would be "queer".

Other Comments by Spinoza

19. Comment #33623 by TeddyKGB on April 20, 2007 at 6:32 pm

I'd like to know how Hitchens reconciles the title of his book with his support for wars with distinctly religious overtones.

Apparently, religious people are not the only ones capable of partitioning their beliefs in a total lack of consistency.

Other Comments by TeddyKGB

20. Comment #33624 by mundusvultdecipi on April 20, 2007 at 6:34 pm

May I suggest we add Ludovic Kennedy to the musketeer list ? If I recall correctly he wrote a rather good book a few years back, in the late 90's I think, called 'All In The Mind: A Farewell To God'

Other Comments by mundusvultdecipi

21. Comment #33626 by IQHQ on April 20, 2007 at 6:57 pm

Ok so he's a prat, but Christopher Hitchens is the best literary journalist in the English-speaking language. I really hope that this one (which i've just ordered) is up to his usual standards. If it is, then God may not be great, but it most certainly will be!

Other Comments by IQHQ

22. Comment #33629 by Russell Blackford on April 20, 2007 at 7:17 pm

Spinoza, I generally like Blackburn. However, I'm not sure I properly understand quasi-realism ... and I actually prefer Mackie's moral philosophy, which I find quite natural (in more ways than one) and compelling.

Hey, I think it's a bit unfair characterising his stance as "meh"! :)

The second half of Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong tries to apply Mackie's more abstract conclusions to real-world problems, which he does in an eminently sane and reasonable way - I wish everyone would read this book. It's not as if he thinks ethics is arbitrary - he thinks that it's based on real human interests and our actual values. The point is that those values are not (as often believed by both philosophers and "ordinary" people) things that are somehow independent of us and part of the objective structure of the universe in a "queer" way. I totally agree with this. It does undermine a lot of conventional moral thinking, entitling Mackie to call himself a moral sceptic, but he's not telling us "Do what thou wilt shall be whole of the law" or something wild like that, just developing a moral approach that should be congenial to us metaphysical naturalists. If the resulting morality is more pluralistic, less dogmatic, more flexible and down-to-earth than the alternatives, that all seems to me to be something we have reason to welcome.

I can see you're not one of them, but a lot of folks seem to be scared of the error theory of meta-ethics because they think it will lead to nihilism and chaos. But that's not right; it doesn't suggest that morality is just arbitrary or that we have no good reason to have it or that its content is entirely indeterminate. When blokes like Michael Smith think it's a theory of last resort, I think that they are missing the beauty of it, maybe blinded by a craving for some Kantian certainty about what the moral law "really" is.

Have you read Richard Garner's Beyond Morality?

Hehe, this is getting a bit off topic. Still, Mackie seems to me to have done more than almost anyone to develop the nuts and bolts of a naturalistic worldview - including an account of ethics/morality - with real rigour. We need popular writers like Hitchens, but we really need the hard intellectual foundation that someone like Mackie was able to provide.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

23. Comment #33631 by Jef on April 20, 2007 at 7:22 pm

In response to some of the above.

I think the fact that Hitchens expresses views which many consider right wing to be actually quite a good thing. I think it would be damaging for atheism to be characterised as pertinent solely to a left wing agenda. The fact that atheism is demonstrably inclusive of all of the political spectrum is one of its stronger 'selling points', and something which should be emphasised.

I, for one, would be encouraged to see more outspoken right wing atheists from America's Bible belt. I might not agree with their politics, but it's not their politics that are the subject of my current concern.

Other Comments by Jef

24. Comment #33637 by Fishpeddler on April 20, 2007 at 7:54 pm

Comment #33631 by Jef
"The fact that atheism is demonstrably inclusive of all of the political spectrum is one of its stronger 'selling points', and something which should be emphasised."

Good post.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

25. Comment #33638 by Spinoza on April 20, 2007 at 8:28 pm

Russell, we're hijacking this article... but this is one of my "specializations" so to speak...

Mackie doesn't provide an account of ethics... that's why he's an error theorist. He thinks our ordinary moral discourse DOES talk about moral value as if it is objective, and thus, every time we use it, we ARE IN ERROR. He does think it is a useful fiction (famously) though.

Now, while I agree with Mackie's argument from queerness, wholeheartedly... I think he is not the end of the story... I REALLY suggest you read more of Blackburn's stuff... really really really. Especially the article "How to Be an Ethical Anti-Realist".

Interestingly I think Richard Boyd's "How to Be a Moral Realist" is COMPATIBLE with Blackburn's quasi-realism...

That is, I think moral judgments are attitudes, but that we OUGHT to have certain attitudes towards certain events and acts, just in virtue of being moral beings. AND that it's possible to have a logic of values.

Really, check him out... can't stress that enough.

I have not read Richard Garner's book, but I own, and have read many times, Michael Smith's "The Moral Problem" (the book I believe you must be references when you name-dropped Smith, LOL).

I agree with you about M. Smith... I think he is uncharitable to the anti-realist position. But I also think you are leaving yourself in a rough spot if you stick with only Mackie.

I think the RESPONSES to Mackie are where most of the good stuff lies. If you want more suggestions, or to discuss the intricacies of Quasi-Realism. I would be happy to discuss them either on the board, or through IM.

Other Comments by Spinoza

26. Comment #33641 by Russell Blackford on April 20, 2007 at 8:58 pm

Drop me a note by email if you want to continue it, Spinoza. I've read a lot of Blackburn's material, though, including the article you mention, which I'm actually going to be quoting in my paper at the Australasian Association of Philosophy conference in July. This is all a bit of a hobbyhorse of mine, too. :)

Still, I'd be very pleased to read your take on Blackburn, and I'm open to being influenced by what you have to say, since you clearly know your stuff. I think my email address is in my profile if you want to contact me. My blog site certainly is, and it has my email.

I do think that Mackie is often misunderstood, and with (genuinely) great respect I think that you are slightly misunderstanding him, in common with most of the other commentators. He does, indeed, think that we are normally in error when we make moral judgments for the reason you gave - you're totally correct about that, of course - but what people forget is that he actually provides quite a detailed account of normative ethics in the second half of his book, basing it in a range of human interests, and particularly in the need to supplement our limited sympathies if things are not to go badly (in ways that most of us would recognise as "bad" even though there is not an absolute good and bad independent of our interests). It's actually the second half of the book that I think is most valuable. If you're not careful, you'll find me sending you material I'm working on about all this. :)

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

27. Comment #33643 by Spinoza on April 20, 2007 at 9:24 pm

Ah... interesting... I find most people misunderstand both Blackburn and Mackie... so we are in good company with each other I suppose.

I remember arguing in a seminar in undergraduate with someone who just kept railing against Mackie's position from a theistic perspective... I just said to the guy "But Mackie can't be THAT stupid, you're just straw-manning his position if you construe him that way!"...

But I latched onto Blackburn from the first minute I read him because the guy just brilliantly captures the metaethic of moral discourse, imho.

It's so funny though because the first time I ever read Richard Boyd I went "Oh fuck! What do I do now?" Because he takes the EXACT line of reasoning I wanted to go on in MY philosophical career, namely that we ought to make ethics a science... BUT HE'S A REALIST ABOUT VALUE!!!

He thinks moral judgments point to homeostatic property clusters...

And I agree with him...

But I get off the wagon as soon as he says "And those homeostatic property clusters ARE where the moral values lie"...

Because I just think he's wrong... and so does Blackburn... the value IS THE ATTITUDE... but the types of things we call morally good certainly do line up in homeostatic property clusters... and as such we CAN use observation to improve our moral discourse, and moral METHODOLOGY (this is the Boydian line)...

I am not sure that Mackie would allow this though... and in that sense, perhaps, his is a deficient position... but I shall have to go and re-read the second half of his book...

I also have to finish a paper I'm currently working on on a totally unrelated topic (Leibniz on Free will, LOL)...

But I will certainly check out your blog, and drop you a line via email. :)

Other Comments by Spinoza

28. Comment #33644 by kkant on April 20, 2007 at 9:32 pm

I just ordered "God is not Great" the other day, along with another of his books "Missionary Position" (about Mother Teresa). I can't wait to sink my teeth into them. Hitchens is a very eloquent speaker and writer. Even when he's saying things that you might not agree with, he's really damn hard to argue against. Outspoken, confident, willing and able to take on all adversaries. Definitely a good guy to have in the atheist camp.

Other Comments by kkant

29. Comment #33658 by Russell Blackford on April 20, 2007 at 11:36 pm

Spinoza: Yeah, do contact me offlist - we mustn't derail this entirely while waiting to get hold of the Hitchens book. I'd like to understand Blackburn's metaethics better, and having it explained by someone who finds it transparent and congenial would help.

Can I nominate Ayaan Hirsi Ali as another musketeer? Anyone reading this thread who hasn't yet read Infidel, go and scratch, bite, and claw your way to it if needed.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

30. Comment #33659 by Roy_H on April 20, 2007 at 11:44 pm

At this rate 'The Three Musketeers' will soon become 'The Twelve Disciples!' ( of Russell? )

Other Comments by Roy_H

31. Comment #33660 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 20, 2007 at 11:56 pm

30. Comment #33659 by Roy_H on April 20, 2007 at 11:44 pm

At this rate 'The Three Musketeers' will soon become 'The Twelve Disciples!' ( of Russell? )

This is getting out of hand. We have the trinity people. Dawkins-Harris-Sagan. Thats IT. No seductive santa clones, no drunken ex commies, and absolutely, unequivocally NO black!!! women.

The UAU most hold the line against this sort of corruption.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

32. Comment #33661 by Ian on April 21, 2007 at 12:20 am

I'd like to add another to our list of musketeers: Ludovic Kennedy. I have almost finished reading his All in the Mind: A Farewell to God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludovic_Kennedy

Other Comments by Ian

33. Comment #33668 by Spinoza on April 21, 2007 at 2:39 am

I really hope Brian is joking.... really really hope...

Other Comments by Spinoza

34. Comment #33674 by pissinintothewind on April 21, 2007 at 4:26 am

I think there is a lot of uncalled for reverence of the so called musketeers bordering on personality worship. I applaud their leadership and devotion to the rationalist cause we all promulgate, however In my view it will neutralize some of our efforts if we are not conscious and allow this "meme" to take hold. It should not be encouraged, an example of this were the e mails sent from this site asking and encouraging people to send Dr Dawkins birthday greetings. Why? I can see why some theist call this a religion as much as personality worship can be called a religion and I think its very negative .I realize this may upset some but there it is. TOM.

Other Comments by pissinintothewind

35. Comment #33676 by anotherclinton on April 21, 2007 at 4:31 am

It's unfortunate that Hitch still gets confused with the neo-cons, especially by the bright people who post on this website. Hitchens' antitheism comes straight out of Paine's "The Age of Reason", and he has quite obviously modeled himself on the man in other ways as well; that is to say, he has taken the position of stirring a secondary revolution within his own ranks, in his case, the attempt to remind middle class liberals that fascist governments still exist and are a threat to their own people and to their neighbors. Hitchens has always admitted the poor planning on the behalf of the military and the civilian authorities, but he's the one man who constantly reminds us that religious sectarianism is solely responsible for the continuing crisis in Iraq.

Other Comments by anotherclinton

36. Comment #33677 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 21, 2007 at 4:36 am

33. Comment #33668 by Spinoza on April 21, 2007 at 2:39 am

I really hope Brian is joking.... really really hope...

Too much? Was the black women thing too tasteless? Just finding my humour boundaries:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

37. Comment #33680 by Rtambree on April 21, 2007 at 5:02 am

If you took the best comments on RichardDawkins.Net over the last few months, you'd have a great, original, nuanced, and more wide-ranging book than any of these. Furthermore, it would deal with secondary arguments and issues, rather than just all the usual first-level stuff.

Other Comments by Rtambree

38. Comment #33686 by AdrianB on April 21, 2007 at 5:49 am

I'm sure Peter Hitchens is looking forward to this book as well.

Other Comments by AdrianB

39. Comment #33689 by Rtambree on April 21, 2007 at 6:03 am

31. Comment #33660 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

>We have the trinity people. Dawkins-Harris-Sagan.

Haven't we been here before? I'm getting a feeling a deja vu.

Dennett is the one true Prophet as he is obviously the reincarnation of Darwin, returning to His people, as the prophecy foretold. Dennett is merciful and all-knowing and hallowed be His name.

Other Comments by Rtambree

40. Comment #33690 by NewSkeptic on April 21, 2007 at 6:21 am

I would like to second Russell Blackford's motion that Ayaan Hirsi Ali be added to the list of 'clear thinking' leaders.

Although I agree with the late Dr. Sagan that we should not 'make heroes', Ayaan's autobiography does describe a person who looked for reason, and showed astonishing courage in the strong choices she made in her life.

Her autobiography was one which I could scarcely stop reading.

Without 'making heroes', it can still be said that her courage is exemplary, and she stands easily as a role model, just as do Mr. Christopher Hichens, the extraordinary Professor Dawkins and the inimitable Dr. Carl Sagan.

Other Comments by NewSkeptic

41. Comment #33691 by Ewan D on April 21, 2007 at 6:24 am

I'd second sane1's recommendation of Stenger. But surely this growing army of musketeers is incomplete without George H. Smith. His 'Atheism - the Case Against God' is really outstanding for its rationality, substance and precision. Hasn't anyone else read it?

http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Case-Against-Skeptics-Bookshelf/dp/087975124X

Other Comments by Ewan D

42. Comment #33696 by filthyatheist on April 21, 2007 at 7:08 am

You can't be a GOOD atheist and be a rightwing, warmongering, nutjob like Hitchens.

His abrupt apostasy from progressive politics should be a warning.

In a couple of years we could be looking at a modern Malcolm Muggeridge.

Other Comments by filthyatheist

43. Comment #33699 by BAEOZ on April 21, 2007 at 7:17 am

"I think there is a lot of uncalled for reverence of the so called musketeers bordering on personality worship."
Guys, we aren't a faith. Respect the wisdom or genius of those whose shoulders we stand on, but don't worship them. We don't need 4 musketeers no more than we need a trilogy. And I say that with the greatest respect to any of the putative triumvirate and additions. They are good men, they don't deserve to be denigrated as modern demigods. Fighting faith with faith doesn't work.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

44. Comment #33701 by maton100 on April 21, 2007 at 7:49 am

I concur with BAEOZ. We should be grateful for our modern resources, but overtly ridiculous hyperbole is only going to provide antagonistic fuel for guys like D'Souza. Folks might see these efforts as merely a plot for book sales or ephemeral rebellion in the face of a presidential administration gone awry. Non-theism is a defensible, respectful and intellectual disposition. The last thing we need to do is conflate religious iconography with counter relics suggesting that "we too are a religion." We non-theists accept reality as it is, not as we want it to be.

Other Comments by maton100

45. Comment #33704 by Russell Blackford on April 21, 2007 at 8:24 am

I don't think anyone is likely to be sanctified by RichardDawkins.net, just yet. It's just a few jokes, folks.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

46. Comment #33706 by hightrekker on April 21, 2007 at 8:38 am

We need to accept Hitchens for what he is---
A drunken opportunist, who writes very well.
This is someone who rolled the dice and got some
bad luck on the Iraq adventure, and may be trying to redeem himself now.
This guy is in the ethical shallow end of the pool.

Other Comments by hightrekker

47. Comment #33707 by FSM? on April 21, 2007 at 9:24 am

I am disappointed in the perceived need (no doubt pressure from the publishers in the US) to tip-toe around religion with regard to the covers on TGD and now Hitchens' book in the US. Why not use a similar emphasis as with the UK versions?

Obviously book covers vary from country to country, but in these cases it seems obvious that there is an attempt being made not to 'offend'.

RD has also stated his dissatisfaction with his TV series being named 'Root of ALL Evil', but the TV company were not willing to accept an alternative.

Naturally it is great to have these books and resources available in bookshops where those who really ought to read them may pick them up, but I can't help but feel a disservice is being done with the way they are being presented in the US in particular.

Other Comments by FSM?

48. Comment #33717 by andyinsdca on April 21, 2007 at 10:40 am

May 1 is a red-letter day for atheists this year. Rush's new album comes out and so does this book!
I think I might be sick that day...in fact, I can feel a cold coming on already. *SNEEZE*

Other Comments by andyinsdca

49. Comment #33718 by pissinintothewind on April 21, 2007 at 10:50 am

Russel, some may be some may not be, I find it hard to tell the difference and if a half blind, octogenarian Welshman with a limp who lives in sin with a sheep can`t tell, i`m sure a lot of theist won`t be able to either.

Other Comments by pissinintothewind

50. Comment #33719 by pissinintothewind on April 21, 2007 at 10:54 am

By the way its the being a Welshman is the joke

Other Comments by pissinintothewind