51. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82169 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 25, 2007 at 7:26 pm

I don't understand why people are so critical of Harris on mysticism and the supernatural.

As Daniel Dennett (and it would be hard to get a more naturalistic philosopher than Daniel "Consciousness Explained (Away)" Dennett) said in the question session, there really isn't that much to be upset about in what Harris is saying, once you actually take the time to understand what he is saying.

In many ways, I think a lot of atheists are having the same irrational knee-jerk rejection reaction to Harris' "spiritual" ideas that theists are having to *our* ideas.

52. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82141 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 25, 2007 at 6:24 pm

If I ever write a "new atheist" book or essay for publication (which I might, at least the latter) I'm going to call it something like, "Against Dogma: the New Atheism, the Culture Wars and the 'War on Terror'"

And if any of you steal that idea, I'm going to take up Voodoo. ;-)

53. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #81449 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 24, 2007 at 6:36 pm

One of the problems here is that the "how can we be good without god" argument is actually several different arguments misleadingly grouped under the same label.

First, the argument from scripture: How can we know what's good without a book of rules, like the Bible? This is the one that Dawkins is great at squashing with his "cherry picking" point. The Bible is full of horrible acts and examples and recommendations. It also contains some very kind and good acts and examples and rules. Yet most Christians don't follow the former any more but continue to follow the latter. How do they chose? What do they use to cherry pick? It's not something in the Bible,, it's something in the reader. And if our moral sense exists in us and allows us to pick the good bits of the Bible from the bad, what do we need the Bible for except as one among many collections of moral propositions on which to use our moral sense?

Secondly, there's the Platonic "by what standard" argument: Granted we have an innate moral sense, but how can we know what's right and wrong if there is no absolute standard of right in the universe? Doesn't our ability to recognise that some acts are good and others evil imply that there must somewhere exist a perfect thing of goodness to be the standard. Doesn't our moral sense itself act as evidence of the existence of God? Here the error is epistemological: of course we can judge degrees of something even though a perfect sample of that something does not really exist. Nowhere in reality is there such a thing a perfectly straight line. Yet we are easily able to judge and even rank the straightness of connections between two points in the real world with relative ease – this hand drawn line on this piece of paper is straighter than that one, this rooftop is straighter than that one, the path of this meteor is straighter than that one, etc.

Thirdly, and related to the second version, is the "origins of morality" argument: Granted we have a moral sense, but where did that come from? It can't have evolved, because it often gets us to do things that aren't selfish, even in the sense of enlightened selfishness. This argument misunderstands Dawkins' "selfish gene" point. We are genuinely altruistic because our genes are "selfish". A gene for genuinely altruistic behaviour will have a reproductive advantage if its carriers live in groups of largely related individuals. By risking its life for the group because of the genuine altruism given to it by the gene, one carrier of that gene will increase the reproductive chances of other carriers of the same gene. That is to say, evolution has given us a lust to be good much in the way it has given us a lust to have sex. Does this mean that altruism only makes sense if its for relatives? Only in the sense that sex doesn't "make sense" if its not done for procreation and love doesn't make sense if its not being used to solidify a pair-bond for twenty or so years to best ensure the survival of offspring. The evolutionary explanation for an urge is not the same as a justification for why we should, as rational creatures, promote or fight that urge.

Finally, there's the sanction argument: why be good if there's no comeuppance in the afterlife? The answer hear is really one that was provided by the ancients - virtue or self-respect. We judge the moral acts of others and think well or ill of them as a result. But we also do the same of ourselves. Self-hatred is actually one of the worst psychological tortures one can suffer. An important part of mental health is having a good reputation with oneself. With our reputations with others, we can gain a good one be either actually being good, or by tricking our audience into believing we are good. But with our reputations with ourselves, the latter course involves a level of self-deception that is itself mentally unhealthy. Good deeds really are, as it turns out, their own reward.

Recent studies on primates have shown the existence of mirror neurones. When a monkey experiences pain from, say, being kicked in the testicles, several neurones can be observed to fire in his brain. But if the same monkey then observes *another* monkey being kicked in the testicles, a few (not all) of those same neurones fire in the *observing* monkey's brain. It seems these neurones evolved as the means by which primates learn skills from each other: observe the other doing the skill, feel which mirror neurones fire, then try to make the same mirror neurones fire by doing the action, repeat, refine, learn skill. But a side effect was the ability to feel the pain and pleasure of others. This new capacity allowed altruism to develop, and that mutation propagated because of the reproduction-enhancing properties of altruism discussed above. However, in gene's-eye perspective, altruism is a two edged sword. It's great if your carriers sacrifice themselves for other carriers, but it sucks if your carriers start sacrificing themselves for non-carriers. The solution is "taming" of the empathy/altruism characteristic be the evolution of in-group vs out-group thinking. What evolved (one suspects both genetically and culturally) was a distinction between the in-group, where empathy was appropriate (and whose members were likely to carry many of the same genes); and out-groups, where empathy was blocked or even turned into its dark twin antipathy – the tendency of animals to feel the pain of others and *enjoy* it.

The story of moral progress is the story of the marriage between the brute facts of our evolved capacity for empathy and our evolved capacity for reason. As we apply our reason to our urge to be good to others, and as we become more interconnected with strangers, we see fewer and fewer reasons to put people into the "out group". Our psychological "in group" expands and expands until in some people it extends not just to the whole human race, but to sentient animals as well. Of course there are gradations: seeing my fiancée happy gives me more pleasure (and seeing her in pain causes me more suffering) than seeing, say, Richard Dawkins happy (or in pain). And Richard Dawkins' happiness matters more to me that that of George W Bush (though I'd still feel a little bit bad for him if he were in pain). But there are very few people in my "out-group" and I feel ashamed about the fact that I feel that way even for them.

Has Christianity had anything to do with this moral development? Yes. It's helped. Just as alchemy made some discoveries that were built on by chemistry and astrology made some discoveries (mostly in the field of cataloguing facts, but still useful discoveries) that have been built on by astronomy; Christianity made or widely propagated several moral innovations that modern secular humanist moral philosophy has built upon. But it's also contaminated the stream with some bad ideas. Just as there is no evidence that one can turn lead into gold and there is no evidence that the movements of the planet Venus affect my destiny; there is no evidence that there is an afterlife in which kindness to strangers is rewarded and worship of other gods is punished. But that doesn't change the fact that kindness to strangers is a good idea that was widely propagated by Christianity in the past (just as true knowledge of certain chemical reactions was propagated by alchemy in the past). The evil of worshipping other gods, like turning lead into gold, was not so much a good idea.

54. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #81326 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 24, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Re-posted from the first Htichens/D'Souza thread.

A modest proposal of how to nip this Stalin/Mao canard in the bud. This is how I would introduce my opening statement in any debate on this subject:

"It may surprise you to hear that my primary target isn't religion, or even theism as such. Indeed, as I'll explain later, there are some forms of religion (and even some rare forms of theism, specifically deism) with which I have very little problem at all.

"So, what *is* my problem? My problem is with dogma. With the belief that it is acceptable, even admirable, to believe propositions without good evidence or without good reasons for believing those propositions to be true.

The forms those dogmatically believed propositions can take are potentially infinite. One might dogmatically believe in the historical inevitability of a communist utopia, under which the State will wither away, after a brief but necessary period of a dictatorship of the proletariat. One might dogmatically believe in the existence of something called the Aryan race, in its inherent superiority to all other races, and in the inherent inferiority and perfidy of the Jewish race. One might dogmatically believe that the Creator of the universe called one's religion to convert the world or take it by force through holy war, that death in the defence of (or attempt to reconquer) lands so acquired is the greatest of all actions, and that such martyrs will go to paradise after they die to be attended by 72 virgin brides and joined in due course be all their family and loved-ones. Or one might dogmatically believe that the creator of the universe condemns contraception as a mortal sin.

"What all four of these beliefs have in common is that there is very little or no evidence for them and that there is much good evidence against them. Yet all four beliefs have at times been passionately, ardently believed and acted upon by otherwise rational, sane and educated people - often resulting in those same people performing some of the most irrational, insane and barbaric acts imaginable.

"Thankfully, fascist, Nazi and Communist dogmas have been so discredited that almost no-one believes them any more. That is a development to be celebrated. But as the events of New York and Washington DC and Bali and Madrid and London demonstrate; as demonstrated by the genocidally stupid anti-contraceptive policies of the Catholic church in Africa and the homicidally stupid stem-cell policies of Christian churches in the US ; religious dogmas are alive and kicking and at work in the world.

"Reason and evidence and empiricism and science and liberal democracy - in short, the forces of the Enlightenment - have destroyed Communist and Fascist dogmas. Now it is time to do the same to the dogmas of religious faith."

- guess which of the 'Four Horseman' I count myself as having been most influenced by?

55. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81011 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 23, 2007 at 10:29 pm

Well, Hithcens does rather well in showing that Fascims was really just the modern political manifestation of Catholic authoritarianism. It's also pretty obvious that Nazism was a strange salad of Christianity and pagan race myths.

56. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81003 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 23, 2007 at 10:07 pm

A modest proposal of how to nip this Stalin/Mao canard in the bud. This is how I would introduce my opening statement in any debate on this subject:

"It may surprise you to hear that my primary target isn't religion, or even theism as such. Indeed, as I'll explain later, there are some forms of religion (and even some rare forms of theism, specifically deism) with which I have very little problem at all.

"So, what *is* my problem? My problem is with dogma. With the belief that it is acceptable, even admirable, to believe propositions without good evidence or without good reasons for believing those propositions to be true.

The forms those dogmatically believed propositions can take are potentially infinite. One might dogmatically believe in the historical inevitability of a communist utopia, under which the State will wither away, after a brief but necessary period of a dictatorship of the proletariat. One might dogmatically believe in the existence of something called the Aryan race, in its inherent superiority to all other races, and in the inherent inferiority and perfidy of the Jewish race. One might dogmatically believe that the Creator of the universe called one's religion to convert the world or take it by force through holy war, that death in the defence of (or attempt to reconquer) lands so acquired is the greatest of all actions, and that such martyrs will go to paradise after they die to be attended by 72 virgin brides and joined in due course be all their family and loved-ones. Or one might dogmatically believe that the creator of the universe condemns contraception as a mortal sin.

"What all four of these beliefs have in common is that there is very little or no evidence for them and that there is much good evidence against them. Yet all four beliefs have at times been passionately, ardently believed and acted upon by otherwise rational, sane and educated people - often resulting in those same people performing some of the most irrational, insane and barbaric acts imaginable.

"Thankfully, fascist, Nazi and Communist dogmas have been so discredited that almost no-one believes them any more. That is a development to be celebrated. But as the events of New York and Washington DC and Bali and Madrid and London demonstrate; as demonstrated by the genocidally stupid anti-contraceptive policies of the Catholic church in Africa and the homicidally stupid stem-cell policies of Christian churches in the US ; religious dogmas are alive and kicking and at work in the world.

"Reason and evidence and empiricism and science and liberal democracy - in short, the forces of the Enlightenment - have destroyed Communist and Fascist dogmas. Now it is time to do the same to the dogmas of religious faith."

- guess which of the 'Four Horseman' I count myself as having been most influenced by?

57. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #80272 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 21, 2007 at 4:16 am

test

58. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #80253 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 21, 2007 at 2:30 am

My first reaction was to recommend that Dawkins immediately challenge Williams to a public debate or at least a face to face public discussion. Williams is simply too well respected, and too much the "acceptable face of Christianity" to let this attack go without a response.

However, after see the video of Daniel Dennett's acceptance speech when he got the Richar Dawkins Award at AAI 2007 - and in particular after hearing Professor Dennett speak on "murkies", I think that Dennett would be the best opponent for Williams.

And as an added entertainment - they both look so alike it would be funny!

59. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79304 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 16, 2007 at 8:23 pm

Hitch: Someone once told me that I was trying to assassinate their character and I said, "No, your character committed suicide some time ago."

Hitch, you sir are a right bastard - and I salute you!

60. Dan Dennett award and speech at AAI 07

Comment #79072 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 16, 2007 at 4:00 am

I'm particularly attracted to his delineation of a third type aside from "brights" (hate that term, but I get his drift) and "supers" - the "murkies" or "mysterians".

One of the reasons I thing it is is so immensely frustrating to argue with religious moderates is that they are often not supers but murkies. And Dennett lays out some useful strategies for dealing with them.

61. Dan Dennett award and speech at AAI 07

Comment #78994 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 15, 2007 at 6:13 pm

Great lecture. I hope he writes it up and puts it online because it draws together a lot of useful threads in a very accessible way.

62. Ayaan Hirsi Ali at AAI 07

Comment #78993 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 15, 2007 at 6:12 pm

What was with her frequently asking "can I go now?"

Was that security related? I heard there was a specific threat that she would actually be killed during the conference and so there had been some misdirection as to whether she was actually going to attend.

63. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76118 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 4, 2007 at 7:06 pm

Wow, this is interesting. Looking foward to teh rest.

The thing that shook me the most was the proportional comparison between the bloodiness of hunter-gatherer societies with the bloodiness of the 20th century.

64. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69200 by Atticus_of_Amber on September 10, 2007 at 2:02 am

"I think the allusion to fascism works better than would communism. There is a visceral dislike of fascism whereas communism is still seen as a valid intellectual exercise by many and does not get quite the same reaction."

But that's exactly why I think the analogy would be more fair. :shrug:

65. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69194 by Atticus_of_Amber on September 10, 2007 at 12:47 am

It's been said before, but I think this parody would have been better if it reviewed 'The Communism Delusion".

Why? Because there are fluffy commies who are harmless in themselves, but who promote irrational dogmas that can have pretty icky consequences. The "but there are nice communists" objection doesn't hold much water in a critique of Communist ideas. Here I think the analogy with the criticism of Dawkins' work is a good one.

The problem, of course, is that there are sure to be a few denizens of this board who will insist that Communism is a "great idea" or even a "scientific idea" and will argue that it has been corrupted by evil men like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Funny how that argument sounds familiar...

66. Bible Belter

Comment #68421 by Atticus_of_Amber on September 7, 2007 at 6:42 am

Personally, I find Hitchens calculated vulgarity one of his greatest charms.

As Churchill once said, a gentlemen is someone who is never *unintentionally* rude.

67. Interview with Richard Dawkins and John Cornwell

Comment #68347 by Atticus_of_Amber on September 7, 2007 at 12:15 am

I think Dawkins came off very well in this interview. Just the right town of bemused disbelief that anyone could so misunderstand him.

68. Public Debate on Complexity and Evolution

Comment #61199 by Atticus_of_Amber on August 4, 2007 at 5:53 am

I would have thought it would begin as something like a mutation to have a flap of skin connecting the thighs to the arms. But there may even be a more subtle mutation that I can't think of that could get it started.

I'm not a scientist either (except to the extent that all rational humans are scientists now).

69. Public Debate on Complexity and Evolution

Comment #61191 by Atticus_of_Amber on August 4, 2007 at 5:21 am

gcdavis wrote: "On a rather more specific point, the last question wasn't answered completely. Take the evolution of a wing, presumably it doesn't offer an evolutionary advantage until it becomes a functioning wing, so what is it the "drives" the intermediate stages, having a couple of "stubs" might even be a disadvantage?"

Hasn't that already been dealt with somewhere on here? I distinctly remember RD talking about the advantage of being able to glide even a little distance - e.g the ability to survive longer falls that otherwise, ability to better control and slow falls when leaping to lower branches, perches, etc.

70. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52660 by Atticus_of_Amber on June 27, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Comment #52439 by Peacebeuponme on June 27, 2007 at 3:17 am: "Yes, it seemed a silly comment. However one way in which you are certainly "less free" is that you are obliged to take part in elections. Forcing you to vote is hardly liberal."

Hmm.

Most common law societies force people to serve on juries and few would call that illiberal. Of course, it *is* illiberal; but the trade off of the benefits of civic participation are widely judged to be worth it.

I think a similar argument works for Australia's system of compulsory voting.

First, it makes most people think about the issues each election.

Secondly, it moves politics towards the centre as there's no point appealing to one's base to "get out the vote"; the key is to appeal to the median undecided voter.

Finally, the penalty for not voting is a pretty nominal fine that is often not enforced (as I know from a couple of State elections where I had moved house and didn't enrol in my new electorate in time). If you want to protest you can either eat the fine, or (which is far more common) turn up and deface your ballot paper - the obligation is only to turn up and put a ballot in the box, you can write "All politicians suck and I'm not voting for any of you!" on it if you like. High "informal" votes (i.e. spoilt ballot papers) are widely interpreted as a protest vote in Australia.

71. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52351 by Atticus_of_Amber on June 26, 2007 at 8:28 pm

I can actually see actually someone arguing that the US is more free than the UK, given the US's constitutional limitations on government (the Bill of Rights, etc). I'm not sure I'd agree with that, but I can see the argument. But the other way around? I just do see the argument.

72. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52339 by Atticus_of_Amber on June 26, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Re Comment #52181 by PaulEmecz on June 26, 2007 at 12:30 pm: "You can easily forget how unusual it is to have as much freedom as we do in the UK. We really are very lucky. It may seem the obviously right way to go about things, but there isn't anywhere near as much freedom in the States, in Australia, in many European countries, not to mention the Middle East, China, India etc. etc."

As an Australian, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to in your comment. How is Australia "less free" than the UK?

73. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51430 by Atticus_of_Amber on June 22, 2007 at 11:12 pm

It's interesting that the New Atheism movement has brought the Rand-ites out of the woodwork again. I thought they'd pretty much disappeared years ago.

Ayn Rand was the author who go me interested in ideas. As an overly serious and intense nerdy teenager I devoured her stuff. Truth to tell, I read "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" and "For the New Intellectual" *before* I read "Atlas Shrugged", "The Fountainhead" and "Anthem" - now *that's* nerdy! I even slogged my way through "An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology", "The Romantic Manifesto" and "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" before I was 17.

In some ways, Rand provides a replacement for religion. A romantic, inspiring, meaningful world view that fills one with certainty that one is right and the rest of the world is wrong. It's no coincidence that I became an atheist at the same time as I was reading her books.

And there are some things about Rand that I still think are useful. I still like her theory of "selfish love", the idea that its rightfully selfish to give things up for a loved one because one values the loved one's happiness more than one values the things one gives up - that it's not a "sacrifice" at all. And I can still list the key Objectivist virtues from memory - rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness and pride. While empathy, compassion and humility are notably missing there, it's actually a good list.

But the older I got, the less value I could see in the extreme laissez-faire politics Objectivism demands. And I began to see that there is really something that comes from communities, that they are more than just a sum of individuals. And that there is so much of our identities and abilities that are socially determined (though that determination can be transcended by determined individuals).

Maybe in my small way, I see Rand the way Hitchens sees Marx - a thinker with some good ideas who tried to build too much on the basis of her insights.

74. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50600 by Atticus_of_Amber on June 19, 2007 at 4:09 am

Just watched it again and I have to say how much I continue to be impressed with Sam Harris. Indeed, I'm actually much more impressed with him as a speaker and debater than I am impressed with him as a writer.

His calm, Zen-like, dare I say Mr-Spock-like manner is a model of rationality. For example, when called a racist the most annoyed he gets is to say a little emphatically "I really have to deal with this charge or racism."

As so many people have said, his response to being ganged up upon by Hedges and the so-called moderator was to just calmly lay out his view, point out where he had been misrepresented and deal with the points that did attack what he had actually said. In the end, to my (admittedly biased) mind, he came off looking so much better than the increasingly deranged sounding hedges and (especially) the moderator.

You know what I want to see? An Australian-style three-speakers-a-side debate between Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens on one side and three theists on the other. Dawkins can do "religion is highly unlikely to be true", Harris can do "by making it ok to believe things without good evidence or good reasons, religion is dangerous to global civilization", and Hitchens can pour shit on, ahem, I mean rebut the other side in typical swashbuckling form.

75. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50592 by Atticus_of_Amber on June 19, 2007 at 2:15 am

Another quick thought. More a vicarious l'esprit d'escallier really.

When Sam called Hedges on his personal knowledge of the Middle East vs what scientific polling showed, Schere broke in with something like "the guy's lived there for fifteen years!".

A cute response from Sam might have been: "I've lived in the US for thrity-[x] years and I never would have dreamed a majority of Americans would vote for George W Bush." Gioven the liberal nature of the audience, it would have both gotten a great laugh and made the point that Hedges's middle eastern friends will be as a biased sample of the Middle East as Sam Harris' quasi-Buddhist or atheist and/or scientist or philosopher friends are likely to be of the USA.

76. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50553 by Atticus_of_Amber on June 18, 2007 at 6:14 pm

The one challenge that I think Harris did not deal with clearly (though the proper response was implicit in a lot of what he said) was why has religious violence arisen now, in place of deprivation and injustice, rather than other times and in less benighted places.

One response, which Sam made well, was that it's not just arising in benighted places - the 19 hijackers from the Arab upper middle class with MAs and PhDs living in Europe and America, etc.

But the deeper point is to admit that yes, deprivation does have something to do with it - but that how people *respond* to deprivation is determined by what they believe. Harris has said this before - it's a lot harder to motivate a Tibettan Buddhist to suicidal religious violence against their Chinese oppressors than it is to motivate Muslim Palestinians to suicide bombings against *their* oppressors. That's the only point I think he needed to make more clearly in this debate.

But given he was being tag teamed by the most biased "moderator" I've ever seen means that it's hardly a major criticism to say that Harris was a little unclear on one of his many points while taking fire from two directions.

Where I think I might disagree with Harris is that I do see the alleviation of poverty and economic development as part of the solution.

Facts persuade. One of the most effective arguments for secular liberal democracy and against theocracy (or fascism or communism) is the experience of seeing it work as a way of supporting people's survival and happiness.

I think the best thing that ever happened to the Islamic fundamentalists (who prior to the 1950s were marginalised in middle eastern politics) was the failure of secular Arab politics - just as the best thing that ever happened for Nazism was the failure of the Weimar republic. When Weimar failed, and the German people were desperate, they listened to appeals to the darkest of their pre-existing beliefs - anti-Semitism, Teutonic superiority, anti-Slav racism, authoritarianism, etc (much of it coming from Christianity, as Christopher Hitchens points out). Similarly, when Arab secularism failed, the Arabs turned to the darkest of their pre-existing beliefs.

I think this is what Hitchens means when he says that religion is the bacillus, the rats in the sewers, always waiting to rise up and infect when the resistance of the population's intellectual immune system is weak.

77. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50538 by Atticus_of_Amber on June 18, 2007 at 4:59 pm

Just watching Sam's intro. Wow! Is he on form!

78. Christopher Hitchens on The Hour

Comment #49576 by Atticus_of_Amber on June 12, 2007 at 12:38 pm

I thought this was one of the Hitch's better interviews.

Someone above said they thought he was drunk. Huh? First, the Hitch is *always* drunk, it's just a question of *how* drunk. Second, I thought he had the right blood-to-alcohol balance here. Eloquent and relaxed.

I still think Hitchens' book is the least persuasive (though perhaps most entertaining) of the new atheism books. But he is great on TV when he's got the alcohol balance right.

79. Hitchens vs. Hannity on Religion and God

Comment #41361 by Atticus_of_Amber on May 16, 2007 at 2:18 am

Hitchens is *always* drunk. It's just a matter of degree. I suspect he'd suck if he were sober. It's a fine balance and I agree Hitch had had a little too much in this interview.

80. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #39010 by Atticus_of_Amber on May 9, 2007 at 6:19 pm

benh said: "Nice post indeed, however wouldn't the attempted assassination of a former president and harbouring the man responsible for the bombing of PA103 serve as casus beli?"

First, thanks.

Second, the only legitiamte "causus belli" for UN members is immediate self defence and the self defence must be proportionate. I think it would be very hard to argue that Iraq was an immediate threat to the US and even harder to argue that the invasion was proportionate to any immediate threat. The whole idea of the UN Charter is, except in cases where there simply is no time, States have to get UNSC approval before using force against each other.

81. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38689 by Atticus_of_Amber on May 9, 2007 at 12:38 am

The argument for the illegality at international law of the Iraq was is pretty clear.

The US is a signatory to the UN Charter (indeed, one of its authors) and is thus bound by its terms. An act that breaches the US's obligations under the Charter is an illegal act from the perspective of international law.

The UN Charter prohibits UN members from using force against other UN members, except in self-defence or pursuant to a Security Council resolution passed under Chapter VII of the Charter. Iraq was another UN member.

Self-defence only counts as an immediate reaction to an attack or a clearly impending attack. Neither was present in the Iraq war.

While there were UNSC resolutions invoking the Chapter VII powers with respect to Iraq (such as the one that authorised the first Iraq war), all related to getting and keeping Iraq out of Kuwait: UNSCRs 678 and 687.

The only exception *might* possibly be UNSCR 687 (the so called "mother of all resolutions"), which imposed the disarmament terms and inspections regime on Iraq. However, the way that resolution is drafted makes it *very* hard to say that the Chapter VI authorisation to use force against Iraq extended beyond keeping Iraq out of Kuwait.

The other resolution often raised is UNSCR 1441, the one just before the war, has even less claim to be a Chapter VII authorization. It simlply warned of "serious consequences" if Iraq did not comply. It did not even use the term "authorise" except in the preamble where it recalls the effect of UNSCR 678.

On that basis, there is a very strong argument that the Iraq invasion was a reach of the UN Charter and therefore illegal at international law.

82. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36914 by Atticus_of_Amber on May 2, 2007 at 7:12 pm

Of course, Hitchens can do "whatever he bloody well likes", but he also has to bear the consequences of that.

Some of those consequences are that he undermines his own case, insults his hosts, and disappoints critical admirers like me. I'm sure he can live with that (indeed, knowing Hitch, he welcomes it). But it doesn't change the fact that I think less of the man (and feel more than a little bit sorry for him) for his irresponsible performance.

As for your inability to see the contrast between this performance and his previous ones (I thought his interview re the Jefferson book was very good, actually - he's always put the best case for the Iraq war I've ever heard, though I still disagree with him) all I can say is that I and others think you're having yourself on. It's a matter of impression, of course, but my impression was that you could have preserved a dead body with the man's sweat that night.

83. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36889 by Atticus_of_Amber on May 2, 2007 at 4:34 pm

[quote]I have watched the video clip twice more trying desperately to see any indication of slurring words or slow thinking and there is simply none. It seems people who dislike Hitchens, for whatever reasons, are imagining that he's drunk here and using that to slur him when there is no evidence. Please take it from someone who is neutrally inclined towards him (me that is) he is perfectly coherent and fully in control of his body, mind and voice at least on this occasion even if that has not always been so. I would certainly ride in a car driven by him based on the lucidity of this performance, he is not drunk in any meaningful sense of that word. [/quote]

Huh!?! I'm a *fan* of Christopher Hitchens and am eagerly looking forward to reading the book and even I can see that, unfortunately, the Hitch was just a little too tanked that night.

"So what you" say? It's rude, unprofessional and undermines his credibility by giving his opponents something to attack him with. If I were his publisher, I'd be having a very stern chat to him about now.

Compare it to his usual performances - he's either drunk or he's just had a minor stroke. The difference is that noticeable.

84. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36650 by Atticus_of_Amber on May 1, 2007 at 11:54 pm

Huh??!!?

Compared to his normal eloquence, Hitchens was slurring his words, he was physically off balance at a couple of points and (most uncharacteristic) he seemed to be having a little trouble maintaining a train of thought.

The man has the alcoholic capacity of an elephant, but this time I think the elephant was near full.

85. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #36608 by Atticus_of_Amber on May 1, 2007 at 6:14 pm

2002. Hmm. This really does look like the "birth of the movement", doesn't it?

86. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36602 by Atticus_of_Amber on May 1, 2007 at 5:44 pm

But a TV studio interview on a book tour is not a bar.

87. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36580 by Atticus_of_Amber on May 1, 2007 at 3:55 pm

I like Hitchens, and I think the interview went reasonably well, but I think it would have gone a lot better if Hitchens hadn't been quite so drunk.

Of course the guy does most interviews drunk - and most of the time it helps him. But here I think he overdosed.

If I were his publicist, I'd institute a "no more than X drinks until after your last interview for the day" rule for the tour. Given Hitchens' legendary capacity, I suspect X would be a surprisingly large number, but a number less than the number he'd consumed before the interview at the top of *this* thread.

88. Fighting Words: A wartime lexicon

Comment #35006 by Atticus_of_Amber on April 25, 2007 at 11:18 pm

On the issue of what to call ourselves, why not "faith free"?

89. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #34374 by Atticus_of_Amber on April 23, 2007 at 10:49 pm

blods, I agree. I think when a theist falls back on personal revelation, then we atheists have "won" - and the only real win-win we'll accept. By admitting that his faith is based on a personal experience, a logical theist has to admit that he cannot expect anyone else to accept it and thus cannot use it as a premise in public argument.

90. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26640 by Atticus_of_Amber on March 20, 2007 at 8:58 pm

I agree with Tom, who is marking broadly the same point I made earlier. Andrew Sullivan is to be commended as a theist trying very hard to be honest.

What really gets me is how anyone could look at this debate and not think that Sam Harris has won hands down. Yes, Sullivan has behaved, under the circumstances (he more than many has a real motivation to be emotionally invested in religion), admirably. But in terms of logic and persuasiveness, Harris has wiped the floor with him.

91. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25986 by Atticus_of_Amber on March 15, 2007 at 11:55 pm

Hmmm,

I don't think that's an effective strategy for persuading theists.

Though I agree it's an effective strategy for making oneself feel better.

92. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25978 by Atticus_of_Amber on March 15, 2007 at 10:58 pm

Janus wrote: "True, but he's only sincere by _theistic_ standards. Dishonesty and self-deception rule the religious mind."

Again I disagree. Self-deception and wishful thinking, yes. But there are many theists who are intellectually honest, just in error. Indeed, the essentially rational nature of all humans (or the urge to rational coherence, if you will) is a big part of Harris' commitment to conversation.

And, in any case, one doesn't persuade someone by insulting them.

93. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25973 by Atticus_of_Amber on March 15, 2007 at 10:33 pm

kkant, I think you're being unfair.

This isn't a debating tournament (let alone a debating tournament restricted by the eccentric rules of American inter varsity debating). Indeed, it's not really even a debate. It's been called a dialogue/blogalogue for a reason (not least because "conversation", not debate, is one of Harris' main themes). This is a real life discussion between two people, one of whom is deeply emotionally attached to his position (the guy has AIDS for crying out loud!) and yet, albeit with a fair bit of gentle prompting and prodding, is making a genuine effort to understand his opponent's points and is, after consideration, prepared to concede those which he can't answer.

I think if "conversation" is to mean what Harris hopes it means, then this is an example of it. Moreover, if you are going to have a conversation with a committed theist, I don't think you could have asked for a more sincere interlocutor than Sullivan has been here.

Neither denigrating Sullivan, nor cheering on like this was some sporting event, serve the cause of reasoned conversation.

94. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25961 by Atticus_of_Amber on March 15, 2007 at 8:32 pm

I must say, while I think it's clear that Sam Harris has won this debate, I've developed a lot of respect for Andrew Sullivan's intellectual honesty.