What the hell has Dawkins gotten himself into?

[Smelodies]

Fair enough.  I'll read some of those links later in the weekend.

[Shaggy 2 Grote]

And, even though it probably doesn't even merit mention, I don't intend any criticism of any of the Hitchens fans here. People like what they like! Plenty of very smart (and very left-wing) friends of mine can't stand the work of Howard Zinn, and I love it (except for that one play he wrote).

One could also argue that Hitchens' personality has nothing to do with his thought -- and they'd pretty much be right. I'm reading James Salter's Examined Lives now (thanks, WFMU's Benjamen Walker) and most of the leading lights of Western thought were flaming assholes.

[mike_b]

They're two separate assertions, as I said. I don't think Hitchens is a creep because he makes straw man arguments. I think Hitchens is a creep because I've spoken to at least 3-4 people who have experienced his creepy behavior firsthand, plus I find his Iraq war position (among some others) revolting and his moralizing tiresome, even when I agree with it (I largely agreed with his thesis on Kissinger in Harper's but could barely get through the thing).

Do we all have to endlessly justify why we don't like public figures now? I guess I'll start with Jeff Dunham.

As far as the straw man arguments go, I'm not going to spend all day refuting the arguments of someone I don't even take seriously. That way lies madness. But Eagleton does it well:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/25/liberal-islam
http://newhumanist.org.uk/2085/tragic-hero-laurie-taylor-interviews-terry-eagleton
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2009/04/28/terry_eagleton/print.html
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching

Jason Grote you are my favorite today.

[cavorting with nudists]

Since I'm being told it's impossible to take me seriously since I have deployed David Rees's "invisible superheroes" phrase--a phrase I would have thought rather self-evidently not deeply serious--I'm not sure whether to take the trouble of responding.  But I keep hearing that Eagleton has "effectively" dispatched the arguments of Hitchens, Dawkins, et. al, and in the time I was willing to give those links (not an enormous amount, since "I'm not going to spend all day refuting the arguments of someone I don't even take seriously" resonates with me) I wasn't convinced. 

Of them all, the only one that both comes directly from Eagleton and is centrally concerned with refuting atheism is the fourth, his review of Dawkins.  I can't evaluate it because I haven't read Dawkins's book, but the substance seems to be that Dawkins can only come up with a degraded caricature of Christian theology to fight against, because he isn't familiar with the subtler reaches of its most sophisticated elaborations:

What, one wonders, are Dawkins’s views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them?

<snark mode> I plead guilty.  I haven't read them either.  I guess I should just doubt my own experience and take the word of my intellectual betters that there's an airtight case to be made for the loving God who makes tsunamis just to remind his children that we have free will.</snark mode>

Anyway, I don't know anything about Dawkins.  He doesn't sound like the sharpest knife in the drawer. I think I might know what Hitchens' response would be, but if I'm wrong, I'll put it forward as my own: Christian theologians have developed a magisterially sophisticated and even beautiful body of thought that deserves to be studied as literature and philosophy by those who find value in that kind of thing.  Unfortunately, like other monotheisms, the doctrine that it elaborates has produced far too much cruelty, destruction, and ignorance to be worth continuing to maintain as a framework for human behavior, especially in the absence of any evidence that it actually refers to anything real.

Maybe I just haven't read enough Moltmann.

[Tor_Hershman]

There clearly is no God if Tor is back on the FOT board making everything ultimately about him and his lame third-rate Subgenius 'comedy'.

And it's 2011. Try to ease up on the craaaaazy colors and font sizes. Or I'll consider that strike three, strikes one and two being your inability to talk about anything other than your dusty agenda and strike two your repeated use of "moi" and "groovin' safari".

Tom.

Awwwww, geeeeee, Tom, you’re just sore ‘cause moi got the best of you,
on-air, with that old “Two fan clubs” then the sound-effect bit
and your religious fanatic board members are only
livid from facts that they cannot reasonably deny.

BTW: There clearly are no worthwhile gods and/or devils if you clearly understand.

Hey!  Wait a sec, if “third-rate” humor were the issue. . .wouldn’t you have about 97.13 strikes after every 100 TBSOWFMUs?

Oh, Red and Blue are craaaaazy?
Sorry, I didn’t realize you suffered from some sort of chromatically activated malady.
Say, why would you have “craaaaazy” font colors and sizes, you don’t like, @ your message board; you’re not a masochist. . .are you?
Much as Mr. Monk, perhaps you should seek professional assistance.

Please tell moi exactly, try to be vastly more objective and much less subjective, what me “. . .dusty agenda,” is sooooooo we both shall know thy feelings.


Stay on groovin’ safari,
  Tor

Oh yes, and ultimately it’s all about. . . . .
The End's Ending

[Smelodies]

You just bought yourself a one way ticket to Palookaville.

[fonpr]

Oh, and Fredericks, Jennifer Michael Hecht is my neighbor! I told her you were a fan. I'm not sure she'll be able to make out my explanation of who you are or how I know you, so maybe I'll just scan your trading card and send her that.

She is so great.  She won my heart on an episode of Point Of Inquiry. http://www.pointofinquiry.org/pz_myers_jennifer_michael_hecht_chris_mooney_new_atheism_or_accommodation/ (Many of the commenters don't care for her.  But, that doesn't change the way I feel.)

I am enamored by her concept of Poetic Atheism. 

You could direct her to my latest podcast in which I quote her.

I like how she chooses to focus on the magic that is real.

[Sarah]

Ha!  And I copyedited The End of the Soul.  With great pleaure, I seem to remember.

[Stan]

 I thought that Chocolate Thunder retired years ago.

[fonpr]

Ha!  And I copyedited The End of the Soul.  With great pleaure, I seem to remember.

Jeez.  Sarah, you are something else.

[Sarah]

Heck, it was just woik.  But it was fun talking about the freethinking anthropologists of France and the Society of Mutual Autopsy down at the bar that spring.

[Tom Scharpling]

You won, Tor. In honor of your victory I have banned you from the site.

You are the worst of Earth.

Tom.

[Smelodies]

I would say that one Hitchens foible I agree with is that he is a name dropper and a gossiper in general.  Hitch 22, good book besides, has a lot of that.  But then you have to remember where his formative years were.  Speaking of which, his latest is about Murdoch and News of the World:  http://www.slate.com/id/2298936/

[buffcoat]

I thought that Chocolate Thunder retired years ago.

Ladies and gentlemen, CAR-LOS MEN-CI-AAAAAA!

http://friendsoftom.com/forum/index.php/topic,8097.msg178469.html#msg178469


How dare you?

[Sarah]

Wasn't he commenting on yours?