Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 3 (3 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   9 comments

Life Arts

To Error and Back Again, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Christopher Hitchens, Part 1

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 3 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H4 1/18/12

That this last speech moved Hitchens so deeply is a clear sign that he should not be tarred with the same brush as the neoconservatives with whom he has temporarily made political alliances. While everyone has redeeming features of some sort, I do not expect that Dick Cheney would feel anything other than indigestion if he watched King's last speech in Memphis. I cannot really imagine Cheney watching any of King's speeches without developing a violent tic or slipping into a dissociative coma. Perhaps I am being uncharitable, though, as my thoughts of Cheney are dominated by the image of him firing rapidly from a 28 gauge Perazzi shotgun during a canned quail hunt, and accidentally spraying his elderly friend with bullets in the face, neck and upper torso. Then I imagine that friend apologizing to the vice president on national television for all the trouble he caused by getting shot, and then my mind begins to wander.

End of part 1.



[1] The construction as of 2012 should read "had made",  but as the original version of this piece was written in 2007, I have kept the edited version dated this way also.  Thoughts based on updated historical events are in footnotes.

[2] The philosopher Daniel Dennett is sometimes included in this crew as he is an avowed non-believer and a good friend of Dawkins, but he does not quite meet all the criteria.  Dennett wants atheism to be a robust and growing worldview in a diverse worldview ecosystem, while most New Atheists think that all the religious species in this ecosystem should be destroyed and replaced entirely by subvarieties of atheism (and even some subvarieties of atheism are considered expendable obstacles towards this end).  As a leading member of the "Bright" movement (which would call non-theists "brights" and theists "supers"--both positive names), Dennett only favors "destroying" religion insofar as he expects that allowing atheism to finally be heard will ultimately lead to religious ideas voluntarily disappearing themselves from the ecosystem.  If this is chauvinism, it is chauvinism of the mildest sort. The notion that the violent exercise of raw power might be necessary to bring atheism to unrivalled memetic victory is anathema to Dennett, and, as Wired writer Gary Wolf has noted, to the Bright movement generally.  In 2006, Wolf interviewed the founders of the Brights, Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell as part of an article about the New Atheists called the "Church of the Non-believers."  He received a fascinating response when he brought up Sam Harris, who favors stronger medicine for eradicating religion, like converting the War on Terror into a more explicit War on Islam.  Geisert and Futrell "became grim at the mention of Sam Harris. "We don't endorse anything from him,' Geisert said. We had talked for nearly three hours, and this was the only dark cloud."  Dennett's own book addressing religion, Breaking the Spell, did not treat religion with kid gloves by any means, but it ultimately sided with inquiry over tribalism by calling for a systematic study of religion, and systematic studies tend to turn up nuances that annoy ideologues on both sides.  Dennett, sadly, has paid a price for his nuance, as Breaking the Spell has not come close to enjoying the sales of New Atheist blockbusters like Dawkins' The God Delusion, Harris's The End of Faith, or Hitchens' God Is Not Great

[3] Indeed, Dawkins has presumably seen the writing on the wall, and has thus made more statements like the following in recent years: "Given that Islam is such an unmitigated evil [italics mine], and looking at the map supplied by this Christian site, should we be supporting Christian missions in Africa? My answer is still no, but I thought it was worth raising the question [italics mine]."  This sounds quite different from the Dawkins of The God Delusion, who wrote "If you were born in Arkansas and you think Christianity is true and Islam false, knowing full well that you would think the opposite if you were born in Afghanistan, you are the victim of childhood indoctrination" (p. 25).

[4] Hitchens (and Harris) may have persuaded the neoconservatives on other relevant matters also.  While the Bush administration after 9/11 offered homilies about Islam being a religion of peace and reactive prejudice against Muslims received bipartisan condemnation for a while, the Republican party has gradually seen the expedience of attacking Islam itself, and has, in recent years, sought to stimulate rather than sublimate the ethno-religious hatreds that 9/11 exacerbated.

[5] Findings like this may explain why polls occasionally turn up quirky findings on atrocities like killing civilians in war, to which American atheists and Muslims are both distinctively opposed; those of intermediate religiosity-conservatism, like American Catholics and Protestants, are more sanguine.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

Ian Hansen is a social psychology professor specializing in cultural and political psychology and a part time activist on behalf of the good things in life.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Part 1: What Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, And Why Don't I Care?

To Error and Back Again, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Christopher Hitchens, Part 3

To Error and Back Again, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Christopher Hitchens, Part 1

Sam Harris and Bill Maher are not racists!

Part 3: The Puzzle of "Liberal" Obama's Support for the TPP

To Error and Back Again, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Christopher Hitchens, Part 2

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
3 people are discussing this page, with 9 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

If Hitchens were alive, his response would doubtle... by Ian Hansen on Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:08:29 AM
Pardon me for taking these excerpts below which I ... by BFalcon on Thursday, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:25:06 AM
Hi BFalcon,Just wanted to let you know that I repl... by Ian Hansen on Thursday, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:21:19 PM
I thank you again for the article that I enjoyed q... by BFalcon on Thursday, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:53:52 PM
"No matter how unreasonable or empirically ungrou... by Jim Arnold on Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012 at 8:23:30 PM
Um...touché ?Can't wait to see your reaction to p... by Ian Hansen on Thursday, Jan 19, 2012 at 9:47:33 PM
To get your actual message with all the "technical... by BFalcon on Thursday, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:57:41 PM
Thanks BFalcon,I'm glad you enjoyed the article.&n... by Ian Hansen on Thursday, Jan 19, 2012 at 9:33:40 AM
You gave me more useful thoughts and information. ... by BFalcon on Thursday, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:26:20 PM