Christopher Hitchens: Lite Fare for the Uninformed

[Ibanez]

YT's post just went way over my head. It sounds smart, but I'm too simple to understand if it actually is.

I read it a few times and I think I get what he's trying to say. These discussions aren't worth it. Belief systems are damn near impossible to break.

[youngterrier]

YT's post just went way over my head. It sounds smart, but I'm too simple to understand if it actually is.

I read it a few times and I think I get what he's trying to say. These discussions aren't worth it. Belief systems are damn near impossible to break.

I fixed it for posterity.

[kalm]

And if I'm not mistaken, Plato and Aristotle didn't claim to be the son of god.

That isn't his point. Try again.

Who's?

[JoltinJoe]

I need a translation into English.

Seriously, run-on sentences make my head hurt.

I've never been accused of being an empiricist before. And since I have repeatedly argued that our knowledge and belief about God derives from experience beyond what we tangibly encounter or sense, either you don't know what the word "empiricism" means, or you don't understand what I've been saying.

My point has always been that empiricism is flawed because we do not perceive all reality or truth.

1) Your elitism is showing, literally no one gives a **** about run on sentences.

2) You may say you're not an empiricist, but your arguments say otherwise. Appealing to evidence from the natural world to prove a point by definition is somewhat of an empirical approach. Modern philosophy (or rather post-modern) doesn't care much for the argument from sense-perception. The concept of God has long been conceded to be beyond that by any philosopher, and thus the concept has been explored more from a hermeneutic approach as a means to reflect on culture.

3) Your posting implies that the existence or nonexistence of God can be proven via classical philosophy, such as Paley and others, but I don't buy that as I feel that the scientific and philosophical works of the enlightenment kind of discredited that perspective. In the same way, post-enlightenment philosophy has pretty much expanded upon epistemology and fields coinciding with it to point out the total absurdity of arguing for God's existence.

You may say that you don't uphold those beliefs, but your actions don't reflect that.

First, you do not write well. Perhaps that's not such a big deal when you are emailing your friends. It is a problem, though, when you are trying to discuss complex philosophical beliefs. People have to read, and then re-read, what you write in order to understand your ideas. Even when they are finished, they don't always understand what you've written.

Now to your point -- I have never claimed that I can prove the existence of God, so your claim that I "appeal to evidence from the natural world" to "prove a point" is inaccurate. Along the same lines, I'm not sure where in my prior post you find the inference that I think "the existence or non-existence of God can be proven via classical philosophy."

What I do assert is that classical philosophy -- as well as modern quantum physics -- suggest there are realities and dimensions which are imperceptible to mankind. For this reason, I think it is irrational to discredit the existence of God based on empirical arguments, since we possess perhaps but a fraction of the proofs. Similarly, this recognition permits us to accept that our intuition concerning what is truly real derives from some undefined perception -- some extra-sensory perception, if you like -- of truth which is seemingly intangible to us.

Further, my intuition tells me that our general desire to move toward certain ideals and truths suggests that, somewhere, there is a perfect expression of those truths and ideals. That perfect expression of the ideal and the truth is God. Our desire to move toward those ideals and truths is the human endeavor to find God and, ultimately, provide true meaning for our existence.

God is the ultimate and objective source of all knowledge and the repository of all knowledge -- scientific knowledge, moral knowledge. When we seek scientific truth, we seek God. When we seek moral truth, we seek God.

[youngterrier]

Nice dodge Joe.

BTW, I missed the end of your comment.

If by the "entropy argument," you mean pointing out the orderly nature of our cosmos and how conducive it is to hosting our life form -- and how many departures from chance are necessary to create such a cosmos -- I appreciate your comment about how smart I am, since I have made that argument on this board several times. Thanks!

This sort of word choice is what I'm talking about when I say you're using empirical arguments.

You're strongly implying that there are flaws/inconsistencies with the opposing perspective based off of an appeal to how the natural world works.

How would a disorderly universe look? How would a universe unfit for life look (other than 99% of what it is)? How would a universe free of chance, or the opposite, by design, look?

The fact is you may not be directly saying that you believe in some form of empirical argument, but you're strongly implying it with these condescending subliminal comments.

I'll grant Hitchens and Dawkins credit in that nothing in the natural universe/science suggests there's a transcendent God (though if you look for him you'll find him, just as if you'll look to not find him, you won't find him) and if you engage on the empirical level, you'll lose that argument Joe. Because, if you hadn't noticed (and if it needs more explaining) empiricism is a fundamental atheist methodology of verification used for the natural world.

With that said, that's not the exclusive realms of the discussion (and sadly I made that mistake of perception for the longest time).

So, I don't really care for your criticisms of Hitchens because they strike me as boring, weak, and outdated because you're engaging him on his "playing field," whether you acknowledge it or not.

The fact that you constantly post about him, as it is a common theme anyone can observe, it says something about your thinking of him intellectually, but that's not a controversial claim.

And my writing is fine, I haven't received a grade lower than an A- on any papers I've written at Wofford

[JoltinJoe]

See, you did miss the point.

I've never used the "departure from chance" point to prove any contention. I've used it to suggest that empiricists discount empirical evidence which detracts from their contention that there is no God.

Taking a part of a sentence out-of-context does not an empiricist make. But now, finally, I understand your point. You think I'm using an empirical argument to try to prove God.

But I'm not making an empirical argument to prove any point. I'm using an empirical argument to demonstrate the shortcomings of empiricism. I'll happily plead guilty to that.

[youngterrier]

See, you did miss the point.

I've never used the "departure from chance" point to prove any contention. I've used it to suggest that empiricists discount empirical evidence which detracts from their contention that there is no God.

Taking a part of a sentence out-of-context does not an empiricist make. But now, finally, I understand your point. You think I'm using an empirical argument to try to prove God.

But I'm not making an empirical argument to prove any point. I'm using an empirical argument to demonstrate the shortcomings of empiricism. I'll happily plead guilty to that.

No, I understand that wasn't your point in the sentence, but the way one communicates a point is very indicative of how one thinks.

You don't have to be an empiricist to use the methodology of empiricism to communicate the superiority of a point; most people use empiricism by default. Politicians do it in political debates and so on. Any appeal to the natural world is to an extent an empirical argument.

And when you advocate a teleological argument, directly or indirectly, you're using an empirical argument.

You can't really use empiricism to disprove itself, and you didn't really do a good job of even trying quite frankly. You're not going at this sort of a discussion in the right way and that's why you're absolutely terrible at communicating your point. You're addressing people on empirical issues like they're stupid and that's not where the discussion needs to be in the first place.

Quit being condescending, Jesus. You're spending more time talking down to people like they're stupid than you are being generally informative. I guess it says more about why you, ~a distinguished lawyer~ such as yourself. is on a football website prancing around all smarter than thou. We get it, you're a lawyer. If you're so smart you'd probably get that sort of recognition in the real world and wouldn't demand to feel that way around here. That begs the question of why you do it. Do you feel unappreciated?

[D1B]

1) Your elitism is showing, literally no one gives a **** about run on sentences.

2) You may say you're not an empiricist, but your arguments say otherwise. Appealing to evidence from the natural world to prove a point by definition is somewhat of an empirical approach. Modern philosophy (or rather post-modern) doesn't care much for the argument from sense-perception. The concept of God has long been conceded to be beyond that by any philosopher, and thus the concept has been explored more from a hermeneutic approach as a means to reflect on culture.

3) Your posting implies that the existence or nonexistence of God can be proven via classical philosophy, such as Paley and others, but I don't buy that as I feel that the scientific and philosophical works of the enlightenment kind of discredited that perspective. In the same way, post-enlightenment philosophy has pretty much expanded upon epistemology and fields coinciding with it to point out the total absurdity of arguing for God's existence.

You may say that you don't uphold those beliefs, but your actions don't reflect that.

First, you do not write well. Perhaps that's not such a big deal when you are emailing your friends. It is a problem, though, when you are trying to discuss complex philosophical beliefs. People have to read, and then re-read, what you write in order to understand your ideas. Even when they are finished, they don't always understand what you've written.

Now to your point -- I have never claimed that I can prove the existence of God, so your claim that I "appeal to evidence from the natural world" to "prove a point" is inaccurate. Along the same lines, I'm not sure where in my prior post you find the inference that I think "the existence or non-existence of God can be proven via classical philosophy."

What I do assert is that classical philosophy -- as well as modern quantum physics -- suggest there are realities and dimensions which are imperceptible to mankind. For this reason, I think it is irrational to discredit the existence of God based on empirical arguments, since we possess perhaps but a fraction of the proofs. Similarly, this recognition permits us to accept that our intuition concerning what is truly real derives from some undefined perception -- some extra-sensory perception, if you like -- of truth which is seemingly intangible to us.

Further, my intuition tells me that our general desire to move toward certain ideals and truths suggests that, somewhere, there is a perfect expression of those truths and ideals. That perfect expression of the ideal and the truth is God. Our desire to move toward those ideals and truths is the human endeavor to find God and, ultimately, provide true meaning for our existence.

God is the ultimate and objective source of all knowledge and the repository of all knowledge -- scientific knowledge, moral knowledge. When we seek scientific truth, we seek God. When we seek moral truth, we seek God.

Sounds great, but again, it's nothing but the same flowery conjecture we hear every other Sunday in a dying church near you.

[JoltinJoe]

You keep saying the Church is dying, but every Sunday I have a hard time finding a parking space. The Churches are more full than you think.

People find the "flowery" message attractive and reasonable because it resonates with something inside them, intuitively, which tells them that their lives have meaning and they are supposed to be joined in a community with objectives greater than acquiring material possessions.

[D1B]

You keep saying the Church is dying, but every Sunday I have a hard time finding a parking space. The Churches are more full than you think.

People find the "flowery" message attractive and reasonable because it resonates with something inside them, intuitively, which tells them that their lives have meaning and they are supposed to be joined in a community with objectives greater than acquiring material possessions.

Joe, I have no doubt the churches where you live, which is a great place, are full. It's an anomaly. Every statistic says otherwise. Hell, you lost an entire continent in Europe.

I agree on the message being attractive.

[SeattleGriz]

this conversation sucks.

Hitchens wasn't perfect. He's good at history and enlightenment-esque philosophy, but the problems he had with criticizing religion were not what Joe here makes it out to be.

I apologize for being a dick about this issue in the past, as I have "adjusted" my position (more than slightly), but I still disagree with Joe on a lot of things.

The fact is, and don't take this for a personal attack, is that Joe seems to have this issue with non-believers that he seems to want to insult them or bring up the conversation to attack them. It's rather boring, because his arguments presuppose a sort of empiricism to verify the existence of God. Empiricism is inherently an atheist methodology of verification as its based in uncertainty and the physical world or the world we can perceive. Uncertainty and changing one's opinion when evidence arises is a key element of this methodology. If we were to quantify God "empirically" he or she would be reduced to a method of nature, like gravity, and that wouldn't really be God would it? At least not by standard definition.

By default anyone, who tries to ~prove~ God's existence is using some form of empiricism.

Hegel's conceptualization of God in my opinion is the only one that makes sense or is possible (it's better than Spinoza's). The social and political implications of such a God are a lot better than the common theistic conceptualization.

For Christ sake, let's not use teleology as "proof" because that's totally subjective/hermenuetical.

Joe, like Hitch, has no understanding of how belief in the human mind works. Read Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud, they're much more knowledgeable on the subject.

Bullshit on the empiricism call. Christians invented the scientific method. While most Christians lack science literacy, so do the vast proportion of Americans.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[∞∞∞]

Bullshit on the empiricism call. Christians invented the scientific method. While most Christians lack science literacy, so do the vast proportion of Americans.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

I believe the invention of the scientific method is actually credited to a Muslim scientist.

But honestly, it's a concept that's been seen as early as the Ionian School. Democritus, Euclid, Ptolemy, and other Greek scientists/philosophers seem to have practiced it in some form.

[D1B]

Bullshit on the empiricism call. Christians invented the scientific method. While most Christians lack science literacy, so do the vast proportion of Americans.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

I believe the invention of the scientific method is actually credited to a Muslim scientist.

But honestly, it's a concept that's been seen as early as the Ionian School. Democritus, Euclid, Ptolemy, and other Greek scientists/philosophers seem to have practiced it in some form.

SeattleJizz

Say, SJ, still looking for that jesus proof.

[Ibanez]

I believe the invention of the scientific method is actually credited to a Muslim scientist.

But honestly, it's a concept that's been seen as early as the Ionian School. Democritus, Euclid, Ptolemy, and other Greek scientists/philosophers seem to have practiced it in some form.

SeattleJizz

Say, SJ, still looking for that jesus proof.

Jesus, Krishna, Buddah, Horus, etc... they are are similar.

[Grizalltheway]

SeattleJizz

Say, SJ, still looking for that jesus proof.

Jesus, Krishna, Buddah, Horus, etc... they are are similar.

My karma ran over your dogma.

[houndawg]

SeattleJizz

Say, SJ, still looking for that jesus proof.

Jesus, Krishna, Buddah, Horus, etc... they are are similar.

The god that dies and is resurrected is among the oldest themes in religion, a thousand years old at least when the version called Jesus came along and some goat herders wrote it down and it got legs and gained favor over the hundreds of other messiahs that were running around pushing their version of cosmology.

[D1B]

Jesus, Krishna, Buddah, Horus, etc... they are are similar.

The god that dies and is resurrected is among the oldest themes in religion, a thousand years old at least when the version called Jesus came along and some goat herders wrote it down and it got legs and gained favor over the hundreds of other messiahs that were running around pushing their version of cosmology.

Constantine doesn't approve it, it dies like a thousand other myths.

Constantine, and every ruler since, has used christianity and religous dogma to control and fleece the weak. It was and still is very usefull for tyrants, scoundrels and criminals.

[GannonFan]

The god that dies and is resurrected is among the oldest themes in religion, a thousand years old at least when the version called Jesus came along and some goat herders wrote it down and it got legs and gained favor over the hundreds of other messiahs that were running around pushing their version of cosmology.

Constantine doesn't approve it, it dies like a thousand other myths.

I don't buy that. Constantine didn't exactly pick an obscure religion and somehow hoisted it onto the Roman Empire - Christianity was growing incredibly enough on its own, without state-approved assistance from Rome (and actually in spite of the tremendous resistance from Rome to snuff it out). Certainly Constantine's acceptance and conversion to Christianity was a boon to the religion as an entity, but you could argue that the tremendous growth of that religion over the 200 some years before Constantine converted to it was indicative that it had plenty of staying power. It was already vastly different from the other belief sytems you mention long before Constantine got his hands on it.

[JoltinJoe]

See, you did miss the point.

I've never used the "departure from chance" point to prove any contention. I've used it to suggest that empiricists discount empirical evidence which detracts from their contention that there is no God.

Taking a part of a sentence out-of-context does not an empiricist make. But now, finally, I understand your point. You think I'm using an empirical argument to try to prove God.

But I'm not making an empirical argument to prove any point. I'm using an empirical argument to demonstrate the shortcomings of empiricism. I'll happily plead guilty to that.

No, I understand that wasn't your point in the sentence, but the way one communicates a point is very indicative of how one thinks.

You don't have to be an empiricist to use the methodology of empiricism to communicate the superiority of a point; most people use empiricism by default. Politicians do it in political debates and so on. Any appeal to the natural world is to an extent an empirical argument.

And when you advocate a teleological argument, directly or indirectly, you're using an empirical argument.

You can't really use empiricism to disprove itself, and you didn't really do a good job of even trying quite frankly. You're not going at this sort of a discussion in the right way and that's why you're absolutely terrible at communicating your point. You're addressing people on empirical issues like they're stupid and that's not where the discussion needs to be in the first place.

Quit being condescending, Jesus. You're spending more time talking down to people like they're stupid than you are being generally informative. I guess it says more about why you, ~a distinguished lawyer~ such as yourself. is on a football website prancing around all smarter than thou. We get it, you're a lawyer. If you're so smart you'd probably get that sort of recognition in the real world and wouldn't demand to feel that way around here. That begs the question of why you do it. Do you feel unappreciated?

PS - I studied Hagel under Quentin Lauer -- which means I forgot more about Hagel than you will ever know.

[houndawg]

No, I understand that wasn't your point in the sentence, but the way one communicates a point is very indicative of how one thinks.

You don't have to be an empiricist to use the methodology of empiricism to communicate the superiority of a point; most people use empiricism by default. Politicians do it in political debates and so on. Any appeal to the natural world is to an extent an empirical argument.

And when you advocate a teleological argument, directly or indirectly, you're using an empirical argument.

You can't really use empiricism to disprove itself, and you didn't really do a good job of even trying quite frankly. You're not going at this sort of a discussion in the right way and that's why you're absolutely terrible at communicating your point. You're addressing people on empirical issues like they're stupid and that's not where the discussion needs to be in the first place.

Quit being condescending, Jesus. You're spending more time talking down to people like they're stupid than you are being generally informative. I guess it says more about why you, ~a distinguished lawyer~ such as yourself. is on a football website prancing around all smarter than thou. We get it, you're a lawyer. If you're so smart you'd probably get that sort of recognition in the real world and wouldn't demand to feel that way around here. That begs the question of why you do it. Do you feel unappreciated?

PS - I studied Hagel under Quentin Lauer -- which means I forgot more about Hagel than you will ever know.

[D1B]

Constantine doesn't approve it, it dies like a thousand other myths.

I don't buy that. Constantine didn't exactly pick an obscure religion and somehow hoisted it onto the Roman Empire - Christianity was growing incredibly enough on its own, without state-approved assistance from Rome (and actually in spite of the tremendous resistance from Rome to snuff it out). Certainly Constantine's acceptance and conversion to Christianity was a boon to the religion as an entity, but you could argue that the tremendous growth of that religion over the 200 some years before Constantine converted to it was indicative that it had plenty of staying power. It was already vastly different from the other belief sytems you mention long before Constantine got his hands on it.

Agree, but still stand by my statement that without the conversion, it dies... in deference to your point, perhaps a slower death.

[JoltinJoe]

I don't buy that. Constantine didn't exactly pick an obscure religion and somehow hoisted it onto the Roman Empire - Christianity was growing incredibly enough on its own, without state-approved assistance from Rome (and actually in spite of the tremendous resistance from Rome to snuff it out). Certainly Constantine's acceptance and conversion to Christianity was a boon to the religion as an entity, but you could argue that the tremendous growth of that religion over the 200 some years before Constantine converted to it was indicative that it had plenty of staying power. It was already vastly different from the other belief sytems you mention long before Constantine got his hands on it.

Agree, but still stand by my statement that without the conversion, it dies... in deference to your point, perhaps a slower death.

There are historians who argue that Constantine converted out of political necessity; that Catholicism had become so prevalent that the empire needed to co-opt Catholicism's growth for its own stability.

[D1B]

Agree, but still stand by my statement that without the conversion, it dies... in deference to your point, perhaps a slower death.

There are historians who argue that Constantine converted out of political necessity; that Catholicism had become so prevalent that the empire needed to co-opt Catholicism's growth for its own stability.

Really? What do you think?

Christ the ink wasn't even dry on the NT for 300 years! The good stuff too!

[JoltinJoe]

There are historians who argue that Constantine converted out of political necessity; that Catholicism had become so prevalent that the empire needed to co-opt Catholicism's growth for its own stability.

Really? What do you think?

Christ the ink wasn't even dry on the NT for 300 years! The good stuff too!

It's hard to judge 1700 years after the fact; however, this Yale professor argues that Constantine's conversion cannot be adequately explained on strategic grounds. The claim that he converted for political reasons is certainly disputable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcIuAJ-jaSg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course, everyone knows that the event which really galvanized Christianity, and which spurred its growth, was when John the Apostle was thrown into a vat of boiling oil in front of an SRO crowd, and emerged unharmed.

[youngterrier]

this conversation sucks.

Hitchens wasn't perfect. He's good at history and enlightenment-esque philosophy, but the problems he had with criticizing religion were not what Joe here makes it out to be.

I apologize for being a dick about this issue in the past, as I have "adjusted" my position (more than slightly), but I still disagree with Joe on a lot of things.

The fact is, and don't take this for a personal attack, is that Joe seems to have this issue with non-believers that he seems to want to insult them or bring up the conversation to attack them. It's rather boring, because his arguments presuppose a sort of empiricism to verify the existence of God. Empiricism is inherently an atheist methodology of verification as its based in uncertainty and the physical world or the world we can perceive. Uncertainty and changing one's opinion when evidence arises is a key element of this methodology. If we were to quantify God "empirically" he or she would be reduced to a method of nature, like gravity, and that wouldn't really be God would it? At least not by standard definition.

By default anyone, who tries to ~prove~ God's existence is using some form of empiricism.

Hegel's conceptualization of God in my opinion is the only one that makes sense or is possible (it's better than Spinoza's). The social and political implications of such a God are a lot better than the common theistic conceptualization.

For Christ sake, let's not use teleology as "proof" because that's totally subjective/hermenuetical.

Joe, like Hitch, has no understanding of how belief in the human mind works. Read Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud, they're much more knowledgeable on the subject.

Bullshit on the empiricism call. Christians invented the scientific method. While most Christians lack science literacy, so do the vast proportion of Americans.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Do you know what empiricism is? Either way I think you misunderstood what I was saying

Empiricism is atheistic by definition because it presupposes there isn't a God, prides itself on uncertainty and not coming to a conclusion without a certain amount of evidence. You would have to ask yourself, what kind of proof would one want for the existence of God? The thing is that empiricism is a methodology that searches for a natural explanation for everything and by definition won't be satisfied with "God did it"

So, in this way, it's atheistic because the only way it will "prove God" is if it defines God in a certain way (which will probably be radically different than what believers define God as).

The fact that Christians created says nothing about the methodology itself. That's like saying Algebra is a Muslim methodology, as it was created by Muslims. Algebra is in itself a study of numbers and is thus nontheistic. You aren't going to use algebra to prove the existence of God as its more of a question of making balances and so on. Empiricism is different in that it's more broad and deals with the nature of existence, so people are more inclined to think it will prove/disprove God. But it won't because its very nature is atheistic.