1. Comment #50694 by USA_Limey on June 19, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Nice interview,

By the way all, here is a RELLY good interview with Hithens on the BBC including a bust up with a church of england vicar. Great! I am hoping this site will post a link to it. THE INTERVIEW WAS ON MONDAY, make sure you click on the MONDAY tab.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/mayo.shtml

Enjoy!

Other Comments by USA_Limey

2. Comment #50701 by Nails on June 19, 2007 at 2:15 pm

I havn't listened to it yet, but the magazine begins the article by expressing the interviwer's fears that RD is going to live up to the Darwin's Rottweiller tag....

He didn't.

Well, in text anyway.

Other Comments by Nails

3. Comment #50723 by scooternyc on June 19, 2007 at 4:46 pm

Thanks everyone for the added links when you find them, it's so great that you share these with all of us.

Cheers!
Scooter

Other Comments by scooternyc

4. Comment #50730 by Zaphod on June 19, 2007 at 6:05 pm

Not a very long interview with Richard. The Mayo/Hitchens link posted by USA_Limey is great. Hitchens pwns a reverend. Classic Hitch.

Other Comments by Zaphod

5. Comment #50751 by Enlightenme.. on June 19, 2007 at 7:43 pm

Thanks, USA_Limey, that is classic Hitchens.
I believe he's on BBC question time this week.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

6. Comment #50752 by _J_ on June 19, 2007 at 7:54 pm

1. Comment #50694 by USA_Limey

http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/mayo.shtml

Who would have thought it? That really is a great interview! I should have been asleep ages ago, but I had to listen that one through. No ads, short and sensible questions that gave Christopher chance to expand on his points - excellent good.

Other Comments by _J_

7. Comment #50811 by Eamonn Shute on June 20, 2007 at 3:51 am

5. Comment #50751 by Enlightenment
Thanks, USA_Limey, that is classic Hitchens.
I believe he's on BBC question time this week.

BBC1 10:35 Thursday. Also Boris Johnson - should be entertaining!

Other Comments by Eamonn Shute

8. Comment #50828 by USA_Limey on June 20, 2007 at 5:37 am

Thanks all for your comments.

I am still hoping this will be posted on the site; it really is one of the best Hitchens interviews I have heard and it would be a shame if a lot of people on this site missed it because it is only referenced in this thread.
__________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

Other Comments by USA_Limey

9. Comment #50831 by Xenocratic on June 20, 2007 at 6:20 am

I listened to the Hitchens interview with the BBC and yes, I agree with other posters that he made a number of excellent points in his inimitably eloquent manner, yet his cheap shot at the vicar who phoned in, namely calling him a "sheep faced loon" proves yet again that Hitchens is above all an arrogant git. If you cannot rationally address someone's ideas, regardless of how irrational these may be, then you are simply a facile rhetorician. He didn't even allow this man to speak as he kept interrupting him, and he has the audacity to give speeches in Canada telling his audience that they shouldn't push through a hate speech bill because free speech, even of a truly repellent kind, is a prerequisite to a truly democratic society. If people disagree with Mr Hitchens, however, he calls them loons or "fascist apologists" or any of a number of names he has employed over the last few years to try and mock those who don't agree with him. His stance on Iraq is also nothing short of a despicable disgrace. Although it is often said that the likes of Dawkins and Harris do atheism a disservice, the charge is very warranted in the case of Christopher Hitchens.

Other Comments by Xenocratic

10. Comment #50838 by USA_Limey on June 20, 2007 at 7:07 am

Comment #50831 by Xenocratic:

"Hitchens is above all an arrogant git"

Xeno, whilst I see where you are coming from I disagree with you fundamentally. I believe an aggressive counter attack on the forces of superstition has been long overdue. I would ask you to pause and consider just how far 'rationally addressing' religion has gotten us. It is high time that a little ridicule and downright insulting behavior is employed against those who have felt immune from such ridicule in the past. I'll bet that vicar is an intelligent guy who has read or at least heard of every argument for atheism in the book; but I'll also bet he has NEVER had his faith so forcefully challenged, with no quarter given and no respect shown. People like the good vicar NEED that verbal cold bucket of water in the face which the likes of Hitchens provide.

I recently had a personal experience in my own life were a colleague questioned me on my assertion that I was an atheist. I could see they were utterly stunned when I refused to let the conversation go the way I think they imagined it going in their head; namely me advancing my position but all the time showing respect and servility to their belief. I would have none of it. It dawned on me that this person had simply never had their beliefs challenged in such an uncompromising manner. I am sure they took it as an insult. I won't give an inch to these people any more as I am sick of them feeling fuzzy and warm in their little bubble of self satisfaction and delusion. Hitchens shows us the way in my opinion. No respect, no retreat, no hand wringing and apologetic piffle; 'well, I respect your opinion but....' NO, I DON'T respect their opinion and won't.

Most importantly, I think you miss the point that we are never likely to convert believers no matter how polite and rational we are. Nor will we succeed with Hitchens approach; this should NOT be the primary goal. The aim should be to give confidence to the millions of closet atheists who have felt cowed into submission and silence. You need the brave few like Hitchens to stand up and show us that we can stand up too. We don't need to be as aggressive as Hitchens, nor could most of us be if we tried; but it should make us think, 'well, if Hitchens can say THAT, then maybe I can at least admit I am an atheist where as before I would have kept my mouth shut'. This is his greatest service to us.

Just my thoughts!

__________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

Other Comments by USA_Limey

11. Comment #50839 by Rtambree on June 20, 2007 at 7:08 am

The BBC Focus interview with Dawkins was a bit lite. Did a first-day intern come up with the questions?

But the BBC Mayo interview with Hitchens was much better - good to see a journalist do some research and address issues raised in other interviews, so it's an ongoing conversation rather than a copy-and-paste.

I agree with Xenocratic's comments above. Whether Hitchen's abrasive style is a net asset or net liability in terms of obtaining converts remains to be seen. On one hand, Hitchens is saying things in the mainstream media that no one else says, and his book is selling well, on the other hand, I hope fence-sitters flirting with atheism are not turned off, dismissing atheists as arrogant. Hitchens almost makes Dawkins looks like McGrath by comparison.

Last night at the Garrick Theatre in London, Hitchens asked eveyone present to thank the 82nd Airborne Division for protecting civilisation from the forces of evil. It could have been a line from "300".

Other Comments by Rtambree

12. Comment #50851 by Xenocratic on June 20, 2007 at 7:48 am

Dear USA_Limey (love the nickname, by the by)

While I agree that we shouldn't necessarily have to respect people's opinion with regards their religious conviction, the point is that Christians, or other people of faith, have different reasons for being religious in the first place and interpret their role as believers in a variety of ways which often makes it disconcerting to have discussions with Christians, which I regularly do, because you are often talking to people who are so different from each other that they really shouldn't both be classed as Christians. In a way that's why I feel more and more confident that if even believers can't get on the same page then those who aren't believers really have nothing to fear from eternal damnation because we might just be sharing this torment with a few unexpected faces.
On a more serious note, and, like yours, based on personal experience, I regularly have religious discussions with the minister at my local church and we always have very civil conversations with neither of us losing it or lowering the tone of the discourse by bandying about childish insults. Hitchens heaped obloquy on that poor man, who sounded rather pleasant, in an underhanded and cowardly manner by saying what he did once the vicar had put the phone down. It revealed that Hitchens isn't merely content, or perhaps able, to persuade people using rational arguments so he felt the need for the low blow which everyone listening to the show heard and to which the vicar couldn't respond. If you have a superior argument then one should present one's case in the most logical, well thought out manner so as to sway with ideas rather than what I previously characterised as rhetoric. This is a tactic used by politicians and demagogues who more often than not "charm more than they convince". Our job as rationalists, as I see it, is to convince people with the better argument. You may say this is a lost cause, but using foul language or simply insulting people's intelligence is definitely NOT the way to go about the conversion we all hope might one day take place. I know this from experience because the Christians I have discussions with, many of them my friends whom I consider to be very noble people, are open to hearing my side and wouldn't dream of insulting me the way Hitchens did, even when I am being overtly blasphemous, as the faith brigade dubs it. The great South African Black Consciousness leader, Steve Biko, once said that "when you change people's ideas nothing is ever the same again". I don't believe there is one which states that the more you curse them, so shall they change their beliefs. I fully sympathise with your impatience with believers who have, unfairly, been given a free ride for most of human existence. But the problem is also biological, and this is something that will be harder to make people acknowledge, let alone understand. As E.O Wilson wrote in Consilience, an absolutely brilliant popular science book for those interested, "people evolved to believe in God, not biology". As rationalists we have really only the last 400 years to draw on whereas humanity has millions of years to draw on as the foundation of the faith gene, if indeed there is such a thing.
Thanks for the agreement there, Rtambree, and your final sentence just about sums up how absurd a figure Hitchens has very intentionally become. He is far too intelligent to not have thought these kinds of pronouncements through, which makes him seem like such a jingoistic Neanderthal that it really is difficult to take him seriously on other topics, however brilliantly prescient he may be. Have you perhaps also noticed that despite his distaste for virtually all US presidents since World War II he virtually never says anything bad about old Bush the Younger? He states in that interview that he can tell a lot about a person if they believe humans have been created for a divine person, yet I can also tell a lot about a person who continues to support a war that even people on the extreme right wing of American politics, such as Richard Perle, consider to be an abject failure. Furthermore, he not only supports the war but distorts the facts on the ground to suit his contentions and ludicrously misrepresents the positions taken by anti-war activists who are very often far better people than he could ever hope to be.
Another thing, I can't believe that he insults Martin Luther King Jr and Ghandi in his new book. Who does he think he is? Does he perhaps believe that the only perfect person in the history of the world is himself? Martin Luther King Jr is one of the greatest Americans who ever lived and did more for people than Hitchens could ever dream of doing, no pun intended. As for Ghandi, his documented racism and bizarre antics with regards young women sleeping naked beside him so as not to sexually tempt him aside, Hitchens doesn't deserve to lick his sandals as far as I am concerned. Hitchens may be brilliant, and I love his writing and witty barbs at the expense of religion, but I stand by my contention that he is morally dubious and brazenly pompous. No doubt there will be a veritable storm of protest on this site as a result of my blatant heresy, a response I fully expect.

Other Comments by Xenocratic

13. Comment #50858 by USA_Limey on June 20, 2007 at 8:14 am

Comment #50851 by Xenocratic :

"No doubt there will be a veritable storm of protest on this site as a result of my blatant heresy, a response I fully expect."

... Well, perhaps but not as much as you might think I suspect. If it was Dawkins being attacked I would say watch out, since Dawkins is so obviously a decent likeable chap; but I don't think too many will protest your critisism of Hitchens since he obviously invites attack through his polemic style. I appreciate your lengthy and thoughtful response; I do think your views are colored somewhat by your obvious distaste for his position on Iraq. Nothing wrong with that necessarily.

I have often thought that the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Dennet etc represent the more cerebral, academic core of this movement we see growing around us; the Jefferson, Paine, Franklin of atheism dare I say. But what we REALLY need is our Washington. Is Hitchens the man? No, probably not because as you would agree I am sure he is just not likeable enough even to those who share his views on Atheism. We are still waiting for our Washington figure to emerge. Who will it be? I have no idea. I have often thought that what we need is a super celebrity of some kind from the likes of the movie or music industry to decide that they have made enough money and aren't worried about their career anymore and would be willing to publicly come forward and start campaiging on our side. But for them to step up to the plate they need the likes of Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennet et al to lay the groundwork.
__________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

Other Comments by USA_Limey

14. Comment #50861 by Benjamin Michael on June 20, 2007 at 8:27 am

Gosh, I find Hitchens to be *very* likeable and someone I would *absolutely* like to hang out with over a few drinks. Sure he is an agressive chap, but to me that just makes him more interesting and not the same old drone that gets churned out by modern society.

Other Comments by Benjamin Michael

15. Comment #50865 by Xenocratic on June 20, 2007 at 8:42 am

USA_Limey

After contemplating your comparison of Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett with Jefferson, Paine and Franklin, I would have to say you're spot on. Perhaps you are more spot on with Washington than you'd like to believe, because he was definitely the least intelligent of the four Founding Fathers whom you mention, and was pretty inept at fighting wars, despite what conventional, approved history may have led you to believe. While I wouldn't ever dream of calling Hitchens unintelligent, because he is in possession of a sterlingly magnificent intellect, I do think he jeopardises the movement, if indeed I may be so bold as to characterise it as such, because by constantly lashing out at his opponents he could well create the impression which Rtambree noted in an earlier post, namely that "fence-sitters flirting with atheism" might be "turned off, dismissing atheists as arrogant". I think what you were implying by the Washington analogy was that we need a bold man of action who makes a good portrait and is really tall. Perhaps George Clooney could make the grade?
As for my "views" being "colored by "Hitchens' position on Iraq", well I do find it difficult to take someone seriously who, while advocating ideas I often agree with, claims to be taking the moral and rational high ground yet there is this glaring omission in his own moral purview which he refuses to acknowledge or even temper, long after this position has been discredited by virtually everyone, on the right and left, and was completely fallacious in the first place. Anyone who can still talk about fighting the "forces of evil" clearly has no idea about the history of European colonialism or even recent US foreign policy, which Hitchens certainly has plenty of knowledge about yet he still holds these bizarre views. While many people's minds are deranged by religion, Hitchens' mind seems in many respects oddly deranged by his virulent distaste of religion. This is particularly evident in his hatred of Islam which, while a detestable religion to be sure, leads him to unfairly generalise and fail to perceive the political dimensions which always have a bearing on religious realities.

Other Comments by Xenocratic

16. Comment #50866 by Rtambree on June 20, 2007 at 8:47 am

14. Comment #50861 by Benjamin Michael

Ben, are you sure you'd like to hang out with Hitchens if he started aggressively attacking Israel's occupation of the West Bank?

There's hardly anyone here (or anywhere) that agrees with ALL of Hitchens views, and given his disposition for giving disproportionate time to points of contention, it'd be a roller-coaster ride.

I agree someone who can coherently debate is more interesting than a "yes" man, and in that sense a night spent with Hitchens wouldn't be dull.

While I agree with his stance on religion, some of his political views can lack nuance - it's either ALL this or ALL that.

Other Comments by Rtambree

17. Comment #50870 by ranjani on June 20, 2007 at 9:09 am

This is a follow up of Xenocratic's post about Hitchens' rant about Gandhi. There is no question that Gandhi was almost maniacally religious and had several bizarre ideas about progress, but if one wants a truly robust view of his achievements and failings, I would highly recommend this article by Nobel laureate Amartya Sen at this site
http://www.countercurrents.org/culture-sen281003.htm

which is in a large part about Tagore who was never as prominent, but whom I admire greatly. However, I hope people also remember that Gandhi prevented massive bloodletting by curbing the revenge instinct of the Indian populace in the face of some terrible British atrocities. He also fought tirelessly for the emancipation of women and the so called untouchables. Not all of Hitchens' statements are as well researched as people might think.

Ranjani

Other Comments by ranjani

18. Comment #50871 by USA_Limey on June 20, 2007 at 9:18 am

Comment #50865 by Xenocratic wrote:

"I think what you were implying by the Washington analogy was that we need a bold man of action who makes a good portrait and is really tall. Perhaps George Clooney could make the grade?"

Hmmmm. No I think Clooney is too tainted with politics. It has to be someone with brand name recognition across the board but who has never, up to now, took a public stance on any divisive political issues. They would also have to have the guts to flush their career down the toilet; which is what they would be doing. So they must be in my view:

1) Super rich
2) Super famous
3) Seen as politically neutral, or an 'unknown' in that respect.

Bill Gates is the best I can come up with; but I think it really needs to be someone with more popular appeal. I just don't know who.
I do think someone will emerge though; I just have a feeling, (I know, bad to thing to say here), that some very big names will be coming out of the closet in the next couple of years.

I'd love just ONE presidential candidate to declare themselves as an atheist. Political suicide I know; someone who isn't going to win anyway needs to be brave and start the ball rolling for those that will follow.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

19. Comment #50873 by Benjamin Michael on June 20, 2007 at 9:21 am

Rtambree, in fact yes I would! As I agree with him on a lot of his views of that particular conflict. But even if I didn't agree with him, it doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy discussing these things with him. I don't have to be in 100% agreement with someone to find them interesting and compelling company. In fact, I am unlikely to be in 100% agreement with anyone (sometimes not even myself!). Hitch may lack some nuance on some topics, but he has an admirable way of not beating around the bush and focusing on what is most relevant in a discussion.

Other Comments by Benjamin Michael

20. Comment #50874 by USA_Limey on June 20, 2007 at 9:24 am

Comment #50870 by ranjani wrote:

"Gandhi prevented massive bloodletting by curbing the revenge instinct of the Indian populace in the face of some terrible British atrocities."

...This can't be right. I grew up going to school in Britain and not once was I taught of a single example of a British atrocity anywhere in the world through the more than 400 year history of the British Empire.

Therefore there weren't any.

Fingers in ears now. LA LA LA LA LAAAAL LA LA LA

:-)

Other Comments by USA_Limey

21. Comment #50875 by Rtambree on June 20, 2007 at 9:26 am

18. Comment #50871 by USA_Limey

To my knowledge, there has been an atheist Presidential Candidate... Ralph Nader. He wanted to reign in the Pentagon budget, corporate power, and the religious nuts. He wanted to bring in universal health care.

And only three men and a dog voted for him.

Why do people vote against their self-interest?

Other Comments by Rtambree

22. Comment #50878 by Rtambree on June 20, 2007 at 9:35 am

19. Comment #50873 by Benjamin Michael

>Rtambree, in fact yes I would!

Good on you - that shows a strength of character. I'd like to debate him too, on the reasons WHY there is such variation in Islamic fundamentalism throughout the Muslim world, and to what extent (none, a little, a lot?) western intervention is correlated with Islamic violence.

I'd ask him whether current US policy that he supports could be counter-productive i.e. instead of defeating terrorists, they're (inadvertently) facilitating the conditions by which terrorists recuit and radicalise the population.

Obviously I'd get an earful from him and expect nothing less, but I'd stress that to be serious about defeating them, you need to understand why some regions take the Koran very literally, and some don't.

Other Comments by Rtambree

23. Comment #50889 by ranjani on June 20, 2007 at 10:18 am

USA_Limey:
Very nice and funny!!! Burst into laughter.

Other Comments by ranjani

24. Comment #50990 by youmemeyou on June 20, 2007 at 10:16 pm

USA_Limey Most importantly, I think you miss the point that we are never likely to convert believers no matter how polite and rational we are. Nor will we succeed with Hitchens approach; this should NOT be the primary goal. The aim should be to give confidence to the millions of closet atheists who have felt cowed into submission and silence.

I disagree. Frankly, I don't give a damn whether or not somebody wants to cling to words. At least in my context, there are a dreadful lot of opportunities to change people's minds. I will take the practical course, namely learning more from others than I presume to teach.

I make no secret of my Atheism, but I am more interested in Evolution and physics than political muck and theological acid trips.

Other Comments by youmemeyou

25. Comment #50993 by Xenocratic on June 21, 2007 at 12:10 am

Well said, youmemeyou! I particularly liked your reference to "theological acid trips". The fact that many people, including myself, have grown up in religious homes yet have found a way out of the believers club should tell us that people are liable to change if exposed to the right information at the right time. Certainly they often have to be people of a certain temperament, but I believe the basic premise holds. Hicthens and Harris, in particular, don't seem interested enough in the political dimension of religious extremism to shed enough light on the reasons for the shift to this ultra violent mode of engaging with the world. The Israeli/Palestine conflict provides great insight into why people should opt to be religious martyrs for a cause which they see as the only way to liberate their nation from the horrendous devastation visited upon it by an aggressive colonising power, which happens to have the support of the world's most powerful nation. Suicide bombing was an unknown phenomenon in Palestine until the First intifada but because Palestinians were just fed up by decades of empty promises from both the US, Israel and even their own leaders, who were for the most part secular nationalists, they decided to use their bodies as weapons. Bear in mind that we are talking about a people who have lived under one of the most brutal and horrifyingly oppressive occupations in the latter half of the last century, and also a population which has no tanks, no army, and very few weapons at their disposal. The election of Hamas last year also provides us with an indicator of the deep discontent with the Palestinian Authority that has constantly capitulated to the West without gaining anything substantial in return. It is a convenient myth to dismiss these people as loons or maniacs, but no one does anything in a vacuum, ergo any analysis of the situation must take cognisance of the political dimensions to any shift towards religious extremism. There is even a political dimension in the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the US, which we can trace, yet why does it seem so difficult to do so when looking at the Muslim world?
I agree with you completely, youmemeyou, that we should try and learn "more from others than" we "presume to teach", whereas people like Hitchens, for all their undoubted brilliance, assume that they can't learn anything from anybody and stand in Olympian judgement over all the sorry mortals they survey beneath them.
Thanks for the reference to the Sen article, ranjani, I am very interested in Ghandi so I shall read it with great interest. While what you say about Ghandi being "maniacally religious" may be true, the point is that no one, least of all Christopher Hitchens, is perfect. On balance, Ghandi was a great man, though of course no saint. I am always perturbed by how people, not just Hitchens, are able to so blithely dismiss others who have performed such great services for their nations or humanity in general. Just because someone is religious, and performs noble deeds in the name of this religion, doesn't automatically negate their actions. This is why I think there is a great danger to be obsessively dismissive of religion without adequately appreciating the immense amount of good that religion has, and continues to do, throughout the world. I certainly agree that there is nothing that a good religious person can do that a good secularist can't, but if people feel inspired to act nobly as a result of their religious convictions, then they should be applauded. Habitat for Humanity is one of the most wonderful organisations in the world, with whom I have built houses in the past, yet this non-profit group was started by a Christian couple in the US. People acting decently should be praised, regardless of their motivation.

Other Comments by Xenocratic