Christopher Hitchens Making a Religious Talk Show Host Eat His Words

[Fenriz]

Christopher Hitchens appearing on the Paul Edwards radio talk show to promote the paperback release of his book God is not Great.

Edwards, who is evidently a Christian fundamentalist, gets his ass reamed by Hitchens in the final ten minutes of his appearance.

[th3ranger]

Omg that was great! Or should I say "oh my reason!" That was very funny! Reason & reality win again!

My favorite quote: "Since your religion is in a terminal decline..."

[IchorFigure]

In came across this video where Hitchens is interviewed by Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institute. The problems I have with Hitchens are apparent in the interview. He thinks that morality is innate in human beings *somehow*. Interestingly he even says here that it is "insulting" and "degrading" to insinuate otherwise. When Robinson asks what objectively influences a person's morality he assumes his anti-religious stance despite the question actually being about another source of moral ideas.

It seems like it comes down to this: Where do people get their ideas of morality? Well I don't know they just do, that isn't important. What's important is I know it sure isn't God!

He simultaneously rejects the idea of religion while his ideas are molded specifically in relation to their absence, rather than as a positive for something other than religion. Hitchens is obviously a bright and clever guy. Philosophy is not his strong point sadly. He has made several references to Rand in the past as well, so it's not as though he shouldn't know better.

[JASKN]

Hitchens is quick with his wits and very well spoken, but he is extremely rude!

[Space Patroller]

In came across this video where Hitchens is interviewed by Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institute. The problems I have with Hitchens are apparent in the interview. He thinks that morality is innate in human beings *somehow*. Interestingly he even says here that it is "insulting" and "degrading" to insinuate otherwise. When Robinson asks what objectively influences a person's morality he assumes his anti-religious stance despite the question actually being about another source of moral ideas.

It seems like it comes down to this: Where do people get their ideas of morality? Well I don't know they just do, that isn't important. What's important is I know it sure isn't God!

He simultaneously rejects the idea of religion while his ideas are molded specifically in relation to their absence, rather than as a positive for something other than religion. Hitchens is obviously a bright and clever guy. Philosophy is not his strong point sadly. He has made several references to Rand in the past as well, so it's not as though he shouldn't know better.

The morality issue is complex. In the major Aristotelian philosophys the need and the want to distinguish good from evil is in metaphysics

From my education at Providence College this is called "co-natural" and comes from being in the world as a thinking being

So thus I had to conclude that the need, want and consideration is innate. and this is reflected in other work such as Piaget. Rand points to it when she says that Man is not infinitely malleable. The content is not inaate. If that were so then there would not be the ability to learn it.

Too many persons confuse Tabula Rasa with Tabula Amorpha. Like a computer you have structurally determined characteristics but not innate content. Were there no structually innate functions, there would be no best methodology since the structure could be bent to fit anything so reason could not be an issue and therefore "The Comprachicos" could not exist.

http://dancona.spacepatrol.us/crap.html

Nor is it all there at once. The brain develops in stages with the final touches in at about 25. During the 20-25 age range, this is experienced as a new existence. hence the "born again" experience. Also this level opens one up to the whole of the universe. This is where "God" comes in in common parlance. It has been the percieved inability of atheism and even Objectivism to answer this need that causes a reversion to religion

Try this

http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/09feb.html

and ask yourself if I am describing a religious or psychedelic experience

[The Wrath]

Christopher Hitchens is always amusing and usually right. His problem is that he goes out of his way to be an asshole. He could express the same ideas without being ridiculously rude to someone who is being polite to him. If he argues with someone like Sean Hannity, all bets are off...be as much of an ass as you want. But what was gained by being a prick to this guy, who was going to great lengths to be polite to Hitchens? Saying that he wants to "destroy" the religious right doesn't do him any favors, since people will twist that to mean something other than what he meant (i.e. ideological destruction).

[Space Patroller]

Christopher Hitchens is always amusing and usually right. His problem is that he goes out of his way to be an asshole. He could express the same ideas without being ridiculously rude to someone who is being polite to him. If he argues with someone like Sean Hannity, all bets are off...be as much of an ass as you want. But what was gained by being a prick to this guy, who was going to great lengths to be polite to Hitchens? Saying that he wants to "destroy" the religious right doesn't do him any favors, since people will twist that to mean something other than what he meant (i.e. ideological destruction).

He should have a go-round with Boortz and they can duke it out for the asshole AND prick of the new millenium in one gottendammerung, the loser being the one who drowns in his own bile first. There's a difference between being mad as hell and just a loudmouth jerk. Just how much of this is an act, being "in personna" and is the real person is hard to say. There's also a difference between being a son of a bitch and a bastard. You can at least respect, admire and even like an SOB but a bastard is just...well...a bastard. One deals with you right to your face and does his own dirty work, the other is the knife in the back, usually by proxy.

I'm not averse to "destroying" the religious right, depending on what you replace it with, which sets the terms by which you will "destroy" it.

When Peikoff said "Religion is worse than socialism", prewuming that there is not more to the statement (which would suprise me; he is usually very thorough) he was making an error in terms specifically level. "Religion" is a mini-philosophy (RM). Socialism is a political economic system and therefore further down on the scale. Relgion and socialism, or rather, what socialism is a particular system of; the Welfare State, are very compatible and most imagined and attepted religious utopias were socialist or it's equivalent at the time. A better comparison is Religion and Nihilism.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Space Patroller