…and this is a 
FFRF recap: heroes of the revolution, Hitchens screws the pooch, and the unbearable stodginess of atheists
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: October 14, 2007 10:47 AM, by PZ Myers
We're about to leave lovely Madison, Wisconsin and the Freedom from Religion Convention. So here's a short summary: it was a good meeting and I was impressed with most of the speakers; Christopher Hitchens "pissed off" most of us as he promised to do, and the organization of the meeting could have been greatly improved.
Now the details.
I already mentioned Katha Pollitt and Julia Sweeney, the opening night speakers, and they were hilarious and humane. I'd go listen to them anytime, and you should too, at any opportunity. They represent the happy, friendly atheists, and they do it very well.
Saturday morning opened with Ellery Schempp. You've all heard of him, right? Maybe not. He was at the center of an important constitutional law case, School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp, back in the late 1950s. Coincidentally, when we lived in Pennsylvania our kids were all enrolled in the Abington School District, and the school does not make much mention of their moment in the limelight, although we were familiar with its historic importance, since it was part of our irreligious tradition. Pennsylvania schools used to open their day with readings from the Bible, a habit that was broken when a 16-17 year old Ellery Schempp defied them, got the ACLU involved, and took them all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was decided that it certainly was unconstitutional to use the public schools to advance sectarian religion.
Ellery gave a wonderful talk that both reviewed the law behind the decision and his personal role in it, and also talked about secular values. Great stuff; and you can learn more, there's a new book, Ellery's Protest: How One Young Man Defied Tradition and Sparked the Battle over School Prayer by Stephen D. Solomon(b&n/abe/pwll), that recounts the whole story.
The next talk was amazingly apropos. It was by a 17 year old high school student who has been mentioned here before, Matt LaClair. Matt is from Kearney, NJ, and he was enrolled in a high school US History class in which the teacher seemed to prefer to ramble on about dinosaurs on Noah's Ark, and how non-Christians were going to hell, then to teach the students history. Matt not only challenged the guy in the face of widespread support for him from his peers and the community, but carefully documented the teacher's nonsense with recordings. David Paszkiewicz still teaches at that high school, and is apparently still dribbling out his superstitious nonsense to the students, which is unfortunate … but Matt LaClair is an incredibly poised and articulate young man who is going to rise above it and leave that school behind, soon enough.
The third talk was by Stephanie Salter, a columnist for the Terra Haute Tribune Star, and … oh, my! … a theist. She has worked for separation of church and state, and her work is funny and right on target with the goals of the FFRF. Unfortunately, and I'll mention this later, the organization of this conference left much to be desired, and coming as she did on the end of a long morning session, my attention was flagging a bit — no fault of hers, of course, but just the non-stop immobility of the session was a bit of a killer.
The last talk is the one everyone is going to be talking about for some time to come: Christopher Hitchens at his eloquent, acerbic best and his eloquent, acerbic worst. He got a standing ovation when he was introduced, and he should have stopped there, because the applause got thinner and thinner as the talk progressed, and by the end, people were walking out on him.
The talk began excellently. He gave some of the arguments from his book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), and he had me cheering at his aggressive dismissal of the foolishness of religion. It was not, however, a great talk — he'd have a great couple of paragraphs of red meat that would then fade away into an unfinished anecdote…and then he'd start another one. It was clearly an exhibition of punctuated rhetoric.
Ah, but then at the end — he seemed uncertain about the time allotted and how much time he was using, furthering the impression that he was just making some unorganized, off-the-cuff remarks — he asked if we shouldn't break for questions, and then suggested that he "bang on", and when he got signs of approval, said he was going to say a few things to piss us off. And that he did.
Ouch.
Then it was Hitchens at his most bellicose. He told us what the most serious threat to the West was (and you know this line already): it was Islam. Then he accused the audience of being soft on Islam, of being the kind of vague atheists who refuse to see the threat for what it was, a clash of civilizations, and of being too weak to do what was necessary, which was to spill blood to defeat the enemy. Along the way he told us who his choice for president was right now — Rudy Giuliani — and that Obama was a fool, Clinton was a pandering closet fundamentalist, and that he was less than thrilled about all the support among the FFRF for the Democratic party. We cannot afford to allow the Iranian theocracy to arm itself with nuclear weapons (something I entirely sympathize with), and that the only solution is to go in there with bombs and marines and blow it all up. The way to win the war is to kill so many Moslems that they begin to question whether they can bear the mounting casualties.
It was simplistic us-vs.-them thinking at its worst, and the only solution he had to offer was death and destruction of the enemy.
This was made even more clear in the Q&A. He was asked to consider the possibility that bombing and killing was only going to accomplish an increase in the number of people opposing us. Hitchens accused the questioner of being incredibly stupid (the question was not well-phrased, I'll agree, but it was clear what he meant), and said that it was obvious that every Moslem you kill means there is one less Moslem to fight you … which is only true if you assume that every Moslem already wants to kill Americans and is armed and willing to do so. I think that what is obvious is that most Moslems are primarily interested in living a life of contentment with their families and their work, and that an America committed to slaughter is a tactic that will only convince more of them to join in opposition to us.
Basically, what Hitchens was proposing is genocide. Or, at least, wholesale execution of the population of the Moslem world until they are sufficiently cowed and frightened and depleted that they are unable to resist us in any way, ever again.
This is insane. I entirely agree that we are looking at a clash of civilizations, that there are huge incompatibilities between different parts of the world, and that we face years and years of all kinds of conflict between us, with no easy resolution. However, one can only resolve deep ideological conflicts by the extermination of one side in video games and cartoons. It's not going to work in the real world. We can't simply murder enough Moslems to weaken them into irrelevance, and even if we could, that's not the kind of culture to which I want to belong.
A clash of whole civilizations is a war of ideas. The way we can 'conquer' is on the cultural and economic level: the West should not invade and destroy, but should instead set an example, lead with strength, and be the civilization that every rational citizen of the other side wants to emulate. Yes, there will be wars and skirmishes, because not everyone on either side is rational, but the bloodshed isn't the purpose. Hitchens would make it the raison d'etre of the whole Western effort.
This whole last third of his talk had me concerned about the first part. He had just told us in strong terms about the failures of religion and its detrimental effect on our culture, and now he was explaining to us how the solution in the Middle East was to simply kill everyone who disagreed with you. He didn't relate the two parts of his talk, which was unfortunate. I'd like to know whether he thinks the way atheists ought to end religion in America is to start shooting Baptists, or whether he sees other ways to educate and enlighten … in which case I wonder why he doesn't see any virtue in applying those same methods to Islam. I didn't ask the question since the line for the microphone was long, and I had a depressing feeling that the solution would involve sending the Baptists over to Iraq to kill and be killed.
This is not my freethought movement. The Hitchens solution is not my solution.
I could tell that he did not have the sympathy of most of the audience at this point. There were a scattered few who applauded wildly at every mention of bombing the Iranians, but the majority were stunned into silence. People were leaving — I heard one woman sing a few bars of "Onward, Christian soldiers" as she left to mock his strategy. The questions were all angry or disputative, and were all dismissed with comments about the audience's intelligence. The answers were always, "War, war, war," and that we weren't good atheists if we didn't agree with murder as the answer. He seemed unable to comprehend that people could despise and oppose all religion, Christian, Moslem, or otherwise, yet have no desire to triumph by causing physical harm to the believers. I've noticed the same intellectual blindness in many Christians, actually.
Later that evening, someone in the FFRF was handing out an open letter to the freethought community, one that protested the inclusion of Hitchens and opposing any future speakers of his sort. I sympathized with the sentiment (and if the writer wants to send me an electronic copy, I'll post it here), but I think it was useful to have Hitchens stand up there and tell us what he thinks — and there was absolutely no reticence in his comments, which I admire. But while I agree with his goal of working towards a rational, secular world, a triumph of enlightenment values, I disagree entirely with his proposed strategy, which seems to involve putting a bullet through every god-haunted brain. To have a clearly stated position to which we can respond with clearly stated opposition is actually a kind of gift.
I have to make a general criticism of the organization of the conference, however, despite knowing that there was a lot of work behind it. It was unimaginative, stuffy, and limiting: we had a small number of first-rate speakers who were given substantial time-slots one after another and sent up there to lecture at us. There was something like 700 or more people in attendance, and almost all of the meeting time was spent in tight focus on one person standing behind a lectern.
Bad pedagogy. Terrible for generating a sense of engagement. This is how you don't want to run a meeting.
Here's a post by Jonathan Eisen criticizing science conference organization. Most of it doesn't apply here, but one in particular is telling:
Have too little time for breaks. The best part of conferences is the coffee and other breaks. No need to have too many talks. Have lots of breaks.
Seriously. What is our goal at these kinds of meetings? It is to organize. To interact with fellow freethinkers. To get ideas that we can carry home to help advance our goals. To meet new people and to network. To be entertained. Strings of long talks do this very poorly.
Another problem: attendance at this kind of meeting is largely on the gray side of middle age, with very little in the way of young people. Why? Because it's boring! We should be engaging and recruiting more college-aged people, and this format just won't do it.
Here are some positive suggestions: have more short talks. Have concurrent sessions. Get more of the participants on the stage — we had 6 speakers here, which means we had a pathetic teacher/student ratio. Use all those people who come to learn.
They definitely need more breaks, and I'm impressed with the stamina of all those gray-haired atheists. Have coffee in the hallway, have at least two sessions running simultaneously, and have solid breaks in between short sets of talks … and people moving between rooms or going for coffee will talk and and new ideas will spring up in the spaces between the sessions.
Mix up the format a lot. Every session does not have to be a talking head above a lectern (and note that at this meeting, no one used powerpoint or any kind of visual aids—while PP is not an unrelieved good by any means, at least it can provide some sensory stimulation). Why not have a few panels and workshops, too? Have a workshop on organizing a freethought group in your town, and get tips from successful organizers. Have a panel with an agnostic, an atheist, and a secular humanist at a table, and have them argue (with audience participation!) their differences. Have a media discussion: how are atheists portrayed in the movies? What are the best books on the subject? Get topical and specific: with the new movie on Pullman's fantasy novels with their godless tone coming out, what are the literary virtues of the books? What do we expect from the movies?
There are many better ways to get an audience motivated and participatory and included in a conference like this, and I'm afraid the FFRF did very little of them. The audience was a passive entity to be talked to, and little more. Get with it, people!
I strongly recommend to anyone organizing this kind of freethought convention that they get in touch with some members of the SF community. Science fiction people know at a deep level how to put together a first rate meeting experience that will engage diverse interests, and be informative and entertaining, and most importantly, will appeal to people under the age of 60. There are big differences, of course — I hope a freethought convention wouldn't have costume contests, and the dealer's room isn't going to be quite as impressive — but there are general ideas of attendee engagement that are universal. The FFRF succeeded on a purely intellectual level of providing a narrow band of information, but could be vastly improved on a social level.
It wouldn't be hard. Every major city has a collection of die-hard SF nerds who have experience running a con, and there are quite a few godless among them. Cross-connect. Go down to your local science-fiction and fantasy bookstore, check the cork board and discover all the cons going on in your town, and contact the organizers and ask if they've got any freethinkers who'd be willing to consult. Not only will you get great ideas, but you might find yourself with a conduit right into a more youthful community, and new members with new ideas.
Politics
Comments
But with religious fundamentalists this doesn't work.
After all, for them it isn't a mere issue of life and death. It's an issue of heaven and hell. For eternity. For ever and evermore.
Hitchens should really stay off the booze. Alcohol smells similar to stupid oxide.
Does he also talk like that when he's sober?
(Is he ever sober...?)
Booze certainly helps in overcoming reticence.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 14, 2007 11:07 AM
Excellent post.
1) Go Matt!
2) I think the atheists are finding out what the left-wingers already knew. Hitchens will turn around and bite you at the first opportunity. He's poison.
Maybe you can enjoy Hitchens if you look upon his outbursts as some kind of performance art. He definitely likes being in opposition to the crowd. (I can think of one frequent Pharyngula poster who also displays that trait).
3) You're 110% right on the true purpose of meetings. Schmoozing is important and particularly necessary to this community.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 14, 2007 11:08 AM
I should have expanded my first point: you can deter the Evil Empire from nuking you to radioactive smithereens if the Evil Empire is communist and believes that death is The End®. This does not work if the Evil Empire's holy warriors actually want to die a glorious death in battle against the godless infidels, so they can go to paradise. I'm by far not the first to make this important point, and I'm surprised that Hitchens missed it.
At least, I'd have been surprised if he had missed it while sober.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 14, 2007 11:14 AM
Hitchens and his mad-dog approach to killing, as expressed in an article in Free Inquiry magazine, was the reason I cancelled my subscription to an otherwise entertaining periodical. My letter, giving the reason for my cancellation, was even published. Hitchen used the same rhetoric in that article, calling anyone who disagreed with him "stupid."
Whatever good he may have done, he destroys it all with crazy talk and beliefs like this. I'm so glad I didn't buy GOD IS NOT GREAT.
Posted by: SueinNM | October 14, 2007 11:14 AM
Thanks for the summary. I guess, I'm glad I wasn't able to make it. Even atheists have their fundamentalists. Although, if you pick on one religion specifically, I wouldn't consider you an athiest. I know now to avoid what he says from now on, but I'm afraid those right wingers who want us to invade Iran will choose him as the voice of the godless left to try to convince the public that even atheists agree that we should destroy muslims.
Posted by: DrBadger | October 14, 2007 11:23 AM
Hitchens' take on war is definitely frightening. I don't think killing all the Muslims would be my first suggestion for trying to do away with religion. I don't see how that is even possible without encouraging an all out holy war between Christians and Muslims.
I don't really agree with you, Christian. I think this is just Hitchens stating openly what he's hinted at for a long time.I like listening to Hitchens speak, but if PZ relayed the gist of the talk accurately, then Hitch is off the deep end.
There are parts of the world that are very dangerous for admitting that you are an atheist. I think it would be great if we could make those areas safe for everyone who says "I don't believe in your brand of crazy." Somehow I'm guessing that it will have to be accomplished through education until the Great Atheist Army(tm) is ready.
Posted by: Schmeer | October 14, 2007 11:24 AM
Schmeer: Google Hitchens and Blumenthal. Hitchens was heavily involved in trying to bring down Clinton during Monicagate. His betrayal of Sidney Blumenthal won't soon be forgotten by people on the left.
I don't trust him. I'm not going to be surprised if Hitchens starts selling out atheists when he gets bored with his latest group of pals.
BTW, Hitchens has a pathological hatred of the Clintons, which is partly why he supports Giuliani.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 14, 2007 11:30 AM
Wrong.
Actually, no. That isn't even wrong - wrongness is a state that this sort of opinion doesn't even aspire to reaching at some point in the distant future. Let me correct my labeling:
Stupid.
There, that's better.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 14, 2007 11:30 AM
Wow. Christopher Hitchens sounds like he's completely gone off the deep end. I had considered going to see him, but I'm glad I didn't. It sounds like it was a nightmare. And sometimes those start off ok too...
That said, I am sorry I missed Brocach. I popped in for a minute but didn't see anything vaguely resembling the head of PZ (I had a restricted view from the large booth I was hiding behind.)
Then I ran out :) (Kinda weird, I know. I've just learned to accept it. Wait- no I haven't! I was being retarded and shy.)
Posted by: Leni | October 14, 2007 11:30 AM
Hitchins is not great, in fact he is is totally nuts. it is amazing that a very literate knowlegeable guy seems to have learnt so little from history. The go kick-arse strategy has very little long-term success. In a battle of ideas, it is ideas that eventually detirmine the outcome. The only way to defeat terrorists is make terrorism totally unaccepatable to all nations and so many people they connot operate. Blowing up Muslims will, as PZ points out, be counter-productive. I wonder if Hitchins really believes this or is trying to Coulterize us?
Posted by: sailor | October 14, 2007 11:33 AM
Are all skeptics' meetings like this, then? I went to one hosted by JREF, and the same criticisms could apply there. Even the bit about Hitchens.
And about Hitchens--can we stop giving him any more forums? He can be wonderfully eloquent, but not often is. And even when eloquent, he is still elitist, dogmatic and dismissive. What is the purpose of having him speak? So that freethinkers/atheists/skeptics can congratulate themselves on being open to a range of ideas? Let's not be that open. There are ideas that, no matter if held by an atheist or a theist, deserve to shrivel unheard in the bottom of the glass into which they were first uttered. The notion of better living through genocide is right at the top of the list.
Posted by: Laura | October 14, 2007 11:35 AM
@#8, you don't think that someone who thinks that anyone who doesn't believe what he does should die is not a fundamentalist (or at least acting like a fundamentalist)?
Posted by: DrBadger | October 14, 2007 11:35 AM
The description you're reaching for - and that is utterly beyond your stunted vocabulary - is "zealous ideological bigot".
Posted by: Caledonian | October 14, 2007 11:39 AM
Agree to disagree with Hitchens but I hate that liberals think they own atheism. Most of you who are complaining about Hitchens, who has no power to act out a war on Iran are probably jumping in line to vote for Hillary Clinton who will most likely start a war with Iran if no one beats her to it.
Posted by: Lovetoykilljoy | October 14, 2007 11:40 AM
Thanks Caledonian, you don't have to be an a*hole about it. I might as well add here that even atheists have their a*holes.
Posted by: DrBadger | October 14, 2007 11:42 AM
Thank you for articulating what I've been feeling for awhile. Why is "bomb 'em all" a good answer? Why do some people believe that it will ever be AN answer when history proves that is almost never is? Where has the lost art of diplomacy gone?
Also, I want to attend your con when you organize it! ;)
Posted by: Terra | October 14, 2007 11:43 AM
I guess the useful thing about Hitchens is that he embodies the kind of rabid, morality-impaired straw atheist that theists always go on about, giving us the opportunity to disavow it directly in an embodied form, rather than just vaguely whingeing about how we're not really like that.
Posted by: Joshua | October 14, 2007 11:43 AM
I don't buy this one. Islam isn't my favorite religion, they are stuck in a medieval mindset. In a few countries, women are so oppressed that some just give up and commit suicide.
But there is no such thing as Islam. or Xianity. or Judaism. These religions have schismed so often and spread to so many different people that they are more a collection of beliefs and cultures with a common name. The majority of Moslems aren't even Arabs, the largest Moslem country is Indonesia, a sort of ally of the USA.
A hot war between the world's 2.1 billion Xians and 1.4 billion Moslems would leave the world somewhere between almost destroyed and destroyed. The vast majority of both just want to go to work, raise their kids while hoping they have a better life, and see what is on TV. The alternative is mutually assured destruction.
We saw this with the commies. The hegemonic Russians and Red Chinese were going to bury us. So we practiced crouching under our desks in grade school to survive a nuclear attack and the government sent us maps with evacuation routes. The Cheneys, Bushes, Coulters, and Limbaughs of the day rattled on about the evil Red Menace. Then one day the Soviets mickey mouse system collapsed and the Chinese decided that selling us cheap manufactured goods for dollars was more important than worldwide revolution.
This is a conflict of ideas, ways to live, and culture. If the secular west is superior, they will survive and prosper while the more backward elements of Islam fall further and further behind. Time is on our side and is our friend.
I'm a lot more worried by the fundie Death cult Xians. They are here, controlled the US government up until 2006, and have plans to destroy our way of life and set up a theocracy. The Arabs are over there and too busy killing each other and spending their oil revenues.
Posted by: raven | October 14, 2007 11:45 AM
Yeah, Hitchens did this at the AAI conference too, although at least there he had the decency to wait until someone directly questioned him about Iraq. But then he was off, and he also declared that any of us who disagreed with him were fools. Poisoining the well is such an elementary, schoolyard fallacy, and it's excruciatingly embarrassing to see an articulate, educated man like Hitchens reduced to it. Very revealing of the weakness of his position, though.
It's sad to see these last few neo-liberal, pro-war holdouts losing their control and becoming increasingly hysterical in their inability to simply do the decent thing and admit they were wrong. It's demonstrably absurd when people throw the "fundamentalist" slur at Richard Dawkins but on the subject of anti-Islamic warmongering, that's pretty much what Hitchens has become. He makes a damned ugly fool of himself with it, and I wish he'd stop.
Posted by: Jack Rawlinson | October 14, 2007 11:45 AM
Let's keep doing evolution, neurology, archeology, computer science, anthropology, astronomy, cosmology, geology, physics, etc., and continue to make these destructive belief systems as untenable as possible.
Posted by: ngong | October 14, 2007 11:49 AM
I gave up on Hitchens permanently after watching him trash Chris Hedges (War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning, American Fascists) on a 3-hour C-SPAN interview.
The guy needs to see a psychiatrist.
If he does already, it's not helping.
Posted by: CalGeorge | October 14, 2007 11:51 AM
You don't have to be an ignorant fool when you post, yet you indulge yourself. Why should I be denied the pleasure of mocking you?
Posted by: Caledonian | October 14, 2007 11:54 AM
Hitchens hasn't changed -- he has always been like this.
Hitchens has an undeniable rhetorical gift that is intellectually seductive to people passionate about politics. But there is no depth or substance behind anything he says. Ever. I'd wager people only became aware of him since he was trotted in 2002 as a liberal hawk, but I was reading him 20 years ago in places like The Nation, and I've seen the pattern over and over again. He'll make some forceful, eloquent public pronouncement that appeals to [Group X], and [Group X] will swoon and proclaim Hitchens to be all that and more, and then he inevitably turns into the boyfriend-from-hell, and you wonder how you got sucked into such a shitty relationship.
He's an intellectual Lothario, the Don Juan of punditry. Atheists are simply the latest notch in his bedpost. I mean, c'mon, only two or three years ago he was sleeping around with the Religious Right, and now you're shocked that he's such a cad?
Posted by: HP | October 14, 2007 11:54 AM
By now it's completely clear (at least to anyone with a working brain) that the theists are using mind control. First Harris goes against the label "atheist", and now Hitchens is promoting genocide. Ugh...
Posted by: Roinis? | October 14, 2007 11:56 AM
Dang. s/b "wager *most* people"
Posted by: HP | October 14, 2007 11:56 AM
Can we call this Hitchensite?
`
FWIW, I've dismissed everything this boozehound says since I first saw how aroused he is by war. A death cult of one.
Posted by: True Bob | October 14, 2007 12:00 PM
When those literary geniuses in the English department go after each other with hammer and sickle in their battles over office space, status, grammatical error, and proper dress; you never know whose arse will catch hell, venom, and fundamentalist damnation.
Hitchens destests Muslims, Christians, and Catholic purists; but believes in human devils and Hellfire.
As a scientist, I would consider that his love affair with the juice has squirreled his brain.
When Hitchens sucks on nicotine, I cringe for the man.
Where is Monica when we really need her?
Any man who hates Henry Kissenger can't be all bad.
Posted by: gerald spezio | October 14, 2007 12:03 PM
That's why I didn't go to FFRF this year. Not to insult Madison, but I was bored a lot last year and that was in San Francisco!
Posted by: The Ridger | October 14, 2007 12:03 PM
Caledonian! Just talking about you...
I wrote:
In fairness- Caledonian is not anywhere near as nutty as HItchens and is often quite right. However, both seem to revel in being a lone voice against the crowd.
To a much smaller extent I too enjoy bucking the trend- but not nearly to the same extent.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 14, 2007 12:03 PM
I despise Hitchens. Just because he's right about one thing does not make me view him sympathetically. What I don't understand why he's still considered an intellectual in some circles. His method of debate is to impugn the intelligence of his opponents. I think he's just a sorry drunk.
Posted by: Unstable Isotope | October 14, 2007 12:07 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | October 14, 2007 12:07 PM
What about talking to the people who run the "The Amazing Meeting"?
http://www.randi.org
The JREF seems to know how to put on an entertaining conference from what I have read about it.
Posted by: spurge | October 14, 2007 12:13 PM
In a way, the freethought movement is fortunate to have Hitchens. This way we can all look like plain old moderates next to him. I think we're much more appealing to middle-of-the-roaders or liberal believers if we can point to someone and say, "At least we're not as extreme as that guy!"
Posted by: Epistaxis | October 14, 2007 12:19 PM
How many whiskey sours did Hitchens have before ambling to the stage? It's always an amusing game to guess how inebriated he is on his various TV appearances based on his skin tone and how badly he slurs his words. His appearance on Hannity and Colmes after Falwell's death was the certain winner: his pallor was that of a salamander. His writing is often brilliant but his manner leaves much to be desired. Don't even get me started on how he manages to condemn religious fundamentalism but then endorses neoconservative fundamentalism. The logical process he follows must look like a spaghetti dinner. He used to be a fervent Marxist Trotskyite and now, just like David Horowitz, he's swung to the opposite extreme. I expect that in a few years he'll be converting to Islam.
Posted by: Eric | October 14, 2007 12:20 PM
Christian Burnham:
Fixed it for you. 8o)
Posted by: Caledonian | October 14, 2007 12:28 PM
In addition:
I am deeply offended by your comparison of me with Christopher Hitchens. I'm ten thousand times crazier than that eloquent lush - and don't you forget it!
Posted by: Caledonian | October 14, 2007 12:29 PM
"Nobody is useless -- they can always serve as a bad example."
<raising geologist hammer> Praise be to the ineffable logic of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!
If the booze doesn't do him in first...
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 14, 2007 12:29 PM
According to Rebecca Watson (personal communication), Hitchens requires a certain amount of inebriation in order to function. If he has had either too few or too many drinks, he crashes and burns. Clearly, the FFRF didn't appreciate the vital necessity of keeping Hitchens' blood alcohol content in the approved range!
I guess these open expressions of disapproval about our Leader Figure disqualify the Uppity Atheists from "cult" status. Sigh.
Anyway, it just goes to show that we need more sensible people to step up and gain visibility. PZ, where's your book? (Alan Sokal has a new one coming out, you know, just a few months after John Allen Paulos.)
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 14, 2007 12:30 PM
Posted by: Caledonian | October 14, 2007 12:30 PM
I didn't realize Hitchens was so looney tunes. He sounds so rational when dismissing religion.
I really think he was born in the wrong century. He would be perfect as a Roman senator, inciting war against the Carthaginians.
Posted by: RamblinDude | October 14, 2007 12:32 PM
Blake Stacey: http://xkcd.com/323/
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 14, 2007 12:34 PM
Hitchens knows of what he speaks. Look at the recently released Al QAEDA READER by Ibrahim
http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=8ytztvdt6sy6x5p550p2m258myk1c1nm
and you will see that the Koran is not a nice religious text. "Extremists" are indeed rational if they consider the Koran a legal text with prescriptions for living. I think that this is the real danger that Hitchens sees: If the text is to be followed fundamentally, then we're doomed no matter how nice we are.
I can understand where he comes from. Is Fundamentalist Islam on the wane here in 2007? Has the scientific revolution stopped the march of fundamentalism? Will being nice and showing our nice western ways change their minds?
I don't agree with his call for annihilation, but he wakes us up to the seriousness of this situation.
Posted by: marcia | October 14, 2007 12:38 PM
Calling Caledonian an a*hole is an insult to a*holes.
Posted by: Thony C. | October 14, 2007 12:39 PM
Oh come on, PZ. You must have known what was happening: Hitch needed a drink! Why the hell did you let him talk on beyond the point at which his poor synapses absolutely demanded alcohol? He's only gonna get more bellicose and crazy after that, until he goes until a full fledged alcoholic withdrawal. Conversely, you could have supplied him with liquor, and you can look up the results of his last speaking engagement (in NY, I believe) at which he was well-lubricated. Fisticuffs ensued, and a pleasant time was guaranteed for all. Google it, Professor.
The man's brain is getting, well, moist, ya' know.
A predilection for drink is well represented among believers and atheists alike, but only God hisself can determine the exact right amount of alchohol to keep Hitchens from goin'nuts. Did you pray before his presentation? It might have helped, as much as anything else.
Posted by: Mooser | October 14, 2007 12:46 PM
I certainly do NOT agree with stamping out religious thought like a malignant tumour: wholesale and total slaughter. However, reading other works by Hitchens, I do agree with some of his opinions.
The thing is, on a purely pragmatical view both methods are valid: either kill all under religious influence, or make them realize the error of their ways. The problem? making them realize the error of their ways would take decades, if not downright centuries. It is a slow, stuttering, painful process, which on the upside does not strictly necessitate the sacrifice of lives. On the downside, many of these people (and, IMPORTANTLY, their governments) are bent on world domination of Islam, and at least one of them is blatantly pursuing nuclear offensive technology.
It's easy to say that you should never use violence, it's even easier to indiscriminately use violence to solve problems. What's hard is to accept that sometimes the answer necessitates war, and destruction, and the deaths of innocents. Yes, it's not pretty, yes it is horrible and monstrous, but the alternative is even worse, and it is the responsibility of those who can to protect rational civilization against the religious zealots.
Posted by: Santiago | October 14, 2007 12:48 PM
This just proves the Leader Figure is Dawkins, you dawkobot, you.
Good point. Very good point.
Of course it isn't. Not even the New Testament is nice (see a few threads ago). And the Old Testament has actually even worse orders about holy war than the Qur'an... I hope I can find the page with the comparisons again...
The point is that fundies of any stripe tend not to be much of a threat to anyone outside their own countries.
Let's just hope Busharraf isn't toppled. Because that would deliver Pakistan's nukes into the hands of al Qaida. Then you'd have a point.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 14, 2007 12:50 PM
Scifi and atheism... I can see it now. Just needs two things.
1) Prior costume.
2) Darwins' Origin of Species.
Dressed up in a Stargate Prior costume (whiteface, odd looking, Ori staff, etc) asking people if they want to read the Book of "Origin" (Origin of Species).
Posted by: Tatarize | October 14, 2007 12:51 PM
Let's see, what was Galloway's description of Hitchens? "A Gin-soaked Popinjay", and that seems to be the mot juste (if that's the French phrase I want).
Posted by: Mooser | October 14, 2007 12:52 PM
The Iranians lost the longing for a martyr's death 15 years ago. They aren't what I'm afraid of. They want nukes to deter the USA -- as long as that still works, see above.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 14, 2007 12:54 PM
First, I find it telling that so many who pride themselves on their rationality frequently resort to the irrelevant (and boring) "Hitchens likes to drink" bit.
Second, I get a kick out of those who say, "Ah, Hitchens doesn't know his history. Doesn't he know that kickin' butt never works? It's the battle of ideas that defeats the other side." Sure. The Nazi's were defeated by ideas. How could I have forgotten? So were the Persians. And the Carthaginians, too. Gotta bone up on my history. Maybe Hitchens will join me in a study group. Now don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that "kickin' butt" is the only approach. My point is that this stuff gets complicated, and to dismiss, a priori, the notion that killing the enemy might be the solution is -- well, silly.
Third, it's appalling that people who speak about the importance of a battle of ideas will so quickly dismiss someone like Hitchens -- who provides thoughtful arguments for his conclusions -- simply because of his ideas! Debate with him, question his premises, point out flaws in his reasoning -- this is how a battle of ideas proceeds -- but don't dismiss him with an insult (or two). And if you do take the latter course, then you have no credibility whatsoever when you speak about a battle of ideas.
Posted by: eric | October 14, 2007 1:01 PM
Unstable Isotope wrote:
And impugning your opponents as "sorry drunks" is better how?
That might be his method of debate, but it isn't his justification. Whether or not Hitchens thinks his opponents are stupid is irrelevant to his argument. And he does typically give reasons for his opinions. Just disagree with those, there's plenty to work with.
So despite the fact that you (presumably) are sober, you've managed to make Hitchens' mistake twice in one paragraph. Way to go! ;)
His position isn't exactly unheard of, so maybe we should try to address that, not his alcohol problem or debate style.
Posted by: Leni | October 14, 2007 1:02 PM
This "9-11 changed everything" crowd has always seemed to me a little insane, overly emotional, whatever you want to call it. Harris also talks a little like that sometimes. Sure, 9-11 wasn't the greatest moment in our history, but it certainly wasn't anywhere near the worst. I know people have made these cliche comparisons before: cancer, heart disease, car crashes, et cetera. 9-11 doesn't compare to any one of them. What's happened since 9-11 is far worse than what happened on 9-11. And I don't just mean car crashes and heart disease.
Posted by: Jon | October 14, 2007 1:16 PM
"If the text is to be followed fundamentally, then we're doomed no matter how nice we are."
It's not about being nice. It's about being rational. It's about using our energy, imagination, and resources to explore alternative ways of dealing with zealous, bigoted, fundamentalist mentality.
Rational, truth seeking people look at the pugnacious-ness within themselves and see it for the trouble making, endless cycle, dead end that it is. An unwillingness to explore alternatives to the "Let's just kill them all" mindset is the same lazy mindedness that rationalists eschew.
Posted by: RamblinDude | October 14, 2007 1:17 PM
Hitchens is to the progressive side of the debate what Ann Coulter is to the conservative (regressive?) side: An incredible embarrassment, whose sole purpose seems to be acting as a necrotic to intelligent discourse. Both Hitchens and Coulter (along with far too many others to name, but we know who they are), when confronted with fact-based, well-thought reasoning that contradicts their own beliefs, display all the dynamics of a preschool confrontation by resorting to name calling and calling their detractors' intelligence into question.
When I saw Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher flipping off the audience as they voiced their disagreement with some lame point of his, I knew he was an idiot, and frankly I cringed when I learned he had written a supposedly atheistic book because I knew this would be something the conservatives and theists would latch onto and use as "evidence" of the instability of freethinkers.
While I agree with PZ that voices such as Hitchens' shouldn't be silenced altogether (because otherwise how would we able to judge sane versus insane?), I think I've heard enough from the "superior intellect" to know his fame is unwarranted and undeserved. Let's stick with true intellects like Dawkins and Sweeney.
Posted by: Sir Craig | October 14, 2007 1:18 PM
Very well done - those are all very precise and accurate analogies to today's struggle with islamic extremists.
Posted by: syntyche | October 14, 2007 1:20 PM
Sir Craig wrote:
The difference is that Republicans are not embarrassed at all about AC. She actually represents what they all think.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 14, 2007 1:25 PM
Coulter is no embarrassment, Sir Craig. She speaks the truth for the fundamentalist. She honestly portrays the Christian fundamentalist position in almost all her speech.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/13/ann-coulter-explains-her-jews-need-be-perfected-comment
To compare that to Hitchens, imo, is wrong.
It's not lazy to consider fighting those who follow a text which says that you, the infidel, should be annihilated. It may be extreme, but it's not irrational.
Posted by: marcia | October 14, 2007 1:26 PM
PZ, did Hitchens ever use the word "murder" in his prescriptive program for the Moslem world?
"I want to murder the Muslims," would be the ultimate literary metaphor and frame.
Cocktail final solutions, so to wax poetic and literary.
Posted by: gerald spezio | October 14, 2007 1:28 PM
"David Paszkiewicz still teaches at that high school, and is apparently still dribbling out his superstitious nonsense to the students, which is unfortunate ..."
Ok, aren't you the same guy who said that people shouldn't homeschool, they should fight the school system and make it better if they aren't happy? Matt LaClair fought the school system. What good did it do? I get the distinct impression that the attitude here is, "Oh well. Matt, 'is going to rise above it and leave that school behind, soon enough.' All is well." Hey! What about everyone else?
Posted by: k | October 14, 2007 1:33 PM
heh. He's YOUR bomb-throwing anti-theist. Bummer when the worm turns, eh?
Posted by: Watto | October 14, 2007 1:35 PM
Hitchens reminds me of Oliver Reed...only with education, and reasoning capacity that exceeds that of an average spruce grouse.
Posted by: Barn Owl | October 14, 2007 1:42 PM
Syntyche wrote: "Very well done - those are all very precise and accurate analogies to today's struggle with islamic extremists."
The point isn't that these situations are analagous, but that force has in fact solved some problems in the past. I thought this was clear from the context of my remark, especially since I was responding to the notion that war never resolves conflicts, and that only ideas do.
Posted by: eric | October 14, 2007 1:44 PM
The Nazi's were defeated by ideas. How could I have forgotten?
Psst, the side that used the tactics Hitchens wants to employ are the side that lost that fight.
Third, it's appalling that people who speak about the importance of a battle of ideas will so quickly dismiss someone like Hitchens -- who provides thoughtful arguments for his conclusions -- simply because of his ideas! Debate with him, question his premises, point out flaws in his reasoning -- this is how a battle of ideas proceeds -- but don't dismiss him with an insult (or two). And if you do take the latter course, then you have no credibility whatsoever when you speak about a battle of ideas.
If you disagree with Hitchens on anything, the only thing he has is insults to throw back. What makes him worthy of that respect?
Posted by: Nerull | October 14, 2007 1:44 PM
"We cannot afford to allow the Iranian theocracy to arm itself with nuclear weapons (something I entirely sympathize with), and that the only solution is to go in there with bombs and marines and blow it all up."
I have to say I think that an Islamic theocracy with weapons would be a significantly more dangerous nuclear power than a secular government with nuclear weapons. (I also think the proposition I've just uttered should be obvious.) Still it seems to me an essential moral principle that one should always treat war as a last resort, after all the other carrots and sticks of normal diplomacy have been tried and failed. Additionally, morality aside, one couldn't trust the Bush administration to wage a war competently.
But if or when sanctions and rewards have failed? What's your position then? Islamic fanatics are not now a threat to us on the order of the Soviet Union. I, for one, want that state of affairs to continue.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | October 14, 2007 1:44 PM
PZ, if you're referring to Huntington's blasted "hypothesis" then that is no way good. Empirical studies of it have shown the damn it to be not-correct and deeply flawed, and examining the premises of it (the original paper's online for free) it is in no-way, shape or form even correct. Huntington can't even give a solid definition of what a civilisation is, something we generally tear creationists and ID'ists a new one over with their terminology.
The thing is, civilisations don't really exist as they're made up of competing nation-states which typically work along self-interest. Sometimes those interests intersect, sometimes the interactions are due to historical ties. They are less monoliths, and more mosaics.
When I encountered this in political science (I majored in biology), after examining the evidence presented I rejected Huntington, but also a good deal of what is meant by the term "civilisation". Although perhaps there is a clash of culture, but I'll wait for the objective, analytic evidence to come in before I make my mind up. And I don't mean "evidence + 1" :P
And as always the information is out there in the journals.
Sometimes, political science does actually do empirical studies...
Ah, otherwise, I wish there was something similar here in NZ, even if we had our very own version of Hitchens to get annoyed by.
Posted by: Nick | October 14, 2007 1:46 PM
If even some people cannot see the dying women and children ripped apart, rather than the empty words used, then there is no hope. Hitchens is another neo-con killer and as such a murderer but we have to say he "supports war." Wake up all! Discover you are human.
Posted by: fretchie | October 14, 2007 1:47 PM
Sure, you have to learn your history. We defeated the communists by force of arms. After the nuclear bombings of Moscow and Bejing as well as a few hundred other Soviet and Chinese cities, they were finished. They say that North America will be inhabitable in a few centuries unless we have to nuke those mutated cockroaches that seem to have taken over.
You are an idiot.
Posted by: raven | October 14, 2007 1:49 PM
Hitchens at least speaks from experience. He has spent some considerable time in the Middle East and has seen first hand the nastiest side of religious fundamentalism. That's not to say that I believe he is justified in calling for the widespread genocide of an indigenous population, but we should at least give him credit for having the background that entitles him to those opinions (even if they are ****ing barking!)
Posted by: PsychoAtheist | October 14, 2007 1:50 PM
is there a transcript or