Catch this Hitchens interview while it’s still available. He’s lovably irascible. My favorite part:
Interviewer: Do you think you would win more converts to atheism if you were less dismissive of religious…
Hitchens: I have no idea, but I can’t be other than dismissive. I hear someone like that sheep-faced loon from [garbled…a previous caller] I have to say it sounds like bleating to me, and I have to remember why you people call yourselves a flock. Be like a sheep yourself if you must, but please leave me out of it. I’m not a sheep and I don’t need a shepherd and what shepherds do when they’re not actually messing around with their sheep is they’re keeping them around and alive so they can be fleeced and then killed. And yes, hearing these bleatings from the church of England does remind me of that and I don’t feel any need to make converts by not saying what I think. I leave it to them to make their hypocritical, unctuous, pseudo-friendly statements in the hope of keeping people inside the church.
Wait, what? Is the interviewer basically asking, “Wouldn’t atheism be more successful if it were more religious?
I’m again reminded of why I don’t like Hitchens – his idea of rhetoric is akin to the WWF’s idea of wrestling.
Well of course it would. As Colbert once said, “if religion were based on evidence, then it would be called science… and no one would believe it.”
Good on ya, Hitch.
I’m 20% into the interview and it’s remarkable Hitchens can still make me grin after already viewing 3-4 such interviews on his book these months. He’s clearly bucking for the 21st century’s H.L. Mencken throne (Hitchens is an American now, so he is eligible for that one).
Also, this interviewer so far strikes me as quite good too, asking direct and useful questions both about Hitchens himself and his ideas. More of that, please.
My favorite part so far:
Congrats on making the preface of the paperback “God Delusion”, PZ! The main text wasn’t enough, huh?
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/06/richard_dawkins_11.html
I felt kind of sorry for the Reverend Tim going head to head with Hitchens. Apparently he’s never had to argue for his beliefs before.
I am again reminded of why I DO like Hitchens. His idea of rhetoric is to think things through and understand his arguments thoroughly enough to be erudite and forceful.
And once again I am reminded why I like P.Z’s erudite, acid tongued, humorous approach to myth busting.
“His idea of rhetoric is to think things through and understand his arguments thoroughly enough to be erudite and forceful…”
“…and then to express them in terms and with a tone that completely dismisses those who disagree with him as utter simpletons.”
If you were drafting a team of debaters for a round of public discourse, Hitchens would go in the first round.
“…and then to express them in terms and with a tone that completely dismisses those who disagree with him as utter simpletons.”
In this case his assessment is accurate.
Ya, but it would be fun to watch.
It’s a good interview, I really like Simon Mayo (listen to him every day in the lab). I’ve got a feeling he sides with Hitchens in this debate.
Speaking of Hitchen, he is on Question Time with his brother (first time ever apparently) in 15 minutes.
Although I thoroughly disagree with Hitchens on his stand over Iraq, I have to say he is bang on when it comes to the issue of religion!
Not being dismissed as a simpleton involves first not acting like one. It’s not Hitchens’ fault when his opponents fail to meet that minimum requirement.
I never get people like Hitchens. How is it that he can be an atheist, and so insightful (not to mention entertaining) on the topic, and yet be a republican and support bush and the Iraq invasion and occupation? I just don’t get it. Is it related to all the drinking he seems to do?
“I’m again reminded of why I don’t like Hitchens – his idea of rhetoric is akin to the WWF’s idea of wrestling.”
I don’t know if I’d use that anology. The WWE is a company that grosses about $100 million quaterly and basically has a monopoly in it’s industry. As retarded as their gimmicks and booking may be, whatever they do is still effective.
That, of course, assumes that people care about the effectiveness of the message. If it’s personal distaste, none of that matters.
Timothy: Hitchens definitely didn’t mean he was a Republican (as in the party of George Bush). He was speaking in the UK, and meant that he is a republican in the sense that he is against the idea of Monarchy and its titles.
Hitchens has been an apologist for many of Bush’s most radical positions. His atheism has been a constant during his shifting political stance, which seems to boil down to a series of ill-considered positions on one extreme or the other. I liked his rant here; on many other subjects he’s incoherent. For one thing he thinks the Dixie Chicks are “fat f__king slags”, which demonstrates a peculiar attitude about what makes a woman’s body sexy. :)
…and it’s already available online:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/
Click on the “Latest Programme” button on the right.
I haven’t watched it yet, but since Hitchens uses the word “contemptible” barely three minute in, I would suspect it is a lively show.
FYI, the garbled bit from the quote in the OP is “Blandford Forum”. I used to do an orchestra course in the school there once a year.
Whatever else one may think of Hitchens, he can turn phrase. For example his comment “…when they’re [the not actually messing around with their sheep is they’re keeping them around and alive so they can be fleeced and then killed.” In a nutshell that’s what the Fallwells, Robertsons, scientologist and the Papacy do. Although the kill part for most contemporary Christians is no metaphoric.
Oh, I’ve long thought that one could take that “Shepherd/Sheep” simile for the religious congregation as far as one might wish and have it still hold. To wit: The shepherd guides the flock, protects the flock, shears (“fleeces”) the flock, and not uncommonly buggers at least several members of the flock in addition to killing and eating them. And then there are all of the other ancillaries that a flock of sheep attracts such as sheep dogs (deacons to inquisitions), various predators (con artists of all kinds); even parasites of diverse and repulsive sorts. It’s a whole ecologic system!
He is a breath of fresh air in a world that stinks of religion.
I love listening to Hitch. He says the things I think but I’m too polite to say.
I meant on religion, not Iraq.
> I never get people like Hitchens. How is it that he can be an atheist, and so insightful
> (not to mention entertaining) on the topic, and yet be a republican
> and support bush and the Iraq invasion and occupation? I just don’t
> get it. Is it related to all the drinking he seems to do?
I see no reason why an atheist should be more inclined toward pacifism and/or isolationism than a religous person. There were (and probably are) many religous conservatives wich had an isolationist view of foreign policy, and many atheist marxists dreamed of violent world revolution. In fact, isolationism might be a logical consequence of the generally parochial mentality of religous conservatives.
BTW, in the german-speaking countries, the churches were against the Iraq invasion, while atheist marxists supported it (the Baathist regime was considered to be in the tradition of Hitler by them).
Then your politeness is no virtue.
If you like Hitchens, I have posted a long, long list of Hitchens debates and lectures.