Wow. Way to go James. Are we witnessing the career beginnings of the next Larry King perhaps?
In the interest of full disclosure, however, I should confess that I am now reading Terry Eagleton's Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate, which is an unrelenting assault on both The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and God Is Not Great: The Case Against Religion by Christopher Hitchens.
Among other things, Eagleton claims that Hitchens and Dawkins are simply out of their depth and criticize something they know nothing about. His comment on Dawkins here could for Eagleton be as easliy applied to Hitchens:"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the British Book of Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."
I think the most compelling argument against that criticism is the following: you don't have to be an expert in alchemy or astrology to dismiss their claims.
I actually just read an interview with Eagleton and he seemed pretty bummed about the political positions of both Hitchens and Martin Amis. He now only reads Hitchens' literary criticism.
Disclosure: I still haven't seen the video so I still don't know what I'm talking about. But I couldn't pass up a double entendre and a self-referential statement in one post. After all I'm a humor writer, but no one notices. (ba dum)
As to humoral theory--but you took a course in humoral theory. OK, I'm not going to argue much about dismissing astrology without doing serious study. Although it is a great way to get girls, which, after all, is the measure of all things. But dismissing something without know much about it seems to be the mantra of many who are against evolution, global warming and gay marriage. I would not want to embrace it too tightly.
Interestingly, Uncle Jim, those against evolution, global warming and gay marriage dismiss, not because they lack knowledge, but they use evidence found in a two thousand year old book. Those groups can be be distinguished along religious and age lines.
I don't need to be a civil rights lawyer to know that discrimination against a group is unconstitutional.
I don't need to be a biologist to watch the micro evolution to occur.
I don't need to be a meteorologist to know that human activity can influence the environment.
I don't need to be a student of the humoral theory to know that when I get cut I bleed red blood not yellow bile.
I don't need to be a theologian to know that the Qur'an phrase, "Menstruation is a sickness. Don't have sex with menstruating women", is a phrase about menstruation. And is not a sickness.
Yes, it is important to understand what you are criticizing (to understand their thinking) but I don't need to go to seminary school to know that throwing acid in a woman's face just because she wants to go to school is wrong.
"I don't need to be a civil rights lawyer to know that discrimination against a group is unconstitutional."
If Pete is saying that it is unconstitutional for anyone to discriminate against any group, that would be incorrect. And, speaking as a civil rights lawyer, what the U.S. Constitution requires may not be all that obvious.
First, the Constitution says nothing about discrimination by a private individual or a business. Certain laws, like Title VII, prohibit private discrimination, but the Constitution applies only to the federal government, and sometimes to state governments.
And which groups can the federal and state governments discriminate against? Well, they can’t discriminate based on race or national origin – oops, except in time of war. Korematsu v. United States (1944) (Supreme Court approved internment based on Japanese ancestry). Can governments discriminate based on gender? Answer: it depends. In Lehr v. Robertson (1983), the Supreme Court upheld a New York law requiring notice of any adoption proceeding to all mothers of illegitimate children but requiring notice only to certain fathers.
States may not discriminate based on alienage – they can’t even discriminate against illegal aliens. Plyer v. Doe (1982). But the federal government can discriminate against aliens. Go figure. Most of the time, governments cannot discriminate based on illegitimacy; but sometimes they can.
Governments can discriminate based on age, income and occupation and most other things. Governments can discriminate against gays, except sometimes. Romer v. Evans (1996).
To cut to the chase here, you could write a treatise on how and when the state and federal governments may discriminate under the Constitution and, come to think of it, people have. Even being a civil rights lawyer won’t give you all the answers but it will be a start.
One final point, you may not have to go to seminary to know that throwing acid in a woman's face just because she wants to go to school is wrong, but you may have to go to seminary to understand what Soren Kierkegaard means in this short passage from “The Sickness unto Death”: “Man is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but that the relation relates itself to its own self.”
Ah, I've finally watched the video and I like it a lot--especially the unseen interviewer, sort of a benevolent God-like figure. Actually I like the thoughts and ideas of Hitchens and agree with 99% of what he is saying.
I have one small criticism and one, hopefully, deflecting comment. He seemed to have a slight defensive attitude as opposed to a positive one, however that may be just because some of the questions were to get his response to critical views.
The comment regards the hot potato topic of religion. I don't think he pretends to be a deep philosophic or religious thinker. He is responding to popular religion and it's influence on our culture and society. I haven't read his works so perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think it's fair to bring up Heidegger or Kierkegaard because that's not what he's talking about. He's talking about popular religion.
It is quite interesting and educational. I watched it numerous times. Congrats James.
Opps my generalizations are... a little too general (Government can fuck us whenever just my wishful thinking otherwise) (not well thought out), my point when Jim stated "dismissing something without know much about it seems to be the mantra of many who are against evolution, global warming and gay marriage." was that this is not the case, these people know a lot about each subject and understand it but forgo the evidence in favor of writings two thousands years ago.
I think a lot of atheists' beef with religion is not the belief in God (people should be free to believe in whatever they want) but the inherent flaws of institutional religion. One, all religions claim a sort of legitimacy as holders of truth without evidence and two, tend to push their beliefs on others. You don't need theology school to recognize those similarities across all religions. You can provide evidence against a religion without needing to understand its theology-(not sure how understanding Soren's definition of self is going to change my argument against acid in the face)
Finally, I don't think seminary school will help you with Kiekegaard's phrase, I am pretty sure that is a chinese riddle, like a tree falling in the forest.
Ernest Becker is quoted correctly..."avoid the fatality of death". I assume the author did not choose the word frivolously. If death=fatality maybe he wanted to take death out of death. Make death a different meaning. Or at least a different meaning when it associates itself with humans. Death can stay fatal for animals and plants. But let's make death for humans more palatable. Death is a beginning, a transformation, a promise of life eternal. How can we just die and rot in the ground as all other life does? Death, to most? humans, is not thought of as final. Finality isn't death. That's not the definition for finality. Finality is certainty. We certainly are going to die. We're going to die but thank goodness we have somewhere else to go like somewhere over the rainbow and not into a pile of dirt.
My favorite is getting rid of Thomas Jefferson, Hitchens hero, in Texas...as for Mary's point concerning Ernest Becker, I hadn't thought in that way, now Becker's word choice make sense.
Though, I don't think Hitchens would change his mind on his idea that "fatality" is a poor word choice (though no longer on definitional reason) For Becker's phrase/idea to work there has to be an assumption that humans are somehow intrinsically better than other animals and plants, which of course has no evidence (a no no to Hitchens, as far as I understand his work).
20 comments:
Wow. Way to go James. Are we witnessing the career beginnings of the next Larry King perhaps?
In the interest of full disclosure, however, I should confess that I am now reading Terry Eagleton's Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate, which is an unrelenting assault on both The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and God Is Not Great: The Case Against Religion by Christopher Hitchens.
Among other things, Eagleton claims that Hitchens and Dawkins are simply out of their depth and criticize something they know nothing about. His comment on Dawkins here could for Eagleton be as easliy applied to Hitchens:"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the British Book of Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."
I think the most compelling argument against that criticism is the following: you don't have to be an expert in alchemy or astrology to dismiss their claims.
I actually just read an interview with Eagleton and he seemed pretty bummed about the political positions of both Hitchens and Martin Amis. He now only reads Hitchens' literary criticism.
Where'd the video go??
Recalled for some editing, should be up in a few hours.
I haven't seen the video, but I'd like to jump right in anyway. Apparently, you don't have to know about something in order to dismiss it.
I know next to nothing about humoral theory, but I feel confident dismissing it.
Disclosure: I still haven't seen the video so I still don't know what I'm talking about. But I couldn't pass up a double entendre and a self-referential statement in one post. After all I'm a humor writer, but no one notices. (ba dum)
As to humoral theory--but you took a course in humoral theory. OK, I'm not going to argue much about dismissing astrology without doing serious study. Although it is a great way to get girls, which, after all, is the measure of all things. But dismissing something without know much about it seems to be the mantra of many who are against evolution, global warming and gay marriage. I would not want to embrace it too tightly.
Two points:
1. Jim, this discussion has nothing to do with the video, so don't feel constrained in any way.
2. Ay, there's the sticky wicket: how do we know what to dismiss without examination and what ought to be studied.
Not related to the video but Jim's point,
Interestingly, Uncle Jim, those against evolution, global warming and gay marriage dismiss, not because they lack knowledge, but they use evidence found in a two thousand year old book. Those groups can be be distinguished along religious and age lines.
I don't need to be a civil rights lawyer to know that discrimination against a group is unconstitutional.
I don't need to be a biologist to watch the micro evolution to occur.
I don't need to be a meteorologist to know that human activity can influence the environment.
I don't need to be a student of the humoral theory to know that when I get cut I bleed red blood not yellow bile.
I don't need to be a theologian to know that the Qur'an phrase, "Menstruation is a sickness. Don't have sex with menstruating women", is a phrase about menstruation. And is not a sickness.
Yes, it is important to understand what you are criticizing (to understand their thinking) but I don't need to go to seminary school to know that throwing acid in a woman's face just because she wants to go to school is wrong.
"I don't need to be a civil rights lawyer to know that discrimination against a group is unconstitutional."
If Pete is saying that it is unconstitutional for anyone to discriminate against any group, that would be incorrect. And, speaking as a civil rights lawyer, what the U.S. Constitution requires may not be all that obvious.
First, the Constitution says nothing about discrimination by a private individual or a business. Certain laws, like Title VII, prohibit private discrimination, but the Constitution applies only to the federal government, and sometimes to state governments.
And which groups can the federal and state governments discriminate against? Well, they can’t discriminate based on race or national origin – oops, except in time of war. Korematsu v. United States (1944) (Supreme Court approved internment based on Japanese ancestry). Can governments discriminate based on gender? Answer: it depends. In Lehr v. Robertson (1983), the Supreme Court upheld a New York law requiring notice of any adoption proceeding to all mothers of illegitimate children but requiring notice only to certain fathers.
States may not discriminate based on alienage – they can’t even discriminate against illegal aliens. Plyer v. Doe (1982). But the federal government can discriminate against aliens. Go figure. Most of the time, governments cannot discriminate based on illegitimacy; but sometimes they can.
Governments can discriminate based on age, income and occupation and most other things. Governments can discriminate against gays, except sometimes. Romer v. Evans (1996).
To cut to the chase here, you could write a treatise on how and when the state and federal governments may discriminate under the Constitution and, come to think of it, people have. Even being a civil rights lawyer won’t give you all the answers but it will be a start.
One final point, you may not have to go to seminary to know that throwing acid in a woman's face just because she wants to go to school is wrong, but you may have to go to seminary to understand what Soren Kierkegaard means in this short passage from “The Sickness unto Death”: “Man is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but that the relation relates itself to its own self.”
(As an aside, I'd appreciate the story as to how they pulled this interview off.)
Ah, I've finally watched the video and I like it a lot--especially the unseen interviewer, sort of a benevolent God-like figure. Actually I like the thoughts and ideas of Hitchens and agree with 99% of what he is saying.
I have one small criticism and one, hopefully, deflecting comment. He seemed to have a slight defensive attitude as opposed to a positive one, however that may be just because some of the questions were to get his response to critical views.
The comment regards the hot potato topic of religion. I don't think he pretends to be a deep philosophic or religious thinker. He is responding to popular religion and it's influence on our culture and society. I haven't read his works so perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think it's fair to bring up Heidegger or Kierkegaard because that's not what he's talking about. He's talking about popular religion.
It is quite interesting and educational. I watched it numerous times. Congrats James.
Opps my generalizations are... a little too general (Government can fuck us whenever just my wishful thinking otherwise) (not well thought out), my point when Jim stated "dismissing something without know much about it seems to be the mantra of many who are against evolution, global warming and gay marriage." was that this is not the case, these people know a lot about each subject and understand it but forgo the evidence in favor of writings two thousands years ago.
I think a lot of atheists' beef with religion is not the belief in God (people should be free to believe in whatever they want) but the inherent flaws of institutional religion. One, all religions claim a sort of legitimacy as holders of truth without evidence and two, tend to push their beliefs on others. You don't need theology school to recognize those similarities across all religions. You can provide evidence against a religion without needing to understand its theology-(not sure how understanding Soren's definition of self is going to change my argument against acid in the face)
Finally, I don't think seminary school will help you with Kiekegaard's phrase, I am pretty sure that is a chinese riddle, like a tree falling in the forest.
Hey all, I'll put up a more detailed post about the interview soon.
Let's try this again. Testing 1,2,3....
Ernest Becker is quoted correctly..."avoid the fatality of death". I assume the author did not choose the word frivolously. If death=fatality maybe he wanted to take death out of death. Make death a different meaning. Or at least a different meaning when it associates itself with humans. Death can stay fatal for animals and plants. But let's make death for humans more palatable. Death is a beginning, a transformation, a promise of life eternal. How can we just die and rot in the ground as all other life does? Death, to most? humans, is not thought of as final. Finality isn't death. That's not the definition for finality. Finality is certainty. We certainly are going to die. We're going to die but thank goodness we have somewhere else to go like somewhere over the rainbow and not into a pile of dirt.
I wonder what Mr. Hitchens would say about this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1253
My favorite is getting rid of Thomas Jefferson, Hitchens hero, in Texas...as for Mary's point concerning Ernest Becker, I hadn't thought in that way, now Becker's word choice make sense.
Though, I don't think Hitchens would change his mind on his idea that "fatality" is a poor word choice (though no longer on definitional reason) For Becker's phrase/idea to work there has to be an assumption that humans are somehow intrinsically better than other animals and plants, which of course has no evidence (a no no to Hitchens, as far as I understand his work).
Post a Comment