# Christopher Hitchens Dies Aged 62.



## mosaix (Dec 19, 2011)

Apologies if this has already been discussed. 

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/16/143595854/writer-christopher-hitchens-dies

This man was a personal hero of mine. I will never forget him taking on Tony Blair in a televised debate on the existance of God.

For me, his main qualities were honesty and a total lack of fear in his writing.

For those who haven't read any of his stuff I can't recommend it too highly.

62 is no age at all and he will be sorely missed.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 20, 2011)

I must admit that I am surprised that no one has commented on this one, given Hitch's controversial position. However...

As I said elsewhere, whilst Hitchens could at times be abrasive, he really was a breath of fresh air in an atmosphere of too often befogged mentality, and though I disagreed with him on various points, I also found myself admiring the man all the more the more I listened to what he had to say. And yes, in some ways, he was definitely a hero of mine, and I already miss him... a darned sight more than I ever would have expected.

He was one of the most articulate, courageous, determined, and entertaining people to open up debate on unpopular views, and we are not likely to see anyone who can fill that role with the same panache and _sang froid_ again....


----------



## Pyan (Dec 20, 2011)

Moved to "Obituaries"...


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Dec 20, 2011)

A very great man & atheist. Respect - and RIP.


----------



## J-WO (Dec 20, 2011)

j. d. worthington said:


> I must admit that I am surprised that no one has commented on this one, given Hitch's controversial position. However...



I was going to do an obit here but decided against it in the end. Firstly, because he wasn't an SF figure (aside from looking at _Nineteen-EightyFour_ in his marvellous book about Orwell)- indeed, he's on record as seeing it as a waste of time. Secondly, I've always got the impression that there's an unspoken rule about religious debate here at the Chrons- that it'd get unpleasant pretty quickly given our collective, erm, _Catholic_ tastes. And fair enough, arguably, because the rest of the net is brimming with it.

But, yeah, Hitch was a one off alright. Utterly fearless. My favourite horseman. And that line about Falwell and the matchbox- sublime.


----------



## Abernovo (Dec 20, 2011)

He had the ability to annoy the heck out of me when I watched, read or listened to him, but as he made me think about my own views, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Even though I disagreed with a lot of his views, I respected and valued his wit intelligence and honesty. I also loved that he was a gadfly, annoying self-important and often hypocritical political and religious figures.

Not always a comfortable figure, I guess, but we might benefit from having a few more public figures who actually make you think (even if you do sometimes want to throw the radio out the window at what was said).


----------



## J-WO (Dec 20, 2011)

Its worth mentioning that a lot of his religious opponents have come out and made some nice tributes. I think that's testament to Hitch's affability and calm debating demeanour.


----------



## mosaix (Dec 21, 2011)

pyan said:


> Moved to "Obituaries"...



Would have posted it here in the first place, Py, apart from this rule in the sticky at the top of the forum:

"*the person has links with the SF/F/horror genre.*"

Can't think who posted the sticky. 

I don't want to start a relgious debate but here is the U-tube link to the Hitchens / Blair debate. Here we have Hitchens at his best showing up Blair for what he was - a shallow human being at best.

I almost cry listening to Hitchens here because it is possible we will never see his like again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddsz9XBhrYA


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Dec 22, 2011)

There's plenty of atheists to take his place, don't worry.


----------



## J-WO (Dec 22, 2011)

Stephen Palmer said:


> There's plenty of atheists to take his place, don't worry.



Well, if the position comes with his cabinet of single malts consider this my application!


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Dec 22, 2011)

Here's some:

Douglas Adams, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Woody Allen, Lance Armstrong, Darren Aronofsky, Isaac Asimov, Dan Barker, Dave Barry, Ingmar Bergman, Richard Branson, James Cameron, George Carlin, John Carmack, Adam Carolla, John Carpenter, Asia Carrera, Fidel Castro, Noam Chomsky, Jeremy Clarkson, Billy Connolly, Francis Crick, David Cronenberg, David Cross, Alan Cumming, Rodney Dangerfield, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Ani DiFranco, Micky Dolenz, Harlan Ellison, Richard Feynman, Harvey Fierstein, Larry Flynt, Dave Foley, Jodie Foster, Janeane Garofalo, Bill Gates, Bob Geldof, Ricky Gervais, Ira Glass, James Gleick, Robert Heinlein, Ernest Hemingway, Katharine Hepburn, Christopher Hitchens, Jamie Hyneman, Eddie Izzard, Penn Jillette, Billy Joel, Diane Keaton, Michael Kinsley, Hugh Laurie, Artie Lange, Richard Leakey, Bruce Lee, Tom Lehrer, John Lennon, Tom Leykis, James Lipton, H.P. Lovecraft, Bill Maher, John Malkovich, Barry Manilow, Todd McFarlane, Sir Ian McKellen, Arthur Miller, Frank Miller, Julianne Moore, Rafael Nadal, Randy Newman, Mike Nichols, Jack Nicholson, Gary Numan, Bob Odenkirk, Patton Oswalt, Camille Paglia, Steven Pinker, Paula Poundstone, Terry Pratchett, Robin Quivers, James Randi, Ron Reagan Jr., Keanu Reeves, Rick Reynolds, Gene Roddenberry, Joe Rogan, Henry Rollins, Andy Rooney, Salman Rushdie, Brian Sapient, Bob Simon, Steven Soderbergh, Annika Sorenstam, George Soros, Richard Stallman, Howard Stern, Julia Sweeney, Teller, Studs Terkel, Pat Tillman, Alan Turing, Eddie Vedder, Gore Vidal, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Steven Weinberg, Joss Whedon, Ted Williams, Steve Wozniak...

My votes would go to Salman Rushdie, Eddie Izzard and Daniel Dennett. I would have put Richard Dawkins, who has done so much marvellous work, but he's become a caricature of himself in recent years and is verging on unwatchable...


----------



## Pyan (Dec 22, 2011)

mosaix said:


> Would have posted it here in the first place, Py, apart from this rule in the sticky at the top of the forum:
> 
> "*the person has links with the SF/F/horror genre.*"
> 
> Can't think who posted the sticky.



Err - yes. Short-term memory's going, sorry. I'll leave it here now, and try to remember to read my own stickies in future...


----------



## Gary Compton (Dec 22, 2011)

Aye sort yourself oot Pyan 

I love the countdown on your avatar by the way. 

Happy Xmas!


----------



## J-WO (Dec 23, 2011)

Nice list, Stephen! I kind of like the idea of Rodney Dangerfield being the new Hitch. His debating style would be interesting!


----------



## Allegra (Dec 23, 2011)

What a sad, sad news. Only recently I read his *God Is Not Great* and what a fabulous book that is! I'm definitely going to get his others.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Dec 23, 2011)

J-WO said:


> Nice list, Stephen! I kind of like the idea of Rodney Dangerfield being the new Hitch. His debating style would be interesting!



Or Bob Geldof. "Stop f***ing believing in God _now_ and give me the f***ing money."


----------



## J-WO (Dec 24, 2011)

One person mentioned on the list is stunningly obvious but almost always overlooked- John Lennon. Imagine is atheistic humanism set to lyrics and also happens to be one of the most famous songs in the world. As Lennon himself said- 'It's a very controversial song but no one notices because its covered in sugar'.

But to return to Hitch- one of the things thats happened is that people (in their tributes) are describing personal conversations they had with the man, often with Hitchens throwing out some aphorism or idea he never put in to writing. I hope at some point someone collates them all. Hitchen's Hadiths, if you will, as inappropriate as that title would be of course...


----------



## Toby Frost (Dec 31, 2011)

I did like Hitchens' work. He had the ability of talking common sense. He seems to have been unaffected by that moral relativism that affects many left-wingers when they talk about people who aren't white, and which can easily become the racism it seeks to avoid. In a way it's a shame Hitchens became so linked to the anti-religion cause, as he had a lot to say on politics and broader issues that I found interesting rather than just the Richard Dawkins stuff.

For anyone wanting further reading, I'd recommend _What's Left?_ a polemic by Nick Cohen, another member of the (now pretty defunct) Euston Manifesto group. It's slightly more populist, but covers related ground and is quite well written.


----------



## J-WO (Jan 2, 2012)

With regards to what Toby says above, here's a link to Daily Hitchens, a website that's collected all his online articles and should provide a rounder picture of Hitch's work.


----------



## LawrieBrewster (Jan 5, 2012)

Yep seems out of place on this forum to mark the obituary of someone i'd have considered a hack, who derided his own country and made a career over collective amnesia over his positions on Iraq and entertainment based polemics (such as declaring war on mother theresa and other PR stunts on Fox News.) 

There are debates that reveal the man's very real limitations also... including those against George Galloway (over Iraq) or John Lennox over the evil's of religion. 

That said, he was to me at least a genuinely witty but deeply troubled fellow. He could turn a phrase and never ignored a challenge - and yet... he actively searched for them wherever attention might be found. 

So i won't join in the cause celebre of some over his supposed achievements, which are grossly exagerrated to me. I will however credit the man with being a great debater and an entertaining intellectual figure whose presence is certainly missed. 

My favourite moment of his was giving the finger to Bill Bahers audience when they booed a particular view of his  Marked belligerence few could carry off so well


----------



## LawrieBrewster (Jan 5, 2012)

Oops and I forgot to add lol, a few of your listed figures you claim to be 'atheist' were agnostic or rejected the atheist label (for example George Carlin.) Regardless of whether one 'believes' such individuals to hold a view compatable to their own, i think its a little presumptious to label them with a particular stance when they reject such distinctions themselves.


----------



## J-WO (Jan 6, 2012)

Apologies, Mr Brewster. We'll never mark the passing of anyone you consider a hack ever again.


----------



## LawrieBrewster (Jan 6, 2012)

I also paid Hitchens some compliments J-WO. So unless we're free to post obituaries about political and religious figures (of whatever ideology or belief) then its inevitable that controversial figures, especially those that EMBRACED controversy - often cynically before the release of a book... aren't going to be gushed about by everyone. 

Most of the fuss here seems to be made about his supposed accomplishments within his 'new atheist' career, which is ironic given the decades of work he dedicated towards political critique and Marxism. Its just a comic example of how one can be completely redefined should they catch on to the trending zeitgeist of the online literate. I suspect Hitchens was aware of that too...

So while i don't object to the marking of his passing (like i wouldn't object to anyones) the question that remains is that it was not appropriate to mark it here as he does incite conflict and has nothing to do with SFF. 

If someone posted an obituary to a religious figure for example, you can be sure that a swathe of those disagreeble with their views might post 'oh he was a nice guy but he was nuts for believing x' such as the type oft inspired to speak out and provocate by _Dawkins Hitchens et all.  _

I'll add that i respected his wit, humour and his ability to utilise rhetoric.


----------



## J-WO (Jan 6, 2012)

LawrieBrewster said:


> If someone posted an obituary to a religious figure for example, you can be sure that a swathe of those disagreeble with their views might post 'oh he was a nice guy but he was nuts for believing x' such as the type oft inspired to speak out and provocate by _Dawkins Hitchens et all.  _



Not around here we don't. Not either way. Well, until now...


----------



## LawrieBrewster (Jan 6, 2012)

If i see someone lauded for a view or actions i consider to be disagreeable then im going to express my disagreement as others might. This discussion is INVITED if it is allowed on a forum and consists of individuals making political and religious ideological assertations unrelated to SFF. My disagreement is no different to those expressing agreement to the views of this individual (or to each others.) 

There is a big difference between saying its sad that someone has passed and soap standing for their (very particular) ideological views. The diversion this thread took from the original post (as i anticipated) into a new atheism cheer leading squad proves my point. Only a few posts and we already have lists of celebrity atheists and general faffle. So I called it as i saw it. 

Perhaps like Hitchens i don't care if that makes me particularly endearing or not and unless this thread was a private party for new atheists, then as a public thread I feel quite entitled to express my view too.



> Not around here we don't. Not either way. Well, until now...


Then i presume you'd have no objection to members posting obituaries for other non related sff figures, perhaps including serial killers and other meanies... because god forbid if anyone expressed disagreement then... or is that hypocritically different because we'd perhaps share a common consensus there


----------



## Ursa major (Jan 6, 2012)

I'm sure J-Wo can more than handle it, LawrieBrewster, but the Chrons is not a place where people should ever feel that they're being called out.

_Ideas_ can be debated as fiercely as the debaters like, provided they respect the family-friendliness of the Chrons, but the posting of _ad hominem_ attacks, should this occur**, will lead to consideration being given to threads being closed, posts being removed from public sight and, where deemed necessary, sanctions being taken against those posting them.

So debate away....


EDIT: Glad to see you've removed the line of text that caused me to post the above, LawrieBrewster. 



** And it isn't going to, is it?


----------



## LawrieBrewster (Jan 6, 2012)

hehe i mean it might depend on the serial killer...

Thanks Ursa and yep attempted to PM (not enough posts to yet boo) to say i had haha - (which for disclosure J-WO) was just a line that read too sarcastically when reading back


----------



## mosaix (Jan 6, 2012)

LawrieBrewster said:


> So while i don't object to the marking of his passing (like i wouldn't object to anyones) the question that remains is that it was not appropriate to mark it here as he does incite conflict and has nothing to do with SFF.



The question remains no longer. I didn't mark it 'here' (Obituaries) or post it as an obituary.  I originally posted the thread under World Affairs (not specifically SFF related). But it was moved here accidentally by an over-enthusiastic mod (no names mentioned ), see post 3 and 8.

But regardless, the very nature of Chrons is that we very rarely incite conflict - just good natured discussion.


----------



## LawrieBrewster (Jan 6, 2012)

hehe makes sense mosaix  

I think with such a controversial and provocative figure as Hitchens its very easy for conflict to erupt as he made a career of offending certain groups, and so when supporters of his share in their admiration of particular views, it naturally provokes a response. Something Hitchens enjoyed doing so in his career, and accomplished with aplomb  

Though to him (I speculate) it was a great game of sorts, which you could see (I believe) in his debate demeanour, a sort of humour in playing the eternal devils advocate for the zeitgiest of the day. 

Now we're left with the comparatively less humourous Peter Hitchens! It is touching that they enjoyed a reconciliation too incidentally.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 6, 2012)

Incidentally, and just to be a bit pedantic... Hitchens did have at least a tangential relation to sff in that he did the foreword to a book of writings by H. P. Lovecraft....

I have a question, though: you mention Hitch's "[making] a career over collective amnesia over his positions on Iraq". This may seem an obvious thing but... to what are you referring here? and could you direct me to examples?


----------



## LawrieBrewster (Jan 6, 2012)

Hey J.D, my quote is of course just my opinion. If I may, id rather address your question indirectly (as a specific attempt to validate my opinion would consist of me listing 'charges' against Hitchens credibility which doesnt sit well with me on a thread paying respect to him. 

So indirectly... my general critique or comment referred to the way in which Hitchens in my view, cynically reinvents his political allegiances and 'causes' to the prevailing winds that best leave him in the position of 'chief polemicist' in the eyes of the media. Of course anyones entitled to change their mind but Hitchens motives ran uncomfortably close to the dates for book launches... tv appearances and so forth. 

There are various newspaper/magazine articles that criticise the positions Hitchens hold (or there hypocrisy) just as there are those endorsing particulars views he's held (past and present) particularly over the conflict of the middle east, his marxist/right wing swings etc. 

It is noticeable that his plaudits in this thread gush forth from his more 'recent' image as a 'new atheist', but he has a history of public expression and polemical statements that create a more complex image for those familiar with his earlier career as a Marxist/Socialist political correspondant in the UK.

As such i admire him mostly as a great debater - with a brilliant grasp of rhetoric and language.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 6, 2012)

Thanks for the response. I know about his Marxist positions -- he frequently mentioned them in various lectures and debates, and also explained why he changed them over time (albeit, as he sometimes noted, with some regret), but was not aware of a reversal when it came to Iraq. Once you can send a PM, I'd appreciate any further information on this as well....

As for his more recent activities... I am becoming rather strongly of the opinion that this is going to be one of the key struggles in the coming years, so it doesn't surprise me that the focus here (as elsewhere) is largely on this aspect of his career....


----------



## LawrieBrewster (Jan 6, 2012)

Its a wild speculation but I think Hitchens would have backed and forth between his positions over time - always evolving his arguments of course, he was a man that always stalked sacred cows for hunting (and once one plain became empty...) back he'd go imo (to the left or the right.) The Iraq comment is a general reference from his views expressed in the late 70s (regarding Saddam as the new Nasser) to his rejection of the first Gulf War and subsequent support for neo-conservative US foriegn policy. 

I think your right about the 'key struggle.' You see to me religious fundamentalism of any kind is a danger that states and their people must prepare against but... the same can be said for secular fundamentalism or militancy. 

I prefer fighting for moderation, inclusion and compromise. In fact i can be a bit of a polemicist myself on that front. The same doey eyed look rests in the eyes of a sanctimonious kid, be them gripping a copy of the Bible or... The God Delusion. Acolytes of neither fold do we want determing the future of Western civilisation...  

In fact you need only look at the online comments of those clearly inspired by 'new atheism' across forums and news articles to see that there is a tonne of venom waiting in the wings - which is not conducive towards a civilised society. That does not diminish the dangers of fundamentalism or reactionaries in the 'relgious' sphere either but we're much more used to conceptualising that... and have forgotten the dangers inherit in the other imo.  

I much preferred the intellectual and philosophical atheism of a gentleman like Anthony Flew to the Marxist militancy of Hitchens (and ironically the ring wing inspired secularist/Thatcherism of Dawkins.)

It's all in the connotation.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 7, 2012)

Interesting post. I tend toward a fairly "strong" atheism myself, but -- in part perhaps having come from a fundamentalist background -- am also rather concerned about the intolerance I see coming from many atheists toward believers. I agree with their philosophical stance, but I have grave reservations about their approach toward the _people_ on the other side. In this, I think Hitchens sometimes erred toward the acerbic end needlessly... though at the same time, I think there is a certain degree to which such a strong reaction is reasonanble, especially here in the States, where studies indicate that atheists are among the least accepted members of the society overall. I personally would prefer a civil discourse, but there are times -- and politically, at least, the current situation seems especially prone to this -- where the more aggressive stance is actually the best to take, if one does not wish to see the right to express contrary or unpopular opinions stifled outright.


----------



## J-WO (Jan 7, 2012)

LawrieBrewster said:


> I much preferred the intellectual and philosophical atheism of a gentleman like Anthony Flew to the Marxist militancy of Hitchens (and ironically the ring wing inspired secularist/Thatcherism of Dawkins.)
> 
> It's all in the connotation.



Dawkins, by his own admission, votes Liberal. Time and again he's said that he's a Darwinian as a biologist but is revolted by the idea of it as a social and moral implement. I'm afraid you're putting the laisez faire cart before the selfish gene horse. 

Besides, Hitchen's anti-theism isn't a road to Damascus affair (an oddly apt simile!), it's bubbling under throughout his New Statesman career and his involvement in the Rushdie affair is hardly small banannas, is it? Post-911 _God is Not Great_ was a fait accompli, given his world view.


----------



## Toby Frost (Jan 7, 2012)

Funny, really, because although I liked Hitchens, I really don't warm to Dawkins. There's just something slightly obnoxious about him. Agreeing with him always seems like conceding a point that I'd rather not. I wonder if atheists look very smug to some believers? At any rate I prefer Hitchens' rather splenetic style to Dawkins' air of "I told you so, because I am clever". All in the presentation, I suppose.


----------



## mosaix (Jan 7, 2012)

With regards to Hitchens 'changing his mind and changing his stance' on issues, I think it's a quality that should be admired. Of course, that's not so say you can't question his motives, Lawrie.


----------



## LawrieBrewster (Jan 7, 2012)

> I agree with their philosophical stance, but I have grave reservations about their approach toward the _people_ on the other side.


I share that concern, I think the differing circumstances of religious and secular intervention (which by secular we must not forget, means ideological - which comes in all flavours also...) between individual states within the USA and the countries of Europe.

The religious reactionism that took place during the Bush years inspired the secular reactionism/atheism of Dawkins et all - leading to increased militancy overall. However these characterestics were far less evident in European countries, including the UK. The thrusting of this debate however, fought over glib phrases, best selling books and tv interviews... has been to increase reactionism in all sides over here. 

Now I fear that in the UK we have the most arrogant adolescents imaginable in development (imagine a university dorm room) repeating the same stereotypes espoused by Dawkins/Hitchens without the sense of irony (Hitchens had...) and with the unchecked emotion of youth. Arrogance isn't particular to secularism or religion of course, but the difference is that here, that behaviour inevitably provokes a strong reactionism in those of religious belief and or agnostic or otherwise spiritualists who object to the tone. 

So while the intentions of the New Atheists authors were originally to take aim at the religious fundamentalism endorsed by Bush Jnr, it has taken a manifest effect beyond those aims, into a kind of classic style Marxist inspired atheist militancy. When I say Marxist I talk about his ideology and how it was classically interpreted (in relation to antitheism) im not suggesting such atheists are socialists for example etc.

I agree sometimes the aggressive stance is tragically necessary, but the collosus that is popular culture knows not when to stand down, and i hate to imagine what that 'popular trend' may inspire in response.


----------



## LawrieBrewster (Jan 7, 2012)

> Dawkins, by his own admission, votes Liberal.



Yep J-Wo, Dawkins votes 'liberal' but what does that mean? Does that make him a liberal in the US sense or the UK sense? Are you aware of the gulf of difference between the *semantics *of Dawkins calling himself a 'liberal' for I'd speculate, the benefit of his US audience and its meaning in the UK?

See Liberal as you know, is used as a kind of 'catch all' in the US for a wide range of views - many contradictory in fact, but forced together almost as a kind of opposition/alternative to the equally monolothic 'Conservatism.' 

In the UK we don't attach the same metaphorical meaning to 'liberal' and classically it is an ideology with tenets containing elements of radical right and left wing thinking. 

The reason i say that is because the Liberalism Dawkins preferred, was the critique/reduction of the welfare state and support for 'free' trade (or should that be imperial trade?) 

As for your horse and cart analogy (it would almost sound like rhetoric if it made any sense!) If you have presumed something you wish to object to with a glib phrase, why not explain it instead? I see nothing about Dawkins being revolted by the suggestion that his biological inspired views are a moral/social impediment, on the contrary it is a charge he often faces in debates, and one he has yet to struggle to answer to my satisfaction.


----------



## LawrieBrewster (Jan 7, 2012)

> With regards to Hitchens 'changing his mind and changing his stance' on  issues, I think it's a quality that should be admired. Of course, that's  not so say you can't question his motives



Yes Mosaix, one should be able to change their mind and should hopefully do so in the face of human experience. That particular quality is to be admired, but that quality is itself exceptional to Hitchens as he sought to speak on views with a matter of such authority and with such rhetoric that his opponents would be humiliated or otherwise silenced. In that sense, his changing views diminish the credibility of that 'authority' he sought to command. Likewise the credibility of his motives was seriously compromised through the baggage of his long career, this is notably absent in his assessment by New Atheists because that particular aspect of his career was such a recent reinvention taking place in a whooole new country.


----------



## LawrieBrewster (Jan 7, 2012)

> Funny, really, because although I liked Hitchens, I really don't warm to  Dawkins. There's just something slightly obnoxious about him. Agreeing  with him always seems like conceding a point that I'd rather not. I  wonder if atheists look very smug to some believers? At any rate I  prefer Hitchens' rather splenetic style to Dawkins' air of "I told you  so, because I am clever". All in the presentation, I suppose.



I couldn't agreee more. Like ive said, ive sat in the presence of fundamentalists (with that glassy eyed look) only to seen it shockingly recreated by ardent youths indulging in a repetition of the God Dellusions summary... 

On a personal note Dawkins to me does come across as smug, and has largely helped to inspire the same smug arrogant behaviour (in his more immature followers.) 

This provokes a reactionary popular culture too (we'll see more of this and then a counter reversal and so forth.)
ww.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=richard+dawkins


----------



## J-WO (Jan 7, 2012)

LawrieBrewster said:


> As for your horse and cart analogy (it would almost sound like rhetoric if it made any sense!) If you have presumed something you wish to object to with a glib phrase, why not explain it instead? I see nothing about Dawkins being revolted by the suggestion that his biological inspired views are a moral/social impediment, on the contrary it is a charge he often faces in debates, and one he has yet to struggle to answer to my satisfaction.



Well if you don't like the horse's cart let's try its mouth-

*'As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian, believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature. But at the same time as I support Darwinism as a scientist, I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to politics and how we should conduct our human affairs.' *_A Devil's Chaplain, p10

_or this, which I hope answers things to your satisfaction-

_*'I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying       how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to       behave. ... If you wish to extract a moral from it, read it as a warning.       Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals       cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect       little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and       altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish       genes are up to, because we may then at least have a chance to upset their       designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do.'      *_The Selfish Gene, introduction.

If you've any quotes--or anything beyond opinion--that conflict with any of that I'd be fascinated to see them. Or a photo of Nick Clegg in jackboots, given this surprising 'far-right' liberal party connection. Well... that and I'm a bit kinky.


----------



## J-WO (Jan 7, 2012)

mosaix said:


> With regards to Hitchens 'changing his mind and changing his stance' on issues, I think it's a quality that should be admired. Of course, that's not so say you can't question his motives, Lawrie.



Absolutely. And it does nothing to diminish what some might call his 'authority'.


----------



## LawrieBrewster (Jan 7, 2012)

> Well if you don't like the horse's cart let's try its mouth-



Whats with this silly attitude? You can express your opinion without indulging in childish allegory and it doesn't support your statements.



> _I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to politics and how we should conduct our human affairs._



I'm not sure what you are arguing for here? I did not say Dawkins was a social darwinist - so your quoting of Dawkins denying that he is a social darwinist is quite irrelevant. If he was incidentally I'd expect him to deny that too... So what is the point? 

What I said, and to which you originally quoted me was this, 



> I much preferred the intellectual and philosophical atheism of a  gentleman like Anthony Flew to the Marxist militancy of Hitchens (and  ironically the ring wing inspired secularist/Thatcherism of Dawkins.)



This inspired you to produce a statement declaring Dawkins a 'liberal' to which i replied, is irrelevant also, because the definition of liberalism (between the USA and UK) holds marked differences, and that liberalism itself can retain ideologies quite compatable between elements of even the most radical right and left wing ideologies. Thatcher herself was inspired by many tenets of 19th century Liberal economic policy... That is another topic, but i will close that point on saying that only semantically can one imagine someone as 'benign' by declaring them 'liberal'. 



> Or a photo of Nick Clegg in jackboots, given this surprising 'far-right' liberal party connection.



I think this sarcastic statement expresses your own 'perception' of liberal benignity as one linked to a very particular cultural view of a very particular political party/individual/ and UK centric. 

Liberalism and neo-liberalism inspired ideologies are quite seperate to such semantic impressions one may have and can manifest themselves in ways (and with titles/words) that conceal their influences.


----------



## LawrieBrewster (Jan 7, 2012)

> And it does nothing to diminish what some might call his 'authority'.


Of course it does, it means he was wrong before in his views while claiming he was absolutely correct and deriding those as fools who disagreed... time and time again.

It does not mean he was always wrong or always correct but it obviously impinges upon his authority as it would anyone else. 

To deny this i think is just a case of wishful thinking.


----------



## HareBrain (Jan 7, 2012)

J-WO said:


> Dawkins, by his own admission, votes Liberal.


 


LawrieBrewster said:


> This inspired you to produce a statement declaring Dawkins a 'liberal' to which i replied, is irrelevant also, because the definition of liberalism (between the USA and UK) holds marked differences


 
J-WO declared no such thing. He said Dawkins votes Liberal -- with a capital L. In other words the Liberal (short for Liberal Democrat) party. So all the stuff about the difference betweek UK and US meanings of "liberal" (small "l") is hardly relevant either.


----------



## LawrieBrewster (Jan 7, 2012)

> J-WO declared no such thing. He said Dawkins votes Liberal -- with a  capital L. In other words the Liberal (short for Liberal Democrat)  party. So all the stuff about the difference betweek UK and US meanings  of "liberal" (small "l") is hardly relevant either.


Thanks for pointing out the capitilised letter I missed, but it goes somewhat to reinforce my citing, of the dangers of semantic abstraction especially given to cultural particularities. I don't think it makes all of the points discussed around it fruitless though, some are applicable. 

Afterall Hare, J-wo compared the liberal benignty/qualities of Dawkins in comic fashion to the Liberal Democrafts of the UK. 

However I will also add, that the is he isnt he a liberal tangent of discussion had nothing to do with what i was discussing, just a point J-Wo himself raised. 

Dawkins can of course call himself a Liberal, or a liberal, a fascist, a firedancer or whatever, its his statements (relative) to particular matters and actions that speak for themselves naturally.

lol i think we can consider this aspect of discussion to have jumped the shark


----------



## The Judge (Jan 7, 2012)

I think we seem to have moved away from the original topic.   And since I'm the one holding the very pointy sword, what I think is rather important...

More worryingly, I also think the thread is on the verge of becoming argumentative for the sake of argument, and that posts are increasingly acrimonious and directed at posters rather than points.  That, as everyone knows, is something Chrons does not tolerate.

So, since we don't like anything which interrupts our tea and biscuits back in the moderator's staff room, and since if I'm away too long someone will undoubtedly pinch the last of the chocolate hob nobs, it might perhaps be nice if we had a period of quiet here.


----------



## LawrieBrewster (Jan 7, 2012)

Sure thing The Judge, its strange but you can always sense when it goes that way. Still though i think everyone made some great points too. 

Now i just look forward to reading some scary stories here and some sci fi


----------



## J-WO (Jan 8, 2012)

The Judge said:


> So, since we don't like anything which interrupts our tea and biscuits back in the moderator's staff room, and since if I'm away too long someone will undoubtedly pinch the last of the chocolate hob nobs, it might perhaps be nice if we had a period of quiet here.



I humbly suggest we go one further and lock it. Hitch's passing has been noted. Job done.


----------



## The Judge (Jan 8, 2012)

We don't like locking threads, Jim, so it'll stay open for now.  And if everyone acts with restraint and common courtesy it won't need locking in the future, either.


----------



## LawrieBrewster (Jan 8, 2012)

Im glad of that The Judge  its a really enlightened kinda moderation here, im sure that encourages a very respectful and mature community here too. Just awesome


----------

