Did Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens ....?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Did Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens ....?

Post #1

Post by paarsurrey1 »

Did Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have a shallow knowledge of Religion?

Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, they have a shallow knowledge of Religion proper and whatever they have written against religion is not science even, as religion is not a subject/discipline of science. Right, please?
Regards
_______________
Reference Post 188: Thread “Is the story of the crucifixion actual history? “

viewtopic.php?p=888452#888452

Rufus21
Scholar
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:30 pm

Re: Did Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens ....?

Post #11

Post by Rufus21 »

paarsurrey1 wrote: Christopher Hitchens chose the title of the book as "God is not Great", and the Muslims have a slogan/motto "Allahu Akbar" or "God is the Greatest"*. This shows that he had in his mind to criticise Religion and oppose Quran/Islam/Muhammad, primarily. He had no knowledge of Quran as is evident, perhaps he never read it...
If he was not familiar with the Quran, perhaps he was not aware that the title of his book had a link to Islam. He may have been referring to Christians, who have very similar slogans.

User avatar
SkyChief
Apprentice
Posts: 133
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: L.A.
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #12

Post by SkyChief »

Since nobody has mentioned it, it should be said that both Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are "Anti-theist" atheists. Meaning not only do they NOT believe in gods, they believe that religions are harmful.

This may explain why Christopher Hitchens wasn't compelled to be well-versed on Islam. He regarded all of the Abrahamic religions to be harmful and regarded the indoctrination of children into any religion as child-abuse - especially the religions that use heaven and hell as a means of thought control among the masses.

I believe Richard Dawkins had a similar outlook on child indoctrination.

Also, I think paarsurrey1 is making some connection between the title of Hitchen's book [God Is Not Great] and the phrase "Allahu Akbar" [God is the Greatest] when there really isnt any. - - just my opinion!

User avatar
H.sapiens
Guru
Posts: 2043
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Ka'u Hawaii

Post #13

Post by H.sapiens »

SkyChief wrote: Also, I think paarsurrey1 is making some connection between the title of Hitchen's book [God Is Not Great] and the phrase "Allahu Akbar" [God is the Greatest] when there really isnt any. - - just my opinion!
There isn't any, I believe Hitch was paraphrasing the blessing: "God is great, God is good and we thank him for this food." But, with typical monotheistic monomania he is assuming paarsurrey1 is assuming he is the center of the conversation rather than just a minor sideshow.

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Post #14

Post by paarsurrey1 »

H.sapiens wrote:
SkyChief wrote: Also, I think paarsurrey1 is making some connection between the title of Hitchen's book [God Is Not Great] and the phrase "Allahu Akbar" [God is the Greatest] when there really isnt any. - - just my opinion!
There isn't any, I believe Hitch was paraphrasing the blessing: "God is great, God is good and we thank him for this food." But, with typical monotheistic monomania he is assuming paarsurrey1 is assuming he is the center of the conversation rather than just a minor sideshow.
Allah-u Akbar is a caution a Muslim recites/reads as frequently as about 192 times daily in his Salat or formal-prayer plus 30 times it is spoken loudly from the mosques in Azan or call for prayer daily plus it is frequently recited in the Hajj and Umera. If Christopher Hitchens did not know this then he should be considered a very ignorant person about Islam/Quran/Muhammad.

Regards

Rufus21
Scholar
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:30 pm

Post #15

Post by Rufus21 »

paarsurrey1 wrote: If Christopher Hitchens did not know this then he should be considered a very ignorant person about Islam/Quran/Muhammad.
Perhaps he was able to dismiss Islam even without learning much about its customs. Perhaps the scripture and the source of the scripture were enough to debunk it all. Once you see the secret behind a magic trick, you can spot variations of it it right away.

This is just a guess since I do not know what Mr. Hitchens thought or knew.

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Post #16

Post by paarsurrey1 »

Rufus21 wrote:
paarsurrey1 wrote: If Christopher Hitchens did not know this then he should be considered a very ignorant person about Islam/Quran/Muhammad.
Perhaps he was able to dismiss Islam even without learning much about its customs. Perhaps the scripture and the source of the scripture were enough to debunk it all. Once you see the secret behind a magic trick, you can spot variations of it it right away.

This is just a guess since I do not know what Mr. Hitchens thought or knew.
Did you read Quran, please?
Did you read "God is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens, please?
If not, then one's comments are mere a guess-work and are not reasonable, please.
Please read both the above book and then let us have one's comments. Right,please?

Regards

User avatar
Furrowed Brow
Site Supporter
Posts: 3720
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Here
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Re: Did Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens ....?

Post #17

Post by Furrowed Brow »

Rufus21 wrote: If he was not familiar with the Quran, perhaps he was not aware that the title of his book had a link to Islam. He may have been referring to Christians, who have very similar slogans.
This snippet from a debate shows Hitchens clearly was making the connection to Islam which as he explains he believed to be the most toxic form of religion. He points out that if it was the 1930s it was the Catholic church which was the most toxic with its anti semitism and snuggling up to fascism. But for the period he wrote the book he saw Islam as the most toxic form of religion and I think he clearly meant the title of the book to be the negation of allah akbar.

[youtube][/youtube]I enjoyed Hitchens raconteur bravado and admired him when he submitted to water boarding and immediately change his mind on that subject but ultimately I think he failed to correctly understand 9/11. The New atheists - Harris, Dennett, Dawkins and Hitchens - were writing post 9/11 and blamed religion. Whilst each were atheist long before - their writings in this period were energised by and a response to 9/11 - and they found religion guilty.

Now I have had time to absorb events my views have adjusted. Point for point I mostly agree with Hitchens but I think his aim is wide of the mark. By targeting religion and making religion the problem he let the real culprits off the hook. The real problem was and is neo-colonialism. 9/11 was blowback from decades of crappy foreign policy which includes supporting despotic regimes and crushing others, arranging coups, funding groups we would later call terrorists, and trying to cut the world up to suit the whims of the moment to gain economic and political advantage. All this held together with heavy lashings of hypocrisy.

The worst aspects to which Hitchens et al point is to be understood in its neo-colonial context. It is interesting how Hitchens concedes the Catholic Church was particularly toxic in the political context of the 1930s, and that Islam is the problem now... but he then fails to follow through on the point and asks the question why Islam and why now?

On reflection Hitchens analysis was shallow but not especially because his knowledge of Islam was shallow. Despite being a writer of note often put forward as a commentator and intellectual his support for the invasion of Iraq now just looks naive.

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: Did Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens ....?

Post #18

Post by paarsurrey1 »

Furrowed Brow wrote:
Rufus21 wrote: If he was not familiar with the Quran, perhaps he was not aware that the title of his book had a link to Islam. He may have been referring to Christians, who have very similar slogans.
This snippet from a debate shows Hitchens clearly was making the connection to Islam which as he explains he believed to be the most toxic form of religion. He points out that if it was the 1930s it was the Catholic church which was the most toxic with its anti semitism and snuggling up to fascism. But for the period he wrote the book he saw Islam as the most toxic form of religion and I think he clearly meant the title of the book to be the negation of allah akbar.

[youtube][/youtube]I enjoyed Hitchens raconteur bravado and admired him when he submitted to water boarding and immediately change his mind on that subject but ultimately I think he failed to correctly understand 9/11. The New atheists - Harris, Dennett, Dawkins and Hitchens - were writing post 9/11 and blamed religion. Whilst each were atheist long before - their writings in this period were energised by and a response to 9/11 - and they found religion guilty.

Now I have had time to absorb events my views have adjusted. Point for point I mostly agree with Hitchens but I think his aim is wide of the mark. By targeting religion and making religion the problem he let the real culprits off the hook. The real problem was and is neo-colonialism. 9/11 was blowback from decades of crappy foreign policy which includes supporting despotic regimes and crushing others, arranging coups, funding groups we would later call terrorists, and trying to cut the world up to suit the whims of the moment to gain economic and political advantage. All this held together with heavy lashings of hypocrisy.

The worst aspects to which Hitchens et al point is to be understood in its neo-colonial context. It is interesting how Hitchens concedes the Catholic Church was particularly toxic in the political context of the 1930s, and that Islam is the problem now... but he then fails to follow through on the point and asks the question why Islam and why now?

On reflection Hitchens analysis was shallow but not especially because his knowledge of Islam was shallow. Despite being a writer of note often put forward as a commentator and intellectual his support for the invasion of Iraq now just looks naive.
So, Islam was Hitchens primary target without having in-depth study about Islam/Quran/Muhammad.
Hitchens was born into the Pauline-Christianity, maybe he had some study of this religion, but I leave that for the Christians to comment on this, for the time being, he just generalized this impression to Islam. He was wrong there, it is not a reasonable and rational approach. Right, please?
Regards

User avatar
Furrowed Brow
Site Supporter
Posts: 3720
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Here
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Re: Did Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens ....?

Post #19

Post by Furrowed Brow »

[Replying to paarsurrey1]
I think Hitchens' target was religion general. He saw Islam as the problem of the moment. Whilst the title of the book was a brickbat aimed at Islam - the primary target was still a general rejection of religions. As he was brought up in and surrounded by the Christian tradition I think the tone of his work leans more towards arguing against Christianity. In that sense I think he is primarily rejecting that tradition. But really all religions are game. The bottom line Hitchens did not believe in God and thought there were overwhelmingly sound reasons not to believe in God and any system of belief that taught otherwise was therefore foolish.

It is rational to be critical of a religious system without being an adherent, and it is rational to be critical without having spent a lifetime studying a particular religion. The danger of limited knowledge is then making a facile analysis that misses the nuances and maybe getting things wrong. The problem would be lack of rigour rather than lack of rationality. A bit like writing a school essay and only get a C+ with the comment must try harder.

On the whole I think Hitchens lands his punches but I'm not sure which criticism in detail you feel Hitchens gets wrong or is the product of a facile analysis.

In the short youtube clip above Hitchens is guilty of sweeping rejection of Islam but then as he says he thinks the very idea that God speaks to someone is "BS". From Hitchens' perspective rejecting these kinds of religions claims is the foundation of reason.

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: Did Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens ....?

Post #20

Post by paarsurrey1 »

Furrowed Brow wrote: [Replying to paarsurrey1]
I think Hitchens' target was religion general. He saw Islam as the problem of the moment. Whilst the title of the book was a brickbat aimed at Islam - the primary target was still a general rejection of religions. As he was brought up in and surrounded by the Christian tradition I think the tone of his work leans more towards arguing against Christianity. In that sense I think he is primarily rejecting that tradition. But really all religions are game. The bottom line Hitchens did not believe in God and thought there were overwhelmingly sound reasons not to believe in God and any system of belief that taught otherwise was therefore foolish.

It is rational to be critical of a religious system without being an adherent, and it is rational to be critical without having spent a lifetime studying a particular religion. The danger of limited knowledge is then making a facile analysis that misses the nuances and maybe getting things wrong. The problem would be lack of rigour rather than lack of rationality. A bit like writing a school essay and only get a C+ with the comment must try harder.

On the whole I think Hitchens lands his punches but I'm not sure which criticism in detail you feel Hitchens gets wrong or is the product of a facile analysis.

In the short youtube clip above Hitchens is guilty of sweeping rejection of Islam but then as he says he thinks the very idea that God speaks to someone is "BS". From Hitchens' perspective rejecting these kinds of religions claims is the foundation of reason.
I think Hitchens' target was religion general. He saw Islam as the problem of the moment.
I don't mind criticism, in fact, I never found much attraction and appeal towards Atheism or the like, its subsets, or towards the No-God position/no-position.
At a very young age, I read a small treatise* and a book** by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, the Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi. He himself had a continuous experience of Converse with the One-True-God.
One of my friends on the internet whom I suggested to read some book of the Promised Messiah, she insisted and prevailed upon me to read "God is not Great" by Hitchens, so this way I happen to read it. Hitchens book might be a good book having a temporary popularity but if looked in-depth, it has no seeds to be relevant in the decades to come, as it fails to create a permanent imprint on the human self or psyche.

Regards

*"Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam":
https://www.alislam.org/library/browse/ ... 1/mode/1up
**Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya Parts I & II | Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya Part III | Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya Part IV:
https://www.alislam.org/library/browse/ ... 8/mode/1up

Post Reply