Moore's Law - The immorality of the Ten Commandments. By Christopher Hitchens
My friend Jim sent the link to this article. He liked it. It annoyed me so much I ended up writing Jim back two letters and posting a response to the article on the Slate web site.
Here're my responses:
Response 1:
It's a cute article, but I can only agree with Hitchins on one point: that Judge Moore was a grandstander, and didn't do Christianity any good from a PR perspective.
It wasn't a battle worth fighting.
But Hitchins' casual dismissal of the Ten Commandments, particularly the first four, demonstrates a lack of serious thought about them, to say nothing of actual scholarship. I think even atheists with any kind of intellectual heft would have more to say about the Commandments in the terms of their relevance to philosophy, personal morality and ethics and literature.
Hitchins is writing like a lightweight who substitutes flippancy for actual criticism.
I won't bother to go through the list point by point here, but ask me next time we're having a few drinks and I'll demonstrate how each one of his points (and I mean every single one!) starts with a straw man premise that has nothing to do with a legitimate, historic and scholarly understanding of the text. Given that many straw men, you'd think his conclusion would at least feel conclusive, but it doesn't. It's just a lazy recitation of tired anti-religious bigotry masquerading as wit.
Note 2:
Check it out: http://bbs.slate.msn.com/?id=3936&m=8001078
I was annoyed enough to respond. Of course, I'm sure I'll be savaged by the hordes of folks out there who don't actually need a base of reasoned thought to argue from, just a wealth of insults made up by other folks and repeated so often they begin to seem true (i.e. nobody's ever killed anyone in the name of atheism).
Note my fired-up-ness. I've recently discovered that not only do I believe this stuff, but that I understand what I believe well enough to argue it without feeling any shame, despite the fact the many, many people I like and love think I'm an idiot, and tell me so by saying things like: "wow, only an idiot would believe a fairy tale like that."
Course, that's what I said, too. I also said religious belief was analogous to mental illness. I also said that religion was the principle source of hatred in the world. And when I started my research, my question was: How could smart folks believe a fairy tale like that?
I got my answer, 100 percent through human reason. No divine intercession, no leaps of faith required.
That's why smartasses like Hitchins piss me off -- because they try and make it seem cool to not think, at an era in the world's history when thought is so important! Give me a serious, thoughtful atheist, and we'll have a great discussion. Give me bigotry, and I'll do my best, but there's no substance there to really argue with.
My friend Jim sent the link to this article. He liked it. It annoyed me so much I ended up writing Jim back two letters and posting a response to the article on the Slate web site.
Here're my responses:
Response 1:
It's a cute article, but I can only agree with Hitchins on one point: that Judge Moore was a grandstander, and didn't do Christianity any good from a PR perspective.
It wasn't a battle worth fighting.
But Hitchins' casual dismissal of the Ten Commandments, particularly the first four, demonstrates a lack of serious thought about them, to say nothing of actual scholarship. I think even atheists with any kind of intellectual heft would have more to say about the Commandments in the terms of their relevance to philosophy, personal morality and ethics and literature.
Hitchins is writing like a lightweight who substitutes flippancy for actual criticism.
I won't bother to go through the list point by point here, but ask me next time we're having a few drinks and I'll demonstrate how each one of his points (and I mean every single one!) starts with a straw man premise that has nothing to do with a legitimate, historic and scholarly understanding of the text. Given that many straw men, you'd think his conclusion would at least feel conclusive, but it doesn't. It's just a lazy recitation of tired anti-religious bigotry masquerading as wit.
Note 2:
Check it out: http://bbs.slate.msn.com/?id=3936&m=8001078
I was annoyed enough to respond. Of course, I'm sure I'll be savaged by the hordes of folks out there who don't actually need a base of reasoned thought to argue from, just a wealth of insults made up by other folks and repeated so often they begin to seem true (i.e. nobody's ever killed anyone in the name of atheism).
Note my fired-up-ness. I've recently discovered that not only do I believe this stuff, but that I understand what I believe well enough to argue it without feeling any shame, despite the fact the many, many people I like and love think I'm an idiot, and tell me so by saying things like: "wow, only an idiot would believe a fairy tale like that."
Course, that's what I said, too. I also said religious belief was analogous to mental illness. I also said that religion was the principle source of hatred in the world. And when I started my research, my question was: How could smart folks believe a fairy tale like that?
I got my answer, 100 percent through human reason. No divine intercession, no leaps of faith required.
That's why smartasses like Hitchins piss me off -- because they try and make it seem cool to not think, at an era in the world's history when thought is so important! Give me a serious, thoughtful atheist, and we'll have a great discussion. Give me bigotry, and I'll do my best, but there's no substance there to really argue with.
<< Home