Christopher Hitchens article

[markalot]

http://www.washingtonprism.org/eng/showarticle.cfm?id=1

edit: btw, I found this article via this one: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3395977/


I liked this article and what he had to say. Any dirt I should know about this guy? I don't remember his name, though I'm sure he's now considered a traitor since he used to be considered a liberal.

[Sovrana]

I just figured out why his name is so familiar to me...he writes for Vanity Fair. And even though I have a subscription to it, I cannot recall specifically any of his contributions to the magazine. I'll have to pay more attention in the future.




Though I must confess, that I went straight to the Jennifer Aniston cover story this time. :)

[tempo]

I find Christopher Hitchins to be a fascinating writer. He's just a pundit, but his point of view is definitely unique. I only agree with him about half the time but I respect his opinion a lot because he's sincere and he's not just a mouthpiece for a political movement.

As those articles mentioned, he's a fervent supporter of the war in Iraq and he has little patience for lefties who make excuses for tyrants and extremists. At the same time, he holds a deep contempt for almost anything religious, whether it's America's Christian right wing or the Middle East's Islamic ideologies. (He has excoriated John Paul II (http://www.slate.com/id/2116443) and even Mother Teresa (http://www.slate.com/id/2090083) on many occasions.)

Personally I think invading Iraq was the biggest mistake my country has made in my lifetime. But I agree with Hitchens that we have a commitment now and we need to see it through. And while I don't share his hostility toward all religious faith, I do agree that there are limits to what we should accept in the name of religious tolerance.

So yeah, he's an independent voice, and I'm always interested in his perspective even when I think he's wrong.

[akip]

I just figured out why his name is so familiar to me...he writes for Vanity Fair. And even though I have a subscription to it, I cannot recall specifically any of his contributions to the magazine. I'll have to pay more attention in the future.


he also is a frequent contributor to the atlantic.

[Lucy VanPelt]

i used to read Hitchens a lot in the Nation.

[akip]

I find Christopher Hitchins to be a fascinating writer. He's just a pundit, but his point of view is definitely unique. I only agree with him about half the time but I respect his opinion a lot because he's sincere and he's not just a mouthpiece for a political movement.

As those articles mentioned, he's a fervent supporter of the war in Iraq and he has little patience for lefties who make excuses for tyrants and extremists. At the same time, he holds a deep contempt for almost anything religious, whether it's America's Christian right wing or the Middle East's Islamic ideologies. (He has excoriated John Paul II (http://www.slate.com/id/2116443) and even Mother Teresa (http://www.slate.com/id/2090083) on many occasions.)

Personally I think invading Iraq was the biggest mistake my country has made in my lifetime. But I agree with Hitchens that we have a commitment now and we need to see it through. And while I don't share his hostility toward all religious faith, I do agree that there are limits to what we should accept in the name of religious tolerance.

So yeah, he's an independent voice, and I'm always interested in his perspective even when I think he's wrong.

i think hitchen's hostility to religion at least partly explains his something-of-a-turnaround. and he's more a moralist than a pragmatist, so he will defend what he believes is the "right thing to do" even if it's not practical to achieve.

there's always been a range of opinion on the left about the invasion. when everyone thought there were WMD in iraq, a lot of lefties (though certainly not all) felt that the moral position was to oust saddam, even though they were troubled by the huge moral dilemma in launching any war. but they felt, well, this is one of the instances where it's justified---WMD and the horrible oppression of the population. they had been very upset about the sanctions withholding medicine from children, etc. then, when it turned out the original WMD justification had no basis, they were angry that they'd been deceived. some of the slightly-left-leaning-center, like tom friedman, still support the invasion's original intent, but decry the failure of the planning and execution.

but hitchens is fighting with the far-lefties, the amy goodmans, the chomskys, etc., who were calling osama bin laden a "dissident" as soon as bin laden was being identified as the probable planner of the attacks. i was living in santa fe at the time, where "democracy now" was broadcast for extended hours immediately after 911. i know what hitchens is ranting about. but i'm more a pragmatist than he is, so i think the war was a flat-out error of mammoth porportions, a product of the same old imperialist rationalizations that have befallen other empire-builders. but i respect his going after his own cohorts 'cause they're often as full-of-shit as the assholes on the propagandist right.

hitchens pulls no punches, whether he's going after kissinger or chomsky. he's great on tv---very funny---and he knows a lot about literature. a very, very smart guy whose arguments cannot be dismissed. he can smell bullshit a mile away and isn't afraid to take anybody on.

[jneale]

the guy threw a hissy fit on morning joe one time because they called him "chris"

he just seems to be an arrogant old cow these days desperately clinging to his thinning bangs.

[the happy prole]

I'm not really a fan of his over-the-top hatred of religion. I can still sort of deal with his writings in the abstract, but I don't like the way that he allows conservatives to use him as an anti-Muslim mouthpiece without noting the fact that he (theoretically) is just as against the Christian Right. He's actually feeding the religious dickishness he purports to hate.

That's why everyone has the perception that he's a leftist who "saw the light," when in fact he simply dislikes the leftist stance of being too soft on terrorism.

I respect the guy for actually volunteering to be water-boarded and then saying "Holy crap was I wrong about that" but he spent a lot of time backing the practice and playing into the hands of the neocons.

He's a smart guy, but until he gets a little more equal-opportunity in his religion bashing, or better yet moves on to something else I don't really need to read his 10,000th essay on why Muslims suck.

[Cyclone]

He's actually feeding the religious dickishness he purports to hate.



Indeed, which is, in short, my main problem with what journalists have coined as the "new atheism" (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris).

[akip]

he's definitely become more tiresome over the last four years.

[DLDude]

Hitchens is a total dick.

Dawkins speaks with reason

[the_birds]

Christopher Hitchens is a frikken Diva. Anyone who hasn't figured this out, wake up. He writes for attention and little else.

[akip]

lack of humility? who cares. that's almost a requirement if you're going to be in the arena instead of on the sidelines. but if you're a writer-thinker or player in changing world affairs, bitterness is an issue. then you become rigid and tedious, like krauthammer, cheney. nadar, hitchens.

[Cyclone]

Hitchens is a total dick.

Dawkins speaks with reason

I find Dawkins to be an extremist who has become pretty fundamental just like the opposites he criticizes.

[yoshomon]

I like Hitchens, though I disagree with him a lot. He is intelligent and a good writer, and he tends to run circles around the idiots he debates on television or wherever (you can watch a lot of his debates on youtube). His book Letters to a Young Contrarian is definitely worth reading, as is his book about Mother Theresa and his essays leading up to the war in Iraq.

He is the most prominent figure of the pro-war Left, and he left the Nation magazine over this question. His defense of the war in Iraq is eloquent and masterful... though also delusional. His arguments against religion are compelling and funny.

I try to read his articles on Slate fairly regularly.

[yoshomon]

This is a review I wrote of his book A Long Short War:

The 'pro-war Left' has been an interest of mine for the last year or two, and I finally got around to reading this collection of essays by Hitchens, who is probably the most famous pro-war Leftist in the Anglophone world.

This book is a defense of the war in Iraq written in the lead-up to the war and immediately after the ground invasion began. I did not read these when they were initially published, so it was a fun prism to look through and remember what I was thinking and doing a few years ago (attending anti-war marches, sputtering incoherently about this or that).

Hitchens presents several positions that all of his arguments stem from:

1) War with Iraq was inevitable and in fact had been happening to some degree since the first invasion in the early 90's. Since the fight is inevitable, why let Suddam choose the time?

2) American foreign policy should align with Kurdish nationalism because the Kurds were gassed by Saddam and had achieved a "democratic" system in Northern Iraq thanks to the no-fly zones. In addition, aligning with Kurdistan would be an affront to Turkey, a state that must be opposed due to its treatment of the Kurdish population and continual denial of the Armenian genocide. Siding with Kurdish nationalism means forcing regime change in Iraq.

3) Suddam Hussein was a fascist and patron of terrorism (sending money to the families of suicide bombers, giving safe houses and asylum to a host of terrorists, etc). Since 9/11 America is "at war with the forces of reaction" and so must go to war with Iraq.

4) Iraq had or was going to get nuclear weapons or other such nasty weapons. (Hitchens problematizes the term 'weapons of mass destruction' by pointing out the mass destruction Suddam carried out with regular explosives in the Kuwaiti oil fields).

5) That the secular/"progressive" forces in Iraq and around the Middle East wanted a US invasion while the Saudis and so on opposed it.


I may be forgetting a few things, but those are the backbone of the Hitchens argument for the war. Throughout the book he repeats them in various ways, along with attacking a variety of Leftist arguments against the war. His treatment of the latter is probably the most interesting thing. He eloquently (and often hilariously) attacks the various conspiracy theories and "analysis" put forward by the Left against the war, exposing the often anti-semitic, pro-Islamist, or just plain stupid underbelly of anti-imperialism.

The last essay in the book finds Hitchens with a Red Crescent convoy throwing free meals to a crowd of people in Southern Iraq. The chaotic scene is disheartening and becomes even more so when a large line of tanks thunders by without pausing. While this scene does not extinguish his optimism about the liberatory potential of American foreign policy (what a phrase!), it does damper it a bit. That essay is the best piece of writing in the collection. Its humility is striking next to the rest of the Hitchens oeuvre.

In the end, his arguments for the war and the premises on which they stand do not add up for me. Suddam's regime in Iraq was no doubt horrific. and it's a fine thing that Suddam is dead. The Islamist groups Iraq funded or gave safe haven to are and were not ever "freedom fighters" or misguided opponents of imperialism; they are theocratic-fascists (I am saying fascist here is a literal sense, not as mere hyperbole). Leftist support for various totalitarian regimes, along with the 'anti-zionism' and conspiratorial nonsense, is contemptible. On these things Hitchens and I can agree.

With that said, American and British bombs and tanks and the various political gangs they helped put into power have just as little to offer humanity as Suddam did. Kurdish nationalists - who engage in ethnic cleansing, not to mention a long-standing campaign of murdering Turkish school teachers; two bits Hitchens forgot to mention - have just as little to offer humanity as nationalists in Turkey or wherever else. There are no 'good guys' in wars between competing states or states-in-waiting. There are no righteous forces to rally around. If I choose to extend my sympathy, dare I say 'solidarity', to anyone, it will be those who refuse to constitute a force or take a side, who refuse to participate in the death race of politics and nationalism.

I can be certain, even though I do not know them, that right now, even now, there are comrades in Baghdad who secretly burn the Koran.

[Cyclone]

Any examples? Are you religious?

I am a Christian, I wouldn't say "religious". At one time I was a very content agnostic, and I can't imagine that even then I would have been very inspired ... as a philosopher I would be appalled by some of the arguments in 'The God Delusion' (this is the only full book by Dawkins I've read, though I've skimmed others, and also read some Hitchens and Harris).

With Dawkins comes my main complaint about the new atheism (though I understand that some of them repudiate that title) in general, and I've come to identity certain traits of it as "fundamentalist atheism" ... constant diatribes against religion (such as equating all religion toward Islam fundamentalist), vitriolic anti-theist stances including dismissing any type of theology. I find the constant disrespect unacceptable morally, as we live in a pluralistic society full of distinct diversity. I don't see how Dawkins equating bringing a child up in a religious home to be a form of child abuse, or releasing video clips of himself reading things from his inbox such as "I hope you burn in hell" as any less of a fundamentalist trait than the Christian fundamentalists he and his fellow writers are constantly trying to pulverize.

[C. Doves]

... as a philosopher I would be appalled by some of the arguments in 'The God Delusion.'

I find the constant disrespect unacceptable morally, as we live in a pluralistic society full of distinct diversity. I don't see how Dawkins equating bringing a child up in a religious home to be a form of child abuse, or releasing video clips of himself reading things from his inbox such as "I hope you burn in hell" as any less of a fundamentalist trait than the Christian fundamentalists he and his fellow writers are constantly trying to pulverize.

Whose morals, exactly? Mine or yours? The ones God laid out? And what exactly are those? If we go to war over that question, we will fit nicely into what can be predicted by the entire history of humanity.

I'm on the other end; I loved "The God Delusion." It was...heh...like an answer to a prayer, and helped me overcome a lifetime of high-pressure Lutheran hogwash. Compare it to a whole life of trying to force myself to believe 2+2=5, and knowing deep inside something was wrong and ridiculous, and the accompanying guilt and outright shame of being made to feel like a traitor to my family...I'm not sure child abuse is so far fetched. That's my favorite line from the book.

Think of it this way: suppose I was raising my children to believe in Mother Goose, that Mother Goose would take care of everything. Would you respect that as part of a "pluralistic society full of distinct diversity," or would you report me to child services as a nut? IF you would respect that, that's...stupid. If you wouldn't, you are rational, but you also have to wonder why a magical jewish zombie, some desert dude that God spoke directly to and even gave advice on how to handle his multiple wives, or even a talking, burning bush are remotely feasible. Why are some magical fictions worth of Moral Respect and others not?

As far as labels like 'the new atheism,' I am lucky to be so unhip and out of it that labels like that make no difference to me. It seems like plain old atheism, am I wrong?

Another amazing read is The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew by Bart D. Ehrman, which is purely an attempt at historical narrative, not pushing any agenda. (Although fundies would have you believe otherwise) Believer, non, history buff, everyone should read this book. It's fascinating.

And uh, where the hell is Slar on this? :D

[C. Doves]

Is there no room for debate that teaching a child that some guy died for your sins or that you are going to suffer if you don't follow him might be abusive?

NO, because if you are a believer you will pay for even entertaining that thought. If you are lucky, not hell, just some horrible hardship like cancer in your kid that God sent you to strengthen your faith and build your character.

He only hurts the ones He loves. That's not abusive at all. That's good parenting.

[Cyclone]

Is there no room for debate that teaching a child that some guy died for your sins or that you are going to suffer if you don't follow him might be abusive?

Sure there's room for debate, but that statement alone is not one I'm personally in agreeance of. I suppose, in C. Dove's case, I never had a problem with questioning the type of religious home I was brought up in when I reached a certain age, and certainly didn't need to read a book like 'The God Delusion' to convince me. As such, I don't find many of the new atheist books to be very good intellectually. And (also re: C. Doves), the only reason I keep using that coined title is not to be "hip", but rather to just focus on these hot, newer best-selling books and their authors. Of course, there's nothing new about atheism, speaking Biblically, it has existed since the Old Testament. However, what does make this "new", is the admittedly dogmatic anti-theist stance. They abide by the notion that an objective moral framework is reachable from the perspective of atheism, following by playing word games about how we're still trying to find it in people's minds. I find that Dawkins (and Hitchens in particular) do not seem to have an understanding that religion is complex and nuanced, viewing faith only as a monolith.

C. Doves - thanks for the book recommendation. I would also like to recommend books by some of the theistic evolutionists I've read, if you haven't already ... such as 'The Language of God' by Francis Collins or pretty much any work of Alister McGrath.

[C. Doves]

C. Doves - thanks for the book recommendation. I would also like to recommend books by some of the theistic evolutionists I've read, if you haven't already ... such as 'The Language of God' by Francis Collins or pretty much any work of Alister McGrath.

Ooh, yeah, read it! It's fascinating and well-written. Shouldn't hurt your faith at all; in fact you might have new appreciation that the Bible of today even exists. There were several warring factions, the Paulites didn't just win immediately. It was a crazy mess. And the tawdry story of the Dead Sea scrolls (part of which were burned as firewood,) the crazy 'fake or not fake' tale of the 'discovered manuscript' in an ancient Monastery, why the Catholic Bible is different than the Protestant version, among other things.

[Cyclone]

Whose morals, exactly? Mine or yours? The ones God laid out? And what exactly are those? If we go to war over that question, we will fit nicely into what can be predicted by the entire history of humanity.



How about for nothing more but the sake of a respectful conversation? Ultimately, as you led to, we are left with this moral idea, do people that we disagree with deserve respect? Even if we judge their perspective to be nothing but primitive? Something the new atheists, or, again, whatever you'd like to call the new wave of popularity among atheist circles, seem to not do, is take scholarship very seriously. It appears that Dawkins is ignorant of such claims of "can God exist?" and contemptuous of people who might even attempt to understand it. This characterization, mockery, and constant ridicule, are acceptable practices so long as the subject is so clearly absurd, such as the belief in God. As such, what on Earth are we to make of people like John Polkinghorne who hold this terrifying belief that Christianity and science are compatible? That brings me to my initial point regarding the scholarship.

[C. Doves]

I'm thinking more of the FLDS. Should they be respected for their practices? Maybe Warren Jeffs is a true prophet. How are we to know for sure? There are no protocols. There is no real proof, no grounds for any argument apart from legality of this country. In their minds, they acted with the highest moral authority. Seriously, God told them to. Did God tell you something different? Who says He has no sense of humor? ;)

[C. Doves]

As such, what on Earth are we to make of people like John Polkinghorne who hold this terrifying belief that Christianity and science are compatible? That brings me to my initial point regarding the scholarship.

Fill me in? His stuff is...what, nifty? I'm missing the terrifying part, but I don't know much about him at all. I see his quote there in the wiki,

"After all, if there is no God, then God is incalculably the greatest single creation of the human imagination."

To me, I say, yes, exactly, God is. (I'll go and let someone else talk. Thanks for the book recs, someday I'll be done with Pharmacology and might get to read something else then. :cool: )

[Cyclone]

For instance, if I think telling children vicious untruths is child abuse, I don't see how that is morally unacceptable.

We've established this, and if you feel that way, I have no problem with it.

Of course, you're speaking from your own personal platform in considering it an "untruth". If your child, then, began to hold religious beliefs of any sort, whether they attended Sunday school with a friend or whatever the circumstance, what would your response be? Would you be accepting or try to convince them otherwise? Do you, then, believe all religion should be eradicated? Just an honest question.

[Cyclone]

Fill me in? His stuff is...what, nifty? I'm missing the terrifying part, but I don't know much about him at all. I see his quote there in the wiki,



He's a theistic evolutionist of sorts, like the aforementioned Francis Collins and many others I've read, who found things like the anthropic principle and the moral law argument convincing. My point isn't about Polkinghorne himself, but of well educated theologians. My "terrifying" comment would be in regards to Dawkins and company who make it very clear that "bright" and "atheist" belong together in the same sentence, "bright" and "religion" do not. It is very clear to him that science and Christianity are not compatible, and that scientists holding any kind of religious faith should reconsider this stance because it's not possible. So what, then, should be made of people in that category, along with folks like Alvin Plantinga? Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett have made a lot of money with this ridicule on theists. Rational discussion doesn't seem acceptable.

[C. Doves]

Interesting. As far as 'disrespect'....belittling is a time-honored tactic of destroying something. They are out to say the Emperor has no clothes, really! Look at him! He's got nothing! The first step in belittling is labeling. As in, 'the New Atheism.' Makes it a trend rather than an idea, makes it smaller.

"In the beginning was a thought, and the thought got a label, and the label made the thought seem really quite tedious." --book of doves, 1:11

But also, try as you might, it is hard to respect something you really think is ridiculous, patience wears thin. Imagine trying to talk to Jeffs about why marrying off 12 year old girls to be plural wives is wrong, and not Godly OR legal, while at the same time trying to treat him as though he MIGHT be right. Bad behavior is yucky. Then again, Jesus himself behaved wonderfully badly, with rampant disrespect in the corrupt temple in order to set people free from corruption and bad ideas. *

Plus Christians and other faithfuls sling any amount of disrespectful mud, but when someone else does it, OMG. Not saying it's right, just saying it's how the world turns.

But I would be in favor of all religions going away. That would be enlightenment.

Oops! I said I'd shut up, sheesh. So now seriously! I goesth! (Frankly by reading your posts, with your level of intelligence and curiosity you MUST read Lost Christianities. I think you'll really like. :) )



*Still a Jesus fan, just not a fan of the dogma around him :D

[Cyclone]

1) OK, but just in the course of a few posts you went from having a problem with it to not having a problem with it. Unless I misunderstood. And I can respect an emotional response to the idea, but that has nothing to do with the messenger.

2) I have no idea what the response would be...it would be highly circumstantial I imagine. I am not sure what you mean by accepting or what having it eradicated would entail. Could you clarify?

There's an important distinction here between my own personal beliefs and what the content in my original post was. I criticized Dawkins for being an extremist who, in my opinion, holds certain beliefs and stances that I view just as "fundamental" as the fundamental religious people he and his company are constantly slandering. I have many. One that I used was the child abuse sentiment, which obviously triggered a few very opposite responses . The reason I say I'm okay with you holding that belief is because I can respect it. I'm not interested in cramming my own beliefs down anyone's throat. I said I disagreed with it, but do I respect your POV? Absolutely. I have no idea how the eradicating of religion process would work, although it appears to be one that the likes of Dawkins think would better the world, and as such, I am interested how those types think it would be carried out. They think of religion was one of the world's great evils, and equate it to terrorism. Are they right that religion has in the past, and has the ability in the future to be, just that, evil? Absolutely. However, in my opinion, blaming terror and violence on religion, as many eager to do, is very reductive and is blind to the responsibility of the world.

[Cyclone]

The first step in belittling is labeling. As in, 'the New Atheism.'

But also, try as you might, it is hard to respect something you really think is ridiculous, patience wears thin. Imagine trying to talk to Jeffs about why marrying off 12 year old girls to be plural wives is wrong, and not Godly OR legal, while at the same time trying to treat him as though he MIGHT be right. Bad behavior is yucky. Then again, Jesus himself behaved wonderfully badly, with rampant disrespect in the corrupt temple in order to set people free from corruption and bad ideas. *

Plus Christians and other faithfuls sling any amount of disrespectful mud, but when someone else does it, OMG. Not saying it's right, just saying it's how the world turns.



Couple of points here.

Firstly, let me again say, I'm not using the term "new atheism" as a way of belittling any of the authors. I have nothing but respect for Dawkins in his field. However, he is a biologist, not a philosopher, and in voicing my own opinions on his books, I find many of his arguments very poor in that degree. However, there is somewhat of a distinction here which is why the "new" was coined to begin with, which I've pointed out in previous posts. It's also while I pointed out, respectfully, that some of them repudiate that title. Many atheists, unlike the former who have made it painfully clear, do not believe that all religion is evil and corruption. There are also people who who think t hat Darwinian evolution and Christianity are compatible. The former also makes it painfully clear that that notion is impossible. It isn't "new" nor earth-shattering to walk around saying "how can God exist?". What is new, which permeates a lot of content of these new books, is the anti-theist stance and dismissal of theology and respect for any sort of religion.

"The God Delusion makes me ashamed to be an atheist".
- Michael Ruse

In response to "Christians do it too", you're implying strictly that stereotypical Christian fundamentalists cause uproar when agnostics or atheists make provocative statements. Your obvious statement that Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals can be embarrassing is a shared one. However, I don't find that argument convincing, maybe you're just talking to the wrong people. ;)

[C. Doves]

(I feel dirty talking about religion with that...naked American Apparel chick up top. I mean really! ;) )

I see what you are saying. And I wasn't trying to poke you on the New Atheism thing, just using that as an example. But I'm thinking...You are The New Respect. Because that is a relatively recent concept in history, isn't it? My background has been more in studying belief systems and practices as they are without being morally or emotionally invested, not so much apologetics and so forth. I find the differences and the history fascinating.

But back to respect-- just taking Christianity as an example, the founding fathers and the warring sects did not respect each other AT ALL. When one sect was trying to maintain certain rites of Sophia in their worship, ie milk and honey offerings, the winning sect smashed that shit outright! Damned them to hell! And so forth, not much respect there, and those actions are part of what led to Christianity today.

Was that right? Did the end justify the means? Does it really matter now, if there are people who have evolved like you seem to have (correct me if I am wrong) who desire a respectful intellectual discourse without anyone on either side being flogged and killed as a heretic, or less-than? And what would the world look like if that was accepted everywhere?

So what you are saying is a new kind of thought, I'm thinking anyway. The New Respect. I like it. Push it. Push it good.

Just be aware that you won't be able to use terms like 'morally unacceptable' anymore; it is a power-play that attempts to create an abstract high ground..for the purposes of looking down.... :)

[Cyclone]

But that is just petty name calling, right?

Uhh, sure. But what's your point? You just don't like that I called him an extremist? I get your point, you don't like the "name calling". But what's the motive here? Are you just trying to bait me, because I hold what probably isn't a very popular stance on this board? I feel like I've just made quite a few posts justifying my stance regarding the issue.

[Cyclone]

Just be aware that you won't be able to use terms like 'morally unacceptable' anymore; it is a power-play that attempts to create an abstract high ground..for the purposes of looking down.... :)

Actually, that's not the point at all. I'm applying it directly to issues I have with the "new atheism", who grasp a belief that it is civil to violate the principle that diversity should be respected and tolerated in a pluralistic society. This blatant (and as such, provocative), often vitriolic disrespect of theism is ultimately what makes them very distinguishable, and as such why many other atheists have dismissed and rebuked them. Speaking condescendingly to someone (theists) you're talking probably means you don't view their intelligence as very high. Many atheists believe that these characteristics are in fact hurting the atheist movement and that it hinders discourse, so they object to it, and I agree with that notion. The same principle applies directly to Christian/any other religion fundamentalists, and I do mean directly. This has nothing to do with pointing fingers at a certain belief. Hitchens himself has said that he views himself as an "antitheist" as much as he does an atheist. That would make me realize, then, that atheists of his variety need a strawman enemy to be able to have an identity.

Alas, it has been good dialoguing with you. Let's do American Apparel sometime.

[C. Doves]

This blatant (and as such, provocative), often vitriolic disrespect of theism is ultimately what makes them very distinguishable, and as such why many other atheists have dismissed and rebuked them.


Yeah, that would be the definition of extremism, no matter what the philo being pushed. Sociologically, extremism has a place: it gets your attention, and makes you more willing to concede to those less extreme. Or so they told us in Soc. 302.

And hey, you too. I have personal issues, obviously, but I should be able to separate those from an actual dialogue about the topic. If I want to listen to you and at least see things from your point of view. Thanks for not telling me I'm going to hell. ;)

Oh, and it was pretty funny when I mistook that you were saying Polkinghorne was terrifying. I looked him up:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Johnpolkinghorne.jpg/300px-Johnpolkinghorne.jpg

Like, that sweet old thing is terrifying? :D

[yoshomon]

Cyclone, you are hilariously defending Christianity and religion in general with an appeal for moral relativism.

Obviously, there are limits to your pluralism. I'm sure you agree that genital mutilation or refusing medical treatment to children or imprisoning and killing homosexuals (as Christians are doing right now in Uganda) or throwing acid on women who don't cover their faces are not acceptable, even in a 'pluralistic' society.

So, I would say that ultimately, the Christian belief in vicarious redemption ought to be added to the list of unethical and harmful ideas and that teaching this doctrine to children is irresponsible, just as it is harmful and irresponsible to teach children to hate and fear homosexuality or people with different skin pigmentation than their own. Vicarious redemption is a disgusting idea, and it is one of the core principles of Christianity.

Now, do not cry foul, turn the other cheek and lay meekly awaiting the lions.

[yoshomon]

This blatant (and as such, provocative), often vitriolic disrespect of theism is ultimately what makes them very distinguishable, and as such why many other atheists have dismissed and rebuked them.

This is a question of tone, not content. A mellow, pleasant person can have horrible ideas, and their ideas do not become any less horrible if they express them politely. In the same way, ideas with merit do not lose their merit when they are expressed poorly.

Christopher Hitchens speaks and debates at religious events and spaces all the time, and if you watch these debates, he is incredibly polite, though forceful. It's a pity that 'the best minds theism has to offer' look like idiots when they debate him.

[frizgolf]

Okay, maybe a derail at this point, but I've been wanting to pick up The God Delusion for a while now, if anything to get a better take on the mindset behind the spread of modern atheism.
I grew up Catholic, and was also a science geek. By the time high school rolled around, I was losing interest in the strict guilt mongering of The Church. Everything was a friggin sin. Along about that time I read Von Daniken's Chariots Of The Gods, which pretty much kept me from completely losing any faith that there is someone or something keeping tabs on us.
In ancient times influential people witnessed things they couldn't explain. The fact that rudimentary writing and word-of-mouth was a way of keeping history alive lends itself to exaggeration over the centuries. Tales were told by folks that had no idea of the size of the world, little or no knowledge of its peoples, and limited knowledge of time and space beyond their own spheres of influence. Perhaps the original stories themselves were exaggerated. But the fact remains that the greater percentage of the population of the world today still subscribes to the teachings handed down by these ancients. Something is in those teachings. The interpretations over the centuries have muddied them.
Growing up as a science geek, I admire the atheistic tenet that God can't be proven to exist any more than Santa Claus can. This strikes at the very basis of critical thinking today. With scientific advances we can't avoid dominating our lives today, we are forced to look at the hard facts of what makes things work. It makes sense, from a scientific standpoint, to demand proof.
But I'm afraid our modern atheists may overlook the mindset of the ancients when accounting for the writings and stories they told after witnessing whatever they called miracles or visitations. And I also think modern civilization may be arrogant when thinking our ability to reason and think was just a happy accident of evolution. Sure, we are a species without natural defenses like claws or sharp teeth, and we needed our wits to survive, but is our brain development a result of that need or vice versa? How did we just seemingly whip this ability to reason out of thin air when evolution surely might have at least accidentally placed this reasoning ability somewhere else on Earth? Wouldn't simple social skills found elsewhere in nature have been enough for us to survive?
I dunno, is this reasoning ability simply an outgrowth of using wits to survive? Is it a runaway mutation? Are we the only species to even start to develop reasoning?
I still believe God exists. Whether it's aliens, Atlantis, or a hairy white guy on a throne, someone's keeping tabs on us. I also think the yin and yang of science and religion are on a collision course of discovery.

[frizgolf]

Isn't preaching religion* to a child cramming one's beliefs down someone's throat? What is the difference between doing so with a child vs. other people?

*One could say that about sports or politics as well.

[markalot]

I'm trying to remember what the hell the original article was about and exactly what happened here.

[akip]

Okay, maybe a derail at this point, but I've been wanting to pick up The God Delusion for a while now, if anything to get a better take on the mindset behind the spread of modern atheism.
I grew up Catholic, and was also a science geek. By the time high school rolled around, I was losing interest in the strict guilt mongering of The Church. Everything was a friggin sin. Along about that time I read Von Daniken's Chariots Of The Gods, which pretty much kept me from completely losing any faith that there is someone or something keeping tabs on us.
In ancient times influential people witnessed things they couldn't explain. The fact that rudimentary writing and word-of-mouth was a way of keeping history alive lends itself to exaggeration over the centuries. Tales were told by folks that had no idea of the size of the world, little or no knowledge of its peoples, and limited knowledge of time and space beyond their own spheres of influence. Perhaps the original stories themselves were exaggerated. But the fact remains that the greater percentage of the population of the world today still subscribes to the teachings handed down by these ancients. Something is in those teachings. The interpretations over the centuries have muddied them.
Growing up as a science geek, I admire the atheistic tenet that God can't be proven to exist any more than Santa Claus can. This strikes at the very basis of critical thinking today. With scientific advances we can't avoid dominating our lives today, we are forced to look at the hard facts of what makes things work. It makes sense, from a scientific standpoint, to demand proof.
But I'm afraid our modern atheists may overlook the mindset of the ancients when accounting for the writings and stories they told after witnessing whatever they called miracles or visitations. And I also think modern civilization may be arrogant when thinking our ability to reason and think was just a happy accident of evolution. Sure, we are a species without natural defenses like claws or sharp teeth, and we needed our wits to survive, but is our brain development a result of that need or vice versa? How did we just seemingly whip this ability to reason out of thin air when evolution surely might have at least accidentally placed this reasoning ability somewhere else on Earth? Wouldn't simple social skills found elsewhere in nature have been enough for us to survive?
I dunno, is this reasoning ability simply an outgrowth of using wits to survive? Is it a runaway mutation? Are we the only species to even start to develop reasoning?
I still believe God exists. Whether it's aliens, Atlantis, or a hairy white guy on a throne, someone's keeping tabs on us. I also think the yin and yang of science and religion are on a collision course of discovery.

if you believe in evolution, yeah, adaptation meant a bigger cerebrum. humans have a big enough cerebrum not only to reason, but also to experience a sense of self unlike that of any other animal. while it gives humans the ability to question their own place in the universe, rather than be confined to struggle for a spot in a pack hierarchy on the basis of size and balls, it also brings with it plenty of additional baggage---knowledge of our own impending death, for example.

evolution doesn't mean that humans have to be militant atheists, though. to avoid despair, we tell ourselves all sorts of stories. could be jesus, could be science, could be poetry. i'm not going to knock jesus if i find something similarly distracting and awe-inspiring in art.

[Cyclone]

Isn't preaching religion to a child cramming one's beliefs down someone's throat? What is the difference between doing so with a child vs. other people?

Then once again we are talking about what is the proper way to raise a child, which really isn't something I'm interested in doing in this thread. After all, are we talking about David Koresh, threatening physical harm and spiritual damnation for the strayers of the flock, or a moderately "normal" family who allow access access to other points of view, but that tells their children about their religion and raises them in it without threat if they don't conform? The former, it goes without saying, is abusive. But let's not stereotype the direct statement at hand. I suppose the difference, then, would be that I don't tell my friends/family/acquaintances that they are abusing their children by bringing them up in a religious home. Of course, as psychologists and sociologists have worked out an empirically-based picture of how abuse affects children, I would suspect then that there would be easily identifiable negative effects on children that abuse has, if religion is really just another form of abuse.

Speaking personally, being raised in a Southern Baptist home, it occurs to me that probably by far most young children would be more psychologically traumatized by being indoctrinated with the atheistic worldview of Dawkins and co. than by vague references to a Hell which God did not want them to ever see and from which Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross gives them a simple way to escape. I don't find there to be a reasonable definition of "abusive" under which raising a child to be religious should qualify, and when you use that term in such a context, I think you'll also find quite a few people who view it as a disservice many children who are truly "abused".

[Buzzstein]

I think a moderate amount of delusion is okay. My parents raised me Catholic. I would not consider that child abuse, just...silly and incorrect. Now I pretty much think Catholicsm is complete bullshit but I think I came out of the mild brainwashing unscathed and unscarred. I equate teaching children to believe in God & zombie Jesus to teaching them to believe in Santa Claus. It's pretty harmless in and of itself. I don't think lying about the existence of Santa Claus has really done much damage to most people. I think it's nearly impossible for parents not to force their beliefs on their children. Everyone believes a certain thing and they want their children to believe the same thing. Sometimes that's bad, sometimes that's not. If I had children (that's a terrifying thought!) I would teach them not to believe all that religious nonsense. Is that wrong? Well I don't think so anyway.

I know a lot of people with Christian beliefs. Pretty much all of them are not extremists and their religious delusions are mild. I don't really have much respect for their beliefs but I respect them as human beings and (many of them) as friends. I'm not about to tell them they're belief systems are stupid and that they are idiots for believing in their form of Christianity. See, that would just be rude. General belief in Christianity does not bug me too much. It's certain specific things about certain forms of Christianity that I have a problem with. The homophobic anti-gay crap, telling non-believers they are going to hell, saying a natural disaster was caused by God because the people of a certain area were bad, actively trying to convert people. Everybody, ABSOLUTELY EVERYBODY, believes they are right. What matters is how you choose to express that. Fundamentalists of all types suck donkey balls. They are pushy as hell about their particular beliefs. Fuck off you rude assholes!...and that includes you pushy atheists too (and I'm not saying anybody in this thread is a pushy Fundamentalist Atheist, I'm just referring to those types in general). Yes, that's a bit intolerant, but it's okay to be intolerant about some things. I'm not so open-minded that my brain falls out. You have to be against something.

I would love it if tomorrow everybody woke up and religion no longer existed. I'm not sure it would fix many problems though. There would still be wars and people would still do terrible terrible things to each other. They would just use different excuses for their behavior.

Oh and on the whole science versus religion thing. Science and religion can run along parallel planes, but they should never ever EVER intersect. EVER! Science=fact, religion=faith. Those are very different things. You gotta keep 'em separated (I apologize for quoting The Offspring).

[yoshomon]

Speaking personally, being raised in a Southern Baptist home, it occurs to me that probably by far most young children would be more psychologically traumatized by being indoctrinated with the atheistic worldview of Dawkins and co. than by vague references to a Hell which God did not want them to ever see and from which Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross gives them a simple way to escape. I don't find there to be a reasonable definition of "abusive" under which raising a child to be religious should qualify, and when you use that term in such a context, I think you'll also find quite a few people who view it as a disservice many children who are truly "abused".

This is all good and well, unless the child in question is gay, and then all this nice Baptist stuff becomes another loud voice contributing to the disproportionately high rate of lgbt youth suicides.

[Cyclone]

This is all good and well, unless the child in question is gay, and then all this nice Baptist stuff becomes another loud voice contributing to the disproportionately high rate of lgbt youth suicides.

Good point.

Do you have a problem with what Buzz said, as well, are you signaling out my response because I professed that I was a Christian in this thread? We essentially hold the exact same beliefs regarding the issue. I'm not making assumptions, I'm just interested, as you've now brought up homosexuality twice, which I don't have a problem with, I find them very valid. My whole point in this thread was to criticize the 'new atheism' movement, though those view points could have very well been from agnostics or atheists. Or, did you take offense to my point about the comparison to the Dawkins, et al, atheistic worldview? I get your point. And you're not the only one with animosity toward "evangelical", fundamentalist, fire and brimstone, hateful, not caring about the poor and homosexual, multi-screen Dobonesque neo-cons. I'm not going to respond by linking the Gay Christian Network. I do, question, however, just how "loud" of a voice, being in a Baptist home, as you put it, has in many of these instances, unlike any other form of homophobia that one experiences, especially at such a young age. Speaking of which, what are you considering "youth" in these suicides, when considering the variables? If it's really youth, as in not even teenagers when people like myself realized they need to challenge their own faith that they grew up in, I would think it would be a fairly difficult task to know the true rate of "homosexual" suicides considering I would think homosexuality in youth is generally kind of hidden.

And lastly, this is a very controversial issue that people are obviously taking very seriously. If you think that raising children in a religious home is child abuse and I do not, we probably just need to agree to disagree at this point.

[yoshomon]

I did not mean to imply at all that you hate homosexuals, nor was I trying to go after you. I'm just trying to explore the topic. Apologies if my tone came across differently!

[Cyclone]

I'm going to try to make my beliefs on the matter very clear here, one last time ...

How so? I don't get that at all.

Why not? I'm just trying to think like a child for a moment. When I was a child I didn't think about hell very often and as such was not fearful from it because I knew that Jesus wanted me in heaven. From the other perspective, if I was to think about the afterlife that was pressed upon me, it would be that if one of my parents were to die, I'll never see them again. I have no doubt people will take extreme offense to this, but remember, all I'm doing here is trying to put myself in MY shoes when I was that age.

When I mention that I might find growing up in the "atheistic worldview of Dawkins" more more psychologically traumatizing, I mean this: I would not want to enforce the view to my children that you should automatically dismiss all forms of religion, especially since, well, they're children, so I don't think they'll be responsible enough at a young age to really consider any real arguments. I would surely hate for them to show no respect for others who hold a belief in anything supernatural. This includes dismissal of all theology out of hand via their expressed form of the "error factor". I rather believe that (*my opinion here*!) constructive engagement is capable of great results. I would want them to treat everyone and their beliefs with respect just as they would curious/devout agnostics and non-believers. I happen to find the smarter-than-thou argument of Dawkins about religion to be overshadowed by his own pessimistic view of the importance of independent thought for humanity.

One of the reasons for this justification is that Dawkins seems to think that this perfect, secularism worldview would mean the absolute vanishing of the countless, unreasonable violence and hatred in the world. This simply isn't true, and I don't think I need to mention the 20th century Soviet Union to prove this point, nor do I expect people to criticize me for being a Christian because of the Spanish Inquisition or that the pope has told Africans not to wear condoms in the midst of the AIDs virus. I would surely hate for atheism or secularism to be blamed for that violence. To believe that one group is the absolute source of evil is not only not true, but it does not truly help the cause in finding a solution to such things. When we really think of something of transcending significance, we are inspired to do very positive things and sometimes very negative things as well. Blaming terror in the forms of violence on religion is very reductive and very irresponsible of the world. "Religion" is man-made, and not always a good representative of the values of God for humanity. As such, I find both religion and atheism to be equally capable of doing cruel things in light of human nature.

Parents indoctrinate their offspring with beliefs and opinions of all sorts, not just religion, it's the nature of being so. As such, the nature of growing up is challenging said beliefs. It's the age old "rebel" story. As I said a few posts ago, if you thoroughly agree in your heart with Dawkins that religion is a form of child abuse, it should probably be left at that. It's pretty clear to me that you aren't going to agree with me, which is healthy, but I feel like I've explained my view pretty well at this point, although you'll probably pick one line out of this response to question like you've been doing. If you do want to continue, why not give me your own opinion which is so different than mine that you take issue to.

[Cyclone]

Thanks for the quote. Here's another quote from Dawkins: “I think that the crimes done in the name of religion really do follow from religious faith. I don’t think anyone could say the same with atheism.” I've also read "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris, and I believe that sentiment is echoed by Dawkins, who wrote the introduction.

I'm not really interested in comparing quotes though. My basis of Dawkins is from reading 'The God Delusion', and I guess it is unfair that I am sometimes lumping him personally in with the fellow three "four horsemen" of the movement, I'll admit. That quote doesn't change my stance though about comparing a child's upbringing.

I'm failing to see YOUR opinion, though, once again. I'm assuming you disagree with me completely? Also, are you not welcome to agreeing to disagree, when we are, of course, discussing a religious matter? If you don't find my argument or opinion convincing, that's fine, but I've given it.

[akip]

religion's a good cover for evil, but it's not the source.

[the happy prole]

Exactly.

I understand the intellectual disagreements Hitchens et al. have with religion, and to some extent I agree. And as far as I'm concerned they can proclaim as loudly and as often as they wish that God does not exist and religion is "false."

It's when they cross over to the sociopolitical arena that they get in trouble. People are allowed to be wrong. You can't start killing people or taking their rights away because you think they believe in something silly.

In his anti-religion zealotry, Hitchens definitely lost sight of that for awhile. Although again, like a good intellectual he eventually decided that maybe he ought to test his beliefs in what he was talking about. It turns out that water-boarding DOES suck.

I don't know too many pundits who would do what Hitchens did. But I also think that's why he's wasting much of his considerable talent. He puts himself in a position where he becomes just another screaming head yelling at other screaming heads over things none of them know anything about.

Dawkins I don't mind as much. I remember him being interviewed by O'Reilly and just seeming sort of bemused by the whole thing.

[Cyclone]

religion's a good cover for evil, but it's not the source.

Agreed .

[Buzzstein]

That isn't true. It took half a minute with google to confirm this. Here is a Dawkins quote:

"I think there is a logical path from religion to doing terrible things.... There's a logical path that says, if you really, really, really believe that your God, Allah, whoever it is, wants you to do something--and you'll go to heaven, you'll go to Paradise if you do it--then it's possible for an entirely logical, rational person to do hideous things. I cannot conceive of a logical path that would lead one to say, 'Because I am an atheist, therefore it is rational for me to kill, or murder, or be cruel, or do some horrible thing.' I can easily see that there are plenty of individuals who happen to be atheists, maybe even individuals who have some other philosophy which incidentally happens to be associated with atheism, but there is no logical path. Those young men who bombed in the London subway and the buses, those 19 men who flew planes into various targets in the United States in September of 2001, they were not psychopaths, they were not downtrodden ignorant people; they were well-educated rational people who passionately believed they were right. They thought they were righteous, they thought they were good, by the lights of their religion they were good. The same thing could be said of the hideous things done by the Taliban.... These people believe deeply in what they are doing. And it follows logically, once you grant them the premise of their faith, then the terrible things that they do follow logically. The terrible things that Stalin did, did not follow from his atheism, they followed from something horrible within him.... You will not do terrible deeds because you are an atheist, not for rational reasons; you may well for very rational reasons do terrible things because you are religious. That's what faith is about."

I don't see how it's remotely rational to believe god wants you to blow up shit and kill people. I think Dawkins is full of shit there.

[Buzzstein]

The false prophets or visionaries who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who redeemed you from slavery and brought you out of the land of Egypt. Since they try to lead you astray from the way the Lord your God commanded you to live, you must put them to death. In this way you will purge the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 13:5)

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12)

They agreed that anyone who refused to seek the LORD, the God of Israel, would be put to death—whether young or old, man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:13)

If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant . . . and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2,4-5)

They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen . . . Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done . . . They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:25,28,32)

So what are you saying? You could quote scripture all day long and it won't mean a damn thing to me. So some stupid book tells someone to kill people and they do it. Is that rational?

[Buzzstein]

It goes back to the Dawkins quote...if you accept the premise that believing in god is rational, then what follows could be that it is "rational to believe god wants you to blow up shit and kill people".

But even if one accepts that the belief in God is rational does that make it so? Religious faith seems irrational as hell to me.

[the happy prole]

But you're missing the part of Dawkins' quote where he makes the preposterous assertion that it is impossible to construct a "logical path" from atheism to killing.

That's where he fucks up. And that's what distinguishes him and the other "Four Horsemen" from other prominent atheists.

Christopher Hitchens supports the war in the mideast. How is that not killing?

[Cyclone]

So I come to the conclusion that from your quoting of scripture, as well as Googling of Dawkins quotes (since you admittedly said you only read about 60 pages of 'The God Delusion'), that you're comfortable in concluding that the genocide in the Old Testament is justifiable to mass destruction of the modern world, and to justify quotes like the following: "The terrible things that Stalin did, did not follow from his atheism, they followed from something horrible within him.... You will not do terrible deeds because you are an atheist, not for rational reasons; you may well for very rational reasons do terrible things because you are religious. That's what faith is about." Very well.

[the happy prole]

If you don't believe in God to the extent where you believe that religion is a major or even primary cause of all the wars and suffering and evil today, then you would be justified in killing religious people, or at least throwing them in prison or something. And Hitchens justifies the use of force in the Mideast for precisely that reason.

It seems to me that the advantage of science/rationalism over religion is that someone can float a bad idea out there, and the mechanism for proving them wrong is empirical testing, and that eventually rationality will win. You don't have to kill people.

So when you get to the point where you advocate killing people because their views are considered dangerous, then how are you behaving any differently than a religious extremist? The religious extremists-- in their minds-- are killing in self-defense just as you are.

That's my main point of contention with these guys. Not the intellectual idea that religion is irrational, but when it bleeds into issue of morality and the attempted rationalizing that killing in the name of "science/logic" will not occur or is somehow different than religious intolerance.

Intolerance does not come merely from a intellectual or theoretical opposition to an idea, but also how you react to that conflict. I'm completely opposed to the idea that 1 + 1 = 3, but I don't think I need to kill people who might think that. I don't believe in creationism, but I don't believe it is right or necessary to kill creationists.

That faith in anything is bad is probably the point in toto for guys like Dawkins.

My disdain for their behavior aside, I think you are right about this. These guys are hardcore rationalists on an intellectual level.

My problem with that is I don't believe in rationalism. I don't think they have any better scientific grounding for their moral beliefs than religious people do. Especially since scientific theory is intentionally divorced from moral judgment.

From what I can gather, Dawkins believes that a pursuit of science will eventually yield the answer to religious questions like why we are here and what is "right," etc. which will eventually lead to harmonious existence. I believe that is faith on his part.

I disagree with his rationalist theory on things. But what is also interesting to me is that the greatest attacks on rationalism came largely from atheists or people who did not care about religion. I would put myself in this category, I suppose. I don't believe morality can be grounded by religion or science and perhaps not by anything.

[the happy prole]

I mean, he either has clearly expressed that he believes that or he hasn't, right?

No. What a bizarre assumption.

[the happy prole]

Why would I say that Dawkins believes XYZ if I knew for a fact that he didn't? And if I knew for a fact that he DID, I would just say "Dawkins says XYZ" not "From what I gather, Dawkins XYZ."

Are we using different definitions of "rationalism?" I'm using it in the philosophical sense, not the political one.

[yoshomon]

If you don't believe in God to the extent where you believe that religion is a major or even primary cause of all the wars and suffering and evil today, then you would be justified in killing religious people, or at least throwing them in prison or something. And Hitchens justifies the use of force in the Mideast for precisely that reason.

Hitchens is not interested in religion as a hypothetical hidden cause for world events. The "parties of God" in the Middle East are actively pursuing a strategy of warfare and terrorism with the goal of creating Islamic theocracies. This is not an opinion but an observable fact, and it should be noted that the victims in this campaign of war and terrorism have primarily been practicing Muslims. The only groups going about and killing and imprisoning people for practicing religion are... religious groups.

Now, I disagree with Hitchens' proposed solutions to the problem posed by Islamism, but we should be clear about why he proposes them. He does not propose war with Islamism because it's a religious idea... the problem is the terrorism, theocracy, threat of nuclear war, and so on.

He is not advocating war with the Vatican, though I imagine he would have done so had he been alive during the Inquisition or the Crusades.