Hitchens vs. Hitchens

I have just listened to a discussion between Christopher Hitchens and his brother Peter Hitchens on The Today Programme. The latter came out with a number false claims, such that I found it hard to believe the two were related at all (but not hard to believe he had a job with The Daily Mail). He repeatedly claimed that atheism denies any kind of moral absolutism, which it does not (and his brother put him right on this), and he tried to say that foetuses are babies, whereas they are not – they are obviously foetuses. Thank goodness Hitchens C. is there to combat Hitchens P.

Regarding God is Not Great, it arrived for me today. It is eloquently written, well informed, and uncompromising. Hitchens comes across as somewhat aggressive and pompous compared with Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, who are measured and reasonable but firm. I guess he considers the situation to be an emergency and has accordingly brought out the heavy artillery in every respect. Everything he says is true, but if he wants to make converts (which should be what he wants) a more inclusive approach might be better. It is an emergency though, so this is a tough call…

I agree, however, with his rejection of the term “Bright” (which Dawkins has endorsed) as an atheist euphemism – it seems to me unnecessary.

My favourite quotation from this book so far is:

“The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant from his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted.”

My second favourite is this:

“It [religion] comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species and it is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge as well as comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs. Today, the least educated of my children knows much much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion.”