Opinion of Christopher Hitchens

[afleitch]

A very intelligent man. The only problem, it is said that many people have with Chris Hitchen's argument re religion (which is the one that he is recently known for) is that it is given by Chris Hitchens. Only it is not; it is an argument made by countless people over centuries. It is not original but neither has it been successfully disarmed. When he argues as part of a team with different personalities this becomes move evident.

For the record the fact that his atheism is all he is known for (to the extent a topic about him appears on this particular board above others) is quite a pity. His earlier works are enjoyable.

[afleitch]

I don't agree with everything he has to say, but I like him. I do tend to agree with him on the topic of religion. I think the reason that some people tend to dislike him so much isn't just his views, but rather the fact that he states them so unabashedly with no reservations whatsoever.

That's precisely it.

Religion is the topic he is most asked to debate about, ironically overwhelmingly by churches and theologians. He argues in the spirit of others before him; he takes no prisoners and makes the audience uncomfortable. That's his style; in the same way that his opponents appeal to different aspects of human nature such as fear of the unknown, or the self (or make appeals to a higher power). Richard Dawkins for example makes the same argument as Hitchens  but is more calm, often reserved. Sam Harris is more 'chummy.' Christopher Hitchens has a similar (though I find less grating) style of debate and fluidity of argument as his brother Peter. Peter Hitchens is in my opinion ten times as odious.

When he is asked to discuss other matters, particularly politics, socialism and the Middle East he is the same man; it just so happens that people who may disagree with his stance on religion rally round when he talks about foreign policy. The substance of his debate however is never found to be lacking.

[afleitch]

I respect him more than most others of his ilk. But I don't really like left-winged intellectuals in general. They reek too much of hypocrisy, arrogance and narcissism for my tastes.

Hitchens hasn't been left-wing in any meaningful sense for a long time.

Define meaningful sense?

Well, it's like pornography, isn't it? I know it when I see it.

Unfortunately, this isn't the Supreme Court. I'm using the same definition to reach a different answer.

I would like to note though that I never said left-wing. I said left-wing intellectual. And I didn't mean a left-winger who is intellectual or an intellectual who is left-wing, but a "left-wing intellectual" (tm). And that's what I consider Hitchens to be.

I would agree. Stripping down 'left v right' to economics, there is no doubt that Hitchens is economically left wing and any temperance in his economic views merely echoes those taken by most other intellectuals and practical socialists.

[afleitch]

I think he's wrong to consider all people of faith to be mentally deficient...

I don't think I've ever read or heard him say that religious people are mentally deficient, rather that they are deluded. (the difference being that you can be intelligent but still horribly wrong about something)

Though deluded or not, I think it goes without saying that religious people would disagree.

He believes that religion can make 'good people do bad or irrational things.' He also believes that the 'good things; for which religion takes credit in motivating people to do are innate in human nature as part of a shared humanism at any rate and that it is religion that barrows from this.

Again, it's an argument that annoys alot of people, but it's not unique and it's not new.