Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Hitchens Unhinged Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/hitchens_unhinged_part_i#6789 Post contents: W H, so many points made. I hope I don’t miss any. Firstly, the proof issue: ‘Atheists like you constantly use words like “proof”, “evidence”, “rational”, and “science” (among a host of others) in philosophically irresponsible ways.’ Yes we do, and you use those words if almost every other single mode of your being. WMDs in Iraq? Prove it. You’ve suddenly discovered that mustard makes you impotent? Prove it. Etc. When God enters the fray, all of sudden these words become ‘philosophically irresponsible’, and I’m sorry but I really don’t understand you at all on that one. ‘It’s not enough to throw the phrase “prove it!” around—you don’t even tell us what kind of proof you think is required (epistemological? mathematical? abductive? or what?)’ Just something; anything; the merest shred. It is not enough to claim that the Universe is such an incredible thing that there must be a creator. For all we know all of this is actually quite unremarkable, as we ourselves may be. I want something like the same proof that you require when your government makes an outlandish claim. “[Religion is] sinister and embarrassing.” ‘Why should anybody believe this? It’d be interesting to see you actually give a supporting argument for this claim.’ It’s embarrassing because you are effectively telling the world that life scares you so much that you need the reassurance of a fairytale to see you through it. It’s sinister because it’s a fairytale that sometimes gives itself the authority to do the most ludicrously horrendous things, as you well know. ‘Sky Lord’ is meant to be funny, and I think it has quite a nice ring to it. Furthermore, don’t all of our church spires point up into the azure, suggesting that is where His lair lies? If He’s all around and what have you, why don’t some steeples point sideways, or downwards, or inwards? And don’t we go ‘up’ to heaven? I know this is silliness - it’s not the Christian version of events that you are using in your argument, though I strongly suspect you are one of one denomination or another (apologies if you are not). You sound a bit agnostic. Lastly, though it doesn’t bother me to be called one, I don’t really think myself an atheist. I think myself a nothing. The only reason I apparently am one is because some other people do believe, therefore I apparently need a contrasting title. I don’t believe in ghosts either, but I’m not known as an antighostist or an aphantomist. The innuits didn’t have any word for atheist, but then they didn’t need one: they didn’t have any gods either. Sent at: 2008 05 16