Archive for the ‘Christopher Hitchens’ Category

Hitchens’ target was religion general, was it?

October 16, 2017

Thread:“Did Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens ….? “@
Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion

Post 20: 

The Commenter    commented:
[Replying to paarsurrey1]
I think Hitchens’ target was religion general. He saw Islam as the problem of the moment. Whilst the title of the book was a brickbat aimed at Islam – the primary target was still a general rejection of religions. As he was brought up in and surrounded by the Christian tradition I think the tone of his work leans more towards arguing against Christianity. In that sense I think he is primarily rejecting that tradition. But really all religions are game. The bottom line Hitchens did not believe in God and thought there were overwhelmingly sound reasons not to believe in God and any system of belief that taught otherwise was therefore foolish.

It is rational to be critical of a religious system without being an adherent, and it is rational to be critical without having spent a lifetime studying a particular religion. The danger of limited knowledge is then making a facile analysis that misses the nuances and maybe getting things wrong. The problem would be lack of rigour rather than lack of rationality. A bit like writing a school essay and only get a C+ with the comment must try harder.

On the whole I think Hitchens lands his punches but I’m not sure which criticism in detail you feel Hitchens gets wrong or is the product of a facile analysis.

In the short youtube clip above Hitchens is guilty of sweeping rejection of Islam but then as he says he thinks the very idea that God speaks to someone is “BS”. From Hitchens’ perspective rejecting these kinds of religions claims is the foundation of reason.


Quote:
I think Hitchens’ target was religion general. He saw Islam as the problem of the moment.

paarsurrey1 wrote:
I don’t mind criticism, in fact, I never found much attraction and appeal towards Atheism or the like, its subsets, or towards the No-God position/no-position.
At a very young age, I read a small treatise* and a book** by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, the Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi. He himself had a continuous experience of Converse with the One-True-God.
One of my friends on the internet whom I suggested to read some book of the Promised Messiah, she insisted and prevailed upon me to read “God is not Great” by Hitchens, so this way I happen to read it. Hitchens book might be a good book having a temporary popularity but if looked in-depth, it has no seeds to be relevant in the decades to come, as it fails to create a permanent imprint on the human self or psyche.

Regards

*”Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam”:
https://www.alislam.org/library/browse/volume/Ruhani_Khazain/book/Islami_Asool_ki_Philosphy/#page/-31/mode/1up
**Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya Parts I & II | Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya Part III | Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya Part IV:
https://www.alislam.org/library/browse/volume/Ruhani_Khazain/book/Braheen_e_Ahmadiyya/#page/-28/mode/1up

“A God’s Undertaker, by John Lennox: a very brief review” by Takis Konstantopoulos

January 22, 2014

One may like to read the review by accessing following link:

http://randomprocessed.blogspot.ca/2013/12/a-gods-undertaker-by-john-lennox-vrey.html

I have posted following comments on the above blog:

paarsurrey said

You have named two persons in your post, John Lennox and Christopher Hitchens. You have experienced a feeling about John Lennox; almost the same kind of feeling I had when I read a book by Christopher Hitchens, the book is said to be one time best seller in America; I had the same feeling about him and the book he wrote. An atheist friend had suggested me reading that book in a sort of deal.

The man wrote the book and impressed upon the people as if he was an authority on religion; while his study of religion was very shallow.

He might have read Bible to discuss about Judaism and Christianity but for the rest and especially about Islam/Quran/Muhammad he hardly had any in-depth knowledge to discuss the things.

http://randomprocessed.blogspot.ca/2013/12/a-gods-undertaker-by-john-lennox-vrey.html?showComment=1390341289727#c8884365766336962991

“The wonderful late great Christopher Hitchens!”

January 17, 2014

Hitchens67 has written a post titled “The wonderful late great Christopher Hitchens!” on his blog that could be viewed at the following link:
http://hitchens67.wordpress.com/ or
http://hitchens67.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/the-wonderful-late-great-christopher-hitchens/

Following posts have been exchanged between paarsurrey and Hitchens67 for the interest of the viewers of my blog and for benefit of the general public:

paarsurrey says:
January 16, 2014 at 8:11 pm

What is so wonderful about him? Please

http://hitchens67.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/the-wonderful-late-great-christopher-hitchens/#comment-1044

hitchens67 says:
January 17, 2014 at 5:34 am

Some like him some don’t, I happen to think that he was brilliant and it was his works that led me to atheism and to authors such as Harris, Dennett and Dawkins.

http://hitchens67.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/the-wonderful-late-great-christopher-hitchens/#comment-1045

paarsurrey says:
January 17, 2014 at 5:27 pm

Please give one, just one good, original and truthful argument that he gave?

http://hitchens67.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/the-wonderful-late-great-christopher-hitchens/#comment-1048

paarsurrey says:
January 17, 2014 at 9:00 pm
@ hitchens67
You might have so many good arguments given by Hitchens; but I would like you to mention just one out of them all; the best one, please. And please don’t make a list of the arguments; just one please.

http://hitchens67.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/the-wonderful-late-great-christopher-hitchens/#comment-1050

Book Discussion: God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens

August 5, 2013

Paarsurrey says:

Hitchens knowledge of religion is based on Bible; not on Quran, hence he hides behinds his own words “most notably the Christian” and then makes an unfounded and poor generalization in the second sentence given above.
Hitchens, as is evident, never read Quran intently, hence he did not quote from Quran, not even a single verse to substantiate his viewpoint.

Quran is the first and the foremost source of guidance of all Muslims, whatever their denomination. Had Hitchens been an honest research scholar with some scientific method of research he must have based his criticism of Islam primarily on Quran but that is not the case; he relied on the traditional source called Hadith which never existed in the time of Muhammad. Hadith was collected 200/250 years after Muhammad.

Hence, whatever is written in Hadith; Muhammad/Quran/Islam are not responsible for it. Criticism of Hitchens of Islam/Quran/Muhammad is therefore irrelevant and is of shallow significance.

Those who collected Hadith they had a clear principle in mind that Hadith should accepted if it is not against Quran or in other words, it is not validated by Quran. Due to the time lag after Muhammad, Hadith is engrossed in denominational feuds; hence if at all it quoted it should be done with caution; else it should be rejected. Quran absolutely rules the teachings of Muhammad/Islam and there is no other contestant to it.

If one wants to cut a tree; one should cut it from root or just uproot it from the earth that holds it firmly; if one tears some leaves from a tree and then claims; “lo! I have uprooted the tree” and in evidence he shows the torn leaves, the claim is not worthy of attention.

The Atheists/skeptics who claim to follow reason should not follow a denominational line just because it suits their philosophy; this would be a biased approach on their part.

The Americans who are in search of God; they should reject this shallow research of Christopher Hitchens, in my opinion.

atheistthink

This book is quite the finishing touch on the great life of Hitchens. His argument throughout this book is that religion has poisoned history. He concludes the book with the argument that in order to solve this we will need a new enlightenment, however he specifies that it will not need to depend on the work of a few gifted men. Instead he posits that this kind of enlightenment is within the grasp of the average person. This is why I believe writing blogs and getting the word out will have some effect. The average person does not think of the issue of religion often, and as such follows the Church of whoever he/she was taught to. Apart from that, religious people are the overwhelming majority today, so it seems almost unnecessary to deviate from religion because how could all these people be wrong? Well, here we have the fallacy…

View original post 343 more words

Christopher Hitchens had poor knowledge of Quran

March 28, 2013

Hitchens wrote:

Hitchens Book “God is not great”

1. In some cases—most notably the Christian—one revelation is apparently not sufficient, and needs to be reinforced by successive apparitions, with the promise of a further but ultimate one to come. In other cases, the opposite difficulty occurs and the divine instruction is delivered, only once, and for the final time, to an obscure personage whose lightest word then becomes law.—Page-97: Chapter-7: Hitchens Book “God is not great”

2. The syncretic tendencies of monotheism, and the common ancestry of the tales, mean in effect that a rebuttal to one is a rebuttal to all.

Page-98: Chapter-7: Hitchens Book “God is not great”

Paarsurrey comments:

Hitchens knowledge of religion is based on Bible; not on Quran, hence he hides behinds his own words “most notably the Christian” and then makes an unfounded and poor generalization in the second sentence given above.
Hitchens, as is evident, never read Quran intently, hence he did not quote from Quran, not even a single verse to substantiate his viewpoint.

Quran is the first and the foremost source of guidance of all Muslims, whatever their denomination. Had Hitchens been an honest research scholar with some scientific method of research he must have based his criticism of Islam primarily on Quran but that is not the case; he relied on the traditional source called Hadith which never existed in the time of Muhammad. Hadith was collected 200/250 years after Muhammad.

Hence, whatever is written in Hadith; Muhammad/Quran/Islam are not responsible for it. Criticism of Hitchens of Islam/Quran/Muhammad is therefore irrelevant and is of shallow significance.

Those who collected Hadith they had a clear principle in mind that Hadith should accepted if it is not against Quran or in other words, it is not validated by Quran. Due to the time lag after Muhammad, Hadith is engrossed in denominational feuds; hence if at all it quoted it should be done with caution; else it should be rejected. Quran absolutely rules the teachings of Muhammad/Islam and there is no other contestant to it.

If one wants to cut a tree; one should cut it from root or just uproot it from the earth that holds it firmly; if one tears some leaves from a tree and then claims; “lo! I have uprooted the tree” and in evidence he shows the torn leaves, the claim is not worthy of attention.

The skeptics who claim to follow reason should not follow a denominational line just because it suits their philosophy; this would be a biased approach on their part.

The Americans who are in search of God; they should reject this shallow research of Christopher Hitchens, in my opinion.


%d bloggers like this: