This kind of stuff fascinates me.

Occasionally.

A thousand words, each comprehensible as a unit, but utterly without purpose or meaning when joined together.

"Christopher Hitchens is no atheist - he just thinks he is"

That's a pretty arrogant - and condescending - opener.

Could you please enlighten your readers Mr Christensen, as to the substantive difference between thinking one is an atheist, and actually being one?

"More recently, social critics have queried the legitimacy of Western civilisation itself"

Legitimacy?

On what basis do these unnamed "social critics" regard our civilization illegitimate?

"The essential weakness of Postmodernism is its failure to explain why, if there are no answers, humanity is endowed with the wonders of reason and language. Is God a sadist, equipping us with nifty tools, an insatiable curiosity, only to then set us off in search of a non-existent quarry?"

Why is this suddenly a weakness of "Postmodernism"?

Does any "-ism" actually explain why we are so endowed? Any such effort would first have to show that there are indeed answers. Which can clearly only be achieved through circular logic.

As for God being a sadist, why does he suddenly make an appearance as an actor in this miasmic argument?

"Let’s say Jesus walked on water and rose again. For such events to have lasting value, for them to be authentic and heart-felt, they must be rendered intellectually meaningless... Hitchens and his allies won’t enlighten religious types if they themselves are defined by a similar unenlightened, self-important need to know"

I get it. Because the walking on water and the rising-again are intellectually meaningless, Hitchens' position is also "unenlightened" and "self-important".

I do appreciate the self-deprecating "similar", though. Nice touch.

It is simply another way to say "Christians believe, atheists don't", while pretending that the religious view somehow has greater moral authority.

C'mon, Mr Christensen. These are just a load of words strung together, aren't they?

From the link to your web site, it would appear that you make a living from this stuff.

Congratulations. That's some achievement.

To say "the basic building blocks of reality, at least when they’re not being observed, are best described as random wave functions" is to take several things out of context, and to make the paragraph that sentence is part of , a non-sequitur.

The reality of atomic mechanics is different to more tangible human and earthly realities.

To invoke vague assertions such as "wisdom comes from accepting we effectively know nothing" is unrealistic.

Word salad and phrase salad are not an effective means of communication.

This article is a semantic pea-and-thimble trick. Its purpose is to confuse not enlighten.

It proves that too much intellectual navel-gazing reveals nothing more than bits of fluff!

Pericles, thanks for making the effort I couldn't manage.

Pericles

I echo GlenC, you've done the de-construction of this article for me.

What a load of "unprintable".

Obviously someone is very unhappy that their (Hitchens & Dawkins) books sell really well and these modern thinkers are not religious - two concepts that seriously get the wind up Christensen.

While my taxes still support superstitious beliefs, I will continue to support valid critics such as Hitchens and Dawkins.

An interesting essay altogether. But like everyone else the author does not have any real solutions to the mind created trap (mind-forged-manacles) in which we are all tightly trapped.

Speaking of Quantum Reality, the intrinsic nature of light, how all of our systems of knowledge (including "religion") are purposed to gain power and control over every one and everything, or are effectively primitive hunter-gatherer behavior, check out an essay re Reality & The Middle via this url (scroll down).

The first paragraph alone is remarkable.

http://www.dabase.org/s-atruth.htm

Plus two references on the limitations of both scientism and what is usually called religion. And how our every minute fraction of our entire culture is patterned by the ideology of scientism.

http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-science.aspx

http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/universal-scientism.aspx

Plus a related reference on art and quantum physics

http://www.artandphysics.com

Also very much related to Art & Physics this Artists Statement

http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/transcending_the_camera/index.html

Ho Hum

Being time poor - could you please explain your point and at least provide a paragraph or two from your many web-links. I might then have some understanding of where you are coming from.

Mark, you say that “the so-called laws of physics do not hold true in the sub atomic realm. The basic building blocks of reality, at least when they’re not being observed, are best described as random wave functions.”

If you examine that level you find particles arising and passing away at great speed (10 power 22 as measured by Louis Alvarez). Rather than being random, cause and effect applies – each arising and passing is a condition for the next arising and passing. Examine this process within your own mind and body and you'll find no essence, no self, no enduring entity to cling to. Descartes observed within himself the thinking process, the flow of the mind integrated with the flow of the body. Unfortunately, he concluded “I think therefore I am,” rather than “Thinking is.”

Philosophy and rational thought can only take you so far, they are functions of that small part of the mind known in the West as “conscious,” which ignore the far larger and more important part of the mind, the so-called “unconscious,” which is in fact always aware.

To observe reality as it is, directly, we have to access this part of the mind and train our mind to observe with detachment, without reaction. Through this, we can understand the nature of existence, which is impermanent and egoless, a substance-less flow. Only through this understanding can we come out of the ignorance and delusion which normally drive us, which cause the problems and suffering which many have sought to address through religion, philosophy, hedonsim, opiates etc as the case may be.

You don't need a god to do this, you don't even need a view on whether or not there is a god, you just need the volition to engage in deep self-observation without pre-conceptions.

[Deleted for irrelevance].

Thanks, Pericles. The best I can do in response is to record my own reaction to this piece of claptrap:

"Huh?"

Two natural laws have removed any doubt about the existance of God for me. Light displaces darkness not vice verca. Hot gives of heat to become cold. Those two laws tell me that the bible is truth. Without the key you will never unlock the door. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, so what you hope for is what your faith is in. Just because you believe something does not make it true.

"Light displaces darkness not vice verca. Hot gives of heat to become cold. Those two laws tell me that the bible is truth."

But how do you account for the fact that those two phenomena don't convince anyone else? In other words, what's special about you? Or are all the others lying? To say "A proves B to me" when it doesn't prove B to anyone else may be just a way of showing your bias.

As I seek knowledge in the light of truth it must pass the test of Gods word not a mans opinion. The second law of thermodynamics has made me realize that there is nothing man can do to save himself as when energy is all used up hot becomes cold and the rest is blowing in the wind. Light always displaces darkness, try striking a match in pitch black darkness.
Evil enslaves but the truth you know sets you free. So evil is a lost cause so why waste your time believing the twisted word.

HITCHINS is a CHRISTIAN ?

The most intersting thing about Hitchins is that he is not an Atheist but a rather passionate evangelical Christian.

Nope..Not Christopher..but his brother Peter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens

Just goes to show... you can have to closely related people.. both looking at the same evidence..and emerging with totally different conclusions.

In Peter's case...he "began" where Christopher still is, as an Atheist but he is now one of Christs own. I hope and pray all others who explore this thread will come to know that same Lord and Saviour.

I wonder about people who start on the dark side and remain there.... perhaps the 'lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, the pride of life' which holds them back? (1 John 2:16)

It's not for me to say... but that's how scripture describes it.

But for one who has lived that life, and seen a light...'the' light..and follows it.. truly such a person is blessed in this life and the next.

"I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness" (Jesus)

"I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness" (Jesus)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Tuesday, 31 August 2010 9:40:37 AM

"The second law of thermodynamics has made me realize that there is nothing man can do to save himself as when energy is all used up hot becomes cold and the rest is blowing in the wind. 'Light always displaces darkness' ... "
Posted by Richie 10, Tuesday, 31 August 2010 8:58:55 AM

So, Ritchie10 counters the claim Jesus is the light of the world
.

My logic is obviously too subtle for some of you guys. To say I offer only vague assertions and that there is no “ism” to explain the purpose of reason, only verifies what I am suggesting.

I’ll attempt to break it down some more. Try to keep up.

Christopher Hitchens says, and I agree, that life is innately uncertain. I would have thought the key implication of such a worldview is it’s pointless attempting to define anything of consequence, as all preliminary conclusions are swamped in the end by the unknowable. This being the case, why would you seriously define yourself as an atheist, Christian, whatever? Who you are is self-evident – it needs no tag or statement of authenticity.

The value of atheism/Enlightenment doesn’t lie in discrediting received religious truth (eg God made the universe in 6 days), it lies in its ability to have people see the stupidity of choosing to limit yourself to a set of rules and rites designed to represent your beliefs. By making it about right/wrong, not freedom, atheists fall into the same trap by ending up being defined themselves.

My article is an attempt to point out the nature of this futile battle and suggest a different purpose for reason: why is it that we cannot literally understand the truth? I’m not proposing we ask if God exists or not – that question is pointless, in a direct way, because of uncertainty. We should be asking why it is we cannot grasp such matters.

Western civilisation is built upon lie because all past action is premised on there being an answer at the end “of all this”. This isn’t a problem, however, if this “failure” provides a narrative for answering the real question of why we can’t understand.

I don't think most of us will even bother trying to keep up Mark, as it seems you have already left the planet and are travelling at a speed that is hard to match.

Is there a actual point at the end of all this?

I only ask, because it's kind of hard to spot one.

""By making it about right/wrong, not freedom, atheists fall into the same trap by ending up being defined themselves.

"... why is it that we cannot literally understand the truth?

"... all past action is premised on there being an answer at the end “of all this”. ""

Posted by intempore, Tuesday, 31 August 2010 10:08:26 AM

Atheists can take a passive "absence of belief (in the absence of evidence) in god", or they can try to engage in what absence of evidence means, often leading to frustration.

I agree a lot of action is premised on their being answers at the end, or answers for, yet feel answers in philosophy and science about the present, past or future for the real world are sufficient. Give me Hubble images, Carl Sagan, David Attenborough docos, microscopy images, and I'm grinning and winning
.

correction ... *there* being answers at the end ....

Desperate stuff, intempore.

>>I’ll attempt to break it down some more. Try to keep up<<

Condescension, by the way, is a weapon only the genuinely intellectual are able to employ effectively.

>>I would have thought the key implication of such a worldview is it’s pointless attempting to define anything of consequence, as all preliminary conclusions are swamped in the end by the unknowable.<<

That's odd. You earlier asked:

"What if our magnificent responsibility involves appreciating we cannot define existence or the self?"

The indication being, "I would have thought", that the worldview you refer to, is one that you share.

Or is the question meaningless too? That's certainly a possibility.

My, that IS subtle.

>>By making it about right/wrong, not freedom, atheists fall into the same trap by ending up being defined themselves<<

Ahem. Is it not religion that is always "making it about right/wrong"?

It certainly was at the church I went to as a lad.

>>We should be asking why it is we cannot grasp such matters.<<

To what purpose, exactly?

How does this differ from asking "if God exists or not"? Which you have already deemed "pointless".

>>Western civilisation is built upon lie because all past action is premised on there being an answer at the end “of all this”<<

Sez who?

Sure, there have been a whole lot of people who believe in some form of afterlife. But are you suggesting that this is entirely responsible for the manner in which Western civilization has developed?

If so, your position tells me that religion has far more to answer for than has so far been admitted.

But please, do continue with your explanation to us slowcoaches.

In many ways, it is more entertaining than the article itself.

Oh Boaz, you do try so hard, don't you.

Even if it means gilding the lily every so often.

>>...you can have to closely related people.. both looking at the same evidence..and emerging with totally different conclusions<<

They are definitely related. But "looking at the same evidence"? Don't think so.

The pair of them had massively different life experiences, from university onwards - Christopher at Oxford, Peter at York.

It was Christopher, for example, who in 1973 travelled to Athens to retrieve his mother's body, following her suicide pact with the ex-clergyman she had run away with. It was Peter who worked for the same newspaper - the Daily Express - for 23 straight years, and settled into middle-class conformity at the age of 30.

That's not in any way "looking at the same evidence".

>>In Peter's case...he "began" where Christopher still is, as an Atheist but he is now one of Christs own.<<

Actually, they both started out as Anglicans.

Peter burned his bible at the age of fifteen, which was a nice and dramatic piece of teenage rebellion.

Here's his story.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255983/How-I-God-peace-atheist-brother-PETER-HITCHENS-traces-journey-Christianity.html

Here are the two of them at the Guardian Hay Festival in 2005.

**Ian Katz (Guardian features editor): "Peter when did your belief kick in, when did this become an issue between you?

Peter Hitchens: Oh, it's never been an issue. I returned as it were to the Anglicanism of my childhood. Such as it was - it wasn't particularly strong: one has some background music of Hymns Ancient & Modern and the King James Bible, but not very much more than that. I'm probably keener about it now than I was then. I suppose [I returned] in my early 30s when people sometimes do, when various things start happening.**

Do have a look, when you have a moment, it really is very interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/may/31/hayfestival2005.guardianhayfestival3

It might even encourage you to take a few moments to check the context of your pronouncements every so often.

But I promise I won't hold my breath. So you won't need to worry about having that on your conscience.

Christopher Higgins and Richard Dawkins are, essentially, railing against a deity of their own creation, - or against an outmoded understanding of a deity.

True, the polytheism of the Greeks and of the Romans gradually gave way to monotheism. We should also realise that the English word for a deity is a concept that most Christians, without the propensity for academic inquiry, can visualise and accept.

What is fundamentally true is that humans have an inbuilt sense of sel-discipline. This is quite different from the convoluted way Freud describe it. Without sel-discipline a human is "no good for man or beast", and ultimately self-dstructive. The Old and the New Testaments, and the various modern religions are, in effect, a testament for the need for sel-discipline.

What is the source of this self-discipline?

Perhaps it is a force outside of human influence, - though this does not mean a physical deity.

Do not know how I confused Higgins with Hitchens. Christopher Hitchens is a garrulous journalist, who is somewhat removed from being a serious philosopher as a wasp is somewhat removed from a honeybee. A wasp is attracted by anything sweet. Naturally, a wasp is attracted to honey, but a strong colony will simply eject them.