"Respect the person, not necessarily his ideas"

If just finished watching that Christopher Hitchens video that jwray recommended above. The first part is very good - an erudite and lucid defence of free speech which I highly support. Hitchens argues that some religious people use freedom of speech to spread an intolerant message of hate, but then call for censorship when people start criticising their beliefs. This is entirely true, and is precisely why we should not have censorship. But then Hitchens descends into a venomous rant aimed at all religions - but of course, he reserves particular contempt for Islam. I have two points to make regarding the rest of the video:

(1) What is so ridiculous is that his comments about the Qur'an show that he has never ever read it. For example, he claims that the vast majority of the Qur'an is a bad copy of previous religious texts. This is just factually untrue - from an Islamic and an objective sceptical perspective. While there are indeed some references to the Bible - New and Old Testaments - in the Qur'an, it is an original work of a very different nature - structurally, poetically, theologically, etc. Furthermore, he never talks about the historical and political factors contributing to the rise of modern Islamic extremism - seeking instead to portray it as an inevitable manifestation of the Islamic faith.

(2) I don't see how someone like Hitchens can claim to be anti-hatred when he himself preaches hatred. He does not simply urge people to be wary, or sceptical, or critical of religion - but to hate religion. Now he could argue that he is urging hatred of ideas not of people - respect the people, not the ideas. But religion is such an important part of many people's personal identity that it is very difficult to disentangle the people from their beliefs.

Hatred should never be advocated - it is no substitute for objective criticism.

Let me ask you a question. In purely practical terms, as an atheist surely you realise that the best way to change what you don't like in any given religion is to help support and promote the voices of moderation within that faith. You have a far greater chance of convincing believers to intepret their holy texts in a more moderate way - i.e. non-literal, and in its textual and historical context - than you do of convincing them that their fundamental beliefs (often a key component of their personal identity and cultural heritage) are completely false and without any merit. For this reason I often think that the atheist movement is very short sighted in its approach. If your aim is to convince people of the falsehood of all religion then your best bet is to begin undermining what you see as the most serious negative elements of particular faiths. Once all faith is moderate and entirely compatible with secular liberal values - then you go after the central belief - theism. But by going after the central core of religion - theism - you very often just put people's backs up - rather than enticing people to your flock you drive them away.

Similarly, it seems that many prominent atheists reserve the right to be as critical/abusive about religion as possible. I believe in free speech so I would support their right - even though I don't agree with what they are saying. However, the abusive way in which many atheists refer to religious people - 'morons', 'idiots', etc, and the way that they abuse and ridicule spiritual leaders - drives away many people who may be questioning the veracity of their faith. It is not the doctrine of atheism which is driving them away, but the way in which that doctrine is sold.

btw - In the God Delusion, Dawkins sets out a scale of 1-7, 1 being a 100% believer in God, and 7 being a 100% believer that there is no God. If I remember correctly Dawkins says that his a 6 veering on 7. Where are you?

All national culture should be eradicated; tradition is just a word for "doing stupid things for no reason", and language will inevitably homogenise over time, which is a good thing. The despicable movements in Wales and Scotland to resurrect their old, dead, worthless languages appals me. Your idea of personal identity is my idea of nationalism, an invariably destructive force leading to, oh yes, imperialism.

Nations and governments exist purely to improve the lives of their citizens by accomplishing things they cannot individually or in smaller groups. Britain united is more efficient to that end than England, Scotland and Wales divided. End of. Everything else, like "Ooooh Scotland, we just wanna be freeeeeee, won't you let us be freeeeeeeee" is bullshit.

"Culture, language and tradition are all meaningless."

What a load of shite! Culture, language and traditions are three of the most important ingredients of personal identity. The reason we don't have organisations like the East Anglia Liberation Front is because the culture, langues and traditions of East Anglia that have survived the course of history are not distinct enough to engender a distinct identity separate from the rest of England. However, the culture, languages and traditions of Scotland have survived and have helped to engender a distinct Scottish identity (or Scottish identities).

"WE'RE BOTH BRITISH"

But maybe for not much longer - and for some reason that seems to really get to you...

There aren't even people left in America stupid enough to approve Bush's follies. The only people left defending him are angry jingoists, too manically defensive to see their hand in front of their face let alone think lucidly.

I'd peg 420 as an adolescent who derives a too-substantial part of his personal identity from his perception of himself as "American", such that he considers any criticism of American foreign policy a personal criticism. I'd imagine he's rationalized his raving defense of GW's foreign policy into a recent adoption of "Republican" identity, in order to create a more comprehensible and presentable conception of himself.

Really a fascinating specimen!

Part 1b
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymEn_YxZqZw


Here's part 2 filmed 13 years later.
2a
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu9UY8Zqg-Q
2b
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCyvzI2aVUo
2c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BrCBq2FY_U
2d
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKxr08GEE54

One of the most interesting parts is in the later half of 2c where his wife contrasts the differences in episodic vs semantic memory.

Good post antiuser, you might also like "The Man Who Slept for 19 Years"(not posted online) about a car accident victim, additionally, Mindshock's "Sex on the Brain" episode http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbFkz1_C5SU The first one is amnesic(still thinks it's 1984) both exemplify the the effects of temporal lobe damage to emotional constraint.

Some the most interesting videos I've seen was over at Princeton's webmedia site:
http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/lectures/
Like Michael S. Gazzaniga, Dartmouth University: "Personal Identity, Neuroethics and the Human Brain"
http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/lectures/20050414gazzanigaVN350K.asx
This was, by far, one of my favorites. He cites some fascinating studies.