His brother's keeper

I didn't even know that Christopher Hitchens had a brother, but he does, and Peter Hitchens has written a fascinating, thoughtful, and provocative  review of Christopher's book God Is Not Great.

Christopher is an atheist, or as he styles himself, an "anti-theist."

Peter is a member of the Anglican Church.

They do not get along. Peter quotes Christopher as saying,  "The real difference between Peter and myself is the belief in the supernatural. I’m a materialist and he attributes his presence here to a divine plan. I can’t stand anyone who believes in God, who invokes the divinity or who is a person of faith."

This would seem to suggest that Christopher "can't stand" the vast majority of the human race. But Peter is too kind to point this out. 

Hat tip: Drudge. 

Comments

[william]

This response from Christopher Hitchen’s brother Peter is a delight to read. Anyone that has spent any time dialoging with any confirmed atheist like Hitchens will love this quote in his book: "Our belief is not a belief." Does this quote qualify as delusional thinking?

As a side note Peter’s brother the atheist has in his name the word “Christ” that must be like having a constant annoyance. And his brother Christopher was for the war in Iraq to spread “goodness”. Does the need to spread goodness throughout the world qualify as crusading, transforming, evangelical discipleship?

Can’t be; any good confirmed atheist will be more than happy to inform you that atheists have no beliefs and certainly atheism is not a religion.

[Tony M]

Interesting article and I was glad to read it. But there is a disturbing implication that all left thought is associated with atheism. It is not. (In fact, I find the suggestion that Christopher Hitchens is 'of the left' problematic. I think he once was, but as he has grown older his politics have become crumudgeonly disdain for people. He regards almost everyone either a fool or a liar and seems to me to have a sense of a type of middle class British snobbery best characterized in the late novels of Kingsley Amis. But I digress.)

I can assure him that for many of us, our so-called left politics are inspired by and infused with spiritual feeling.

Nonetheless, he does a good job pointing out his brother's contradictory thinking.

[Tom]

Dean Hamer should do a study to determine if Peter has the "god gene."

[Matthew]

I can assure him that for many of us, our so-called left politics are inspired by and infused with spiritual feeling.

I'm sure many on the right would say the same about their politics.

I believe that authentic spirituality sooner or later leads to a realization that there is nothing spiritual about forcing people to do what you think they should do. And in the end, that is what politics is all about - forcing other people to do what you cannot convince them to do through dialogue and discussion.

[Tim]

Hitchens is nothing more than an arrogant misanthrope. He hates everyone who he considers stupider than himself, and since he thinks he's smarter than everyone, you do the math. I pity the fool, as a wise African-American man once said.

[Tony M]

"And in the end, that is what politics is all about - forcing other people to do what you cannot convince them to do through dialogue and discussion."

That's what power is about. It's the opposite of politics. At least it is in a rational world.

[leo]

I found this blog of a former parapsychologist gone atheist http://www.everythingispointless.com/2006/11/why-i-quit-studying-parapsychology.html

[Tim]

I also think Hitchens is crazy like a fox. He's laughing all the way to the bank with his act of being the male Ann Coulter, and apparently that's enough for him. I'd actually have a smidge more respect for him if his hate and vitriol were genuine than if they are all an act.

Leo, I've read some of that everythingispointless.com site. It's just sad. This is someone who has not been able to find clear answers to his personal questions and has turned to nihilism. Now he seems to be a soldier in the "I see clearly how meaningless everything so that makes me so much smarter and braver than you" army.

[Matthew]

That's what power is about. It's the opposite of politics. At least it is in a rational world.

Tony,

I must think that you haven't thought this through.

Politics and power are the same thing -- the brass ring, the ability to force people to do what you think they ought. Or am I simply imagining that people on the "right" want to force me to pay for bombs to drop on Iraq, and people on the "left" want to force me to pay for people to stay home and not work?

Michael I suspect but don’t know but the people on the right that you claim want to force you to pay for bombs to bomb Iraq have cost American taxpayers more than those on the left that want you to pay for people to stay home and not work.

If we include the entire military industrial complex and the money we spend per year on our military I suspect that cost would be enormous. I have heard on cable news that America spends more for their military than all other countries combined.

[Matthew]

Whoever left the last comment (your name is blank), you are replying to me, not to Michael -- my name is Matthew.

In any event, I think my point stands -- politics is about forcing people to do things you aren't able to persuade them to do. I won't take sides on whose agenda of coercion is preferable, or spin justifications for some kinds of duress are actually spiritually uplifting. The Iraq war has taught me that the ends do not justify the means, and that faulty means lead to faulty ends, and I apply that maxim most broadly.

[Art]

"politics is about forcing people to do things you aren't able to persuade them to do" - matthew

Politics is just another kind of duality that leads to separation. We experience duality and separation in life in a million different ways. We become unique separate individuals by experiencing separation (like death, divorce, or by time and space - like when a loved one moves far away), and by experiencing duality. Race, religions, our weight, height, color, culture, socio-economic status, personality, emotions, etc. all exist for the sole purpose of teaching us what it means to be "separate" because on the other side the feeling of oneness and connectedness are overwhelming due to it's holographic nature . Even crooked teeth, the bumps on our noses, shapes of our faces, etc., all teach us what it feels like to be a unique individual. That's why we have to live a life in a physical body, so we'll know what it feels like to be an individual. The feelings of oneness and connectedness are so overwhelming on the other side that "individuality" may be the only thing that can't be learned while existing in Heaven. Everything in the physical universe exists in a "dual" state so that we can identify with it, and thus imprint on our consciousness what it means to be "separate."

[william]

Art are you sure that this oneness is so overwhelming that we cannot feel like an individual so we must live in a physical body. From my point of view at this time is that taking on a physical body in a harsh world of duality gives a soul more opportunities to advance in love (compassion) and divine intelligence.
I admit that NDE's often give people a sense of this oneness but it may be a temporary condition. My research into spiritualism suggests that we are our own sweet selves when we cross over. I like your scenarios after death better than mine but the research tends to tell me that we take this personality with us with some minor changes.

[FloridaSuzie]

No name,
>I have heard on cable news that America spends more for their military than all other countries combined.<
Which cable news would that be? Let me take a wild guess, the Clinton Network...err I mean CNN? Our country's national defense is only able to defend us in a time of crisis while a Republican Pres. is in office, defense is the first thing Dems cut.
Matthew,
>[Tony],I must think that you haven't thought this through.

Politics and power are the same thing -- the brass ring, the ability to force people to do what you think they ought. Or am I simply imagining that people on the "right" want to force me to pay for bombs to drop on Iraq, and people on the "left" want to force me to pay for people to stay home and not work?<

You're right about one thing - "I'm sure many on the right would say the same about their politics". I agree with what Tony said and wonder if *you* have thought this thing through. It's just sad that you consider ALL politics as "forcing people to do things you can't persuade them to do". In a democracy like ours, the American people decide what we choose as a nation to do in much the same way a family chooses to cooperate in making decisions. You can't make all the people happy all the time so everyone works together and if you don't like how the majority rules on something, vote to make a change. Of course the anti-government/establishment followers choose to always believe in paranoid conspiracy theories that somehow their vote wasn't counted, so...there are 2 alternatives - move out in the U.S.boondocks and become reclusive like Ted K. or to move to an uninhabited island where one alone can have one's own "power".

[Matthew C]

You can't make all the people happy all the time so everyone works together and if you don't like how the majority rules on something, vote to make a change.

Of course democracy is better than most any other political system. And we have some added features to try and protect the citizens from our democracy: ie the Bill of rights, the 14th amendment, etc. However the courts have mostly stripped away the protections of the constitution and its amendments by ruling with most government justifications for passing laws that violate the constitution (can we say war on drugs, anyone?)

I think as more people recognize the spiritual dimension of reality they will become less inclined to use government force to accomplish their goals, and more inclined to use dialogue and persuasion instead.

[FloridaSuzie]

Matthew,
>I think as more people recognize the spiritual dimension of reality they will become less inclined to use government force to accomplish their goals, and more inclined to use dialogue and persuasion instead.<
Being a history & archaeology buff myself, from everything I've studied, people have LESS recognizion concerning the spiritual dimension of reality as time goes on. Even when people were more spiritual worldwide there was divisiveness. That never changes because there are good people who will compromise, but there are also evil people who not only won't compromise but have no conscience about getting what they do want. How many deadlines from the U.N. have gone by while people are still being murdered in Africa and other countries, including U.N. Peacekeepers who are attempting "dialogue". It would be wonderful if dialogue always worked but it's just not realistic. As for "persuasion" I'm not sure what you mean by that. It sounds pretty much like force or buying off people to me.

[Matthew C]

Suzie,

In the 1940s we firebombed Tokyo and Dresden and nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Deliberately slaughtering civilians. Today an army that acts like the allies did in WWII would be brought up on war crimes charges.

In the 40s we put tens of thousands of innocent Japanese-Americans into internment camps. Citizens! Today there is an outcry about the civil rights of 400 Al Qaeda fighters in prison in Gitmo.

I could go on and on about the moral advances of America over the past hundred years. Of course, not every change has worked out -- for example, the idea that divorce is a ticket to self-fullfillment belongs in the rubbish bin -- but gen X is doing much better on that score than their boomer parents.

I believe the broad societal consensus is much more moral and spiritual today than in the past. Even individualist atheism I feel is more advanced than the kinds of conformist unquestioning beliefs that most people followed a hundred years ago.

[FloridaSuzie]

Matthew,
>In the 1940s we firebombed Tokyo and Dresden and nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Deliberately slaughtering civilians. Today an army that acts like the allies did in WWII would be brought up on war crimes charges.

In the 40s we put tens of thousands of innocent Japanese-Americans into internment camps. Citizens! Today there is an outcry about the civil rights of 400 Al Qaeda fighters in prison in Gitmo.<

I didn't realize you were speaking only of the history of the past 60 years and while it is true we can learn from some of our mistakes, I still disagree with you on everything else. You're only telling part of the story, as if the big bad bully USA did these things maliciously and completely unprovoked! You never mentioned the attack on Pearl Harbor, the attack on NYC, the Pentagon, etc. etc. etc.
We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Matthew C]

Suzie,

I never argued that those Al Qaeda fighters should not be in Gitmo. Nor did I say that America was the villian in WWII. You seem to be imagining me taking a position I don't hold. I'm just saying that our society's moral sensibilities have progressed in most measures, with a few areas of backsliding.

[Matthew C]

Even individualist atheism I feel is more advanced than the kinds of conformist unquestioning beliefs that most people followed a hundred years ago.

I should add that I think that there are definitely more "advanced" stages of spiritual development than materialistic atheism.

[Art]

I admit that NDE's often give people a sense of this oneness but it may be a temporary condition. My research into spiritualism suggests that we are our own sweet selves when we cross over. - william
------------------------------------------

I think once the soul has learned what it means to be an individual it doesn't lose it's individual identity once it crosses back over into the Spiritual Universe. i.e. the body dies and the soul goes back into the light. In his NDE description Mark Horton says, "I was unique yet I was the tiniest part of the whole." http://www.mindspring.com/~scottr/nde/markh.html I think the whole purpose of life is for the soul to learn about duality and separation, time and space, and make memories of what it's like to live in a 3D + 1T Universe. Why? Because the other side is a place where individual thoughts create reality. Where consciousness is primary and matter is secondary, where matter is an epiphenomena of consciousness. Sort of like the Nexxus in Star Trek Generations movie, or in "What Dreams May Come" with Robin Williams.

[Art]

Whoops! I accidentally turned on the bold so I had to turn it off. - Art

[william]

Art I have no problem with this description of the other side where consciousness is primary. I thought you were saying something else about the other side that we merged with that oneness and became one with it .

I wonder if consciousness is not primary here but materialism takes over and we get attached to this world and to our physical bodies. But if we did not get attached to this world I suspect we would learn fewer lessons. I think we may come here to learn those lessons.

I feel that the Buddhists not believing in a soul missed the point of human life as a physical being. The soul is in a state of becoming or maybe better stated there appears to be an evolution of consciousness in a state of becoming that that is.

I think there is a profound “connection” between this state of being (awareness) and a state of becoming (consciousness). This relationship may indeed hold the key as to why we exist as “entities” even if it is perceived identity for us on this side and the other side until of course our consciousness becomes pure awareness.

It is interesting to me at least that we may never lose our identity, our biggest fear, but our isness becomes that that is.

[Matthew C]

It is interesting to me at least that we may never lose our identity, our biggest fear, but our isness becomes that that is.

I suspect the identities are not lost, but the "my" is. . .