大象传媒

I've always been a fan of Christopher Hitchens - drink in one hand, cigarette in the other, extolling one philosophical aspect of life or another - a powerful speaker, who didn't seem to realize his own power.
Christopher Hitchens is dying from cancer of the oesophagus; he describes his terminal illness as "a bit of a yawn", as though he would like to get on with...whatever's next.
He accepts that the cancer was likely caused by his hard drinking and hard smoking. He has been told that he has a one in 20 chance of living for longer than five years, but when I look at him, I have to feel that some doctor somewhere is being overly optimistic, and I'm sure that Hitch senses this too.
The diagnosis did not surprise him; it came in June, 2010. "If you've led a rather bohemian (socially unconventional person) and rackety life (intemperate, reckless, irresponsible), as I have, it's precisely the cancer that you'd expect to get."
Really?
I would have thought of something more bohemian and rackety, like cancer of the stomach or colon. Cancer of the the oesophagus, the passage from the mouth to the stomach, seems to me more closely associated to an inability to swallow so much of what passes for modern-day erudition and which is really just baffling verbiage that says as much as a wind passing through the trees.
He's more in touch with his mortality now that it has spread to his lymph nodes and lungs. Talking to Jeremy Paxman, Hitchens said: "I think my main fear is of being incapacitated or imbecilic at the end. That, of course, is not something to be afraid of, it's something to be terrified of." Hitch, Hitch, Hitch, very few of us pass out of life with the cute little human casement with which we entered life; however, death 鈥� no matter down which road it takes you, incapacitation or imbecility 鈥� is best lived with all th dignity that you can muster, and having done that: IT IS ENOUGH!
Hitchens said he understood what had caused his illness and described that as "demystifying". He added: "There are also people who say it's God's curse on me that I should have it near my throat, because that was the organ of blasphemy that I used for so many years. I've used many other organs to blaspheme as well, if it comes to that." If Hitch鈥檚 illness is demystified, he must know there us no grounds for truth in this contention, or any other contention that suggests he deserves what he got.
He said his treatment, which involves being injected with what he described as "a huge dose of kill-or-cure venom" every few weeks, did not feel like a battle. "Doesn't feel like fighting at all," he revealed. "You feel as though you are drowning in passivity and being assaulted by something that has a horrible persistence." It does have a horrible persistence, and insidious growth, and the ultimate power to take your life.
But he said he wanted to show that being diagnosed was "not the end of everything". Hitchens, whose recently published memoir "Hitch-22" recounts his life as a radical, also confronted the prospect of dying. "Everyone has to go some time,鈥� he said. 鈥淚've always thought that will be a bad day, at least for me. I now have a more pressing idea of what that might be like. Anyway, that's being stoic for my own sake.
"But for my family it's not very nice. I could wish perhaps to have led a more healthy and upright life for their sake, and that's a very melancholy reflection, of course.
Dear Hitch, I am practically sure that you lived your life, with your God-given talents as best you could under your God-given circumstances. This statement ought to rile you, seeing that you have lived and will likely die as an atheist. Fortunately, your personal beliefs have no affect on God.
"I feel a sense of waste about it because I'm not ready."
Ready or not鈥�
When you are no longer here, I shall be looking into infinity, listening for that still small voice that will tell me, whether you believe it or not, you are still here, still part of the cosmic consciousness, likely awaiting your reincarnation so that you can teach us more about being your own person, courage, and facing life and death.

Despite, of course, strongly disagreeing with Christopher Hitchens on many issues, I do think he is right to criticise and disregard Pascal's Wager. It is a grotesque fallacy, in my opinion.

The problem is not only the 'dishonesty' motive for faith, but also the fact that it presupposes that there are only two conceivable choices: a certain type of Christianity which can automatically save, and the rejection of that belief system which automatically condemns. Suppose someone were to become a Christian, but of the kind described in the Bible as a false believer ("Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven")? Or suppose the Muslims are right and all infidels (including, of course, Christians) are damned?

So just deciding to 'become a Christian' as 'fire insurance' (as the banal saying goes) is a non sequitur. And, as I have already hinted at, Pascal's Wager also imputes deceit to God, since he promises to save those who come to him in an attitude of deceit. Furthermore, it also presupposes that God will automatically damn those who may genuinely feel that they have good reason to reject 'Christianity', due to terrible experiences they have had at the hands of organised religion.

Pascal's Wager has more to do with an extremely simplistic and bipolar form of gnosticism than anything to do with what I, as a Christian, believe to be the truth.

A really good interview, actually. Although, Paxman was a little too adoring.

I remember hearing a different interpretation of Pascal's Wager, but I cannot remember where or, even, what. On well. Whether Pascal was seriously suggesting what Wager bashers think he was suggesting should be questioned though. Pascal was a Jansenist so a device like the wager, taken as commonly understood, seems somewhat out of place.

If I might combine a part of William's and Andrew's comments, a really good and extraordinarily moving interview.

Hitchens made a good point about the work of Mother Teresa. She was out to get as many Catholics as she could. If she had genuinely cared for the lot of the poor she would have promoted birth control.

He didn't mention it in the interview but Mother Teresa is credited with performing a miracle - she cured the cancer of someone whose doctor said did not have cancer. Now, how do you do that?

Andrew -

"Wager bashers"?

That's a new one to me. Perhaps I'll start a new denomination to cater for this sect.

But seriously... I have little time for Christopher Hitchens' views, but he is surely right in saying that (whatever Pascal may have originally meant) we cannot come to faith on the basis of "I'll just cynically believe something I am not sure is true, in the hope that it turns out that I am complying with the right spiritual small print that will save my soul."

As I say, Pascal may have had his own reasons for devising this idea, but I have seen it applied in the way that it was described in the interview. And it is that application that I am 'bashing'.

I must admit that I didn't find the interview particularly moving, given Hitchens' churlish and ill-informed views about certain issues. I felt a little bit manipulated, to be honest. But I'll keep my thoughts to myself beyond saying that...

I just read his brother Peter's book "Rage Against God." He used to be an atheist, too.

At 11:19pm on 30 Nov 2010, newlach wrote:
"Hitchens made a good point about the work of Mother Teresa. She was out to get as many Catholics as she could. If she had genuinely cared for the lot of the poor she would have promoted birth control."

Mother Teresa promoted Natural Family Planning which can be used to either achieve or postpone pregnancy.
I sometimes sense a suggestion of eugenics in comments regarding the poor & their children.
The greater poverty can be the isolation & lonlieness found in Western culture today where many are disconnected from faith, family & meaningful relationships.It can be a materially blessed yet spiritually impoverished lifestyle.

" The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it's called the empowerment of women."

LSV

Starting a sect for Wager Bashers isn't a bad idea. In fact, on balance, I think you should.

You're right, the wager is most commonly used as described in the interview. That version is very easy to bash.

It doesn't do justice to Pascal though, and this is important.

Andrew (@ 10) -

"It doesn't do justice to Pascal though, and this is important."

Do please elaborate on this. I can't bear the suspense after your earlier comment...

"I remember hearing a different interpretation of Pascal's Wager, but I cannot remember where or, even, what."

paul james (@ 9) -

"The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it's called the empowerment of women."

... and the destruction of babies.

LSV said:

"It doesn't do justice to Pascal though, and this is important."

Do please elaborate on this. I can't bear the suspense after your earlier comment...

"I remember hearing a different interpretation of Pascal's Wager, but I cannot remember where or, even, what."

Here's what I said in full:

I remember hearing a different interpretation of Pascal's Wager, but I cannot remember where or, even, what. Oh well. Whether Pascal was seriously suggesting what Wager bashers think he was suggesting should be questioned though. Pascal was a Jansenist so a device like the wager, taken as commonly understood, seems somewhat out of place.

Take this extract about the wager also;

We find in it the extraordinary confluence of several important strands of thought: the justification of theism; probability theory and decision theory, used here for almost the first time in history; pragmatism; voluntarism (the thesis that belief is a matter of the will); and the use of the concept of infinity.

Brushing Pascal's Wager aside as cynical, fallacious, grotesque, without actually dealing with these nuances and the context of Pascal himself, isn't doing him justice. Who knows, maybe you'll still think the same afterwards.

I do believe it is important that we strive to represent others as accurately as possible, living or dead, especially in these kind of debates and especially for Christians, for whom false witness is a sin.

It's amazing how quickly you marched to the top of the hill, I hope you can get down okay.

contraception = the destruction of babies
A huge leap of faith even for you LSV

Andrew (@ 13) -

"Brushing Pascal's Wager aside as cynical, fallacious, grotesque, without actually dealing with these nuances and the context of Pascal himself, isn't doing him justice. Who knows, maybe you'll still think the same afterwards."

I think you'll find that I did actually qualify my position - after being pulled up by you - and explained that it was the contemporary application of the Wager that I was criticising, given that this discussion is a response to the Hitchens interview.

I notice that the 'many Gods' objection that was voiced by Diderot supports my argument: "An Imam could reason just as well this way." So Diderot (along with Mackie, who makes a similar point) has helped me 'down the hill' without stumbling. (Likewise the moral objection cited in the article).

I acknowledge that the idea of making a decision on the basis of 'will', even if one is not (at least initially) sure of the reality of the desired object of the will, has considerable validity. And a decision to 'want to' seek God, for example, can then open the mind to consider honestly the evidence. So I am not suggesting at all that the only approach to the Christian faith is an intellectual or scholastic one. There is the element of the will (and I can't help but notice from certain attitudes I frequently encounter that the role of the will is often more relevant than that of the intellect).

However, there is a difference between a positive pragmatic approach involving the will (i.e. the attitude of actually wanting to believe), and a cynical calculation based on possible outcomes. This was the point Hitchens was making, and he has a point (and I say that as someone who is no fan of CH).

I am sure that Pascal's Wager can throw up all kinds of positive and valid ideas. So if I have given the impression that there is nothing that one can see in it, then I concede to you on that point.

However, I do think that citing the ninth commandment to bolster your case is rather an overreaction. I wasn't aware that I was lying, or even intending to lie! Even if I was expressing an opinion speaking in ignorance (i.e. based on what I actually knew, be it terribly deficient), I am not sure that that could be called 'lying'. In fact, it seems a strange irony that someone who supports Pascal's Wager, with its 'decision making in ignorance' premise, should suggest that an opinion, expressed in perceived ignorance, should be worthy of such moral censure.

paul james -

"contraception = the destruction of babies
A huge leap of faith even for you LSV"

Funny, but I'm sure I heard the word 'abortion' crop up in the interview (in the context of Hitchens criticising Mother Teresa for calling it murder).

Must have been my imagination, background interference, or, who knows, maybe a bout of tinnitus in my ear!

After all, Mr James, your criticism of me cannot possibly be wrong, can it?

William,

I just listened to Sunday Sequence on the i-player and was digusted to to hear you use the clip of Christopher Hitchens completely out of context. He was, as you should know having listened to the entire debate, imploring Creationist Texas Christians to read Francis Collins book which advocates Darwinian Evolution. Hitchens aim in praising Collins, as a Scientist and as a Christian, was to show his audience that it is alright to be a Christian and also believe in Evolution.
For you to imply, with help of your Sunday paper reviewers, that Hitchen may be showing signs of a change of heart with regard to Christianity or Religion; is disingenuous for a man of your knowledge and ability and sinking to levels of discourse that thought you were well above.

I think you owe Christopher Hitchens an apology, as well as your numerous listeners who are fans of Mr Hitchens and who I am sure were equally offended by this cheap slur.

Very disapointed William.

Yes, I accept you qualified your position. In your next post, however, you quoted me selectively to make a point; This is what I was responding to.

However, I do think that citing the ninth commandment to bolster your case is rather an overreaction. I wasn't aware that I was lying, or even intending to lie! Even if I was expressing an opinion speaking in ignorance (i.e. based on what I actually knew, be it terribly deficient), I am not sure that that could be called 'lying'.

It was hardly a bolster.

If it is unclear, I was not accusing you. I was making the point that for Christians especially, accurately representing the views of others is a moral issue, and so we should endeavour to do so. In this case, by considering Pascal in his historical context and also the many influences on his thought.

In fact, it seems a strange irony that someone who supports Pascal's Wager, with its 'decision making in ignorance' premise, should suggest that an opinion, expressed in perceived ignorance, should be worthy of such moral censure.

I never said I supported Pascal's Wager. I'm pretty much a Reformed Scholastic, at least I pretend to be.

Is Hitchens a Theologian or a Philosopher....er....sorry