ARGUABLY By Christopher Hitchens
Kanisha Dezarn
"At its heart, Hitch-22 is a celebration of literature and a denunciation of idleness. "Hitchens is inarguably a man of action: He pursues history as it happens . . . eloquent, enlightening, and entertaining."
At its heart, Hitch-22 is a celebration of literature and a denunciation of idleness. Hitchens is inarguably a man of action: He pursues history as it happens . . . eloquent, enlightening, and entertaining.
The Onion's AV Club
I might have had a different view if these thinkers were deeply implicated in the burqa bans in some European countries, or the ban on minarets in Switzerland, or even the treatment of Muslim immigrants from some countries by the recent Trump administration in the US. But I am not aware that New Atheist thinkers have been involved in any such actions as these, which might arguably be considered authoritarian. There is certainly no evidence presented in the paper to show any such involvement.
In all, the paper goes nowhere near establishing that the movement known as "New Atheism," which arguably existed between about 2006 and about 2011 or 2012, was authoritarian or had authoritarian tendencies. The paper shows a poor understanding of what the New Atheism was, and it uses a highly implausible definition of "authoritarianism" that has little to do with ordinary usage or with what is clearly envisaged for the purposes of this issue of Religions.
All of this takes us into seemingly intractable metaphysical issues. But what follows even if some New Atheist thinkers are not able to provide a completely satisfactory philosophical account of how all this fits together? If so, they are certainly not the only ones; and indeed, a system of political philosophy that excluded worldviews as somehow illiberal, unreasonable, or authoritarian unless they could provide such an account would arguably end up excluding everyone! It is not clear, that anyone has satisfactorily solved these metaphysical conundrums. But problems like these are just why political liberalism claims to be "political not metaphysical."
Point 6: All of this takes us into seemingly intractable metaphysical issues. But what follows even if some New Atheist thinkers are not able to provide a completely satisfactory philosophical account of how all this fits together? If so, they are certainly not the only ones; and indeed, a system of political philosophy that excluded worldviews as somehow illiberal, unreasonable, or authoritarian unless they could provide such an account would arguably end up excluding everyone! It is not clear, that anyone has satisfactorily solved these metaphysical conundrums. But problems like these are just why political liberalism claims to be "political not metaphysical."
b9b4d2437c