Would it be a point to try to read the "fooled by randomness...." book before the follow up or is it discontinuous enough that I can pick up the second book and not miss too much

PL: You could probably do either. From what I've read of Black Swan, it takes a facet of FBR and runs with it. You should read FBR no matter what, though. It's just that good.

I've always had a love/hate relationship with people like Hitchens.

I think it's important that people are "shocked" into thinking outside of the box. Many people grow up and live completely oblivious to their surroundings and simply accept what's happening. But people like Hitchens are able to essentially give them a swift kick in the nuts and make them stop and think about what's going on around them. Hitchens book promotes thought; and that's important.

Yet at the same time, in order to stimulate thought you have to be almost as bad as whatever it is you're waking it up from. I've read 2 chapters from the book, (plan on getting it and finishing soon) and frankly I think its drivel. While there are some truthful things he says, the vast majority is simply bigoted idiocy. The thought that religion has totally lacked any kind of beneficial influence on mankind throughout history is simply moronic. It's painfully clear that he has only childish definitions of what religion is and to quote the NY times, "He writes about religious people the way northern racists used to talk about "Negroes" -- with feigned knowing and a sneer."

I think it's important the men like Hitchens are read. But at the same time, I consider him just as simple minded as the people he's tearing into.

PL: I think the fun of Hitchens is his attempt to make watertight an argument he's knows is incomplete. He tries to bridge the gap with amusing invective. The guy's got a hell of a pen.

Hi! I have not had a chance to read your latest blogging cyber-essay, but I wanted to drop you a note to let you know that I LOVE it! Sometimes words are like soft, soft fur. And sometimes words are like a saucer of cream. But your words, my genius friend, are like a saucer of cream that has spilled onto a stunning expanse of clean, soft fur and that must be licked off. Slooooowly. Fur must be cleaned. This we know. But sometimes the necessary can be combined with the transcendent. Thank you for doing your part to make this possible.

PL: You generally lick that before the cream is deposited, but hey... let your freak flag fly, brother.

Nicely put, Tom. Most days, I tend to believe that Hitchens is a pompus, bloviating relic... a throwback to the days when deviant British colonialists buggered little brown boys in far-off lands. I bet he smells like Beefeater and dental floss.

That said, this story was unquestionably brilliant:
:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/01/hitchens200701

I give it 5 pauncy, jaundiced British pot bellies out of 5.

"Hitch" is a loud-mouthed dissembler, about whatever topic he's pimping. Hitchens has become a vast human wreck--which makes him a favorite on cable. Whatever arguments he's pimping on religion, I have a guess they conflate the views of hypocrites like Falwell with actual intellectually honest arguments. Whether you call him Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Christ, Hitchens is the last person to learn more from about this age old argument.

Just to reply to PL's comment on my post...

There's no doubt that despite my disagreement with the majority of his beliefs, he's a damn fun read. (Hence me deciding to finish the book.) I think the best way I can put it is that Hitchens is a "shock jockey" of sorts, you know it's kinda wrong but it's too much fun to pass up looking into.

PL: If only our shock jockies could speak like he writes...

Yes, Hitchens is a loudmouth. Yes, I bet he does smell like Beefeater and dental floss. Yes, as Phila Lawyer said, the fun is in watching him spin his argument, no matter how far flung.

However.

He is not simpleminded in the least. He's nimbly changed his mind and political perspective as necessary, so it's not like he's operating from a stodgy, rote, secondhand agenda. People forget this about Hitchens: he has logged more miles and words as a journalist than any living person I can think of. He doesn't just spout off unfounded opinions. What he talks about stems from real experience with his subject matter. He's seen, very firsthand, the horrors of religious fanaticism.

That applies to almost everything he's written. He's seen it. He's done it. For that reason, his viewpoint is not to be dismissed because of his personality. You don't have to agree, but to write him off as a blowhard is just gross intellectual negligence.

I must be grossly negligent because I look at the miles and words of Hitchens---and not his stupor---and see a wordsmith with a general lack of credibility, interspersed with moments of truth. I also don't think those miles and words qualify him to be an authority on philosophy or theology. If I want to read a brilliant argument on theology, I'd look to the Bertrand Russell-G.K. Chesterton debates. If I want to read an objective brilliant journalist talk about people of faith, I'd read David Halbertam.

PL: I agree you shouldn't read Hitchens' book for an objective journalist's view on people of faith. The title explains it is a polemic and not journalism.

Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian" is the gold standard on this issue to be sure. But I don't understand why Hitchens has no credibility to you or anyone else on the matter, and what exactly would qualify one to have credibilty to make the observations he does. He's amassed considerable evidence and brought what I see as a strong argument for his position. It's not airtight, but none are, particularly in this realm.

Anyone can be an expert on theology or philosophy. It's one of those areas where a novice's view can often be as profound as the noodlings of the most learned.

I suspect part of your criticism stems from the suspicion Hitchens is a shock artist cashing in on Dawkins' and Harris' work. I don't think the books compared to one another bear that out. Dawkins is far nastier than Hitchens in his "The God Delusion." But if you think Hitchens is a phony, you're entitled to your opinion. I disagree with it, but I understand it.

I'm a little late here, but Hitchens isn't worth arguing about. Either you look at his past positions, and the way he conducts his arguments and you believe him, or you don't. And he doesn't need any help getting into the national discourse as he has been a go-to guy on cable at least since his undermining of his friend Sydney Blumenthal back in '98. His credibility is an entirely separate idea from the gist of his book, which is definitely worth debating.

I read some of the book excerpts on Slate, and he, like Dawkins, delivers some good arguments. However, they mostly indict religion based on the fallacies set forth by people who deserve no quarter from Hitchens, myself, or anyone else: morons and fanatics.

I'd be more satified if he dealt with books that adequately mapped out science and religion. Unfortunately, this discussion would be much more "boring," and Hitchens is most certainly not in the business of boring.

I came to Dawkins through Tom Wolfe, but my skepticism of Dawkins began with doubts expressed by my neurobiologist sister and led to these two books, which I'd suggest to you. They are:

1)Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century, by Edward F. Kelly

2) Guide for the Perplexed, by E. F. Schumacher,

You can find both of these books on Amazon. The first is quite expensive, but well worth it if you want to know more about the questions Dawkins raises. The second is rather short, and also cheap, but does present an adequate outline for a debate in relatively simple (or simplistic) terms.

PL: Thanks dude. I will check those out. By the way, nice analysis.

I suggest reading the entirety of the book. There's a lot of "evidence" and detailed argument in it which those excerpts, designed to gin sales by milking Hitchens' nastiest verbal assaults, do not include. The book admits holes in some of his arguments.

I think I will pick it up (hopefully borrow it). I have a feeling that this book will come up again in some random bar argument, so I might as well have a better idea of it.

p.s. those books are worth reading, but I would suggest taking the same critical eye to them as you would any book. Psychology and philosophy are often not really science. The first book is definitely pushing the edges of science. For example, the book description for the first book says that memory is one example of a phenomenon that cannot be explained by biology. But there is now a lot of good understanding about some of the biological basis for memory in the brain. We are still many years from a full understanding, and it's not easy, but there IS a biological basis!

Here's a "review" of Hitchens' book by his own brother. He's also got a hell of a pen.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_article_id=459427&in_page_id=1787