Cryptohedonology

Cryptohedonological book rating: A-

However, christopher hitchens is Great (at being thought provoking in all the right ways). Of the so-called “three musketeers” of the neo-atheist movement, Hitchens challenges me the most. Richard Dawkins speaks directly to me. I understand his position perfectly and, while I find myself disagreeing with the occasional opinion or aside, his style and message resonates strongly with me in the same way the work of Carl Sagan does. I find it comforting, but it does not stretch my views. As one colleague pointed out, I’m the target choir, as it were. Sam Harris is more challenging. He is highly intelligent and articulate, and has the presence of a mentally centered ancient warrior (e.g. check out some of Harris’ clips on O’Reilly as he endures The Ignorant One’s absurdities). Also, for the film adaptation for End of Faith, Ben Stiller is a shoe-in for the Sam Harris character. But for every four statements Harris makes, I find myself shaking my head in confusion on at least one. This is good. There is nothing like finding an author that feels like a kindred spirit 75% of the time, but who holds the occasional orthogonal view. It forces you to not only re-examine comfortable beliefs, but to perhaps examine beliefs that seem unfamiliar. You find yourself thinking, “if this guy believes crazy-ass idea X, and we AGREE on Y, perhaps I’m totally nuts on Y!” The other case is the converse: “if we agree strongly on Y, but disagree on X, perhaps I should not categorically discard X…” Obviously, the final views should rely on evidence, not the expert rhetoric of a charismatic writer. But in the domain of ideas and thinking, there is no question we humans fall into cycles and states of stable opinion. Getting jarred a bit, confronting a cognitive dissonance, can be uncomfortable, but it can also serve as an activation energy into a new viewpoint. Indeed, if you partly agree with someone, it can make new ideas more accessible, even if you ultimately reject them in details, but not in structure.

With Christopher Hitchens, I find myself questioning, on average, every third statement. I find his style abrasive and orotund, but yet highly entertaining and charismatic. With the 66.6% of the statements I agree with, I’m almost shouting with glee at the beautiful insight and clarity with which he independently expresses my various long-held views. Then there is an occasional insight I hadn’t seen before, which is always exciting. Then, randomly, there will be some statement that I find highly non sequitur or offensive — or with which I violently disagree or, zeus forbid, simply don’t understand. The effect, in reading the book, is gloriously shocking, both intellectually and emotionally. There are long stretches of his book that are full of wonderful, ironic, and witty insights. Then, there will be another stretch of ranty, insulting madness. Then the next chapter will be written like a comically dry history text, full of arrogant sub-references targeted only at peers in obsessive historical fanboy showoff minutia. But yet he will follow it with a mellow, generous summary. Some of the book is written as if from dictation (”the castle ‘Ahhhhhhhhh’“) because it sounds like he talks — which is effective when spoken, but appears muddled and unfocused when written. But vast tracks of the book are sublime and educational, as well as insightful — even if intentionally offensive and snippy. Being a physicist, and not much of a a history buff, I found myself making long mental lists of historical nuance I’ll have to read up before being able to even comment on several chapters of his book — which assume a certain familiarity with a real classical education. When he does touch on physics, it sounds more like a libertarian Jacques Derrida (!), mixing in quantum mechanics shamelessly into a stream of (rather poetic) iconoclastic rantings. Makes for good rhetoric, but doesn’t always hold up under inspection.

While thought-provoking and even inspiring, with Hitchens I find it difficult to disentangle the message from the mode. At times I become so irritated with his style, I find it easy to dismiss the message. So I needed to re-read several passages to dig beyond the bullying style, into the message. Ironically (probably intentional on his part), the book is supposedly written with non-atheists in mind, apparently in an effort to shock them into some dizzying state of offense that brings them ultimately to their senses. Unfortunately, I don’t think it will work. Existing atheists and anti-theists are the ones who will read and enjoy it, and I fear that so much of the book is just squeezing fairly low hanging theistic fruit. But I do believe that the mere presence of the book, and Hitchens’ very vocal and unapologetic major media events pushing it, will awaken atheists and freethinkers who might normally stay hidden. By playing ”bad cop“ (and some thought Sagan was rough!), Hitchens is sending the strong and brave public message (sent with the cultural and personal sensitivity of a 747 slamming into a large building) that ”we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it any more.“