Ateismo e dintorni

Qualche giorno fa Massimo Pigliucci scriveva su “Rationally Speaking” (Massimo’s Picks, special Hitchens edition, december 25):

As you all know, Christopher Hitchens has recently passed away after a valiant (and very public) struggle against cancer. Most of the commentaries and obituaries were positive, and many of my fellow atheists and freethinkers seem to genuinely admire the man. I have always been puzzled by why, exactly, this is so.

Yes, he was an atheist. Yes, he wrote eloquently. But that's about it. He was also personally abusive (particularly, it appears, toward fellow writers), misogynist, obnoxiously in your face about his beliefs (or lack thereof), and spectacularly inconsistent (and incredibly often wrong) about his political positions.

So here is my admittedly contrarian collection of commentaries on Hitch, in the hope that we can come up with a more balanced view of the man and begin a thoughtful discussion about just how much good or bad he has done to atheism, freethought, and political discourse.

A seguire alcuni articoli con relativi link (che trovate qui).
Niente di strano fin qui, anzi qualcosa di buono: ovvero un esempio di come sarebbe sensato discutere di qualcuno o di una tesi. Ma qualcosa è andato storto, o meglio è andato tristemente nella direzione dlla dicotomia buono/cattivo. O meglio come spiega Pigliucci nel post del 27 dicembre (Jerry Coyne loses his cool, Dawkins his style):

This is not going to be a post about substance, only about form. Yes, I know, many in the atheist community don’t seem to think that the latter matters. If you are among them, don’t bother to read the rest of this.

As my readers might recall, a few days ago I published a special “Rationally Speaking Picks” with links to several articles critical of Christopher Hitchens, to balance out what I perceived to be a bit too much of a glorification of his persona upon his untimely death.

Apparently, that simple list managed to completely unhinge my colleague Jerry Coyne (as well as Richard Dawkins), in the process precisely making my point that some atheists suffer from hero worship and a selective dearth of critical thinking.

Jerry and I have a long history of mutual criticism, which goes back to our pre-public outreach days, covering a variety of issues in evolutionary biology (species concepts and speciation theory, the status of evolutionary theory, and the like). As readers of this (and his) blog know, we openly take issue with each other’s posts from time to time, and occasionally — and regrettably — the disagreement has gotten personal. It was for the latter reason that at some point I issued a formal apology to Jerry, which he rather ungraciously did not reciprocate.

But his latest post is a rant pure and simple, and has finally closed the book on Jerry Coyne, as far as I am concerned (and pretty much also closed the one on Dawkins too, more on him near the end). I will leave aside, as I said, the substantive content, partly because it is so preposterously an overreaction to what I wrote that it takes care of itself, partly because many of the questions that Jerry asks have actually been answered in the articles I linked to. Instead, here is a taste of what he writes about me:

“I respond briefly: Pigliucci is full of what comes out of the south end of a bull facing north.”

(I appreciate the colorful, if somewhat burlesque-style metaphor. As it turns out, however, his response is anything but brief.)

“Give me a fricking break, Dr.3 Pigliucci!”

(Jerry appears to have a complex of inferiority in my respects, at least as judged by his constant jeering of the fact that I have three PhD’s and he only one. What’s up with that, my friend?)

Il post continua e vale la pena leggerlo per intero. Non proprio un esempio di come discutere... O non ci si può permettere di criticare dio Hitch?
Sempre del 27 dicembre è un post su The goals of atheist activism.

Mommie dearest

(Hell's Angel, 1994 BBC television).

Mommie dearest. The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud. Un articolo di Christopher Hitchens del 2003 che è sempre utile rileggere (Slate, continua qui).

I think it was Macaulay who said that the Roman Catholic Church deserved great credit for, and owed its longevity to, its ability to handle and contain fanaticism. This rather oblique compliment belongs to a more serious age. What is so striking about the "beatification" of the woman who styled herself "Mother" Teresa is the abject surrender, on the part of the church, to the forces of showbiz, superstition, and populism.
It's the sheer tawdriness that strikes the eye first of all. It used to be that a person could not even be nominated for "beatification," the first step to "sainthood," until five years after his or her death. This was to guard against local or popular enthusiasm in the promotion of dubious characters. The pope nominated MT a year after her death in 1997. It also used to be that an apparatus of inquiry was set in train, including the scrutiny of an advocatus diaboli or "devil's advocate," to test any extraordinary claims. The pope has abolished this office and has created more instant saints than all his predecessors combined as far back as the 16th century.
As for the "miracle" that had to be attested, what can one say? Surely any respectable Catholic cringes with shame at the obviousness of the fakery. A Bengali woman named Monica Besra claims that a beam of light emerged from a picture of MT, which she happened to have in her home, and relieved her of a cancerous tumor. Her physician, Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, says that she didn't have a cancerous tumor in the first place and that the tubercular cyst she did have was cured by a course of prescription medicine. Was he interviewed by the Vatican's investigators? No. (As it happens, I myself was interviewed by them but only in the most perfunctory way. The procedure still does demand a show of consultation with doubters, and a show of consultation was what, in this case, it got.)
According to an uncontradicted report in the Italian paper L'Eco di Bergamo, the Vatican's secretary of state sent a letter to senior cardinals in June, asking on behalf of the pope whether they favored making MT a saint right away. The pope's clear intention has been to speed the process up in order to perform the ceremony in his own lifetime. The response was in the negative, according to Father Brian Kolodiejchuk, the Canadian priest who has acted as postulator or advocate for the "canonization." But the damage, to such integrity as the process possesses, has already been done.

In memoriam

Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair, december 15, 2011.
Unspoken Truths, Topic of Cancer, The Accidental Institution, V.F. Portrait: Joan Didion.
Archive: Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair.
Slate.
The Atlantic.

The New York Times.

Christopher Hitchens su Augusto Pinochet

Arrogante fino all’ultimo come Milosevic e Saddam, Il Corriere della Sera, 11 dicembre 2006.

Vicino a casa mia, a Washington, c’è il monumento in memoria di Orlando Letelier, l’esule cileno ed ex ministro degli Esteri qui assassinato con un’autobomba il 21 settembre ’76. Si capì subito che quell’atrocità senza precedenti (allora) sul suolo americano, e che costò pure la vita a un americano, era stata commessa su ordine di Pinochet. Abbiamo, a riguardo, la testimonianza del capo della sua polizia segreta, il generale Contreras. Il Dipartimento della Giustizia americano aveva aperto un procedimento contro Pinochet, sotto la gestione di Janet Reno. Ma l’atto d’accusa non è mai stato reso pubblico. La morte di Pinochet è l’occasione, tra l’altro, per ricordare le vittime del suo terrorismo (che fu di Stato e internazionale). Pinochet ha fatto la fine di Franco, con una serie di addii sul letto di morte oscenamente protratti. Alla fine i cileni si sono stancati di come Pinochet s’ammalava appena gli atti della giustizia si avvicinavano ai suoi archivi o ai suoi conti bancari. Come Franco, peraltro, è sopravvissuto al suo stesso regime e ha visto il Paese affrancarsi dalla tutela che gli aveva imposto. E, come Franco, s’è guadagnato un posto nella storia come traditore della Costituzione che aveva giurato di difendere. L’aver abbattuto la democrazia civile nel Paese sudamericano dove questa aveva la più lunga tradizione resterà come uno dei crimini più sconvolgenti del ’900. Il suo golpe — 11 settembre 1973, per chi nelle date scruta presagi — è stato un crimine in sé, ma ne ha implicati molti altri. Nel decennio scorso, specie dopo il suo arresto in Inghilterra nel 1998, questi crimini hanno cominciato a portare a lui.
Pinochet si era organizzato un’immunità a vita e un seggio al Senato per una graduale uscita di scena. Ma a Madrid un magistrato aveva ottenuto un mandato di cattura per la sparizione di cittadini spagnoli. Il mandato di Garzón trovò attuazione a Londra e fu l’inizio della fine. Tornato in Cile, il generale si trovò di fronte a una società civile posseduta da un’altra consapevolezza.
[…] Il Cile era pieno di terrificanti casi di ammazzamenti extragiudiziari, carceri segrete e centri di tortura come la famigerata Villa Grimaldi, in un contesto generale di repressione e terrore. Questi decenni furono un incubo che per milioni di persone è ancora ieri. C’era chi sosteneva come Pinochet avesse tolto i ceppi all’economia cilena e lasciato spirare la brezza monetarista alla Friedman.
Tuttavia i paladini del libero mercato probabilmente non credono che per attuare quelle politiche si debba torturare, uccidere o fare i dittatori. […] D’altro canto, l’attrazione di Pinochet per le privatizzazioni è stata spiegata quando i conti della fallita Riggs Bank di Washington hanno mostrato ingenti depositi segreti a suo nome. Questo, combinato con il cinismo dei suoi temporeggiamenti, ha reso fetido il suo nome. I cileni hanno restaurato la democrazia senza violenza e hanno applicato questa condotta anche a Pinochet. Ma c’è un prezzo per la lentezza e l’accuratezza di questi procedimenti. Molti cileni non sanno nulla dei loro cari spariti. Mai che Pinochet abbia dato un’informazione o abbia dimostrato pentimento. Come Milosevic (un altro che si è fatto beffe della giustizia sino alla morte) e Saddam è stato arrogante fino all’ultimo. Il Cile e il mondo se ne sono sbarazzati. Che almeno la sua rozza battaglia di retroguardia ci aiuti a dar vita ai tribunali internazionali che stanno nascendo.