True Freethinker previously considered Christopher Hitchens‘ bio-chemical-gray-matter-secretions which he gave voice to as part of the Royal Ontario Museum’s lecture series on the question of the Decalogue – the Ten Commandments.
We will now consider Camille Paglia’s lecture.1We must be aware that in the view of Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Camille Paglia, et al, “religion” certainly has its place: a highly restricted place.For Daniel Dennett since it is all tomfoolery all religions should be taught in schools, as interpreted by atheism of course.For Richard Dawkins since it is all fiddlesticks the Bible should be taught as literature so as to understand literary devices and references that are culturally commonly employed.For Camille Paglia “religion” has a positive effect in creating art in various forms.Yet, even these apparent friendly tokens, these smiley faces, are actually meant to water down “religion” as an anthological fascination, a literary interest or artistically inspiring but nothing more.
As for Camille Paglia, it is reported that she:
…worships devoutly at the altar of Hollywood. She’s an atheist who defiantly defends religion, articulating in punctuated bullet-like speech why she thinks religion will save great art and why the generational reverence swelling in the 1960s for religion is represented so well in epic biblical films in Hollywood.” I think religious thinking is crucial to understanding the universe,” she said. “I do believe in all gods.”
Raised as a Catholic, Ms. Paglia said she soon turned with reverence to films, and one film in particular: Cecil DeMille’s The Ten Commandments.
“I realized I was identifying with Hollywood, Hollywood was my true religion,” she said. “My goddess of that time was Elizabeth Taylor. One of my transcendent moments was when she won the Oscar in Butterfield 8 as a high-class hooker.”
Raised as a Catholic by her Italian immigrant parents in upstate New York, she said she turned to atheism in her adolescence after becoming frustrated with the church.
She believes in all gods; maybe there was something to that Barna study that concluded that some atheists believe in God :o) Then again; 47% of all statistic are incorrect. Then again and again, Prof. Daniel Dennett argues that Joseph Stalin, the atheists, was really a theist because he told himself what to do: thus, all atheists are theists!?!?! See this post.
Sadly, she made a very, very common atheist mistake; she confused frustration with the church with frustration with God. Why did not her frustration with the church lead to acceptance Synagogue, Ashram, Mosque worship services? Who knows, perhaps there was something else going on like worshipping a Hollywoodland high-class hooker goddess.Her main concern is that “Distancing society from religion is a grave error” because “a secular society that sinks into self-absorption won’t leave behind an artistic legacy.” But why should that be? Just because atheism offers no meaning for yesterday, no comfort for today and no hope for tomorrow? Oh, right; that is why.Camille Paglia also took to task one of the other Royal Ontario Museum’s lecture series on the Ten Commandments lecturers; Christopher Hitchens:
Taking a swipe at Mr. Hitchens in the question and answer period, Ms. Paglia contrasted the title of his book God is Not Great with what she calls the most important sentence of her career: “God is man’s greatest idea.” “My criticism of him is, what is he offering to the young in his system?” she said. “That book is atrociously researched, and he will have to live with that. … What does he give the young? Are they to live like him? That’s not a life.” [ellipses in original]
But just what is wrong with Christopher Hitchens’ life?
We will let Camille Paglia be the judge of that. But as for the young Christopher Hitchens’, atheism’s, ultimate bequeathment is basically that of Alister Crowley, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”There is no universal ethos, no ultimate accountability, we are absolutely autonomous. While it would be nice if we could all just get along and just be good for goodness sake but this sort of universal anarchy is an open door through which a Mother Theresa or a Joseph Stalin may equally enter, it is a blank canvas upon which anyone can pain anything.What Camille Paglia needs to understand is that the young is just about all that personages such as Christopher Hitchens have, it is all that militant activist atheists have since the young are: ignorant, arrogant, rebellious and, shall we say, hyper hormonal.
Ignorant and so vociferous, emotive, charming, English accented, iconoclasts like Christopher Hitchens seems to have the answers, “Like, he knows a lot of stuff and stuff.”
Arrogant and so they know more at the age of 17 than those who have decades more life and academic experience. Arrogance and atheism go hand in hand like a hand in hand.
Rebellious and so easy to influence toward rebellions against the norm (for example the normalcy of a majority Christian country), against “religion” (AMEN to that!) and the ultimate rebellion: rebellion against God.
Hyper hormonal and so being told that in the realm of sexuality basically anything goes anytime and anywhere with anyone for any reason or none at all within the most flaccid and impotent of please be nice or else you will get away with not being nice sentiments.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lastly, it is simply fascinating that the Royal Ontario Museum lecture series on the Ten Commandments featured a militant activist atheist, a professor of the arts and an editor at large for Esquire magazine. These are billed as “three prominent social commentators” fine but what about oh, I don’t know: a Rabbi, a Priest, a Pastor, a theologian, etc. I know, I know; a prepubescent French fries fryer at the local fast food joint is as, or more, qualified to speak on Biblical issue than a Rabbi, a Priest, a Pastor, a theologian-at least it would seem that blog comment sections are saturated with an outworking of such a proposition.
Maybe next time the Royal Ontario Museum can have a lecture series on quantum physics by a new age medium-a spirit channeler, an anesthesiologist, a radiologist, a chiropractor (who is a follower of the new age medium), and a couple of physicist for good measure (but make sure that one of the physicists is sort of self-employed and wrote the book “The Yoga of Time Travel”).
Oh, right, that was already done in the documentary “What the #$*! Do We (K)now!?” aka “What the Bleep Do We Know!?” or technically as seen in these images2:
The funny thing is that two of the physicists who argue that we create our own realities wear glasses. Why would you WANT TO have poor eyesight? Why create that reality for yourself maaaaaaaaaannn!!!!!!!!
Pardon the uncontextual aside but when “What the Bleep Do We Know!?” came out someone told me that if I watched it I would be up on the very latest that science has to offer: turns out that it is a new age infomercial.