I am ready a collection of essays from Hitchens called Arguably
. He supports his claims but the more I read the more I feel he is choosing his arguments not on evidence but on belief, but that he has a pre choosen narative and he is streching in every way possible to make as many peices fit into his narative as possible. The latest was his essay on the writtings of B. Franklin, US of A founding father. As Hitchens couldn't find in any support for his argument that franklin didn't believe in god he argued that Frankilin didn't mean what he wrote. That his famous almanac and its earthy wisdom was written in jest and that any intellectual could see that. W it is a well written essay and argument. I am not convinced. I, never having read any of Franklins work would have to read it myself to make that determination.
And that beings me to my point. From reading a few of the works of Hitchens. I think, as good of a philosopher as he is, is more interested in being interesting and sensational than being correct or arguing to find the truth. And I guess now i take this grain of salt in every thign of his I read now.
I love how he quotes all these great sources to read myself.