Mr Andrew Platt's Reply

Mr Platt has replied at ength to my response to him ('Being for the Benefit of Mr Platt') . I thought it only fair to display his response with as much prominence as my original article had. I'll reply to it when I have time.

 

Mr Platt wrote:

 

I thank Mr. Hitchens for the Beatles reference. Coincidence, or has he
remembered that I am a fan? Unfortunately “For The Benefit” is perhaps
my least favourite “Sergeant Pepper” track, and given the support my
criticisms have attracted so far, “With A Little Help From My Friends”
might be more appropriate.
I am asked to provide “examples of the wicked things” he has done. Let
us not exaggerate please. I never used the word wicked. Anyone would
think I am accusing him of committing a terrorist atrocity. I am not.
Neither am I necessarily accusing him of resorting to personal abuse.
As for providing examples of his overbearing tone, which I did accuse
him of, I hardly know where to start.

Delving into his blog at random I
find this from 6th February 2:48pm under “Stalingrad Revisited”:
“Mr L’Eplattenier sets himself up as an intelligent contributor, and he
can obviously write clear, literate English. Can he read it?”
Or this from 11 July 2012 under “I Can’t Get No Satisfaction”: “Welcome
once again to the Peter Hitchens remedial school for people who don’t
know how to argue. Your homework has been marked.”
Well thank you, teacher!
Further insight into how he views his readership may be gleaned from
this, posted on 27 October 2010 under “The Great Depression”: “Only
grown-ups, genuinely capable of changing their minds, are unafraid of
the truth and willing to go where it leads them. They alone can argue
properly. And there are very few of them, as we see here all the time.”
Again he is the grown-up, lecturing naughty children.
From the same post: “…anybody who thinks there is, is displaying not the
lofty knowledge implied by Mr Smith's dismissive attitude, but a
profound ignorance of scientific method.”
He is so used to being high-handed that he does so even when the subject
under discussion is something he consistently demonstrates little
understanding of. He cannot stop himself.
He asks for examples of hounding his critics for responses. What about
his refusal to respond to posts by Mr. Crosland on the grounds that Mr.
Crosland long ago failed to reply to one of his e-mails? What about
entitling a post “The Quieter Millican” in which he said: “the Professor
has not yet addressed the points he so concisely set out”, prompting
the professor to respond that 24 hours had not yet elapsed and calling
for patience?

 

I am asked for examples of points he has failed to respond to.
Very recently Professor Jerry Coyne rebutted all the nonsense Mr.
Hitchens had been posting about evolution, answering in detail all of
his concerns about evidence, observations, the ability of the theory to
make testable predictions, and so on. This *demands* a response! Anyone
having their life’s work in science contemptuously dismissed as a mere
“cult” is fully entitled to be discourteous and for Mr. Hitchens (who
often tells us he has a thick skin) to use this as a convenient excuse
to avoid further engagement smacks of someone desperate to avoid a
bruising encounter which they know will once again result in their deep
ignorance being exposed to the world for all to see.
A further example concerns this statement, made by our host on 2nd
November 2010: “Mr Crosland simply doesn't seem to understand that the
existence of fossils doesn't establish a relationship between those
fossils and similar organisms now living. He may believe there is such a
relationship. He may be correct. But he has yet to prove it.”
Most debates here go over the same ground repeatedly, but this was the
first time a challenge to the orthodox interpretation of fossils had
been made. I was eager to explore a new angle on this topic but alas,
despite my best efforts Mr. Hitchens could not be persuaded to return to
the thread.

Further examples needed? What about his interview with Decca Aitkenhead
in October 2012? Having opined that a stimulant that "severs the link
between hard work and reward" is immoral she perceptively pointed out
his caffeine habit. I have not seen a response beyond some bluster
(Coffee? Seriously?) and a moving of the goalposts from morality to
harm. If Mr. Hitchens would like to answer the perfectly valid point
about *morality* properly then I would very much like to hear it.
On the issue of whether he has ever changed his mind as a result of
postings to this blog Mr. Hitchens says he has not but asks, “Is it my
fault if nobody has turned up here with any arguments or facts that have
done so?”
To which I reply that there have been plenty of valid arguments and
facts presented here, a small number of which I refer to above. It is
most definitely his fault if he has such a closed mind that he has not
considered any of them properly. In particular, he ought to consider
that his continued futile, foolish and stubborn opposition to evolution
must make many readers seriously doubt whether they can trust his
writing on other subjects, which is a shame because he is undoubtedly
well-informed on a variety of topics.

 

The final thing I am asked to justify concerns this quote, made by our
host in reply to Professor Millican on 19th November 2012: “I have
already said that I would continue to believe in God if there were only
the tiniest scrap of evidence for his (sic) existence left. The odds
against could be as long as he cares to set them.”
If my interpretation of this is wrong then no doubt teacher – er, I
mean Mr. Hitchens – will correct me. I cannot see any other possible
interpretation beyond the one he objects to.