Is Martin Amis a concept artist (and will Christopher Hitchens be convinced by concept art)?

Martin Amis (a famous and good writer) wrote a piece in the Guardian about Christopher Hitchens. Generally, it is interesting and fun to read. But the piece culminates in an attempt to persuade Hitchens to switch from being an atheist to being an agnostic (last 3 paragraphs). Here Amis’ argument seems very weak, and very unlikely to convince Hitchens.

My suspicion is that Amis actually does not care whether he has presented a logically rigorous case, since his argument is best thought of as “concept art,” (as defined by blogger Robin Hanson) i.e. that it reads superficially like an argument grounded in logic, but that really it is just art made out of concepts. Robin Hanson defines a concept artist as follows:

To the naive, “concept artists” may sound like they intend mainly to make claims about reality, and to evaluate those claims in terms of how well they cohere with each other and data about reality. But in fact concept artists evaluate claims more the way most any artists evaluates art – in terms of beauty, elegance, provocation, intrigue, etc. This can make concept artists a bit more tolerant of ambiguity, logical gaps, etc., though the difference can be subtle – being too obviously tolerant of such things usually isn’t good art.

This seems to be exactly what Amis is doing. He is putting words in a page which will make readers feel the same pleasure they feel when looking at art. The difference (in my opinion) is that when viewing “concept art” rather than normal art, the reader thinks he is processing a logical argument, not consciously aware of the fact that he is just viewing art.

Amis’ argument proceeds as follows (there is no need to read anything but the last 3 paragraphs in the article if this argument is the only issue you’re interested in. If you’re interested in some witty comments made by Christopher Hitchens over the years, you should read the rest):

1. The 3rd to last paragraph consists of some fluff at the beginning, followed by a quote from Hitchens about how gaining wisdom involves more fully understanding one’s own ignorance (it is disappointing that Hitchens went to the trouble of making his own version of this tired old saying), followed by the observation that agnosticism is an acknowledgment of ignorance, while atheism is not. Then one more sentence of fluff.

2. The 2nd to last paragraph begins with a sentence that I don’t understand, but that I think I would not care about even if I did understand it:

The atheistic position merits an adjective that no one would dream of applying to you: it is lenten.

Then there is a jab at cosmologists for not accomplishing as much as Amis would have liked over the last 30 years, followed by an incorrect statement:

It cannot be altogether frivolous or wishful to talk of a “higher intelligence” – because the cosmos is itself a higher intelligence, in the simple sense that we do not and cannot understand it.

3. The last paragraph actually probably shouldn’t count as part of the argument at all, more just a gratuitous repetition of Hitchens’ own frequent reminder that we are made of “stardust” and that the sun will explode in the future.

——-

Am I just not smart enough to understand Amis’ argument? Or is it really nothing but art, masquerading as argument?