Hitchens Vs. Hitchens

[Hawk]

In less than an hour, Christopher Hitchens will be debating his brother, Peter Hitchens. Their debate will be streamed, and videos should be online at a later date.

From here.

Hitchens v. Hitchens: Faith, Politics & War
One-on-one for the first time ever, brothers will clash

Christopher and Peter Hitchens, throughout a long estrangement and recent reconciliation, have clashed in print on many issues. On April 3, 2008, the Hauenstein Center, with support from the Center for Inquiry and the Interfaith Dialogue Association, will bring the two together on a stage for the first time to debate numerous issues, from the Bible to the bomb.

Christopher Hitchens, one of the most controversial and compelling voices in Anglo-American journalism, has written twenty books, including biographies of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and George Orwell, as well as scathing critiques of Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, and Mother Teresa. Most recently, he wrote the book on atheism, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, and edited The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever. A contributing editor to Vanity Fair and a frequent commentator on C-SPAN, he also writes regularly for The Atlantic, The New York Times Book Review, The Nation, Harper's Magazine, Slate, and The New York Review of Books.

Peter Hitchens, one of Britain's most controversial journalists, blogs and writes a regular column for the Mail on Sunday. Formerly a long-time writer for the Daily Express, Peter was once asked by former Prime Minister Tony Blair to "sit down and stop being bad," after an aggressive press conference confrontation. Peter is author of The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana and The Abolition of Liberty: The Decline of Order and Justice in England. He has also written for The Spectator, The Guardian, and New Statesman.

[Darth Wong]

Having seen Hitchens speak in public, I think it would probably be much more interesting to read a transcript of the debate than to see it in streaming video. The guy has a speaking style that puts me to sleep.

[Vympel]

Having seen Hitchens speak in public, I think it would probably be much more interesting to read a transcript of the debate than to see it in streaming video. The guy has a speaking style that puts me to sleep.

That's probably because he's a massive fucking pisspot, he's drunk everytime he goes out in public, AFAIK, and he's proud of it.

He's also a raging neocon fuckwit, which puts me off no matter how artful his turns of phrase about religion are.

[Hawk]

It was an entertaining little debate, if only because of the occasional jabs that Christopher and Peter made at each other. The talking points were all quite old hat. The Iraq War is good because it got rid of Saddam Hussein, but bad because it is expensive and cost a lot of lives. Religion is bad because it is ridiculous and has no evidence, but good because it gives the masses another reason not to rape, steal, and kill.

The audience seemed to greatly favour Christopher, despite it taking place inside a church in a fairly religious town. The questions that asked at the end, though, lacked any flair. It seems that a lot of time was wasted on variations of "Atheism/religion is bad because of historic atrocity x. Defend your case."

The highlight of the evening was getting both brothers to sign my copy of "god is not Great". Peter had a bit of fun capitalizing the "g" and adding a "Oh, but he is." subtitle to the cover page.

[Darth Wong]

It seems that a lot of time was wasted on variations of "Atheism/religion is bad because of historic atrocity x. Defend your case."

Unfortunately, that is always a dominant argument in any debate about this subject. People usually try to respond by arguing that their particular belief or non-belief was not responsible for that particular atrocity, but I think a better way to respond is to lay out a very clear litmus test for determining whether a belief system is responsible for an atrocity, and then putting each particular historical incident through that test.

For example, is it possible to logically deduce the benefits of committing this atrocity from any teachings of that belief system? That would be a useful litmus test. Andrea Yates' murder of her own children, for example, is actually a logical act once you accept certain religious premises such as salvation by grace, salvation of the innocent, the corruption of "worldly" knowledge, the downfall of materialistic society, etc. One might counter that other parts of the religion counteract that, but that is irrelevant to the litmus test, and any reasonable person should be able to agree that you never get 100% agreement on all of the aspects of a belief system anyway. It's not unfair to argue that if parts of a belief system lead people to commit atrocities, that's a bad thing. Not everyone is going to be a scholar and spend years working out ethical compromises between all the parts of a belief system.

[Zixinus]

Another argument that I found is that religion never stopped religious people in the first place. Rape, murder and stealing has been just as, if not more, common during the Dark Ages where religion reigned supreme.

[Vaporous]

Another argument that I found is that religion never stopped religious people in the first place. Rape, murder and stealing has been just as, if not more, common during the Dark Ages where religion reigned supreme.

In which case they will assure you that without the supernatural sanction of religion, the morality of dark ages Europe would somehow have been worse.

[Darth Wong]

Another argument that I found is that religion never stopped religious people in the first place. Rape, murder and stealing has been just as, if not more, common during the Dark Ages where religion reigned supreme.

In which case they will assure you that without the supernatural sanction of religion, the morality of dark ages Europe would somehow have been worse.

I once got into an argument with a fundie who was raised religious but went through a period of drug use, promiscuity, and criminal activity before being "born again" (you have to love the way the Americhristian religion has its own version of Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection).

I, on the other hand, have a squeaky clean record: monogamous, drug-free, crime-free. And he had the gall to tell me that religion is the only source of morality.

[Vaporous]

Another argument that I found is that religion never stopped religious people in the first place. Rape, murder and stealing has been just as, if not more, common during the Dark Ages where religion reigned supreme.

In which case they will assure you that without the supernatural sanction of religion, the morality of dark ages Europe would somehow have been worse.

I once got into an argument with a fundie who was raised religious but went through a period of drug use, promiscuity, and criminal activity before being "born again" (you have to love the way the Americhristian religion has its own version of Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection).

I, on the other hand, have a squeaky clean record: monogamous, drug-free, crime-free. And he had the gall to tell me that religion is the only source of morality.

Oh, of course. If it wasn't losing religion that made him do stupid and immoral things, then what could it possibly have been?

The variation I'd rather hear is that religion, while not being the source of morality, can provide a structure to support whatever morality there is at the time. But even that argument is barely convincing, if at all.

It's usually illustrative to point out that the morals of the religious are usually exactly the same as their contemporaries, varied by means. The Renaissance popes gave their illegitimate children public office for God's sake.

[Surlethe]

The variation I'd rather hear is that religion, while not being the source of morality, can provide a structure to support whatever morality there is at the time. But even that argument is barely convincing, if at all.

It's not really an argument for religion; the moral part of religion is precisely a structure to codify and support the morals of the time. The problem is that religion is inherently conservative; as moral understanding grows and develops, religion will not discard those archaic norms and mores, which is why you still have parents who insist that their daughters are under their father's authority and wives who ask their husbands for permission to go visit a friend.

[Darth Wong]

The variation I'd rather hear is that religion, while not being the source of morality, can provide a structure to support whatever morality there is at the time. But even that argument is barely convincing, if at all.

It's not really an argument for religion; the moral part of religion is precisely a structure to codify and support the morals of the time. The problem is that religion is inherently conservative; as moral understanding grows and develops, religion will not discard those archaic norms and mores, which is why you still have parents who insist that their daughters are under their father's authority and wives who ask their husbands for permission to go visit a friend.

Well, the bit about asking permission is OK if it's fair, ie- if the husband also asks the wife for permission to go visit his friends. Of course, that seems unlikely in these cases.

[Rye]

I once got into an argument with a fundie who was raised religious but went through a period of drug use, promiscuity, and criminal activity before being "born again" (you have to love the way the Americhristian religion has its own version of Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection).

I, on the other hand, have a squeaky clean record: monogamous, drug-free, crime-free. And he had the gall to tell me that religion is the only source of morality.

Yeah, I used to have a YEC teacher (the only creationist I've ever met) when I was at Preston College, and he was talking to me about being "born again" and how before that he'd been "so bad." So I asked him how long ago he became born again, and it was something like one year ago. So I asked him how old his oldest child was (having met his wife and knowing they had two kids) and his oldest kid was 11 or so. So I asked him what he did that was so bad, did he hit his kids? Ignore them in favour of alcohol, drugs or something?

As it turned out, he hadn't done any of those things, he'd put his kids first and generally acted like any other parent. He was either refusing to tell me about what he'd done (not unreasonable) but personally, I suspect he hadn't actually done anything wrong, he'd just convinced himself he had in line with born again rhetoric. I thought it was a bit of a shame, but he said he'd pray for me, so my sympathy evaporated, heh. I said I would prefer money to prayers since money is actually useful, but I obviously got prayers instead.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Having seen Hitchens speak in public, I think it would probably be much more interesting to read a transcript of the debate than to see it in streaming video. The guy has a speaking style that puts me to sleep.

That's probably because he's a massive fucking pisspot, he's drunk everytime he goes out in public, AFAIK, and he's proud of it.

He's also a raging neocon fuckwit, which puts me off no matter how artful his turns of phrase about religion are.

Um, which Hitchens? One is annoying, the other is a very good debater and not a raving neo-con. I forget which one though, but it's funny having them both on Question Time.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

The snarky Hitchens is the one who supported the invasion of Iraq. He's the one who tends to have the big, televised arguments against Religion and authored "God is not Great."

I don't get how someone who generally makes intelligent arguments against religions can fall into a trap on a different topic and just dig deeper into the hole.

[TithonusSyndrome]

The snarky Hitchens is the one who supported the invasion of Iraq. He's the one who tends to have the big, televised arguments against Religion and authored "God is not Great."

I don't get how someone who generally makes intelligent arguments against religions can fall into a trap on a different topic and just dig deeper into the hole.

I think it's because Hitchens sees Arabic terrorism as an inherently religious force, whereas he overlooks fundamentalism in America because he's a founding fathers wanker and sees it as an inherently secular force. Good VS evil, more or less, is all it is to him.

[Zixinus]

In which case they will assure you that without the supernatural sanction of religion, the morality of dark ages Europe would somehow have been worse.

This was the worst period of human history. How could it have been worse? The only thing limiting the body count is the technology.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I think it's because Hitchens sees Arabic terrorism as an inherently religious force, whereas he overlooks fundamentalism in America because he's a founding fathers wanker and sees it as an inherently secular force. Good VS evil, more or less, is all it is to him.

I don't see how people can support their arguments that way. The Founding Fathers were most assuredly not in the habit of forming a system like that which they'd just fled.

[Rye]

I think it's because Hitchens sees Arabic terrorism as an inherently religious force, whereas he overlooks fundamentalism in America because he's a founding fathers wanker and sees it as an inherently secular force. Good VS evil, more or less, is all it is to him.

He "overlooks" fundamentalism in America?! HA! What a load of shit, he's absolutely scathing in regards to Christianity (in all its forms, from the fundamentalist evangelicals, to the catholic church and church of England) in god is not Great, and especially the neocon leadership and its alliance with the religious right. He also said on fucking FOX that if you sucked all the bullshit out of Jerry Falwell's corpse, you would've been able to fit his remains in a matchbox.

Also, his opinions on iraq are a bit idealistic, but they are not just "good vs evil" at all.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I thought as much, Rye. Though I was getting the impression it was the other Hitchens at one point.

[TithonusSyndrome]

I think it's because Hitchens sees Arabic terrorism as an inherently religious force, whereas he overlooks fundamentalism in America because he's a founding fathers wanker and sees it as an inherently secular force. Good VS evil, more or less, is all it is to him.

He "overlooks" fundamentalism in America?! HA!

More or less. He thinks America's been corrupted by fundamentalists, that he doesn't overlook, but he still thinks that the ideals of the founding fathers are if not perfect then just shy of it, and that a little elbow grease can push away the fundies and let the inevitably undeniable power of the Constitution shine bright lights all over Iraq.

[Admiral Valdemar]

And what Founding Father ideals would these be, given they wanted separation of Church and state? Are you implying the Founding Fathers were out there to set up a Christian theocracy, after just escaping such a nation and that their ideals weren't hijacked by opportunist Xtian power grabbers?

[Rye]

I thought as much, Rye. Though I was getting the impression it was the other Hitchens at one point.

The other Hitchens writes for the Daily Mail and is a bit of an idiot (but I repeat myself). I do not believe he thinks the founding fathers were perfect (I certainly wouldn't expect him to support slavery, for one) and he's made a career out of jabbing at everyone's heroes (calling Ghandi a "racist hindu fundamentalist" and of course Mother Theresa for instance). I find it unlikely that he'd jump to a founding father messianism.

He's written a biography about Jefferson and like most sensible people agrees with a lot of what the constitution says, to be completely honest. The separation of church and state is an obvious one, as is having a secular republic in general. Even Marx and Engels would've had difficulty disagreeing with those parts.

His arguments for Iraq are also not without merit; restoring the marsh ecology and trying to give the pro-western factions over there extra help (because, believe it or not, there are muslims that don't want to be ruled by shia OR sunni theocrats and desire a westernised life) may be better, ethically, than leaving them to be oppressed by religious demagogues or Saddam. I did used to be against the war on Iraq, and still am against the Bush administration and their handling of it, but I'm undecided as to whether it'll be a worse outcome than having left the iraqis to fester and eventually have a civil war when Saddam naturally pegged it.

[TithonusSyndrome]

And what Founding Father ideals would these be, given they wanted separation of Church and state? Are you implying the Founding Fathers were out there to set up a Christian theocracy, after just escaping such a nation and that their ideals weren't hijacked by opportunist Xtian power grabbers?

No, that is exactly what I'm saying Hitchens holds to be the case. He thinks AMERICA! is just suffering from a slight case of fundie infestation, but some founding fathers wankery will set Iraq straight.

[Admiral Valdemar]

No, that is exactly what I'm saying Hitchens holds to be the case. He thinks AMERICA! is just suffering from a slight case of fundie infestation, but some founding fathers wankery will set Iraq straight.

If that's the case then, he really should take another look and see that over the past two centuries, a religious rot has set in that now means people assume the country was founded as the United Stated of Jesusland. It's not a little problem to set straight, it's correcting just about all of US society.

[Darth Raptor]

I did used to be against the war on Iraq, and still am against the Bush administration and their handling of it, but I'm undecided as to whether it'll be a worse outcome than having left the iraqis to fester and eventually have a civil war when Saddam naturally pegged it.

I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that Iraq will be better off when we pull out. The arguments are against the cost of remaining there and the decision to invade in the first place. I know more than a few relatively sane conservatives who were against the invasion, against the shameless exploitation and everything, but who also think we should stay there until we get it right. I have no ethical qualms with this line of reasoning, but there are plenty of pragmatic arguments for why it's a Bad Idea.