What do you think?
Rate this book
The Munk Debates
Hitchens vs Blair
On November 26, 2010, intellectual juggernaut and staunch atheist Christopher Hitchens went head-to-head with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, one of the Western worlds most openly devout political leaders, on the highly charged topic of religion. Few world leaders have had a greater hand in shaping current events than Blair; few writers have been more outspoken and polarizing than Hitchens. Hitchens and Blair squared off on the contentious questions that continue to dog the topic of religion in our globalized How does faith influence our actions? What is the role of people of faith in the public sphere? Is religious doctrine rigid, or should we allow for flexibility in our interpretations? For the first time ever, this exclusive debate, which played out to a sold-out audience, is now available in print, along with candid interviews with Hitchens and Blair. Sharp, provocative, and thoroughly engrossing, Hitchens vs. Blair is an electrifying intellectual sparring match on the oldest Is religion a force for good in the world?
90 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2011
13 people are currently reading
677 people want to read
About the author
Christopher Hitchens
163 books7,901 followersChristopher Hitchens was a British-American author, journalist, and literary critic known for his sharp wit, polemical writing, and outspoken views on religion, politics, and culture. He was a prolific essayist and columnist, contributing to publications such as The Atlantic, Vanity Fair, Slate, and The Nation.
A staunch critic of totalitarianism and organized religion, Hitchens became one of the most prominent public intellectuals of his time. His book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007) became a bestseller and solidified his place as a leading figure in the New Atheism movement. He was equally fearless in political criticism, taking on figures across the ideological spectrum, from Henry Kissinger (The Trial of Henry Kissinger, 2001) to Bill and Hillary Clinton (No One Left to Lie To, 1999).
Originally a socialist and supporter of left-wing causes, Hitchens later distanced himself from the left, particularly after the September 11 attacks, when he became a vocal advocate for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. His ideological shift, combined with his formidable debating skills, made him a controversial yet highly respected figure.
Hitchens was also known for his literary criticism, writing extensively on figures such as George Orwell, Thomas Jefferson, and Karl Marx. His memoir, Hitch-22 (2010), reflected on his personal and intellectual journey.
In 2010, he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer but continued to write and speak publicly until his death in 2011. His fearless engagement with ideas, incisive arguments, and commitment to reason remain influential long after his passing.
A staunch critic of totalitarianism and organized religion, Hitchens became one of the most prominent public intellectuals of his time. His book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007) became a bestseller and solidified his place as a leading figure in the New Atheism movement. He was equally fearless in political criticism, taking on figures across the ideological spectrum, from Henry Kissinger (The Trial of Henry Kissinger, 2001) to Bill and Hillary Clinton (No One Left to Lie To, 1999).
Originally a socialist and supporter of left-wing causes, Hitchens later distanced himself from the left, particularly after the September 11 attacks, when he became a vocal advocate for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. His ideological shift, combined with his formidable debating skills, made him a controversial yet highly respected figure.
Hitchens was also known for his literary criticism, writing extensively on figures such as George Orwell, Thomas Jefferson, and Karl Marx. His memoir, Hitch-22 (2010), reflected on his personal and intellectual journey.
In 2010, he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer but continued to write and speak publicly until his death in 2011. His fearless engagement with ideas, incisive arguments, and commitment to reason remain influential long after his passing.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews
December 30, 2024
Here is the full video.
But Stephen Fry & Hitchens vs the Catholics is actually my favorite.
Hitchens, A.C. Grayling, & Dawkins is my second favorite, easily. Teaming those three against any combination of religious fundies could have only one ending. Sweet, sweet annihilation.
But Stephen Fry & Hitchens vs the Catholics is actually my favorite.
Hitchens, A.C. Grayling, & Dawkins is my second favorite, easily. Teaming those three against any combination of religious fundies could have only one ending. Sweet, sweet annihilation.
May 14, 2011
Hitchens won, no surprises there.
Blair argues that faith inspires people to do good.
He forgets to mention that religion more often, and to a worse degree, inspires people to do bad.
In any case, faith is the acceptance of a proposition with no evidence.
This is simply dangerous, foolish, and a bad idea.
Nothing so unsafe as religious faith can be a force for good.
Blair mentions charitable and good acts by religious peoples.
He claims these acts are inspired by religious faith.
I say these acts were taken DESPITE religious faith.
Good people will do good things, with or without faith in religious, bad books.
Oh, and Blair had the audacity to call Einstein a religious man.
He was an atheist at the age of TEN!
A family friend lent him popular science books which brought an end to his "religious paradise".
People who claim Einstein for their side of religion are stupidly misinterpreting his use of the word "god".
He used the word "god" as a synonym for nature, and an ANALOGY to help the lay person.
Then, as if to make a mockery of himself, Blair goes on the defensive.
He argues that not all bad things come from religion, and that not all things which come from religion are bad.
Both points miss the topic of the debate entirely!
The question wasn't "Is religion the only force of evil in the world?"
Clearly it is not.
The question was "Is religion a force for good in the world?"
Clearly it is not.
Blair argues that faith inspires people to do good.
He forgets to mention that religion more often, and to a worse degree, inspires people to do bad.
In any case, faith is the acceptance of a proposition with no evidence.
This is simply dangerous, foolish, and a bad idea.
Nothing so unsafe as religious faith can be a force for good.
Blair mentions charitable and good acts by religious peoples.
He claims these acts are inspired by religious faith.
I say these acts were taken DESPITE religious faith.
Good people will do good things, with or without faith in religious, bad books.
Oh, and Blair had the audacity to call Einstein a religious man.
He was an atheist at the age of TEN!
A family friend lent him popular science books which brought an end to his "religious paradise".
People who claim Einstein for their side of religion are stupidly misinterpreting his use of the word "god".
He used the word "god" as a synonym for nature, and an ANALOGY to help the lay person.
Then, as if to make a mockery of himself, Blair goes on the defensive.
He argues that not all bad things come from religion, and that not all things which come from religion are bad.
Both points miss the topic of the debate entirely!
The question wasn't "Is religion the only force of evil in the world?"
Clearly it is not.
The question was "Is religion a force for good in the world?"
Clearly it is not.
October 13, 2011
I watched this debate on YouTube a while after it happened last winter and was, as usual, impressed with Hitchens' eloquence, delivery of arguments and quickness to respond to questions and challenges on the spot. Blair's contributions are less impressive in both style and content, with his constant and annoying insistence that the faults of religion are somehow not intrinsic to it or logical consequences of it (something with which I do not agree) as well as the obvious point that religion does not have a monopoly on the evils of the world. It was nonetheless reassuring to hear that ha seems to be (or at least that's how he tries to present himself here) a very moderate, liberal version of a christian despite his fairly recent and alarming alliance with the church of Rome.
This whole debate along with questions from the audience as well as two concluding short, and (I believe) originally unrelated, interviews with both debaters, is here collected in convenient book form for all to enjoy and return to whenever they want to reexperience the joy that is reading Hitchens words in print or restock one's ammunition against the followers of dogma.
This whole debate along with questions from the audience as well as two concluding short, and (I believe) originally unrelated, interviews with both debaters, is here collected in convenient book form for all to enjoy and return to whenever they want to reexperience the joy that is reading Hitchens words in print or restock one's ammunition against the followers of dogma.
February 18, 2011
I actually did not read this book since I watched the video of the debate and have it on my iPhone. It's a good debate and one has to be impressed by Hitchens' great wit and unbending resolve in the face of a deadly illness. It's certainly not the best Hitchens debate, which I blame Blair for, but well worth the read (or view). I say I blame Blair simply because, while he is charismatic and likable, his position is pretty weak and offers no heat to the debate. I'm also perplexed as to why he would choose to be Catholic of all things - one of the most backward and dogmatic forms of Christianity in existence these days. However it is great to see Hitchens debate a political figure of Blair's caliber. It shows just how much respect Christopher demands. Definitely take the time to check this out. The book may be better than the video from an academic standpoint or for those that really want to absorb the material.
July 28, 2011
Excellent. Short. Christopher Hitchens is completely awesome and the world is a lesser place without him. I salute him!
January 27, 2015
I think that the conclusion is that religion can be a force for good and can be a force for evil. Tony Blair argued this whereas Christopher Hitchens argued that religion is a force for evil. Religion sometimes does good things e.g. runs hospitals, schools, charities. so I think Hitchens is not looking at all the evidence - he just sees bad things e.g.like Islamic State and Al Qaeda. Both proponents argued well.
April 6, 2012
I thought it was really interesting because I've heard many atheist arguments against religion throughout my schooling, but there were a few I hadn't heard in this book. Especially the argument that the way to eradicate poverty is to educate women and give them access to birth control.
Want to read
June 15, 2012Everyone expects the Spanish Inquisition.
October 12, 2012
An entertaining video to be sure, but one can better appreciate the eloquence of the speakers in this transcript. Plus it comes with footnotes, supplying details I always crave from debates.
February 13, 2014
“Hitchens vs. Blair: The Munk Debate on Religion” was a debate between former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a Catholic raised by vehement non-believers, and the author, journalist and atheist, Christopher Hitchens. On the whole, I was hoping for something more in-depth but the debate was in keeping with the resolution:
“Be it resolved that religion is a force for good in the world.”
One of the drawbacks of this debate was the narrowness of the dichotomy drawn between atheism and organized religion. Within this debate, “organized religion” referred to a belief in a monotheistic Judeo-based God, the integrity of which depends on a belief in the revelatory miracles provided to man by this one anthropomorphic God. Had a broader conception of “God” been considered, Hitchens would have had far more difficulty supporting his arguments.
Hitchens begins his defense by rightly stating how organized religion makes extraordinary claims without ordinary evidence. He then goes on to describe the “leap of faith” one needs to take in the absence of evidence and how adherence often leads to wilfully blind behavior, the ignorance of which has been responsible for innumerable heresy-based persecutions of otherwise innocent people and genocides throughout the last 20 centuries. But Hitchens relies too heavily on this level of historical critique which is an insufficient approach for several reasons.
In order for Hitchens’ points to be relevant, the examples provided should have come primarily from the modern era. Education levels were dreadfully low during late antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Life for every citizen was nasty, brutish and short until at least the late 19th century for most Westerners. One must also accept, as Blair illustrated, that fanaticism is not relegated to religion. The communists and fascists responsible for the harshest travesties of the 20th century sought to eradicate religion and were thereby vehemently non-religious. Hitchen’s approach also fails to consider the silent majority of those who subscribe to religion and do good or simply employ religion positively and consistently in their lives. Where religion works, we never hear of it; where it doesn’t, that is all we hear from critics like Hitchens.
Blair claims that, for many, organized religion provides a positive progressive structure by which to live, the benefits of which I too have witnessed. Too often Western citizens, and particularly my generation, will claim they are secular humanists, but I question the extent to which any of them actively cultivate a meaningful ethical approach to their lives.
Those claiming an adherence to atheism or secular humanism will often justify not cultivating an ethical approach to their lives or not tackling the larger philosophical and scientific questions we face based on a rejection of what they perceive is hypocrisy or a lack of evidence to support the miracle elements of organized religions. But that doesn’t mean that some type of God doesn’t exist that they should strive to understand or that they shouldn’t attempt to cultivate a structured ethical approach to their lives whether divinity based or not. Organized religion makes it far too easy for them to passive aggressively dismiss this task, succumb to laziness, and thereby fall prone to reverting to our base sensibilities which typically encompass selfishness and short-sighted thinking. Cultivating a selfless and systemic frame of thinking requires on-going work and I would argue that few atheists or “humanists” consistently commit to this task. An ongoing study of philosophy may in part fill this vacuum but I would argue hope beyond oneself is the primary fuel for that fire.
Take two men, for example. One quietly subscribes to an organized religion whereas the other subscribes to a philosophical and consumer-based materialism. The religious man theoretically attends church every Sunday and listens to an ethical lecture 4 times a month, 52 times a year. Thus, each week, the religious man is encouraged to consider how his last week went and how he could improve himself next week when considering the ethical theme presented. The “secular” non-religious man never exercises this opportunity and is thereby less exposed to a continuous ethical frame by comparison. Not only may the secular man be more prone to reverting to his base sensibilities, he may also run the risk of exacerbating the existing cynicism he has developed from his already hopeless existential framework, a cynicism that clearly emerges in the writing of Hitchens.
On the one hand, I think it is fair for Hitchens to point out the dangers of polarized religious thinking and the hypocrisy that often goes with it. Many Christians have little awareness of how far their lifestyles have gravitated away from the original principles of Christianity. At one time, Christianity was diametrically opposed to materialism until the time of the Renaissance when their societies began to incrementally reinterpret these principles to modernize and essentially live contrary to the original orthodoxy. Thus, if Christianity has become so splintered and fragmented that its essence no longer exists—what is the point in subscribing to it? That, in part, is Hitchens’ point and it is a good one at that.
According to Hitchens, the attempt of Christians to have it both ways has led to a great deal of hypocrisy and a great deal of suffering for millions of people throughout history, but like the lives of those victims that is where Hitchens’ critique lived and died. Hitchens completely ignores the good that has and could result from religious collaboration and activity in the modern era.
Blair contended that despite the rise of secularism in the West, Abrahamic religions are on the rise in both the east and south, and are rising in the aggregate relative to Western secular populations. Hitchens conceded this was true but hoped these societies would increasingly adopt secularism as opposed to religious principles to inform public policy decision-making. Blair agreed and explained that, when it comes right down to it, public policymaking “is” always based on secular considerations and has had little to do with religion including the diplomatic processes that ensue in the Middle East. According to Blair believing otherwise skews the reality and obscures the point which is to capitalize on the opportunities presented by collaboration between religions moving into the 21st century.
Blair contended that the three Abrahamic religions have been consistently collaborating to secure peace and advance major philanthropic efforts throughout their storied history and have made a great deal of progress in the 20th century in this regard. Many, if not most, humanitarian efforts are carried out by faith-based organizations. Given how organized religions are on the rise, Blair believes we should seek to spend our resources achieving common ground between religions because each religion, at its core, provides people with an incentive to be better than they would otherwise be. And ultimately, this is what this debate was about. So, depending on your view as to whether there is potential for good works between religions and from religion will determine your perspective.
Contrary to what Hitchens’ fans will have you believe, there was no clear winner to this debate. At the evenings start, over half were against the resolution and only a quarter were for it. This enabled Hitchens to sing to his choir but even then, relative to the proportion of their beginning percentages, Blair made a slight gain from the previously deemed “undecided”.
One of the problems inherent but not addressed within this debate was the lack of distinction drawn between deism (logically supported agnosticism) and Judeo-based religions. Blair contended that many people believe in or experience the numinous; the power or presence of something divine, however defined. I would argue this is also true for many self-proclaimed atheists. When entering a broader discussion of these issues, I have found that most “atheists” have heard the term “agnostic” but are unfamiliar with the formal arguments that go along with it never mind being able to articulate these arguments to an extent that defines their own belief system. In other words, most people believe they are left with only the two options of atheism or organized religion despite being somewhere in-between.
In my view, the deist arguments for the existence of God made by classical philosophers (unimpeded by the persecuting constraints of the Abrahamic religions), Spinoza and Einstein are strong and in increasing alignment with the contemporary discoveries made in theoretical physics. But atheists rarely go there because it forces them to accept their limitations (what they don’t know) and the infinite number of possibilities that may exist beyond our current capacity to understand them. Instead, they will often assert this inherently limited positivist view and lock their critique down on the hypocrisy of organized religion which is easy, albeit lazy, pickings. There are two problems with this.
One is that it is another form of dogmatism. Those who believe all has or can be explained through our existing knowledge and capacities are never those who develop new ideas that advance us around the curve.
Secondly, the atheist approach to the unknown is often cynical, hollow and negative, the fundamental premise of which may spill over into how they view the world and live, a pessimism that certainly spills over in the writings of Hitchens. By comparison, deists or those subscribing to faith have the type of hope these nihilists are lacking. As such, they will often take a more positive approach to the unknown and life which in terms of action turned third-party benefits is far more productive.
4 out of 5 stars for this Munk Debate!
“Be it resolved that religion is a force for good in the world.”
One of the drawbacks of this debate was the narrowness of the dichotomy drawn between atheism and organized religion. Within this debate, “organized religion” referred to a belief in a monotheistic Judeo-based God, the integrity of which depends on a belief in the revelatory miracles provided to man by this one anthropomorphic God. Had a broader conception of “God” been considered, Hitchens would have had far more difficulty supporting his arguments.
Hitchens begins his defense by rightly stating how organized religion makes extraordinary claims without ordinary evidence. He then goes on to describe the “leap of faith” one needs to take in the absence of evidence and how adherence often leads to wilfully blind behavior, the ignorance of which has been responsible for innumerable heresy-based persecutions of otherwise innocent people and genocides throughout the last 20 centuries. But Hitchens relies too heavily on this level of historical critique which is an insufficient approach for several reasons.
In order for Hitchens’ points to be relevant, the examples provided should have come primarily from the modern era. Education levels were dreadfully low during late antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Life for every citizen was nasty, brutish and short until at least the late 19th century for most Westerners. One must also accept, as Blair illustrated, that fanaticism is not relegated to religion. The communists and fascists responsible for the harshest travesties of the 20th century sought to eradicate religion and were thereby vehemently non-religious. Hitchen’s approach also fails to consider the silent majority of those who subscribe to religion and do good or simply employ religion positively and consistently in their lives. Where religion works, we never hear of it; where it doesn’t, that is all we hear from critics like Hitchens.
Blair claims that, for many, organized religion provides a positive progressive structure by which to live, the benefits of which I too have witnessed. Too often Western citizens, and particularly my generation, will claim they are secular humanists, but I question the extent to which any of them actively cultivate a meaningful ethical approach to their lives.
Those claiming an adherence to atheism or secular humanism will often justify not cultivating an ethical approach to their lives or not tackling the larger philosophical and scientific questions we face based on a rejection of what they perceive is hypocrisy or a lack of evidence to support the miracle elements of organized religions. But that doesn’t mean that some type of God doesn’t exist that they should strive to understand or that they shouldn’t attempt to cultivate a structured ethical approach to their lives whether divinity based or not. Organized religion makes it far too easy for them to passive aggressively dismiss this task, succumb to laziness, and thereby fall prone to reverting to our base sensibilities which typically encompass selfishness and short-sighted thinking. Cultivating a selfless and systemic frame of thinking requires on-going work and I would argue that few atheists or “humanists” consistently commit to this task. An ongoing study of philosophy may in part fill this vacuum but I would argue hope beyond oneself is the primary fuel for that fire.
Take two men, for example. One quietly subscribes to an organized religion whereas the other subscribes to a philosophical and consumer-based materialism. The religious man theoretically attends church every Sunday and listens to an ethical lecture 4 times a month, 52 times a year. Thus, each week, the religious man is encouraged to consider how his last week went and how he could improve himself next week when considering the ethical theme presented. The “secular” non-religious man never exercises this opportunity and is thereby less exposed to a continuous ethical frame by comparison. Not only may the secular man be more prone to reverting to his base sensibilities, he may also run the risk of exacerbating the existing cynicism he has developed from his already hopeless existential framework, a cynicism that clearly emerges in the writing of Hitchens.
On the one hand, I think it is fair for Hitchens to point out the dangers of polarized religious thinking and the hypocrisy that often goes with it. Many Christians have little awareness of how far their lifestyles have gravitated away from the original principles of Christianity. At one time, Christianity was diametrically opposed to materialism until the time of the Renaissance when their societies began to incrementally reinterpret these principles to modernize and essentially live contrary to the original orthodoxy. Thus, if Christianity has become so splintered and fragmented that its essence no longer exists—what is the point in subscribing to it? That, in part, is Hitchens’ point and it is a good one at that.
According to Hitchens, the attempt of Christians to have it both ways has led to a great deal of hypocrisy and a great deal of suffering for millions of people throughout history, but like the lives of those victims that is where Hitchens’ critique lived and died. Hitchens completely ignores the good that has and could result from religious collaboration and activity in the modern era.
Blair contended that despite the rise of secularism in the West, Abrahamic religions are on the rise in both the east and south, and are rising in the aggregate relative to Western secular populations. Hitchens conceded this was true but hoped these societies would increasingly adopt secularism as opposed to religious principles to inform public policy decision-making. Blair agreed and explained that, when it comes right down to it, public policymaking “is” always based on secular considerations and has had little to do with religion including the diplomatic processes that ensue in the Middle East. According to Blair believing otherwise skews the reality and obscures the point which is to capitalize on the opportunities presented by collaboration between religions moving into the 21st century.
Blair contended that the three Abrahamic religions have been consistently collaborating to secure peace and advance major philanthropic efforts throughout their storied history and have made a great deal of progress in the 20th century in this regard. Many, if not most, humanitarian efforts are carried out by faith-based organizations. Given how organized religions are on the rise, Blair believes we should seek to spend our resources achieving common ground between religions because each religion, at its core, provides people with an incentive to be better than they would otherwise be. And ultimately, this is what this debate was about. So, depending on your view as to whether there is potential for good works between religions and from religion will determine your perspective.
Contrary to what Hitchens’ fans will have you believe, there was no clear winner to this debate. At the evenings start, over half were against the resolution and only a quarter were for it. This enabled Hitchens to sing to his choir but even then, relative to the proportion of their beginning percentages, Blair made a slight gain from the previously deemed “undecided”.
One of the problems inherent but not addressed within this debate was the lack of distinction drawn between deism (logically supported agnosticism) and Judeo-based religions. Blair contended that many people believe in or experience the numinous; the power or presence of something divine, however defined. I would argue this is also true for many self-proclaimed atheists. When entering a broader discussion of these issues, I have found that most “atheists” have heard the term “agnostic” but are unfamiliar with the formal arguments that go along with it never mind being able to articulate these arguments to an extent that defines their own belief system. In other words, most people believe they are left with only the two options of atheism or organized religion despite being somewhere in-between.
In my view, the deist arguments for the existence of God made by classical philosophers (unimpeded by the persecuting constraints of the Abrahamic religions), Spinoza and Einstein are strong and in increasing alignment with the contemporary discoveries made in theoretical physics. But atheists rarely go there because it forces them to accept their limitations (what they don’t know) and the infinite number of possibilities that may exist beyond our current capacity to understand them. Instead, they will often assert this inherently limited positivist view and lock their critique down on the hypocrisy of organized religion which is easy, albeit lazy, pickings. There are two problems with this.
One is that it is another form of dogmatism. Those who believe all has or can be explained through our existing knowledge and capacities are never those who develop new ideas that advance us around the curve.
Secondly, the atheist approach to the unknown is often cynical, hollow and negative, the fundamental premise of which may spill over into how they view the world and live, a pessimism that certainly spills over in the writings of Hitchens. By comparison, deists or those subscribing to faith have the type of hope these nihilists are lacking. As such, they will often take a more positive approach to the unknown and life which in terms of action turned third-party benefits is far more productive.
4 out of 5 stars for this Munk Debate!
April 2, 2016
So let me get this straight:
Hitchens is attempting to tell people what GOOD is, as if he's an expert on Goodness and morality. Isn't this the guy that writes books on Nun's? That he calls "The Missionary Position". What a darling of self-restraint and ethics. Hasn't Hitchens been associated with Playboy magazine for decades? Imagine one of his Grand-daughters saying "Grandpa, when can I pose for that magazine you contribute to?" Hitch will of course say "That would be EVIL, oh precious offspring of mine. You are only 15. That would be SICK! Wait a few 100 more days and then it'll be a noble career where old perverts can lust after you in all their GOODNESS and MORALITY of atheistic laws and freedoms. Unless we alter GOODNESS to mean we old men can lust after 9 to 15 year olds too."
"Gosh, thanks Grandpa. You are so GOOD to have around. You know EVERYTHING. See you at the Playboy Christmas part Grandpa - I'll be the dead porn star with her face buried in Cocaine with a bottle of booze beside me. Can I borrow a smoke old man?"
And that's the problem: Blair is too nice of a guy to say the absolute truth. Makes people assume he lost because he's trying to be polite. I don't suffer from that.
This book is cursed from the beginning. You can't lump all religions together. Only an idiot would do that. But if Tony is placing the Pope above himself then indeed he is. Or worse - giving Islam and Hinduism equal billings in the human empathy categories. Although Buddhist's desires to suppress desires can lead to bad parenting - What if your desire is to help your children? Better ask a hungry-ghost for the answer to that one.
AS usual with a Hitchens debate: You really don't even need to read (or hear) the other guy to know Hitchens is filled with self-righteous Crap. He assumes His lofty opinion is enough for everybody. But how dare God do the same. Even God has to check with Hitchens Ego to see what qualifies as valid.
Having said that: I was - for the first time EVER - impressed with Hitchens book ending chat. He says on pg. 63
"Without religion there would still be anti-semitism, I'm sure, but it's roots would still be religious."
Insightfully honest old chap. And Hitch wins the Whole Book by his end comment: pg. 65
Richler: "After the debate I heard one of your fans say, 'Hitchens mind is the best argument for God.' His partner replied, 'No, it's an argument for science.'
Christopher Hitchens: "Well, they're both wrong, I think."
To me, humor trumps just about everything. And Hitch occasionally has some great moments of delight.
__________________________
Hitch made a fascinating blab:
"...if they know of a religion...that does not, according to the texts, consider women to be an inferior creation."
Nice smack of religion. But what INFERIOR is He referring to? Smarter, stronger, deals with pain better, better survival skills, team player, multi-tasker? Or is he simply doing the atheistic jargon of assuming women are to blame for the total fall of creation?
The Bible does not claim women are not perfect for their role. Does Hitchens assume God created women to be exactly the same as men in every way? No, they are to compliment men - not be inferior to them. The Bible doesn't say men simply get to boss them around. But men are responsible for them in many ways. They have been given different roles and different accountabilities. Even atheistic evolution seems to spout this bit of garble. Men and women are simply different. (well, they used to be -- How many genders are there now according to liberal media?)
Hitch proved he still is basically an infant when it comes to Biblical theology and God's plan. You would think he would have learned A LOT FREAKIN' MORE from all the apologists and religious experts he chatted with. But he was too busy looking for His angle to sustain his career.
Blair comes out strong: He simply states that religious good IS being done. Hitchens even agrees. That should simply be the end of the debate. Indeed - Religion IS Occasionally a force for Good in the world. It appears many insist it is either 100% or 0%. Not if atheists creep into religion and muck things up. I do recall reading about all those Pastors who are losing their religions and yet dishonestly keep working in their churches - Just cause they are too lazy to seriously read their Bibles (or get a NEW job). But please don't blame the Bible. That's what you get for being Catholic or just a poor theologian.
My whole intent while reading this book was: WHAT is GOOD? Who gets to define it?
Atheism often states babies are nice - now abort them if they interfere in a woman's freedom. Is that Good? Is that the Atheistic Force for good that they keep insisting will stop all the insanity? I don't recall ANY religion that recommends aborting humanity for personal gratification and whims.
Maybe this book should have fairly been about: Religion or Atheism: Which is worse for the world?
Hitch often goes on about AIDS and condom's as related to the church:
"Have you looked lately at the religious teaching in Africa and the consequences of it, of a church that says AIDS may be wicked but not as wicked as condoms?"
I hear this a LOT from atheists. That is just not Christian. It was definitely an Israelite issue for a time (in the building of the nation - may even still apply to Jews). But as any attender of Sunday school would recall:
1 Corinthians 7 (Paul says)
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am.
So not only do all those Wonderfully African Catholics NOT need to have condoms (church goers would NEVER sin) they don't even need to have sex - since they are SOOOOOOOOoooo religious. Is anybody actually obeying the Catholic church in matters of lust and sin? I seriously doubt it. Yet atheists keep blaming them for some supposed condom crisis?
__________________________
Blair makes a good point:
"And yes, I agree that in a world without religion, the religious fanatics may be gone, but...would fanaticism be gone?"
Heck no, it would be like the wild west. Atheistic gunslingers, whore houses, robbed banks, railroad corporations and slavery. We'd still have all the same lying, cheating, violence, greed, pride ---- Just like at a European Soccer match. NO religion necessary.
Reminds me of a joke:
Ten atheists walk into a bar: 5 fights break out. The cops are called --- Police get blamed for the fights. Too many oppressive laws.
Hitchens short-sightedness is very present when he assumes religious people are VERY religious. (He must not know many of them - in much of the world. Those old churches are mostly empty.) He babbles:
"If you give women some control over the rate they reproduce...throw in a handful of seeds, some credit...not just poverty but education, health, and optimism --- will increase."
Then these people can write books about Nuns and their missionary positions. Because they will instantly be GOOD people - Like Hitchens. Ohhh, and add some alcohol, endless tobacco, much vulgarity, biases, and some rebellious hatred -- these people will be worse than the church left them. Yep, indeed the WILD WEST all over again. Or the Black Market corruption of many poor nations -- you don't need religion for that. Just good hearted Optimism.
___________________
Blair had a fun comment: (pg. 30)
"...and we wouldn't dream of condemning all politics because politics have led to Hitler or Stalin, or indeed what happened in Rwanda."
As much as i'm against 99% of the world's religions, I tolerate them - just like I do politics. Atheists keep assuming they found the simple solution: get rid of what they don't embrace. But that leaves you with...ummmh? They don't know. Some old loudmouth writer who drinks, smokes, and works for porn magazines? Atheistic Utopia indeed. Now who's daughter is NEXT for a naughty centerfold? Hue Heffner recommends Hitchens tell his Grand-daughters not to be shy.
(Wasn't Hitchy always proud of getting right to the meat of an issue? Bet he didn't touch that one in his family PRIDE.) The Bible is not afraid to put these issues on the table.
Almost done.
Hitch says "looking for some evidence that Moses had ever been there. They didn't find any, because there has never been and there never will be any evidence."
Like what? Stuff with writing on it? Ohhhh, you mean atheistic evidence. Like we have for Socrates? More writings?... again, atheistic evidence. Basically NOTHING will do -- NEVER -- as Hitchens states. Open minded atheism at its best.
I often ask atheists what kind of Evidence they would like for proof of a God. They really have given this no thought. NO forensic evidence is allowed. Not even the silly evidence they claim to have for Macro-evolution. They demand a functioning monkey god dancing before them. NO reason for a Universe creating, life sustaining, Deity to play that game. It's more fun to back off, allow some nasty atheistic debauchery (in the name of freedom) and leave us some intellectual and philosophical (as well as moral) WRITTEN proof of His existence. And i'm sure Hitchens is still jealous that GOD has the number one book on the planet (hmmmm, it even mentions Moses a few times.)
Sadly Blair embarrasses the Christian church: pg. 73
"Karen Armstrong's written some wonderful books about religion."
No surprise that Blair is very involved in the melding of religions at the expense of Jesus. But that's some heavy theology that Blair probably doesn't have time for. Too busy kissing the Popes ring and talking about AIDS/condoms.
I'll end on Hitch actually being somewhat intelligent: pg. 45
"...the sense that there is something beyond the material - or if not beyond it, not entirely consistent materially with it - is as very important matter...I wouldn't trust anyone in this hall who didn't know what I was talking about...without this we really would merely be primates."
So, I have slightly more respect for Hitchens after reading this debate. I say He failed to prove the atheistic propaganda many assumed he would bestow on the audience. But we all agree that there is a problem with mankind.
The only real solution is: We need a perfect KING that says "Cut that crap out!" and a new nature. Thankfully the Bible says this is coming.
Hitchens is attempting to tell people what GOOD is, as if he's an expert on Goodness and morality. Isn't this the guy that writes books on Nun's? That he calls "The Missionary Position". What a darling of self-restraint and ethics. Hasn't Hitchens been associated with Playboy magazine for decades? Imagine one of his Grand-daughters saying "Grandpa, when can I pose for that magazine you contribute to?" Hitch will of course say "That would be EVIL, oh precious offspring of mine. You are only 15. That would be SICK! Wait a few 100 more days and then it'll be a noble career where old perverts can lust after you in all their GOODNESS and MORALITY of atheistic laws and freedoms. Unless we alter GOODNESS to mean we old men can lust after 9 to 15 year olds too."
"Gosh, thanks Grandpa. You are so GOOD to have around. You know EVERYTHING. See you at the Playboy Christmas part Grandpa - I'll be the dead porn star with her face buried in Cocaine with a bottle of booze beside me. Can I borrow a smoke old man?"
And that's the problem: Blair is too nice of a guy to say the absolute truth. Makes people assume he lost because he's trying to be polite. I don't suffer from that.
This book is cursed from the beginning. You can't lump all religions together. Only an idiot would do that. But if Tony is placing the Pope above himself then indeed he is. Or worse - giving Islam and Hinduism equal billings in the human empathy categories. Although Buddhist's desires to suppress desires can lead to bad parenting - What if your desire is to help your children? Better ask a hungry-ghost for the answer to that one.
AS usual with a Hitchens debate: You really don't even need to read (or hear) the other guy to know Hitchens is filled with self-righteous Crap. He assumes His lofty opinion is enough for everybody. But how dare God do the same. Even God has to check with Hitchens Ego to see what qualifies as valid.
Having said that: I was - for the first time EVER - impressed with Hitchens book ending chat. He says on pg. 63
"Without religion there would still be anti-semitism, I'm sure, but it's roots would still be religious."
Insightfully honest old chap. And Hitch wins the Whole Book by his end comment: pg. 65
Richler: "After the debate I heard one of your fans say, 'Hitchens mind is the best argument for God.' His partner replied, 'No, it's an argument for science.'
Christopher Hitchens: "Well, they're both wrong, I think."
To me, humor trumps just about everything. And Hitch occasionally has some great moments of delight.
__________________________
Hitch made a fascinating blab:
"...if they know of a religion...that does not, according to the texts, consider women to be an inferior creation."
Nice smack of religion. But what INFERIOR is He referring to? Smarter, stronger, deals with pain better, better survival skills, team player, multi-tasker? Or is he simply doing the atheistic jargon of assuming women are to blame for the total fall of creation?
The Bible does not claim women are not perfect for their role. Does Hitchens assume God created women to be exactly the same as men in every way? No, they are to compliment men - not be inferior to them. The Bible doesn't say men simply get to boss them around. But men are responsible for them in many ways. They have been given different roles and different accountabilities. Even atheistic evolution seems to spout this bit of garble. Men and women are simply different. (well, they used to be -- How many genders are there now according to liberal media?)
Hitch proved he still is basically an infant when it comes to Biblical theology and God's plan. You would think he would have learned A LOT FREAKIN' MORE from all the apologists and religious experts he chatted with. But he was too busy looking for His angle to sustain his career.
Blair comes out strong: He simply states that religious good IS being done. Hitchens even agrees. That should simply be the end of the debate. Indeed - Religion IS Occasionally a force for Good in the world. It appears many insist it is either 100% or 0%. Not if atheists creep into religion and muck things up. I do recall reading about all those Pastors who are losing their religions and yet dishonestly keep working in their churches - Just cause they are too lazy to seriously read their Bibles (or get a NEW job). But please don't blame the Bible. That's what you get for being Catholic or just a poor theologian.
My whole intent while reading this book was: WHAT is GOOD? Who gets to define it?
Atheism often states babies are nice - now abort them if they interfere in a woman's freedom. Is that Good? Is that the Atheistic Force for good that they keep insisting will stop all the insanity? I don't recall ANY religion that recommends aborting humanity for personal gratification and whims.
Maybe this book should have fairly been about: Religion or Atheism: Which is worse for the world?
Hitch often goes on about AIDS and condom's as related to the church:
"Have you looked lately at the religious teaching in Africa and the consequences of it, of a church that says AIDS may be wicked but not as wicked as condoms?"
I hear this a LOT from atheists. That is just not Christian. It was definitely an Israelite issue for a time (in the building of the nation - may even still apply to Jews). But as any attender of Sunday school would recall:
1 Corinthians 7 (Paul says)
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am.
So not only do all those Wonderfully African Catholics NOT need to have condoms (church goers would NEVER sin) they don't even need to have sex - since they are SOOOOOOOOoooo religious. Is anybody actually obeying the Catholic church in matters of lust and sin? I seriously doubt it. Yet atheists keep blaming them for some supposed condom crisis?
__________________________
Blair makes a good point:
"And yes, I agree that in a world without religion, the religious fanatics may be gone, but...would fanaticism be gone?"
Heck no, it would be like the wild west. Atheistic gunslingers, whore houses, robbed banks, railroad corporations and slavery. We'd still have all the same lying, cheating, violence, greed, pride ---- Just like at a European Soccer match. NO religion necessary.
Reminds me of a joke:
Ten atheists walk into a bar: 5 fights break out. The cops are called --- Police get blamed for the fights. Too many oppressive laws.
Hitchens short-sightedness is very present when he assumes religious people are VERY religious. (He must not know many of them - in much of the world. Those old churches are mostly empty.) He babbles:
"If you give women some control over the rate they reproduce...throw in a handful of seeds, some credit...not just poverty but education, health, and optimism --- will increase."
Then these people can write books about Nuns and their missionary positions. Because they will instantly be GOOD people - Like Hitchens. Ohhh, and add some alcohol, endless tobacco, much vulgarity, biases, and some rebellious hatred -- these people will be worse than the church left them. Yep, indeed the WILD WEST all over again. Or the Black Market corruption of many poor nations -- you don't need religion for that. Just good hearted Optimism.
___________________
Blair had a fun comment: (pg. 30)
"...and we wouldn't dream of condemning all politics because politics have led to Hitler or Stalin, or indeed what happened in Rwanda."
As much as i'm against 99% of the world's religions, I tolerate them - just like I do politics. Atheists keep assuming they found the simple solution: get rid of what they don't embrace. But that leaves you with...ummmh? They don't know. Some old loudmouth writer who drinks, smokes, and works for porn magazines? Atheistic Utopia indeed. Now who's daughter is NEXT for a naughty centerfold? Hue Heffner recommends Hitchens tell his Grand-daughters not to be shy.
(Wasn't Hitchy always proud of getting right to the meat of an issue? Bet he didn't touch that one in his family PRIDE.) The Bible is not afraid to put these issues on the table.
Almost done.
Hitch says "looking for some evidence that Moses had ever been there. They didn't find any, because there has never been and there never will be any evidence."
Like what? Stuff with writing on it? Ohhhh, you mean atheistic evidence. Like we have for Socrates? More writings?... again, atheistic evidence. Basically NOTHING will do -- NEVER -- as Hitchens states. Open minded atheism at its best.
I often ask atheists what kind of Evidence they would like for proof of a God. They really have given this no thought. NO forensic evidence is allowed. Not even the silly evidence they claim to have for Macro-evolution. They demand a functioning monkey god dancing before them. NO reason for a Universe creating, life sustaining, Deity to play that game. It's more fun to back off, allow some nasty atheistic debauchery (in the name of freedom) and leave us some intellectual and philosophical (as well as moral) WRITTEN proof of His existence. And i'm sure Hitchens is still jealous that GOD has the number one book on the planet (hmmmm, it even mentions Moses a few times.)
Sadly Blair embarrasses the Christian church: pg. 73
"Karen Armstrong's written some wonderful books about religion."
No surprise that Blair is very involved in the melding of religions at the expense of Jesus. But that's some heavy theology that Blair probably doesn't have time for. Too busy kissing the Popes ring and talking about AIDS/condoms.
I'll end on Hitch actually being somewhat intelligent: pg. 45
"...the sense that there is something beyond the material - or if not beyond it, not entirely consistent materially with it - is as very important matter...I wouldn't trust anyone in this hall who didn't know what I was talking about...without this we really would merely be primates."
So, I have slightly more respect for Hitchens after reading this debate. I say He failed to prove the atheistic propaganda many assumed he would bestow on the audience. But we all agree that there is a problem with mankind.
The only real solution is: We need a perfect KING that says "Cut that crap out!" and a new nature. Thankfully the Bible says this is coming.
July 19, 2019
A short but engaging transcript of the debate between former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the late Atheist posterchild, Christopher Hitchens. As a Christian I appreciated the civil nature of the debate, despite this book being framed nonetheless as a punching-bag for Hitchens against a hardly popular former leader and Catholic.
It was very good reading, however it still barely scratched the surface of the argument:
Be it Resolved, Religion is a Force for Good in the World.
Eloquent as Blair was (he is a politician after all), I don't think he was the best advocate as he often reverted to the tired reverse-argument that while evil has often been committed in the name of religion, so too has a lot of good. A better debater would have accepted that this wasn't the issue under scrutiny. Many people hate the Christian faith. Naturally, these books are often particularly "anti-Christian", yet there should come a time when people accept that they are by default against the beliefs of Judaism and Islam too; it's safe and easy to hate a Christian in our society, but let's see these same people openly take a stand against their "friends-in-victimhood", the Jews and the Muslims. However, most of these people, if they have some intelligence, will not deny there clearly are good Christians out there. Same as Muslims. Same as Jews. Same as all groups, religions, cultures etc.
The point, therefore, that Blair continues falling back on is little more than an evasion from delving deeper into the debate. He should rather have taken Hitchens to task on the concept of faith, the limitations of the human experience and the (I believe) equally unreasonable assumption that we have the means to know for absolute certain that God cannot be real. Seen in this light, the rejection of God is no less of an ideology requiring the adoption of a narrower mind and immutable adherence to a presupposed set of infallible principles. Said the great saint Thomas Aquinas: "For those with faith, no evidence is necessary; for those without it, no evidence will suffice". A Christian with faith not reconciled to logic (that is, a Christian who, when called to justify their beliefs under scientific scrutiny enforced by temporal language and concepts, of which there are many) are arguably the best kind, for they accept Jesus on hope and faith alone. Only, in a world that is often so antagonistic to God and his believers, there must be those who are able to stand before a modern tribunal of faithless opponents, understandably incensed that in the 21st century, our lives are still governed to a large extent by anciently established rules.
This, as post-Enlightenment history shows, and surely will continue to throughout future decades, holds just as dangerous a potential for inhuman atrocity, the abuse of the soul (or, for Atheists, let's say the "human spirit", that which epitomises the good and just in our species) and a total disintegration of objective morality which, by its very nature, a humanist culture bred upon relativism and the denial of absolute truth is just as dangerous.
It was very good reading, however it still barely scratched the surface of the argument:
Be it Resolved, Religion is a Force for Good in the World.
Eloquent as Blair was (he is a politician after all), I don't think he was the best advocate as he often reverted to the tired reverse-argument that while evil has often been committed in the name of religion, so too has a lot of good. A better debater would have accepted that this wasn't the issue under scrutiny. Many people hate the Christian faith. Naturally, these books are often particularly "anti-Christian", yet there should come a time when people accept that they are by default against the beliefs of Judaism and Islam too; it's safe and easy to hate a Christian in our society, but let's see these same people openly take a stand against their "friends-in-victimhood", the Jews and the Muslims. However, most of these people, if they have some intelligence, will not deny there clearly are good Christians out there. Same as Muslims. Same as Jews. Same as all groups, religions, cultures etc.
The point, therefore, that Blair continues falling back on is little more than an evasion from delving deeper into the debate. He should rather have taken Hitchens to task on the concept of faith, the limitations of the human experience and the (I believe) equally unreasonable assumption that we have the means to know for absolute certain that God cannot be real. Seen in this light, the rejection of God is no less of an ideology requiring the adoption of a narrower mind and immutable adherence to a presupposed set of infallible principles. Said the great saint Thomas Aquinas: "For those with faith, no evidence is necessary; for those without it, no evidence will suffice". A Christian with faith not reconciled to logic (that is, a Christian who, when called to justify their beliefs under scientific scrutiny enforced by temporal language and concepts, of which there are many) are arguably the best kind, for they accept Jesus on hope and faith alone. Only, in a world that is often so antagonistic to God and his believers, there must be those who are able to stand before a modern tribunal of faithless opponents, understandably incensed that in the 21st century, our lives are still governed to a large extent by anciently established rules.
This, as post-Enlightenment history shows, and surely will continue to throughout future decades, holds just as dangerous a potential for inhuman atrocity, the abuse of the soul (or, for Atheists, let's say the "human spirit", that which epitomises the good and just in our species) and a total disintegration of objective morality which, by its very nature, a humanist culture bred upon relativism and the denial of absolute truth is just as dangerous.
March 19, 2019
2.5 Stars!
November 26, 2010, Toronto, Canada is the time and place. If you wish to know more than that, then you do not need to read this book. You can get easy enough access to it online. The debate itself only takes up 54 pages, the rest of the book is given over to an interview with Hitchens, and a shorter one with Blair, even that only takes you to page 74, the remainder is self-promoting filler about everyone involved.
This is certainly not a great debate. Hitchens was terminally ill at the time and so not at his best, and Blair comes across as what he is, a politician and a lawyer. To suggest that most of what comes out of his mouth is a lie would be ridiculous. To suggest that most of what comes out of his mouth is the truth would be even more ridiculous.
You will do well not to gag or vomit at the cloying introduction given by Peter Munk, “I don’t believe that another human being has had as much impact on the events of the world over the past twenty or thirty years. I could not tell you how honoured we were when he accepted a role in this debate.” Clearly he has a very limited imagination. This is quite a worrying way in which to glorify a war criminal, and a man who has made millions and a career from assisting third-world dictators.
On the surface of it, it would appear that Hitchens and Blair are polar opposites, but of course closer analysis reveals more similarities than you might first think, at the time of the debate both are middle age white men who were products of the British elite, privately educated at exclusive fee paying schools before going onto graduate from Oxbridge institutions. Both previously had leftish leaning views when they were younger but gravitated towards the hard right. Both were zealous supporters of the Iraq War and went to embarrassing lengths to endorse it and of course both of them love the sound of their own voice and enjoyed promotional tours on cosy circuits like the one they feature in here.
Blair’s argument is not just weak, but it’s silly and hard to take seriously. The level of hypocrisy and BS is at times breath taking, the pain, misery and suffering that he has helped inflict upon millions of people in several countries, through his deception, and desire for money and power. If this isn't insulting enough he then dares to have the arrogance to hide behind the aegis of Catholicism. His actions have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with trying to absolve himself of responsibility. If you want to see Hitchens debating at his best, then YT and the internet are the best places to go, here you will find many examples of him in his stride, and against far stronger opposition.
February 27, 2014
A polemicist and a politician walk up to a podium...
For such a vague topic, the debate was agonisingly short. Not much time for each to make the case, then only a short time longer to rebut. In terms of the presentations, framing it as a polemicist vs a politician would be a fair assessment. Hitchens threw in enough rhetorical barbs, while Blair was expertly evasive, reframing the debate to his will.
The argument goes as follows:
Hitchens - religion does great harm, here are lots of examples where religion not only causes harm but is an impediment to peace.
Blair - Hitchens is right to say that it causes harm, but it also can cause good too. And those causing harm aren't true faith.
And that's pretty much it for the back and forward. One telling moment was Hitchens going on about the Catholic Church's policy on AIDS in Africa, and Blair countering that the Catholic Church is funding AIDS hospitals. Same goes for the example of religion in Northern Ireland, where Blair brings it up as a case of religion doing good, and Hitchens countering with all the harm done. Which probably sums up the differences well - religion is a force of harm, but can be in Blair's eyes also a force for good.
One curious conjecture, which from the format went unexplored, was Blair's assertion that Humanism wasn't enough for a moral sense for many people, then later talking about believers who are motivated by love for their fellow man. It would be curious to know just what is missing from a humanist account that faith actually gives.
So where does it balance out? Probably with a better question really, "a force for good" is far too ill-formed a proposition to be able to give a meaningful answer. Hitchens is right that religion causes all sorts of problems, and Blair is right that religion can be part of the solution at times with the right believers (the ones who practice True Faith). A short debate like this can do little more than get people to start thinking about the issues, and both speakers were more than competent to make a provocative case for the reader to consider.
For such a vague topic, the debate was agonisingly short. Not much time for each to make the case, then only a short time longer to rebut. In terms of the presentations, framing it as a polemicist vs a politician would be a fair assessment. Hitchens threw in enough rhetorical barbs, while Blair was expertly evasive, reframing the debate to his will.
The argument goes as follows:
Hitchens - religion does great harm, here are lots of examples where religion not only causes harm but is an impediment to peace.
Blair - Hitchens is right to say that it causes harm, but it also can cause good too. And those causing harm aren't true faith.
And that's pretty much it for the back and forward. One telling moment was Hitchens going on about the Catholic Church's policy on AIDS in Africa, and Blair countering that the Catholic Church is funding AIDS hospitals. Same goes for the example of religion in Northern Ireland, where Blair brings it up as a case of religion doing good, and Hitchens countering with all the harm done. Which probably sums up the differences well - religion is a force of harm, but can be in Blair's eyes also a force for good.
One curious conjecture, which from the format went unexplored, was Blair's assertion that Humanism wasn't enough for a moral sense for many people, then later talking about believers who are motivated by love for their fellow man. It would be curious to know just what is missing from a humanist account that faith actually gives.
So where does it balance out? Probably with a better question really, "a force for good" is far too ill-formed a proposition to be able to give a meaningful answer. Hitchens is right that religion causes all sorts of problems, and Blair is right that religion can be part of the solution at times with the right believers (the ones who practice True Faith). A short debate like this can do little more than get people to start thinking about the issues, and both speakers were more than competent to make a provocative case for the reader to consider.
March 14, 2014
As debates go, this was pretty lousy. And that disappoints me for multiple reasons. Firstly, because Christopher Hitchens was the atheist poster boy and I would expect him to construct better arguments than he did, and secondly because, as a seasoned debater, Tony Blair should have had the wherewithal to call Hitchens on the non-arguments that found their way into his answers.
The point of the debate was the subtitle of the transcript, and, while the two worked their ways around some of the issues, Blair took a fairly nebulous position speaking on religion in a very broad sense instead of utilizing the grounding of Catholic social teaching, which I would expect him to be very in tune with.
Hitchens, on the other hand, basically stuck to the standard atheist talking points, that people acting in the name of religion are responsible for all manner of horrors, and threw in some sensationalism for flare. He stated at one point "show me a religion that doesn't cast women as inferior creations." That is where Blair should have been all over him as Church doctrine explicitly rejects the idea that women are somehow inferior to men.
All in all, a big disappointment as debates go. Interesting read, and the bonus interviews at the end are definitely worth it, but I wish the debaters had brought their A game and really worked on some of the big issues around the question.
The point of the debate was the subtitle of the transcript, and, while the two worked their ways around some of the issues, Blair took a fairly nebulous position speaking on religion in a very broad sense instead of utilizing the grounding of Catholic social teaching, which I would expect him to be very in tune with.
Hitchens, on the other hand, basically stuck to the standard atheist talking points, that people acting in the name of religion are responsible for all manner of horrors, and threw in some sensationalism for flare. He stated at one point "show me a religion that doesn't cast women as inferior creations." That is where Blair should have been all over him as Church doctrine explicitly rejects the idea that women are somehow inferior to men.
All in all, a big disappointment as debates go. Interesting read, and the bonus interviews at the end are definitely worth it, but I wish the debaters had brought their A game and really worked on some of the big issues around the question.
March 15, 2016
مناظرة مهمة جداً وهي متوافرة على اليوتيوب بين رئيس الوزراء البريطاني السابق توني بلير المؤمن ، والكاتب البريطاني المشهور كريستوفر هيتشنز الملحد .. عندما تقرأ المراجعات على الكتاب أو حتى في اليوتيوب الكل يقول هيتشنز تمكن من بلير ، أنا رأيت المناظرة متوازنة وقد أتى توني بلير بآراء قوية عكس ما كنت أتوقعه ، المفهوم الرئيسي الذي ركز عليه السيد بلير هو فصل الدين عن أفعال البشر السيئة حيث أن البشر يستغلون الدين كوسيلة لخلق الأفعال السيئة وهذا ليس ذنب الدين بل ذنب المتدينين ، وأن الدين هو الذي يخلق الدافع للأفعال الجيدة في الناحية الأخرى . على ضفة الشاطئ الآخر كان هيتشنز يحاول بطريقة أو بأخرى الرد على هذه الأطروحات وقد أتى بحجج تستحق المتابعة والمناقشة . الأمر الرائع أن المناظرة تمت وحضرها آلاف الأشخاص ولم تنتهي بعراك أو بشتائم كما تنتهي مناظرات العرب فوا أسفاه على أمتنا العربية !! .
May 5, 2012
Another little book (I'm away for the weekend, and only have space for little ones) that's worth more than it weighs. The questions are important, and the opinions are impressive. I side with Hitchens, but loved hearing the debate; both men are/were smart and capable. More people should ask themselves these sorts of things, and if they don't, they should ask themselves why not. Very stimulating reading.
May 6, 2011
An interesting book. It is the verbatim moderated debate between Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair as to whether or not religion is a force for good in the world. Hitchens is very good, Blair's argument does little more than state that there are some people in the world that do good things in the name of religion. Only 75 pages, so quick read, I found it a bit anticlimactic.
August 18, 2011
It was so exciting I couldn't put it down. As soon as I picked it up I had to finish. Hitchens made interesting points. But I thought Blair went around Hitchens' criticisms not addressing his points on faith requires believing in a supernatural being. Perhaps it was Blair's background in political debate which the moderator brought up in the beginning. I did come into this book with a bias.
August 22, 2011
This book loses a star because hitchens failed to point out to blair the difference between "because of religion" and "in spite of religion" it regains half a star for his genius opening statement about how religion causes intelligent people to say stupid things (ergo everything blair will say tonight)
August 21, 2012
In this lopsided engagement Hitchens is as deft, knowledgeable, and incisive as ever. Blair—unfortunately for the quality of the debate—makes the same tired point about religion's potential to inspire good as well as evil in every response. Munk could have chosen a better advocate of the case for religion, though perhaps none as famous.
September 29, 2015
Complete and utter destruction. Hitchens owned every argument in the debate. I first watched the debate on YouTube, read the transcript, then rewatched the debate again. Blair constantly tiptoed around the debate question and kept invoking the "people are misusing and misunderstanding religion" card, but Hitchens kept pushing him into contradicting himself.
October 23, 2011
Thought provoking. Hitchens makes his point clearly and almost faultlessly. While Blair does make the occasional point that may have some merit he ultimately speaks in loose terms around his conviction admitting there are a large degree of flaws in Religion.
June 1, 2013
A near-total Hitchslapping of mastadonic proportions.
April 15, 2014
Well, Hitchens won, obviously, in respect of being the vastly more interesting and knowledgable raconteur, while Blair's puffs and wheezes to keep up. Must seek,this out on YouTube.
April 27, 2014
I simply can't get myself to accept that Blair honestly believes what he's argued in this debate ...
June 9, 2015
Wow. Blair led a country.
April 11, 2021
Spoiler alert:
Is Religion Good for the World?
Blair - Pro
Hitchens - Con
My view:
This question above is the one that I do not have a clear opinion on. Whilst I am an atheist, I do find it hard to understand people who genuinely believe in a talking snake and a divine being. Whilst at the same time, there is an untold amount of evidence that nihilism flourishes in the absence of religion.
The Debates:
Fascinating pitting these two against each other. Blair the master politician, superb rhetorician. Hitchens with his wit and ability to think on his feet.
On any other subject, it might have been a fairer battleground; Hitchens so schooled in this debate, having spent an entire career debating against masters of the subject.
Blair was spared embarrassment on the account of his master delivery, which fools the audience into thinking he is speaking with more substance than he is.
Blair had one argument and one argument only. Although he delivered the point in many different ways with master delivery; Blair offered no more than "whilst religion can be all that Christopher says it is, it can also do good", something I do not think even the most ardent atheist could deny.
Hitchens rebuttal to the point, that what is often credited to religion is nothing more than basic humanism and can be replicated within secular society.
Hitchens schooled Blair; a testament to this, a staggering 13% of the audience changed their mind from pro to con, the biggest victory margin in Munk debate history.
The debate is equally frustrating and superb. Despite favoring Hitchens, I wanted Blair to at least land a glove on him. It becomes apparent that Blair did not know his best argument. And his best argument in this debate was not that religion can at some times do good. It is that the atrocities of the 20th century took place in the absence of religion; Hitler's National Socialism, Communism in Europe and the Far East, Dictatorships in central America. Blair mentioned this, but only fleetingly. It struck me that he did not have the knowledge of the great writers of the past: Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, etc, who in the 19th century had seen the overhaul of religious power and the nihilism that accompanied it, with this they had the foresight to predict the horrors of the 20th century.
A dream match-up would have been Hitchens vs Jordan Peterson. Peterson, who got the better of Sam Harris on each occasion of their world tour, debating the same question, has the theoretical understanding of the dangers of nihilism.
It's well worth a watch, listen or read (transcripts available in book form).
Is Religion Good for the World?
Blair - Pro
Hitchens - Con
My view:
This question above is the one that I do not have a clear opinion on. Whilst I am an atheist, I do find it hard to understand people who genuinely believe in a talking snake and a divine being. Whilst at the same time, there is an untold amount of evidence that nihilism flourishes in the absence of religion.
The Debates:
Fascinating pitting these two against each other. Blair the master politician, superb rhetorician. Hitchens with his wit and ability to think on his feet.
On any other subject, it might have been a fairer battleground; Hitchens so schooled in this debate, having spent an entire career debating against masters of the subject.
Blair was spared embarrassment on the account of his master delivery, which fools the audience into thinking he is speaking with more substance than he is.
Blair had one argument and one argument only. Although he delivered the point in many different ways with master delivery; Blair offered no more than "whilst religion can be all that Christopher says it is, it can also do good", something I do not think even the most ardent atheist could deny.
Hitchens rebuttal to the point, that what is often credited to religion is nothing more than basic humanism and can be replicated within secular society.
Hitchens schooled Blair; a testament to this, a staggering 13% of the audience changed their mind from pro to con, the biggest victory margin in Munk debate history.
The debate is equally frustrating and superb. Despite favoring Hitchens, I wanted Blair to at least land a glove on him. It becomes apparent that Blair did not know his best argument. And his best argument in this debate was not that religion can at some times do good. It is that the atrocities of the 20th century took place in the absence of religion; Hitler's National Socialism, Communism in Europe and the Far East, Dictatorships in central America. Blair mentioned this, but only fleetingly. It struck me that he did not have the knowledge of the great writers of the past: Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, etc, who in the 19th century had seen the overhaul of religious power and the nihilism that accompanied it, with this they had the foresight to predict the horrors of the 20th century.
A dream match-up would have been Hitchens vs Jordan Peterson. Peterson, who got the better of Sam Harris on each occasion of their world tour, debating the same question, has the theoretical understanding of the dangers of nihilism.
It's well worth a watch, listen or read (transcripts available in book form).
July 8, 2021
A nostalgic trip to a simpler time. Hitch was one of the most charismatic speakers I have seen, which is not quite captured in a transcript. I agree with the review which states that he was also past his prime at this stage due to his illness. The intelligence squared debate alongside Fry better captures him at the peak of his powers.
Still it is pleasant to read a robust debate between 2 eloquent and prominent people.
Still it is pleasant to read a robust debate between 2 eloquent and prominent people.
September 26, 2018
I must say, I have enjoyed the monk debates I have read. This one has the advantage of the erudite Hitchens. Tony Blair, for the resolution that religion is a force for good, was a little repetitive, but I thought the discussion was lively. Hitchens was the voice against religion and he did his thing, but did it well.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews