Hitchens vs. Blair: Be It Resolved Religion Is a Force for Good in the World (Munk Debates)

Late in the booklet (p.58) Christopher Hitchens observes: "...what one has to avoid is certainty. The Socratic principle is that you're only educated to the extent that you understand how little you know".Yet the title of his best-known book alone, "god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" (this is the capitalization in the booklet), is an assertion of certainties which is seldom found in book titles. And he is certain about many things that most people think unacceptable. A notable example from the booklet (p.8): "Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes human objects in a cruel experiment whereby we are created sick and commanded to be well... And a celestial dictatorship is installed over us to supervise this, a kind of divine North Korea".North Korean dictatorship is a persistent theme of his, and I should add that Hitchens references the bible or other scripture in much of his arguments, contrary to Tony Blair's emphasis on an inclusive "higher power". Thus Hitchens' "created sick and commanded to be well" somehow alludes to: "swift to punish the original sins with which [the dictatorship] so tenderly gifted us in the very first place" (pp.8-9). As to why if "you assume a creator" human objects are made "in a cruel experiment", an answer is not given. Now, as to the dictatorship, once "you assume a creator", you understand that you and all the laws you live by are authored by him and you must abide by them, like it or not. And you know very well, Christopher, that you are not forced to live in North Korea but are given considerable freedom to manage your life under those laws of nature. You might instead be given no freedom at all.Of course, under Darwinian determinism, which you ("we are somewhat imperfectly evolved primates" (p.45)) and also apparently Tony ("I've never seen a contradiction between a belief in Darwinism and being someone who has religious faith" (p.48)) accept, you have no freedom. But your excursions into morality contradict that, for we can't choose to be moral if we are not free to choose. And speaking of morality, you say (p.17): "[Moral] truth is found in the heart of every person... We don't require divine permission to know right from wrong". But wouldn't the creator be responsible for what "is found in the heart"? Christopher also asks such as (p.9): "Is it good for...a deity...to appeal to our fear and to our guilt?" and he says (p.22): "there is actually a sense of pleasure to be had in helping your fellow creature". Here go our feelings again, but before (p.21) he says: "there would be no need for...social and political action [if we] could rely on people being innately good, which we know we can't rely upon". So which is it? Are we to act by what is in "the heart", or by "appeal to our fear", as through social action? It seems the deity is as good a choice as social constraint, or better, since the deity sees into our hearts.To conclude I'll address Christopher's appeal to evidence and reason. He says (p.9): "rather glaringly religion provides not even ordinary evidence for its extraordinary supernatural claims", and "can you...insist that we are created and not evolved in the face of all of the evidence?" Protests notwithstanding: There is no evidence, in the battle again of Darwinism against opponents like William Paley, that we are not designed, created. On the contrary, it is demonstrable that we are the product of purpose, regarding which I can immodestly direct you to my own work. This incorporates reason emphatically, despite Christopher's, whom I wish well, view that (p.13) "eventually the cool reason of science extinguishes the fanatical flames of religion", and (p.25): "Religion...is a surrender of reason in favour of faith" (Isaac Newton comes to mind).Tony Blair expresses his attitude as (p.53) "a belief that is clear and insistent and I would say rational--that there is a power higher than human power, and that higher power causes us to lead better lives..." My three stars are meant for Tony's part--sorry Christopher.

It could be legitimately asked what value there is to having this small book when the debate itself is widely available online for free, but I would argue there are at least three benefits. One, there are a few footnotes included in the book that help clarify references the speakers make; two, the book includes an interview with Hitchens as a fun post-script to the debate that's worth reading; and three, being able to read the text is a slightly different experience than is watching the debate. (I realize online transcripts are also available, but this is a handsome, convenient little book for not much money, and I for one am pleased to have it on my bookshelf--though if you want to save money, it must be said there is not much here that can't be had for free.)What will strike any reader is the uncommon facility both men have for speaking in complete, complex, cogent paragraphs. No mere sound bites here, no strings of pointless anecdotes. Instead, sharp use of historical example, on-point use of quotations, appeals from reason and emotion...as fine an example of rhetorical craftsman plying their trade as I'm aware of in recent years.Being strongly biased to Hitchens's viewpoint I find it a little hard to trust my opinion on the matter, but my overwhelming sense is that Hitchens in fact carried the day. And the polls taken before and after the debate strongly support that conclusion at well. No one is better than Hitch at scoring debate points, and no topic seems to sharpen Hitch's formidable skills like religion, but Blair has nothing to be embarrassed about. He acquitted himself rather well, making his case without once that I could see resorting to the kinds of dishonesty that taint the communications of many religion promoters.If I had to justify buying the book on a cents-per-word basis, I might find it tough to do so. But I'm very pleased to have this thin volume in my collection because it's like a trophy from something historic.Final point: I would love this debate for no other reason than that it afforded Hitchens the chance to title one of his magazine columns "The Blair-Hitch Project." If it gets more effortlessly clever than that, I don't see how.

As a huge Hitchens fan, I was delighted to see the transcript of this debate come out in print. It is a 5 star debate with 5 star audiences. However, the book itself gets only 4 stars. I watched the Munk debate on my computer while reading along in the book. It is not a transcript. Long portions of the debater's speeches are missing from the book. Vice versa, there are many passages in this book that did not appear in the debate. I find it very confusing that this debate transcript does not indeed... transcribe the debate!

This `Munk Debate on Religion' was excellent. The chair was not the least biased, unlike a recent debate Hitchens braved. The personable Mr Blair made his case well and, for once, Hitchens encountered a speaker, if not a logician, nearer his equal. There are some memorable quotes and the speakers followed the topic well enough to allow the reader to form some conclusions. In fact, pre and post debate polls of the audience disclosed a significant reduction in the "undecided" vote as to the proposition that religion is a force for good in the world.The book also contains brief `friendly' interviews with the debaters. Hitchens, in particular, offered some interesting clarifications as well as insights into Jewish thought.

I sometimes have a hard time understanding Hitchens when I watch or listen to him speak, which is frustrating, since he speaks in precise terms. Missing or misunderstanding a single word can ruin a whole point. Reading Hitchens turns in this debate was better than when I tried to watch.

Two masters debating with intelligence and penetrating wit. Regardless of your a priori position on the subject, you will enjoy the exchanges and perhaps find persuasive arguments to change your mind -- or to confirm your opinions.

Ho letto molte cose di Christopher Hitchens, del quale ammiro il coraggio e l'onestà intellettuale; la stessa cosa dicasi di Tony Blair. Lo scambio di opinioni tra i due intervistati avviene in un clima di grande rispetto e lontano da ogni intenzione di "convertire" il lettore.