Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, May 21, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document A meeting of unlike minds

by J. Peder Zane, newsobserver.com

Thanks to Florian Widder for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.newsobserver.com/308/story/573538.html

A great debate

THE QUESTION: God -- great or not great?

PRO: Adam C. English, assistant professor of religion and philosophy at Campbell University.

CON: Christopher Hitchens, author of "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything."

WHEN: 7 p.m. Tuesday.

WHERE: Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, 3313 Wade Ave., Raleigh.

COST: Free.

CONTACT: Quail Ridge Books & Music, 828-1588, www.quailridgebooks.com.

Christopher Hitchens, a Goliath of an author, and Adam English, a David of an academic, stage a holy war of words
Unlike minds
Tuesday is fight night at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in Raleigh. The pre-bout buzz suggests two likely scenarios: Either we'll see the lamb to the slaughter or an upset on the order of David and Goliath. In one corner will stand Christopher Hitchens, the famous columnist for Vanity Fair and Slate who has used his vast erudition and slashing wit to eviscerate subjects from Bill Clinton and Henry Kissinger to Mother Teresa. Pugnacious and polemical, he believes that the only thing the meek will inherit is the wind.
In the other corner will be Adam C. English, an assistant professor of religion and philosophy at Campbell University in Buies Creek. He's already predicting defeat.

"I'm going to lose or at least certainly not win," English said. "Hitchens is a very skilled debater who's had every question thrown at him."

English, however, believes he has one almighty advantage: He has God on his side.

That may (or may not) prove decisive given the topic of their debate: the arguments Hitchens advances in his new book, "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" (Twelve, $24.99, 307 pages). A lacerating and irreverent attack on all forms of faith -- especially Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- Hitchens' book details why he considers religion a "dangerous fantasy" that produces far more evil than good.

To promote his book, Hitchens, 58, who was reared in Britain but became a U.S. citizen last month, has arranged a series of confrontations with believers in various cities, including London, Washington, San Francisco, Seattle and New York, where he squared off with the Rev. Al Sharpton.

"I haven't written a book to help atheists win the argument," Hitchens said during a phone interview, "though that is the principal purpose of it. I have written a book that I hope will discomfort the faithful. So it seemed necessary to make myself available to them, to see if they want to challenge me in turn."

English, 33, a scholar who also serves as an interim minister at Pleasant Grove Baptist Church in Willow Spring, welcomes that challenge.

"Christians have a responsibility to hear the other side," he said in a phone interview. "If we are convinced we have the truth, then we should be open to anyone questioning that truth. ... I don't think God is afraid of questions or people seeking the truth. If we have the answers, that will come out; if we don't, that will as well."

Atheists push back

"God Is Not Great" is part of a spate of high-profile books that have challenged religious belief -- "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" by Sam Harris (2004), "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins (2006) and "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" by Daniel C. Dennett (2006). Hitchens says he and those authors call themselves "the four Musketeers," who are leading "a resistance, a push-back to an excess of clerical and religious bullying and stupidity in the recent past by a lot of people who have had enough of it. ...

"For too long, atheists have been told to keep their views to themselves," he said. "I didn't come to America to keep my mouth shut."

During the interview, Hitchens listed a series of events that galvanized him: The Ayatollah Khomeini's 1989 fatwa calling for the assassination of his dear friend, the writer Salman Rushdie; the rise of the religious right in America; the unwillingness of politically correct leftists to confront most religious extremism; religious opposition to stem cell research, Darwinism and the distribution of condoms to fight AIDS in Africa; the attacks of 9/11; and the war in Iraq, which Hitchens vocally supports as a battle against the type of sectarian religious violence now destroying that country.

His book enumerates other acts: the burning of witches, the Spanish Inquisition, the genocide in Rwanda, the Taliban's reign of terror in Afghanistan, the Catholic Church's pedophile priest scandal, and what he calls religion's historic support for racism and sexism and opposition to science and free inquiry.
"Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience," he writes.

To Hitchens such evidence debunks the claim that religion makes us better, more moral people.

"Ethics and morality are quite independent of faith," he writes, "and cannot be derived from it." If parts of the world have become kinder and gentler, they are enjoying the blessings of secularism and Enlightenment values, not religion.

Broad strokes

English conceded Hitchens' litany of evil done in the name of religion.

"There's no excuse for it," he said. "I don't think God is pleased with those things."

But, he argued, Hitchens makes several fundamental errors. First, he lumps all religions together, failing to distinguish among the major faiths and the sects within them. To equate extremist suicide bombers with quiet churchgoers, he said, is misleading and inflammatory.

Hitchens also fails to distinguish between God and religion. Hitchens' God, he said, is an authoritarian busybody who demands that people comply with rigid laws decreed thousands of years ago and controls the day-to-day world.

English's God allows people to chart their own destinies. This freedom makes faith flexible, allows it to evolve with human knowledge and experience -- to accept Darwinism, the Big Bang and the changing role of women.

"Religion is not static and monolithic because humans change," he said. "Does the Christian faith look the same, espouse the same beliefs in every detail as it did in 1750? Of course not. But it bears a resemblance. As the theologian Nicholas Lash said: Each generation must tell the gospel differently, without telling a different gospel."

Thus English can accept one of Hitchens' central claims -- "that religion poisons everything" -- because "religions are human institutions and people are flawed and rebellious. I don't know of any religion that would hold God responsible for our screw-ups."

English added that Hitchens might just as easily have titled his book "Law and Order Is Not Great: How Governments Poison Everything" because he could have found innumerable examples of atrocities perpetrated by them. "Does that mean we should do away with all governments?" he asks rhetorically.

But even if religion could be exonerated from the misdeeds committed in its name, Hitchens holds that it would still be a dangerous institution. Religion demands that people believe the unbelievable -- the existence of God and such miracles as the parting of the Red Sea and the Virgin birth.

Devotees may counter that these are questions of faith and that miracles operate outside natural laws. Hitchens responds that these phenomena are related to us through scared texts -- especially the Bible and the Quran -- that are riddled with absurd contradictions. The four Gospels of the New Testament "disagree wildly about the Sermon on the Mount, the anointing of Jesus, the treachery of Judas, and Peter's haunting 'denial,' " Hitchens writes. "Most astonishingly, they cannot converge on a common account of the Crucifixion or Resurrection."

"Either the Gospels are in some literal sense true," he adds, "or the whole thing is essentially a fraud and perhaps an immoral one at that."

Comments 1 - 29 of 29 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #43242 by Logicel on May 21, 2007 at 2:22 am

 avatarEnglish's main defense for his god is that humans are sinners?

On another recent thread, a poster at this site quoted something in the regard that it is not that humanity is not good enough for Christianity but that the Christian god is not good enough for humanity.

Other Comments by Logicel

2. Comment #43262 by agki on May 21, 2007 at 3:06 am

I was at that "debate." It was a debacle for Dr. English. Here's an English comment:

English's God allows people to chart their own destinies. This freedom makes faith flexible, allows it to evolve with human knowledge and experience -- to accept Darwinism, the Big Bang and the changing role of women.

He was asked by a questioner just how the god he refers to is the god of the Bible and, given that it certainly is not the god of Moses, how did it change from the Hairy Thunderer to the Cosmic Muffin. And, if it did change, is it not of human origin amd, therefore, does not exist? Why not just admit that and give it up?

Other Comments by agki

3. Comment #43279 by the great teapot on May 21, 2007 at 3:47 am

How did he reply?

Other Comments by the great teapot

4. Comment #43282 by pewkatchoo on May 21, 2007 at 3:59 am

 avatar
How did he reply?


Somewhere along the lines of 'rsddle mfgmple drgggschitch' I would guess!

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

5. Comment #43290 by Russell Blackford on May 21, 2007 at 4:18 am

I assume that was supposed to be "sacred texts", but I do quite lke the description of the Bible and the Koran as "scared texts".

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

6. Comment #43301 by MiloC on May 21, 2007 at 4:46 am

It never ceases to amaze me how Christians can redefine God as the need arises, yet trying to convince themselves they are talking about the same God all along. This kind of equivocating allows them to have a moving target and is their modus operandi when it comes to the defense of their faith. But it is always good to ask them when did God go from being Moses' thunder god of the mountain to being Mr Rodgers?

Other Comments by MiloC

7. Comment #43328 by iluvsam on May 21, 2007 at 6:03 am

"But it is always good to ask them when did God go from being Moses' thunder god of the mountain to being Mr Rodgers?"


I think god has multiple personality disorder.

Other Comments by iluvsam

8. Comment #43347 by eggplantbren on May 21, 2007 at 6:40 am

 avatar>>To equate extremist suicide bombers with quiet churchgoers, he said, is misleading and inflammatory.<<

Morally, they are poles apart, of course. However, their beliefs are equally absurd and unsupported by evidence.

Other Comments by eggplantbren

9. Comment #43353 by ArtR on May 21, 2007 at 6:56 am

"English's God allows people to chart their own destinies. This freedom makes faith flexible, allows it to evolve with human knowledge and experience -- to accept Darwinism, the Big Bang and the changing role of women."


Chart the wrong destiny and you burn in the fires of hell for an eternity. God loves us so much.

Other Comments by ArtR

10. Comment #43357 by lostpoet on May 21, 2007 at 7:04 am

 avatar"English's God allows people to chart their own destinies. This freedom makes faith flexible, allows it to evolve with human knowledge and experience -- to accept Darwinism, the Big Bang and the changing role of women."

Ahhhhhh...apparently, English's god has grown-up, seen-the-light, and now, as per Hitchens, enjoys "the blessings of secularism and Enlightenment values."

Other Comments by lostpoet

11. Comment #43370 by poppythinks on May 21, 2007 at 7:35 am

 avatar"As the theologian Nicholas Lash said: Each generation must tell the gospel differently, without telling a different gospel."

this is the kind of meaningless riddle that perpetuates much 'religious faith' - an endless loop of change versus non-change, or neutralisation of the natural evolution of ideas.
in other words, an endless conflict to keep
'theologians' in jobs forever by binding the 'faithful' to the 'gospel'.

Other Comments by poppythinks

12. Comment #43416 by Snotty Scotty on May 21, 2007 at 10:27 am

"...English added that Hitchens might just as easily have titled his book "Law and Order Is Not Great: How Governments Poison Everything" because he could have found innumerable examples of atrocities perpetrated by them. "Does that mean we should do away with all governments?" he asks rhetorically.

Sure!

Other Comments by Snotty Scotty

13. Comment #43417 by savroD on May 21, 2007 at 10:36 am

 avatarHow biased to characterize Hithens as Goliath and English as David. We all know religion is the Goliath here and the Hitch-master will certainly slay the Goliath of religion.

Other Comments by savroD

14. Comment #43418 by PaulDoherty_US on May 21, 2007 at 10:36 am

I was also at the debate and the question AGKI refers to was one of those painful, rambling questions that had to be shut down by the moderator - it might have been nice to get an answer to the gist of the question, but even I could let English off the hook when he was finally asked "why don't you give it up." His answer as I recall was something like "out of commitment to my faith."

In another post, I argue that all of Hitchens's opponents have used a similar strategy – retreat to a deist position (and then circle back and defend their own peculiar take on god) and argue that while his attacks on other faiths may be valid, Hitchens is certainly wrong about THEIR religious sensibilities.

Knowing that was coming, it was still disappointing that English failed to so utterly that night – sadly he did a much better job in the article posted above that he did in person that night. I suspect many of us atheists in the room would have done a better job arguing his side of the proposition.

I was happy to see Hitchens try to pry a positive definition of god from his opponent. That is something he hasn't aggressively done in his other debates. But, he failed only because Dr. English failed to answer. I didn't want to hear a sermon, but I did expect a trained theologian and ordained minister to at least be clear. I left thinking Dr. English either had no argument or worse that he was actually lying. Not a good show.

Other Comments by PaulDoherty_US

15. Comment #43421 by savroD on May 21, 2007 at 10:48 am

 avatarOne other comment....
It's laughable to me how god seems to grow up and behave more like an adult for the moderates to justify. The end feature of their god, when all is said and done, is just another atheist!

Let it bleed

Other Comments by savroD

16. Comment #43429 by FoundLink on May 21, 2007 at 11:28 am

Don't you wish one of these fundies like Pat Robertson would debate Hitchens? I wish all fundamentalists agreed with English's statement about christians hearing the other side. Would have really liked to have seen Falwell debate Hitchens or better yet Dawkins. Not badly enough to bring the fat bigot back, however.

Other Comments by FoundLink

17. Comment #43478 by TheHardProblem on May 21, 2007 at 4:02 pm

Has a recording or transcript been made of this debate?

Other Comments by TheHardProblem

18. Comment #43487 by MelM on May 21, 2007 at 5:43 pm

I think this is part of Hitchens' "march through the South." On the Charlie Rose show recently, he mentioned that his book tour was going into the South and that he had challenged any and all holy men to debate. He said that he had plenty of takers.

Other Comments by MelM

19. Comment #43491 by MelM on May 21, 2007 at 6:23 pm

Missing page.

The article available through the link contains a third page not included in the above text. It's worth a read.

Other Comments by MelM

20. Comment #43501 by BT Murtagh on May 21, 2007 at 7:53 pm

 avatarI'm noticing a pattern here.

[DEBATE_OPPONENT] added that Hitchens might just as easily have titled his book "[NOT_GOD] Is Not Great: How [NOT_RELIGION] Poisons Everything" because he could have found innumerable examples of atrocities perpetrated by them. "Does that mean we should do away with all [NOT_RELIGION]s?" he asks rhetorically.

Hey fellows, I know it would be easier to debate a book of straw or sticks, but you're supposed to be dealing with the book of bricks Hitchens actually wrote. Just take a deeper breath, eh?

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

21. Comment #43520 by Turiel on May 21, 2007 at 10:07 pm

I wish someone would open up a youtube account with the video's of all these debates. I think as far as promotion for the book goes that would help us alot. And lets face it, sometimes its just fun to watch him intellectually brutalize these characters.

Other Comments by Turiel

22. Comment #43521 by Veronique on May 21, 2007 at 10:18 pm

 avatarThanks for that MelM.

It was Daniel Dennett that dubbed Hitchens an equal-opportunity embarrasser with regard to religion. He's right. Hitchens gives no quarter to any faith-based belief and why should he? English would have been better declining the debate. He apparently suspected beforehand that he would be wiped. Ah well.

I certainly don't have a problem with Hitch lumping all religions, cults and sects together as rubbish. All religions seem to me to be hatched from the same egg. They just grow a little differently and skew out in different ways.

They all rely on a superstitious fantasy that this life is not worth it, the next one will be better.

Now, I am quite in favour of delayed gratification but religion takes the phrase to a new level.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

23. Comment #43665 by kkant on May 22, 2007 at 8:37 am

I would love to hear a recording of this debate, if anyone has it. If you attended this debate, did you notice any cameras or sound techs there?

Other Comments by kkant

24. Comment #43724 by oxytocin on May 22, 2007 at 11:08 am

 avatarI think it's a shame that Ayaan Hirsi Ali [author of "Infidel"] and Victor J Stenger [author of "God: The Failed Hypothesis"] haven't been mentioned more frequently in the popular media in support of the non-theist position. I find Hirsi Ali's story particularly moving, and her arguments cogent.

Other Comments by oxytocin

25. Comment #43847 by Faith Collapsing on May 23, 2007 at 12:47 am

 avatarI actually attended the event. It was actually very fun, despite the crowded place. I missed the first half of the whole thing because the church was already twice its capacity.

Perhaps among one of my favorite parts of the debate was when he and Dr. English were asked what they were thankful for. His response, after about 10 seconds of silence and laughter from the audience, was to say he was thankful for his "Sexual Charisma". Dr. English got seriously demolished in the debate, and I find it ridiculous about how our local newspaper the Raleigh News & Observer, reviewed it saying that Dr. English "held his own". Hardly! And I have to say the question "why don't you just give it up?" was quite a memorable moment, even though I sensed a degree of unjustified hostility in the man's question. I found the event to be very entertaining and insightful, despite the lack of standing room and the poor acousics on the speakers. My friend asking him if he wanted a drink was quite an amusing moment during the book-signing. I particularly liked his answer saying he wished she had offered him earlier. Later that night, Anderson Cooper heard the Hitch spill forth his dislike for Mr. Falwell's "Legacy".

On a related note, the people running the book store that hosted the event claimed that the debate would be available online at the Unitarian church's website at uufr.org, but I have yet to see anything about them.

Other Comments by Faith Collapsing

26. Comment #44032 by kkant on May 23, 2007 at 7:47 am

Thanks for the info, Faith Collapsing. I'll check out that website, see what they got.

Other Comments by kkant

27. Comment #44037 by pewkatchoo on May 23, 2007 at 8:02 am

 avatarI would pay good money to hear Hitchens debate with the Rev Phelps or even his idiot daughter.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

28. Comment #44198 by Roknrol on May 23, 2007 at 3:31 pm

The problem with Phelps and his ilk is that they are incapable of debate or even discussion. They are much like the rabid atheists that are absolutely certain that there's no such thing as God. A debate with those idiots would prove nothing - the Atheists would see it as a definative win because the Phelps crowd *can't* hold their own, the zealots will think they won because Hitchens "can't understand their belief". They are not people that "think", by and large...they are like trained rats who are only capable of regurgitating the same tired crap that they've been spoon-fed...

Other Comments by Roknrol

29. Comment #44200 by BaronOchs on May 23, 2007 at 3:37 pm

 avatarI agree with Roknrol, I'd like to see Hitchens debate the Pope perhaps, or a luminary from some other faith. But what would be the point in debating the westboro people? If it isn't already obvious to someone that picketing funerals is a totally crass gesture I don't know how you go about explaining it.

Other Comments by BaronOchs
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: