Tuesday, July 24, 2007 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version

Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Interfaith Voices

Audio requires QuickTime Player 7. Download the free player here.
12.1 MB : 52:59
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.

Thanks to Florian Widder for the link.

Reposted from:
http://interfaithradio.org/node/199 (flash audio at this link)

NOTE: Debate ends around the 30 minute mark

Differing Approaches to Belief and Non-Belief in Today's World

Christopher Hitchens, contributing editor to Vanity Fair, a visiting professor of liberal studies at the New School, and the author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

Edd Doerr, Past President of the American Humanist Association, the head of Americans for Religious Liberty, and the author of Here I Stand.

Christopher Hitchens believes that religion is a poison because it asks humans to surrender the precious faculty of reason in favor of faith where the message of God is accepted without evidence (he believes faith and reason are incompatible), it misrepresents the origins of humanity and the cosmos, it attacks human integrity with an immoral approach to reward and punishment, it fosters servility and solipsism, and it is sexually repressive.

Edd Doerr first explains that he does not favor use of terms like "non-believer" or "atheist" because they suggest what a person is against, but not what he/she is for. He prefers "humanist," which conveys a belief in reason, science and human equality. He believes that Christopher Hitchens is too broad in his critique of religion. Doerr differentiates between the Religious Right and fundamentalists (of any faith tradition) and more progressive people of faith with whom he joins often in coalitions around certain issues.

Christopher Hitchens puts forward some of the basic creedal teachings of Christianity, and says he cannot find anyone claiming to be Christian who says they actually believe them. Doerr says that most Christians he knows don't think often about elements of the creed; they are more like the Founding Fathers who say they follow the ethical teachings of Jesus.

Hitchens says that the Scriptures or holy texts of various religions do not teach equality, but rather slavery and repression, evidence of their primitive origins. He fears that those with such apocalyptic visions who think God is on their side might some day acquire apocalyptic weapons and destroy the world.

Doerr says that many holy texts are, for example, repressive of women, but some religious people like Bp. John Shelby Spong leave aside what does not make sense. But he says the Bible may be well sold, but not well read. Polls show that a lot of people can't name the four gospels, and other basics.

Hitchens says that evolution is central in understanding the world today, but people of faith say that God created it all, without evidence. Doerr suggested that that was Jefferson's view. Disageement ensued.

It became clear that Hitchens and Doerr have a fundamental difference about what "being religious" means. Hitchens says that Jefferson was a Deist; he did not believe that God intervened in human history. Religious people, he says, believe that God does intervene, and has a message for them. Doerr said that that is one view of what it means to be "religious." Many Unitarians, he said, do not believe in the supernatural, but still call themselves "religious."

When it comes to the sexual act, both agree that religion has been repressive, but Doerr thinks religion is evolving, especially with the increasing numbers of women in the clergy.

When asked if he would make common cause with people of faith on public issues, Hitchens said that depends on the political views of those involved. But he finds religious people largely useless on the issues important to him. He cites the publication of the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, and the fact that most religious people condemned the cartoons as the cause of the violence that ensued after their publication, rather than simply condemning the violence.

Doerr says he has just finished Al Gore's new book, The Assault on Reason, and although Gore is a Christian believer, Doerr agrees with a lot of what he says, and asserts, "I can work with a guy like Al Gore."

Both men share a strong belief in religious freedom and tolerance. Hitchens, who recently became an American citizen, said he has a new slogan based on Jefferson's phrase, the "wall of separation between church and state." That slogan is: "Mr. Jefferson, build up that wall!" Doerr agrees on separation, and finds that the actions of the Religious Right are a danger to that wall today.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 75 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #58331 by KRKBAB on July 24, 2007 at 1:50 pm

Okay folks, the crux of the problem is becoming clearer and clearer. I once told a Jehovah's Witness about my disbelief of anything supernatural. She said there's nothing supernatural about the Jehovah's Witness religion!!!! And she was serious! Obviously the definition of the word "god" is being constantly re-defined to accomodate the gaps. Now, it's very clear that Ed Doerr's only defense of his useless argument is that people define "religion" to fit what ever their a-la-carte philosopy is! It's true that Ed Doerr probably agrees with about 99% of Hitchens, but in the end, he's "enabling" people of faith to define religion how ever they want. We need to hold on to definitions- other wise everything will turn to JELLO!!!!!

Other Comments by KRKBAB

2. Comment #58335 by LeeC on July 24, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Just downloading... I look forward to my train ride now.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

3. Comment #58345 by maton100 on July 24, 2007 at 2:55 pm

If people define religion any way they want, we'll get endless justifications for hocus pocus,abracadabra and hanky panky.

Other Comments by maton100

4. Comment #58356 by ab_initio on July 24, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Seems to me that the argument against Hitchens here was along the lines of "some people who aren't theists call themselves religious, therefore you're being too narrow in your case against religion, hence religion does not poison everything."

Hitchens clearly stated the sort of thing he was calling religion, perhaps he needed to clarify that he has nothing against a humanist who calls himself 'religious' other than their misleading and inappropriate use of the word.

Other Comments by ab_initio

5. Comment #58359 by philosowizer on July 24, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Agrees with KRKBAB

It is becoming increasingly evident that not only are people defining God differently but they are changing their definition of God constantly in real time when they debate someone who is challenging their view. Ed Doeer seems to be using this same tactic when apologizing for believers.

Other Comments by philosowizer

6. Comment #58361 by _J_ on July 24, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Not heard this yet, but,

ab_initio, 4

Ah, so it's the old 'If I redefine one of your words to mean something that I choose, suddenly your argument doesn't work anymore, and therefore you're wrong' chestnut, eh?

Amazing how so many theists - especially creationists using 'evolution' to mean 'spontaneous emergence of homo sapiens from Play-Doh' - don't recognise the sheer embarrassing dumbassery of this argument.

Very frustrating when people fall back on childishly nonsensical arguments (and especially so, as I find often happens, when they refuse to admit that they are nonsensical even when it's been spelled out slowly and repeatedly).

You know, I'm starting to think that - like all the best arguments - Theism vs Atheism is going to deteriorate all the way down to 'You're Just A Dick'.

Other Comments by _J_

7. Comment #58412 by MikeJ on July 24, 2007 at 6:12 pm

I had to laugh every time the crappy serene music came on before each segment, just because it was such a great contrast with Hitchens' decidedly un-dainty tone.

Other Comments by MikeJ

8. Comment #58419 by bornabaptist on July 24, 2007 at 6:28 pm

"we're all screwed"
Humanist's, religious moderates, relativist's, apologist's, agnostic's.....jeez, baffle them all with logic and reason and what do you get? Religion does some good deeds, humans need religion, we should respect reasonable false beliefs. We will know the zeitgeist is changing when the above listed groups start giving religious belief the respect it deserves.

I would enjoy attending church one or two days a week, to discuss science and philosophy, not to discuss interfaith respect. My Unitarian church recently asked me why my pledges had decreased. I reported their money was going to RDF. Trouble is, in my community the Unitarians are the bastion of free thought.

Other Comments by bornabaptist

9. Comment #58423 by gr8hands on July 24, 2007 at 6:41 pm

I discussed this topic with a professor at a seminary, who said that they don't teach such beliefs (about god, as described by Hitchens) any more.

When I replied that regardless of what is being taught, this is what is being preached (as proved by the inclusion of the Apostle's Creed as part of religious services we had attended recently [long story]) she replied that the pastors don't actually believe that creed any more. They only preach it to satisfy the wants of the congregation.

It is a game to keep people coming in to chuch, and then you can introduce them to really important theology (loving people, helping the disenfranchised, etc.). When I said that was just another word for "hypocrisy" the conversation ended.

Other Comments by gr8hands

10. Comment #58426 by maceach123 on July 24, 2007 at 7:07 pm

In the midst of a discussion on religion, I was asked in all seriousness why I need a definition for everything (something for which I had to stop the conversation several times to insist upon) My answer of course, was that without defining our terms ahead of time we're talking about different things (and therefore not having a single coherent conversation at all, but putting on little talking head plays where we try to monologue over each other). If we can't even agree that words need stable definitions (at least for the duration of a single conversation) it doesn't bode well for any talks of this kind.

I don't know how much this sort of thing bothers RD or Mr. Hitchens, but if it bothers you remember: God doesn't close a door without opening a window (or so I've heard) - when one side decides to play the shifting dictionary game, it opens up an opportunity for a little mischief and satire. A person who objects to narrow definitions in favour of ephemeral, fluid, and inclusive ones has signaled that he isn't interested in a serious conversation, and has invited you to have some fun and propose some truly ridiculous definitions of your own. An atheist being ironic is at least as frustrating to a believer (or in this case an apologist) as their arguments are to you, and maybe more likely to provoke a change in the way we approach debate and discussion. (Though I wouldn't bet to much on that last - satire is after all a mirror in which we see the vices of everyone but ourselves)

Other Comments by maceach123

11. Comment #58449 by automath on July 24, 2007 at 10:34 pm

Brilliant, this is precisely the kind of debate I was hoping would come from the vocalisation of atheism.

Other Comments by automath

12. Comment #58451 by 82abhilash on July 24, 2007 at 10:47 pm

Edd Doerr uses the term 'faith in science.' That is an oxymoron. In fact there is no such thing. Indeed if there was such a thing it would mean that you can get away with anything 'in the name of science.' Is a means to come up with natural explanations about how our universe works.

Physicist Richard Feynman had put this point when he said - " When someone says, "Science teaches such and such," he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, "Science has shown such and such," you might ask, "How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?"

It should not be "science has shown" but "this experiment, this effect, has shown." And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments--but be patient and listen to all the evidence--to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at."

Science is just our logical, consistent and most reasonable interpretation to the observation made after proper proper experimentation.

So please don't say 'faith in science'. At best say, ' I believe in the potential of the scientific method to help me gain a better understanding of the world.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

13. Comment #58455 by Richard Dawkins on July 24, 2007 at 11:20 pm

Not for the first time, I find myself impatient with the broadcaster's fixation with the need for a moderator. If only that woman had stopped getting in the way, we could have listened to a really interesting conversation between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr. She's not the worst chairman I've heard, but I repeatedly have been led to wonder why broadcasters don't just let conversation between two intelligent individuals flow. Does anybody think this moderator assists the discussion in any way whatsoever? I'm not criticizing her as an individual. I'm criticizing the very assumption that we need a moderator at all.
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

14. Comment #58459 by AndyD on July 24, 2007 at 11:56 pm

The moderator seemed to be voicing many of the popular concerns with Christopher Hitchens -- popular, I should say, to those who are hearing him for the first or second time. It really often seems to be the case where someone will take the majority of an interview or discussion simply asking Sam Harris over and over and over, "Well certainly religion can't be the ONLY variable leading to violence in the middle east, can it?" or some moderator or debater will hammer Hitchens over and over asking: "Religion might poison some things, but it doesn't poison EVERYTHING, does it?" or will ask Richard, "Are ALL religious people deluded?" Of course Sam Harris won't say for a minute that it's the ONLY reason, just a reason, and that's his point. The same goes for the others: their points are being misunderstood.

I think it's these perceptions that turn people off from the rest of what somebody has to say. The moderator kept relentlessly trying to show exceptions to some of the arguments Christopher brought up (some religious people do good things and they will say that it's because of their faith!), but I think the entire point is that even if some people do not actually believe certain parts of a religion, other people who call themselves members of the same religion do, and in order to address everyone, it must be done point by point since religious people have such vastly different beliefs about everything. Whenever somebody says, "That's not my religion you're talking about!" it would do well for them to understand that, even if that may be the case, it is many others' religion.

So, in response to Richard's comments: for the newcomers I think the moderator's types of questions were necessary ones for Hitchens to clear up in order give those who were trying to figure his views out the peace of mind that he isn't a nonsensical nut shouting that religious people are crazy idiots who shouldn't be allowed to say anything, are deluded, and cause everyone's problems -- that would only turn his potential listeners off to the rest of what he is trying to say. But for those of us who already know this, it gets tiring listening to Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris continually have to reaffirm this.

Other Comments by AndyD

15. Comment #58462 by Philip1978 on July 25, 2007 at 12:23 am

Professor Dawkins, AndyD.

I think you are absolutely right, I don't think the "moderator" ( I don't think the moderator ever remains neutral hence the " ") is necessary because, like AndyD said, every time we see you or Chrisopher, Sam et al in a debate, invariably you don't end up debating just the one person you turned up to have a discussion with. You are always seen to be debating with two people and that to me seems to be a little pointless. I would also say that if the "moderator" took your side, its not what the debate is all about.
I don't mind someone there to set the debate going, introducing people and explaining the topic of the debate,that's fine. (OK, you might possibly want someone there stopping the person you are debating with going for your neck after a well phrased denial of the existence of their god but that's beside the point hehehe!)

I too am getting tired of listening to "moderators", please can I hear the debaters?

kind regards,
Philip Priestley

Other Comments by Philip1978

16. Comment #58475 by CJ22 on July 25, 2007 at 2:09 am

"My Unitarian church recently asked me why my pledges had decreased."

Did you reply "Why the hell are you keeping score you money-grubbing bastards??" as you should have done ;)

The worst moderator was that guy from TruthDigg, moderating between CH and whoever the dupe-of-the-week was that week. He seemed to think he was entitled to his opinion and it was okay to pick a side and back up that speaker. He even made a point of declining to be apologetic for it. I tend to agree, where there are only two speakers involved, agree a format, have somebody there to enforce it, but otherwise keep schtum.

Other Comments by CJ22

17. Comment #58477 by Summer Seale on July 25, 2007 at 2:14 am

This appears to be the tactic of every single debater that Hitchens has encountered so far: nobody goes and actually defends the religions he is talking about, or religion in general. They all seem to want to redefine his attack on some sort of nebulous "spirituality".

Nobody is actually out there defending what he is attacking, which makes me wonder why they even disagree with him and want to debate him at all.

Other Comments by Summer Seale

18. Comment #58506 by Henri Bergson on July 25, 2007 at 4:17 am

It is strange that people can call themselves Christians when they do not believe in, say, the Resurrection.

I remember that there was a British bishop who made headlines a few years ago professing the same thing.

Ultimately the reason is probably that religion is a group-binder (subconsciously) disguised as a belief system. Thus the chronological change in a religion's tenets (e.g. Catholic limbo). Falsities in belief often empower a group; truth is not always useful, knowledge is not always power it seems. (If all Catholic clergy admitted they were completely wrong, they would lose all their respect and power.)

Religion is a power structure.

-----

Richard,

Interesting point about the need for a moderator. I suspect the reasoning is that it makes the discussion easier to follow for a lot of listeners – albeit by stifling the depth of the conversation. Alas a lowest-common-denominator issue.

By the way, did you get a chance to read 'Matter & Memory' (1911) by Henri Bergson?

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

19. Comment #58524 by NMcC on July 25, 2007 at 5:13 am

Richard

What about this idea that the feminists have raised our consciousness?

"She's not the worst chairman I've heard..."

Obviously not in your case!

(Just kidding!)

Other Comments by NMcC

20. Comment #58531 by mummymonkey on July 25, 2007 at 6:11 am

Interesting to hear Hitchens say he doesn't believe in a historical Jesus. I wonder why and when he came to this view.

Other Comments by mummymonkey

21. Comment #58533 by BicycleRepairMan on July 25, 2007 at 6:16 am

Moderate Christians reminds me of an old folk tale we have here in Norway, entitled Nail Soup. the story goes like this:

The bum in the story is looking for a free meal, so he tells the farmers wife he knows how to cook soup on a nail, and nothing more.

Unconvinced, the woman agrees to let him show her, so he cooks up some water and throws in a nail. -It's nearly done, he says, It'd be even better if we had some oatmeal, but this'll do.. Wait!, says the woman, I do have some oatmeal.. And the man keeps going, "You know, some potatoes and beef would REALLY do the trick..."

And it turns out to be a terrific soup, all cooked on a single nail...

Anyway, to a moderate Christian, Christianity is like this nail! "I get all my morality from a nail!" "The nail is always right!" and so on, so when Christopher Hitchens comes along, and says "Here, eat this nail then, if its so great" then suddenly its all "I wont eat my nails without the oatmeal..."

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

22. Comment #58538 by BicycleRepairMan on July 25, 2007 at 6:25 am

Interesting to hear Hitchens say he doesn't believe in a historical Jesus. I wonder why and when he came to this view.

Jesus if fairly badly documented outside the bible, and most research have been done by people who really,really wants him to be real..

My understanding is that he is a composed character, put together by one or more actual personalities, and mixed up with common myths and rumors, as well as a strong wish to believe he fulfilled the promises of the old testament Nothing was written down until long after Jesus was dead..

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

23. Comment #58540 by mummymonkey on July 25, 2007 at 6:40 am

Thanks BicycleRepairMan.
I should have said I'm aware of the various arguments both for and against. I was just interested to hear Hitchens had taken a view. It seems to me there is not enough evidence either way. Of course I may be accused of fence-sitting!

Other Comments by mummymonkey

24. Comment #58567 by Patchell on July 25, 2007 at 7:50 am

Moderators should be seen and rarely heard. They should control the time frame of the arguments, not contribute to the argument itself.

Other Comments by Patchell

25. Comment #58569 by TinyRobot on July 25, 2007 at 7:52 am

Just on the whole redefining religion to suit your needs issue. I came across the following today from Phillip Kitcher's book 'Living With Darwin' (OUP, 2007) at 132:

''Religion is itself an extradordinarily diverse and multifaceted phenomenon, emerging in different forms in different societies, and even assuming new identities in a changing historical and social context. At different times, and in different locations, the major religions of the world, Judaism and Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, as well as Christianity, have all embraced very different conceptions of the religious life. Because of this, an enlightenment case against religion is likely to fail. Religious traditions can evolve, adapting themselves to the arguments presented so that the skeptics' attempts to define 'religion' once and for all are portrayed as limited and crude. Instead, I suggest, we should recognise an enlightenment case against a common strand within religious traditions, against supernaturalism.'

Don't know what people think about that (or Kitcher for that matter - anybody read Vaulting Ambition?). There does seem to be some case for accepting a totally naturalistic type of religion. I know Shelby Spong (mentioned in the above debate) advocates this but he seems unnecessarily tethered to Christianity which strikes me as being slightly odd for a naturalistic worldview. Loyal Rue suggests something similar in his book 'Religion is not about God'. I'd like to hear some responses to that type of argument up here.

On the whole historical Jesus point, has anybody read Bob Price's 'Incredible shrinking son of man'? I think the central (and plausible) point he made is that there could easily have been a 'wandering sage' like Jesus (or even perhaps with that name - although 'Jesus Christ' has a particular meaning something along the lines of 'redeemer') but the real issue for historical Jesus studies is whether any of the events recounted in the Gospel are attributable to this figure.

Other Comments by TinyRobot

26. Comment #58571 by Dr Benway on July 25, 2007 at 8:02 am

I'm all for re-defining religion. Let's do it. Let's carve away the needless certainties, yet leave the places of communion and celebration of kindness toward others.

I agree that it's dishonest for religious people to behave as pantheists in debates with atheists, then behave as believers in an interventionist God when talking to theists. We ought to call them on that.

In preparing for a debate, I'd review anything written by the religionist indicating a real, traditional theist position. If they're on record claiming a belief in the resurrection, or in God's response to prayer, etc., yet while debating me they define God as "love", I'd make them take a stand: interventionist God, yes or no. I'd point out that trying to have things both ways is hypocritical.

If "yes", I'd ask:
- How does God intervene?
- What evidence do we have of this intervention?
- How do you know you're not indulging in wishful thinking?
- If you are allowed to make claims about the mind of God without evidence why can't Osama Bin Laden do the same?

If "no", I'd say, "Great! we agree. Let's see how far this agreement goes."

Exploration of agreement might entail shooting the moderator. But I digress.

I'd try to get the liberal theist on record for the following:
- the Bible was written by men and is no more holy or infallible than Shakespeare
- expecting people to believe you when you say something like, "I just saw a ghost" without offering any evidence is disrespectful of the ordinary need we all have for genuine evidence
- personal religious experience, like an orgasm, is valuable and meaningful to that person, but provides no basis for making claims upon others
- as a group deciding upon social policies, we need evidence that can be corroborated
- we must set limits upon appeals to faith in public discourse
- the word "faith" too often means "I don't need evidence and you're being militant/muscular/arrogant/fundamentalist/rude to question me"
- 20th century scientists learned that self-deception is the rule rather than the exception; hence the double-blind, placebo controlled trials in medicine
- self-skepticism is a greater virtue than faith
- we are right to challenge faith

Once on record for the above, I'd invite them to join me in saying these things to more traditional believers.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

27. Comment #58572 by joaquinvalencia on July 25, 2007 at 8:07 am

Hitchens: 2+2 is clearly not 5
Doerr: Many people define 5 as being 4 and therefore you are wrong when you criticize people who say that 2+2=5.

Other Comments by joaquinvalencia

28. Comment #58585 by Summer Seale on July 25, 2007 at 9:10 am

BicycleRepairMan,

I know that story! When I was really young, I was all into the stories of Hans Christian Anderson, and my parents showed me the movie with Danny Kaye. Anyway, they also played me a recording of Danny Kaye doing a whole lot of folk tales and stories from around the world. The name he used was "Nail Broth" instead of "Nail Soup" but it's the same thing. He did the voices of both the wanderer and the old stingy lady, and it's one of my favorites *ever*! =) What a wonderful story!

Other Comments by Summer Seale

29. Comment #58610 by Erik on July 25, 2007 at 11:28 am

TinyRobot,

What would a "naturalistic" religion actually be? Would it differ from a rational study of ethics?

Maybe I'm dense, but I really fail to understand what religion brings to the table of human understanding. On the contrary, the full appreciation of Darwin's dangerous idea, which is so obviously more accurate than any religious view of life, is potentially blocked by the idea that we belong to some greater unified thing "out there". Most people I know who want to hold on to some notion that we might describe as religious are, in my estimation, really trying to hold on to the idea that we are more than a combination of molecules, or that consciousness could not be subject to the same evolutionary pressures as anything else is.

On the subject of the historicity of Jesus, the lack of contemporary evidence is not the only arrow in the quiver. There are Christian writings that suggest that the earliest ideas regarding Jesus are of a celestial being, not an earthly one. This would seem rather unlikely if the religion had been built on the life of a recently deceased preacher.

Other Comments by Erik

30. Comment #58615 by Riley on July 25, 2007 at 11:39 am

Here's one well established and accepted definition:
Religion: "a personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices".

As soon as the "R" word gets brought up someone needs to define what they mean by it because (despite Hitchens dogmatic assertion) a belief in the supernatural is not (by broadly accepted definition) a required feature of a religion. Similar is the problem with the word: "spirituality".

I thought Hitchens was bringing up some nice points in direct response to the moderator's (and Ed's) challenge concerning the fairness of conflating all religions together. In response to this challenge Hitchen's bemoaned the fact that you can't consistently pin anybody down on even the most basic tenants of a religion (implicit: so how can you separate one religion from another?). This response was apparently seen by the moderator as not relevant to the challenge. In fact, the disintegrated and incoherent views held by members of supposedly united belief systems is exactly on point. Organized religion claim to be united in at least one well-defined belief of universe shattering importance: but in fact it seems that in the absence of centrally applied duress, institutionalized belief systems disintegrate into wildly divergent (or hopelessly ill defined) personal opinion.

The moderator could not let go of this idea that everyone interpreting the holy books in different ways was a defense for religion. It's too bad the moderator couldn't understand the relevance of the point Hitchens made.

note: remember this when arguing with Unitarians.

Other Comments by Riley

31. Comment #58617 by anotherclinton on July 25, 2007 at 11:50 am

This is yet another of these so-called debates (a la Harris versus Hedges) in which the atheist is set upon by both the liberal believer or humanist and the moderator. We must be some smart sons of bitches to necessitate this kind of doubleteam.

Other Comments by anotherclinton

32. Comment #58626 by gr8hands on July 25, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Riley, please go to Google and put in:

define:religion

You will come up with a whole group of definitions, none which match the one you provided, but include something to do with supernatural/faith/god.

I don't know anyone who uses the word "religion" in the non-theistic way you're presenting it.

The same can be said of "spirituality" -- those who try to hijack it to mean something other than the common meaning are simply in error. (However, enough of them have made the error, that the error is now an accepted definition.)

Other Comments by gr8hands

33. Comment #58629 by Riley on July 25, 2007 at 1:08 pm

gr8hands, I personally use the same common definition as you, but to make my point, here are relevant results from Google search "define: religion" supporting my point that it's not the only operable definition:

According to the Social Science Dictionary religion is a:
"System of beliefs and practices concerned with sacred things and or symbols uniting individuals into a single moral community."

According to the "Working Definitions" of a Harvard Divinity graduate teaching "Humanities II, Religions of the World", religion is:
"A way of seeing, thinking, and acting inspired by questions about what things mean: i.e. Where did we come from?, What is our destiny?, What is true?, What is false?, What is my duty or obligation?, What is the meaning of suffering?, What is the meaning of death?, How shall we live?"
----------

Here are other non-theistic definitions (not from "define google") from prominent anthropologists and sociologists grappling to reach a useful definition for the word:

"a unified set of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden, - beliefs and practices which unite [into] one single moral community, all those who adhere to them."
-- Émile Durkheim, 1915 (one to the founders of the field of Sociology and the study of religion)

"(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic"
-- Clifford Geertz, 1985.

----------
----------

gr8hands wrote: "those who try to hijack [the word] to mean something other than the common meaning are simply in error. (However, enough of them have made the error, that the error is now an accepted definition.)" ... and isn't that the inescapable nature of all words. So, on what authority do you and Hitchens claim to have the uniquely correct definition ?

----------
----------

Other Comments by Riley

34. Comment #58638 by TinyRobot on July 25, 2007 at 2:32 pm

Erik,

To be honest i have no idea what a 'naturalistic' religion would look like (or be like). I was just throwing it out there. I also don't really know what religion brings to the table that is valuable. I'm guessing it brings some sense of community and (dare i say it) meaning to people's lives. Of course we can have those things without supernatural beliefs of any kind. I presume a naturalistic religion would not just be solely a system of rationalist ethics. For example, some sort of ceremony for major life events (name-giving, marriage - if you are into that kind of thing-, death) would seem to be worthwhile. You could also have some sort of narrative story (which i won't call a myth since that would confuse things) describing our place in the universe etc. Actually i think Dawkins does such a thing in Unweaving the Rainbow and the theme is prevalent in much of Sagan's work. Personally, i find this type of scientific narrative both fascinating and uplifting (but perhaps more importantly it does encourage one to think about what we know and how we know it and fosters curiosity about our world). A system of ethics (or a way of thinking about ethical issues) would also be a part of it.

On the whole, a 'naturalistic' religion would really just draw together various strands of existing methods of inquiry (all the following could be included: science, history, philosophy, literature and art).

Of course it is necessary to consider whether the word 'religion' should be ascribed to this system of beliefs at all. The word probably has too much intellectual and historical baggage. However, it could perhaps be useful to persuade those who are, by and large, secularist, rationalist and humanist, but who are (for some reason) reluctant to give up their traditional faiths. I'm not really sure what the best strategy would be - personally, i don't find any need for some community-based organisation which could be compared to religion (i can find all i need in other piecemeal institutions) but perhaps that's what some people need.

What i just wrote is probably incoherent since i did rush it - i apologise.

Other Comments by TinyRobot

35. Comment #58643 by gr8hands on July 25, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Sorry, Riley, but when they include the word "sacred" they prove my point -- it's about supernatural.

When I Google "define:religion" I do not come up with any of those you reference in your response. Where are you getting them from? Clearly not "common" in usage, the overwhelming majority, but rather on the fringe. A graduate student's definition is somehow authoritative? Please.

The only reason anyone is "grappling to reach a useful definition for the word" is because they don't like the existing common definition. I can only wonder why? It's a perfectly good word, easily understood. The only problem comes when theists (and others) argue that it applies to things it clearly doesn't.

Hitchens and I don't "claim to have the uniquely correct definition" of anything, but I've shown you what Google searches (from the millions/billions of entries) demonstrate, which coincide exactly with what we've stated. I'd use THAT as my authority.

Other Comments by gr8hands

36. Comment #58651 by Goldy on July 25, 2007 at 3:49 pm

On the subject of the historicity of Jesus, the lack of contemporary evidence is not the only arrow in the quiver. There are Christian writings that suggest that the earliest ideas regarding Jesus are of a celestial being, not an earthly one. This would seem rather unlikely if the religion had been built on the life of a recently deceased preacher

http://www.tomharpur.com/ - see Pagan Christ. Actually, type pagan christ into Google :-) Funny. Not that I accept tom's book fully, but it did give a few nuggets for thought.
Naturalistic religion - Wicca? As it is, either you're religious or you're not...at least to me. Religion is a belief in something that isn't or a set of dogmatic rules - doesn't really cover natural events.

Other Comments by Goldy

37. Comment #58654 by robotaholic on July 25, 2007 at 3:56 pm

Christopher Hitchens is so arrogant and he actually has room to be. I used to abhor the fact that we invaded iraq but now I feel less strongly so because I mean, Saddam is a ruthless dictator right? Why not free his subjects? (I of course abhor the fact that there are so many innocent casualties so much! - or even 1 innocent casualty is terrible)

anyway, peace everyone

Other Comments by robotaholic

38. Comment #58663 by Riley on July 25, 2007 at 4:46 pm

sorry gr8hands, your point is not proved. If you want to regard sociologists and anthropologists as being "in error" because they make use of a definition for "religion" and "sacred" inconsistent with your own, of course that's your personal prerogative and good luck to you with that.

Other Comments by Riley

39. Comment #58699 by Chrisboe4ever on July 25, 2007 at 9:09 pm

I really loved this audio piece. It is very good at giving a well-rounded presentation of information.

Other Comments by Chrisboe4ever

40. Comment #58761 by stag on July 26, 2007 at 3:58 am

Erik (Comment #58610),

I see too many atheists fall back on the naturalistic fallacy once God is out of the picture. Observations of the natural world give no indication of how we ought to behave.

Rationalism alone cannot mediate ethics, we need a standard to aspire to. A naturalistic religion based upon shared values and meanings would have much to offer our post-faith community (depending on what those values were, of course).

Other Comments by stag

41. Comment #58766 by TinyRobot on July 26, 2007 at 4:09 am

You know 'strategy' was probably an unfortunate choice of words (how ironic given the nature of the posts up here). I wasn't trying to advocate some general proselytising or crusade by the ungodly :-)

Other Comments by TinyRobot

42. Comment #58778 by Yorker on July 26, 2007 at 5:24 am

A better than average performance by Hitchens I thought, he seemed more calm and powerfully logical and certainly pinned Doerr down on the fundie vs moderate issue.

I agree with Prof. Dawkins comment re the moderator but broadcasters will not change this format; I think they feel this role is needed for a few reasons.

1. To make certain that pre-defined topics get discussed.
2. To ensure that one speaker doesn't bully another into silence (I think Hitch would be capable of this).
3. To make sure that any one topic doesn't get disproportionate time.

Incidentally Richard, I see Oxford is flooded, I hope you're not wading around in your house.

Other Comments by Yorker

43. Comment #58780 by Yorker on July 26, 2007 at 5:37 am

12. Comment #58451 by 82abhilash

"So please don't say 'faith in science'. At best say, ' I believe in the potential of the scientific method to help me gain a better understanding of the world."

Not bad, but I wouldn't use the word "belief" at all; I feel as Sagan did, better to know (or not know) than believe. I'd say:

"I accept the power of the scientific method's ability to help me gain a better understanding of the world."

Other Comments by Yorker

44. Comment #58781 by the_assayer on July 26, 2007 at 5:40 am

Yorker-
Isn't accepting the power of the scientific method a sort of belief. I wouldn't get too worked up about using words like belief. We may qualify it as "reasoned belief" to avoid confusion.

Other Comments by the_assayer

45. Comment #58797 by Yorker on July 26, 2007 at 7:14 am

44. Comment #58781 by the_assayer

I'm not worked up about it and science is a body of knowledge not belief, it is the method of obtaining that knowledge that I accept. I feel the word "belief", because of it's hijacking by religion, has connotations of unreasoned acceptance.

Other Comments by Yorker

46. Comment #58799 by gr8hands on July 26, 2007 at 7:18 am

the_assayer, confidence in the evidence is not "belief" except in the most diluted understanding of that word -- particularly in a conversation about religious beliefs.

Other Comments by gr8hands

47. Comment #58807 by macros_man on July 26, 2007 at 7:35 am

Ideally, I would describe "science" as an algorithm that executes within a person's brain, rather than as a set of [static] data.

As that algorithm runs, it builds up data over time - things that we begin to take for granted. But given the susceptibility of this data, to invalidation by future bits of data, and the inherent incompleteness of it all - it is most important to stress the algorithm of science, rather than the data it collects.

Unfortunately, very few of us are able to actually perform science in our daily lives - and even those of us who are so lucky, they are generally sequestered to relatively narrow areas of study.

So what most of us end up doing, is deferring to other people's research - and trusting that they are applying the scientific method properly, and honestly - and that their methods of collecting data are likewise sound.

In certain fields, such as physics, we are fortunate to have the ability to run prototypes of the scientific method with our own brains, and to test out the theories, and even validate the data of real scientists and their research - but with the benefit of hindsight, of course, and a great deal of the hard work done for us already...

I think that too many people have the wrong impression that science is something that only goes on behind the closed doors of the laboratories. Certainly, that is where the vast majority of it takes place... but I don't think enough people realize that the processes and the rationalities of science are accessible to anyone and everyone who is patient enough to think through them.

Just like students solving math problems with pen and paper... we are [theoretically] able to use our own mental faculties to prove to ourselves that some particular scientific discovery is indeed valid.

In the past - a major hurdle to this would have been the inability to access the data that science operates on... but now, with the ubiquity of the internet, the data of science is also becoming increasingly accessible - and while this hurdle certainly still exists - it is slowly being whittled away.

So "science" doesn't nearly impress me so much for the results it generates, as its ability to generate results in the first place... and the ability to recreate and verify these results so strongly and convincingly, that we can so confidently assign its results to our collective knowledge, and to apply that data to our lives - and even derive deep and personal meanings from it, in the virtual landscape of our minds.

[ Yes... in case you're wondering, I was just "channeling" the late, great Carl Sagan :) ]

Other Comments by macros_man

48. Comment #58829 by Henri Bergson on July 26, 2007 at 9:52 am

Stag,

Well said. I think this is something most so-called atheists find hard to accept. Prescriptive values cannot be derived from facts.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

49. Comment #58871 by Erik on July 26, 2007 at 1:39 pm

TinyRobot,

Actually, I think your post (#58638) was well stated. The term "religion" has always meant to me the adherence to something that is not really justifiable. That's why what you were describing sounds to me more like ethics, a very worthy pursuit.

Stag and Henri Bergson,

I don't see why a system of ethics could not be based on facts. Pain is a fact of life, is it not? How would it be too reductionist to say that a goal in our lives is to reduce the pain caused by irrational fears, the inability to address the needs of food, clothing and shelter or ailing health? How would it be too reductionist to say that curtailing someone's freedoms has adverse psychological effects, and therefore, as a general rule, people should be free to the extent they do not impinge on others?

To say that we cannot derive values from facts smacks to me similar to saying that we can never understand consciousness. But I will admit that I may be totally wrong. Can you give me an example of a value that cannot be ascribed to facts? Or are you just saying that we cannot currently ascribe all of our values to facts, though perhaps we might in the future? While I agree with the latter, I am highly skeptical about the former.

I guess I don't see how your values are not based on your observations of the natural world. When someone steals something from you, you have an angry reaction. Biologists can help me out here, but this reaction is likely a series of highly complex chemical reactions. Are these not facts? So when you say your values include not stealing, aren't you really saying that you want to avoid the unpleasant feeling associated with the loss of your property? (Is this conceptually different from not putting your hand in an open flame?) This idea can then be expanded to the rest of the society, because the entire system will break down if not applied across the board.

Other Comments by Erik

50. Comment #58894 by quill on July 26, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Ugh, this is disgusting. The reason educated, liberal Christians don't believe these things is because they are LESS RELIGIOUS. But even so, Doerr just got finished saying that more than 50% of American adults believe in a literal six-day creation week 6,000 years ago. Surely it's uncontestable that educated, liberal christisn are the exceptions, not the rule.

Other Comments by quill