Robert Wright sounds like a frightened person. Hitchens answers the question and Wright keeps going back to the same point. I think it is rather easy. Follow the money. Wright needs to sell books. He really can't be open minded. He wrote his last book for those who still want to sing in the choir but their voices have changed. That is his audience. The Evolution of God could have been written and was written by other author's 30 years ago. I wish someone else had interviewed Hitchens.

Mr. Wright, please stop stuttering. Do you have to repeat every other word, twice or thrice?

Haven't watched yet, but I think the above are under a mistaken impression if they thought this was meant to be an "interview" by Mr. Wright of Mr. Hitchens. I think it was meant to be a discussion/debate or come to think of it a "diavlog." I like Mr. Wright and there actually was a time I liked Mr. Hitchens (and on certain subjects I still don't mind listening to him though I disagree with most of what he says). Still, if you atheists are frustrated that Mr. Wright isn't giving Mr. Hitchens enough time (as if we haven't heard Mr. Hitchens thoughts hundred times before) think of how it might feel if you were an intelligent believer who has to settle for Mr. Wright (a self identified materialist who is certainly no believer in any God that most of us would recognize) as our representative in a debate basically about whether we should mean and aggressive with those ignorant people who still believe in God or whether we should be kindly to those ignorant people who still believe in God because everything's not their fault. So the one on 'our side' is the

Quoting jillelswick: Robert Wright is out of his depth. A shrill and annoying interviewer. Interrupts too much. Doesn't listen.

I'll have you know Mr. Wright is the No. 27 Top Global thinker while your boy Hitchens is only No. 47. So there!

I can't believe Mr. Hitchens just said that he "doesn't know" the source of his moral beliefs but he knows he was born with them. I know he's going to posit some other source (evolution or something) but this is consistent with at least Muslim belief that the human soul is created by God with an innate disposition to know basics of right or wrong which can then be corrupted by society or reinforced by society and with reference to revelation. It is based on this that as a believer I actually can agree with Mr. Hitchens that one can have access to some basic moral values without specific reference to any revelation. That seems quite a weak peg upon which to hang an absolute moral code, that I don't know where it comes from, but I was born with it...how can one engage in debate and discussion with that? (I'm sure he'll pose some answer).

I don't really get Hitchens' moral philosophy. Moral instincts have an evolutionary basis, people are born with these instincts, there's no need for any external moral tutelage. Fine, got it. But how would he determine right or wrong? And why even bother following these instincts at all? Also, I'd be interested in hearing Hitchens debate a hard materialist atheist who views morality as nothing but a supernatural concept.

Halfway through the "debate." Somebody's angling for the Templeton Prize.

It's Hitches 2
Wright 0
In boxing the lightweight does not even spar the heavyweight
Stop the slaughter!

We seem to have a ton of new commenters weighing in early on. I guess fans of Hitchens. I'm about 20 minutes in and I think Hitchens is doing quite badly, much worse than I've seen him do on other occasions (probably because Mr. Wright is making the much smaller claims which tends to be his habit and why I think he does well in "debates.") I guess this shows that the judging is subjective. Abu Noor Al-Irlandee

Hitchens has no use for religion; Wright sees no need to condemn it, wholesale. It’s impractical to hope for the end of religion any time soon. Lots of circular reasoning here. Hitchens says that the source of terrorism is religion, but then says religion is a secular product. The source of terrorism is people. While I agree that Robert Wright’s voice doesn’t have the best possible timbre, I absolutely disagree that he didn’t hold his own with Hitchens. Wright was indeed the earnest foe. Hitchens displayed no sense of humor or generosity. As far as being able to say one true thing… “Do unto others...” works. You can treat Charles Manson as you would treat yourself if you also say that if I behave like Charles Manson has, I would accept and expect ill treatment. Apparently Hitchens has given up on socialism and the notion that human history will evolve for the better.

While I am quite sympathetic to Hitchens' argument, I find here as in other debates that he's quite uncharitable in his interpretations of the points made by opponent. He seems quite willing to misconstrue the context of Wright's arguments. Please correct me if I'm wrong but throughout both diavlogs Christopher seemed completely unwilling to grant the premise that the very institution that he has argued "poisons everything" would be more likely to call for reprisals against a group that they deem an enemy of their faith. This seems to be undercutting his own arguments. By not granting that premise he seems to be contradicting his own assertion that religions in some places have been brought under a greater degree of secular control than others. He did grant that he'd be less comfortable seeing a group of men coming out of a prayer meeting in Beirut, Belfast, and Baghdad than he would in, say, Berkley. Shouldn't it then follow that in a place where religion is not constricted by secularism it has a greater capacity to call for violent reprisals against those it deems the enemy? Again, please point out any errors I've made here.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: think of how it might feel if you were an intelligent believer who has to settle for Mr. Wright (a self identified materialist who is certainly no believer in any God that most of us would recognize) as our representative in a debate basically about whether we should mean and aggressive with those ignorant people who still believe in God or whether we should be kindly to those ignorant people who still believe in God because everything's not their fault. So the one on 'our side' is the one claiming our beliefs don't have as much effect as our enemies would like to think.

Of course the above is an oversimplification of Mr. Wright's thinking, but basically accurate. Abu Noor Al-Irlandee

Heh, I'm totally with you, although I haven't listened yet. I kind of wish Wright had at least brought up the alleged disconnect between liberals and conservatives on evil here, as conservatives want to claim Hitchens and Hitchens wants to disclaim all religion (although I think he's way more faith based than me on significant issues, and I'm a believer in God). I agree with Wright's take on

*Christopher Hitchens says, in response to Bob's question about where he gets his beliefs in a right and wrong, that there are certain things he was born knowing.. not all that empiricist, it seems. Not to be too nitpicky, but the fact that we are born with certain moral instincts does not in any way mean that these instincts count as "knowledge," which was the spirit behind Bob's question. *Meta-ethically, positing a God wouldn't help.. I don't see why this question persists; if there's a meta-ethical problem about the existence or lack thereof about moral facts, positing a supernatural creator doesn't solve this problem. Also the meta-ethical part of the conversation seemed a little muddy on account of talking about "religion" as opposed to reductive-naturalism versus non-reductive naturalism. For example, I've seen Bob say on Bloggingheads several times that he is a materialist, as opposed to a religionist. But I also get the impression, and have seen other commenters post, that Bob believes in something "more." I have also seen Bob say that he believes history has a direction, and perhaps even a "purpose." So when you consider religious figures like Martin Buber or certain Zen

Wright says in about a minute what I've wanted to say to the new atheists (and especially Hitchens) for years.

Quoting Jay J: *I agree with Hitchens that there is a certain logic to the proposition that giving tribal instincts a divine mandate makes them worse. But sometimes these kinds of logical a priori arguments don't turn out to be right, meaning, it seems possible that there are other very effective ways of motivating tribal instincts and making them worse. Now, it is soo logical that I'm willing to grant it provisionally for argument's sake. But, even if true, this doesn't mean that this tribalistic rabble-rousing is a necessary property of religion, per se.

*IMPORTANT POINT: That Bob was pointing out that atheism was present during the Nazi's heyday does NOT mean that Bob was clumping Hitchens' views in with Naziism, I have no idea why Hitchens would think otherwise. The point Bob was attempting to make, before Hitchens weirdly stomped his foot, was that if atheism was the position of a state or ruling group of people who did very bad things, this is a counter-point to Hitchens confidence that tribalism would be less bad without religion. Bob's point might be wrong, but it's clearly not clumping Chris Hitchens' views in with Naziism.

I don't know why Hitchens

In spite of my post above complaining about muddied waters, I thought Bob was very eloquent there.

Quoting stephanie: I kind of wish Wright had at least brought up the alleged disconnect between liberals and conservatives on evil here, as conservatives want to claim Hitchens and Hitchens wants to disclaim all religion

I'm not sure what you mean by the "alleged disconnect between liberals and conservatives on evil." And as for Hitchens being a conservative, I don't think he views himself that way, although I once thought he did.
From Wikipedia, "Hitchens, however, refuses to embrace this designation,[2][3] insisting, "I'm not any kind of conservative"[4]. I think some conservatives like his views on international politics. Again, the terms conservative and liberal are pretty amorphous.

Sad and pathetic: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/247...3:00&out=05:22 But he likes a nice cuppa tea - just like our ancestors on the Savannah.

Quoting rcocean: Sad and pathetic:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/247...3:00&out=05:22

But he likes a nice cuppa tea - just like our ancestors on the Savannah.

That pretty sphinxlike, rc. What's your complaint?

This was great. I hope Christopher and Bob will do more of these. Yes, it did get a bit petty and minutiae-istic at times, but I am a fan of both Bob and Christopher and I find it a pleasure to hear them go at it one-on-one about religion, foreign policy and probably pretty much anything else that might interest them.

The point you attribute to Hitchens is a relevant one, but I take it we agree that his accusation against Bob was way off base. Now, it seems to me that it is manifestly true that religious bigotry played a huge role in setting the stage for the Holocaust, BUT when we see the horrible tribalism that was propagated in the Soviet Union or China, it seems entirely plausible that religion can be a kind of ideology, and that ideology is bad. But ideology can exist without religion, and certainly without theism. Bob's position is actually agnostic or ambivalent on the question of how much good or bad religion does. From simply doing a 20 minute Apollo session, I know it's easy to say things during a recording that you would say differently if you had another chance, and I have to think that Bob's claim that the good religion has done is about "50/50" compared to the bad it has done, is one he would say differently if he had another chance. I mean, this seems like a gargantuan and complicated social and cultural question, and positing 50/50 or anything else is ambitious. But

Quoting Jay J;143685*IMPORTANT POINT: That Bob was pointing out that atheism was present during the Nazi's heyday does NOT mean that Bob was clumping Hitchens' views in with Naziism, I have no idea why Hitchens would think otherwise. The point Bob was attempting to make, before Hitchens weirdly stomped his foot, was that if atheism was the position of a state or ruling group of people who did very bad things, this is a counter-point to Hitchens confidence that tribalism would be less bad without religion. Bob's point might be wrong, but it's clearly not clumping Chris Hitchens' views in with Naziism, or Stalinism, or Maoism, or anything else.[/QUOTE:
I kept wanting to go back to that part, but just kept listening instead. But if Hirchens was serious about wanting the viewers to make a judgement.....so far it's Bob 1, Chris 0.

Also Hitchens would not cede Bob's point that Hitler may have just been using religion (belt buckles and all that) as Hitchens suggested Martin Luther King may have been.

Since Hitchens believes that religion is simply a human construct, isn't any indictment of religion ultimately an indictment of human predilections? And if that is true, the absence of religion won't necessarily result in better behavior.

Quoting rcocean: Sad and pathetic:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/247...3:00&out=05:22

But he likes a nice cuppa tea - just like our ancestors on the Savannah.

Likes a nice tumbler of wine, too. How do I know? No one swishes diet coke in their mouth, the way Hitchens did. At least he wasn't using a straw.

Quoting Jay J: The point you attribute to Hitchens is a relevant one, but I take it we agree that his accusation against Bob was way off base.

Yes, I agree. Hitchens' reaction may have been a staged tactic.

Bob's position is actually agnostic or ambivalent on the question of how much good or bad religion does. From simply doing a 20 minute Apollo session, I know it's easy to say things during a recording that you would say differently if you had another chance, and I have to think that Bob's claim that the good religion has done is about "50/50" compared to the bad it has done, is one her would say differently if he had another chance. I mean, this seems like a gargantuan and complicated social and cultural question, and positing 50/50 or anything else is ambitious.

The use of expressions like '50/50' in topics like this doesn't help much. But I agree about Bob's position in terms of acknowledging that there are historical factors other than religion that contribute very significantly to most acts of violence/wars.

But it certainly seems like tribalism can flourish under a variety of circumstances, and if so, it seems like Bob's

Quoting Jay J: Now, it seems to me that it is manifestly true that religious bigotry played a huge role in setting the stage for the Holocaust,

But the religious bigotry had its roots in tribalism. The Jews were hated and marginalized for all sorts of reasons, one of which was their success. It seems that religion is only the most identifable reason for what was done to them. Religion was the excuse but not the reason.

Well, perhaps you're right. I can't say that I'm confident about it either way though. I mean, in one sense it seems very obvious that tribalism is a deep root for many forms of religious bigotry. But whether this tribalism would have grown into full-on genocide or mass-scale discrimination without religion, I just don't know. There is a bit of a chicken or egg problem when we deal with stuff like this, and while tribalism in general is probably deeply responsible, the question is whether this tribalism would have become as dangerous without religion. And on this question, I tend to be suspicious of cocksure answers coming from either side.

Hitchens didn't do well in the rest of the diavlog, but he really embarassed himself in the segment on Israel -- Palestine. I know he's not as ignorant abou the history of the conflict as he presented himself so he's either become overwhelmed by his hatred for religion or he thinks he is engaging in good debating techiniques. It was really shameful.

Quoting Jay J: it seems entirely plausible that religion can be a kind of ideology, and that ideology is bad.

Ideology is bad? As opposed to what? The answers generated by scientific methods are generally far more useful and compelling than those generated by non-scientific methods. The general adoption of scientific naturalism as a worldview would almost certainly have net positive consequences for humanity. This doesn't mean that science is somehow a non-ideological enterprise, or even in any meaningful sense "less ideological" than anything you care to name. The problem isn't ideology per se. The problem is bad ideology, and the solution is better ideology.

OK now we're just playing with words; in a sense you've got me dead to rights on "ideology," but in another sense the word is sometimes used to at least connote a way of viewing the world that is impervious to reason and/or evidence. If you're only the least bit charitable, you should see what I'm getting at here. And since we're talking about meta-ethics, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and whether religion is uniquely irrational, which "answers" are provided by scientific naturalism that are relevant to these topics, and how would the adoption of scientific naturalism as a world-view lead to better outcomes for humanity? Since I'm most interested, and have focused mostly on this in my comments, I'm particularly interested in how this world-view you're promoting is relevant to meta-ethics.

Why does Bob always yell? Does he think his mic is weak? His normal mode of speech is to shout. It is really, really obnoxious.

Quoting Globalcop: Why does Bob always yell? Does he think his mic is weak? His normal mode of speech is to shout. It is really, really obnoxious.

Actually I think it is important and good that Mr. Wright hold his ground and indeed aggressively point out when people like Mr. Hitchens attempt to distract from the actual issue at hand with cheap right wing tactics or cheap debating tactics. Abu Noor Al-Irlandee

Simplifying: Christopher blames terrorism on the prevelance and acceptance of religion. Robert blames terrorism on the existence or absense of material circumstance, such as poverty. Both are actually right. All Robert has done is posit a middle man to Chris's thesis. All Chris ever argued is that religion is a poison. Robert is not actually disagreeing by identifying some material circumstance that elicits that poison in the first place. Chris is describing whats wrong with the situation whereas Robert is describing what has made it wrong. This hardly qualifies as a dialetical synthesis because, as far as I can tell, they have no substantive contradiction.

Quoting badhatharry: And as for Hitchens being a conservative, I don't think he views himself that way, although I once thought he did.

Oh, I agree, I am pretty sure he doesn't and that conservative would be a poor description for him. However, plenty of conservatives want to claim certain aspects of him, which is all I was saying. (My personal view is that a neo con foreign policy isn't truly conservative, so Hitchens gets to be non conservative even on that issue.) I'll respond to the rest after I listen tomorrow -- I commented prematurely.

I have to speak on Wright's defense on at least one point. Hitchens took personal offense to Wright's mention of Hitler's secularism, then granted forgiveness (implying that it deserved an apology), then failed to recognize the hypocrisy of this logic. If we give justice to the train of thought, Hitchens should apologize whenever he is talking to any religious person for the "personal attacks" in his book. Neither are personal attacks, and I'm surprised by Hitchens crudeness on this point. Hitchens then challenged the commenters to "weigh in" on who was right. I'm only speaking about this direct point, (not as to whether it was a valid argument to bring up Hitler in the first place.)

Has anyone ever suggested that transcripts of the diavlogs be produced? I am estimating that this could be done for about $25,000 per year by a first-year grad student. It would make life a lot easier for the commentariat. Well, this could have been better, it could have been worse. I think the point of post #20 by rcocean was that Christopher Hitchens is a very poor philosopher, and, whether or not this is what post #20 was intended to convey, I will assert it. Certainly, it is going to be impossible to base a moral philosophy upon natural selection. I spent countless hours in philosophical seminars, some of those devoted to moral and ethical philosophy, and I think I am correct in saying that natural selection never came up, not once. This of course does not prove that a coherent moral philosophy cannot be built upon the foundation of evolutionary theory, but it's instructive, nonetheless. Is it literally true that cannibalism is inherently self-destructive, from the point of view of natural selection, as Hitchens maintains? Isn't it the case that most forms of cannibalism involve only the occasional or ritual eating of human flesh, that it's far from an exclusive diet? So

Quoting badhatharry: But the religious bigotry had its roots in tribalism. The Jews were hated and marginalized for all sorts of reasons, one of which was their success. It seems that religion is only the most identifable reason for what was done to them. Religion was the excuse but not the reason.

If religion didn't exist, Jews wouldn't have necessarily existed as a separate identifiable group. Of course you could say that they could have been a 'cultural/ethnic' group. But what would have held them together over the centuries if not religion? Religion has been so deeply woven into our history that it's difficult to imagine how events would have developed without it. I do agree, though, that tribalism would have made people group around something else, and fights would have been triggered by some other outrage.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: I'll have you know Mr. Wright is the No. 27 Top Global thinker while your boy Hitchens is only No. 47. So there!

The same list that has Ben Bernanke as No. 1. I don't think we should be sheep following lists and ranking our thoughts regarding a discussion on a list.

Quoting BlackSwan13: Follow the money. Wright needs to sell books. He really can't be open minded. He wrote his last book for those who still want to sing in the choir but their voices have changed. That is his audience.

The allegation that Wright is only defending his thesis due to greed strikes me as both unfair (since it's pure speculation) and also very unlikely. At any rate, Hitchens is also an author, so the same "criticism" applies to both men.

Quoting BlackSwan13: I wish someone else had interviewed Hitchens.

Also, this is a debate rather than an interview -- and it's an important debate. Like him or not, Wright is one of the most prominent secular defenders of religion; it makes perfect sense that he and Hitchens should cross swords.

Quoting Ocean: If religion didn't exist, Jews wouldn't have necessarily existed as a separate identifiable group. Of course you could say that they could have been a 'cultural/ethnic' group. But what would have held them together over the centuries if not religion?

Religion has been so deeply woven into our history that it's difficult to imagine how events would have developed without it. I do agree, though, that tribalism would have made people group around something else, and fights would have been triggered by some other outrage.

Of course the Jews belong to a line of descendants, which in the ancient world would have been a way they held together. Today, it could be 'tradition'. Certainly not all Jews are observant. Being part of an out group has its way of bringing people together also. However, it would indeed be difficult to imagine humans or our history without religion. Religion answers many needs.... the need to belong to a group and as Hitchens says, man's need for transcendence. Perhaps it is the combination which makes religion especially strong.

[quote=ledocs;143737]

Is it literally true that cannibalism is inherently self-destructive, from the point of view of natural selection, as Hitchens maintains? Isn't it the case that most forms of cannibalism involve only the occasional or ritual eating of human flesh, that it's far from an exclusive diet? So it strikes me as highly unlikely that cannibalism has become rare because it is inconsistent with the survival of the species.

This doesn't answer all of your objections, but I think what Hitchens was saying is that humans inherently recoil from things like cannibalism and incest. Incest aversion has been studied and so far, pretty well proven. Now I suppose you could say that since in exists it must be neccessary for survival, etc. But I think Hitchens main point was that humans have a type of morality (a sense of right and wrong) hard-wired.

Quoting thornybranch: I have to speak on Wright's defense on at least one point.

Hitchens took personal offense to Wright's mention of Hitler's secularism, then granted forgiveness (implying that it deserved an apology), then failed to recognize the hypocrisy of this logic. If we give justice to the train of thought, Hitchens should apologize whenever he is talking to any religious person for the "personal attacks" in his book.

Neither are personal attacks, and I'm surprised by Hitchens crudeness on this point.

Hitchens then challenged the commenters to "weigh in" on who was right. I'm only speaking about this direct point, (not as to whether it was a valid argument to bring up Hitler in the first place.)

So that's Bob-2, Chris-0 I think Bob also brought up that Hitchens should apologize to religious people, but that wasn't going to fly, no way.

Quoting hamandcheese: Simplifying:

Christopher blames terrorism on the prevelance and acceptance of religion.

Robert blames terrorism on the existence or absense of material circumstance, such as poverty.

Both are actually right. All Robert has done is posit a middle man to Chris's thesis. All Chris ever argued is that religion is a poison. Robert is not actually disagreeing by identifying some material circumstance that elicits that poison in the first place. Chris is describing whats wrong with the situation whereas Robert is describing what has made it wrong.

This hardly qualifies as a dialetical synthesis because, as far as I can tell, they have no substantive contradiction.

Well put and I think quite an accurate assessment. I think mostly Bob just wanted Christopher to agree with something, anything. And Christopher was adamant that he absolutely wouldn't be doing that.

Quoting Jay J: Well, perhaps you're right. I can't say that I'm confident about it either way though. I mean, in one sense it seems very obvious that tribalism is a deep root for many forms of religious bigotry. But whether this tribalism would have grown into full-on genocide or mass-scale discrimination without religion, I just don't know. There is a bit of a chicken or egg problem when we deal with stuff like this, and while tribalism in general is probably deeply responsible, the question is whether this tribalism would have become as dangerous without religion. And on this question, I tend to be suspicious of cocksure answers coming from either side.

It lacks the scale of the Holocaust, but what happened in Rwanda was not because of religion. But I agree that it is a chicken/egg question. Suffice it to say that both lie in the mind of man.

Quoting badhatharry:

If religion didn't exist, Jews wouldn't have necessarily existed as a separate identifiable group. Of course you could say that they could have been a 'cultural/ethnic' group. But what would have held them together over the centuries if not religion?

Of course the Jews belong to a line of descendants, which in the ancient world would have been a way they held together. Today, it could be 'tradition'. Certainly not all Jews are observant. Being part of an out group has its way of bringing people together also.

However, it would indeed be difficult to imagine humans or our history without religion. Religion answers many needs.... the need to belong to a group and as Hitchens says, man's need for transcendence. Perhaps it is the combination which makes religion especially strong.

Looking at Haidt's 5 dimensions, religion encompasses all of them, so maybe religion is the sole factor that allowed our forward progress.

1) Harm/care, related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. This foundation underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/reciprocity, related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. This foundation generates ideas of justice, rights, and

Thank you for coming here. As Bob said, it was very kind of you to appear gratis, and for that you have our gratitude.

I know it's hard to quantify this sort of thing, but I would characterize the size of the hole that Bob poked in Chris' 'religion poisons everything' thesis as 'capacious.'

Quoting badhatharry: Well put and I think quite an accurate assessment. I think mostly Bob just wanted Christopher to agree with something, anything. And Christopher was adamant that he absolutely wouldn't be doing that.

As Mr. Wright points out in the diavlog, while you may not find the differences between the two ways of framing the problem to be "substantive," but it actually does seem like it affects the way one sets out to deal with the problem. Abu Noor Al-Irlandee

Mr Wright I think you did a good of exposing Mr. Hitchens convenient use of history to make his point. It's absurd that Mr. Hitchens got upset when you brought up that Hitler, Stalin and Mao were atheists but he can claim that religion is pure evil. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. It's ridiculous. Thank Mr. Wright for exposing this.

Quoting freedomforall: Mr Wright I think you did a good of exposing Mr. Hitchens convenient use of history to make his point. It's absurd that Mr. Hitchens got upset when you brought up that Hitler, Stalin and Mao were atheists but he can claim that religion is pure evil. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. It's ridiculous.

Thank Mr. Wright for exposing this.

Yet Hitler's armies belt buckles said GOTT MIT UNS which means GOD WITH US.

We can have silly debate about whether he was an atheist or not. I've heard both claims. No one can debate that Mao and Stalin were atheists.

Stu Kauffmann on Religious Naturalism

Wonderful discussion. I agree with others that further conversations would be a good thing. I've found it consistent to say I agree with both gentlemen a great deal on many of the issues. However, I find myself departing with both gentlemen on what I consider important issues. With Wright I think it behooves him to understand better the argument of a "supernatural" dictate, it is by its essence, nonsense. It in fact does, IMO, offer a greater depraved aspect to "evils" done and loosens the grip of claims that this dictate is required for doing good (this does not distance me from agreeing on his point of religion not being "inherently bad", though there's a vagueness to that idea which is not fully explored, perhaps because of my objection). With Hitchens, after watching the movie, Collision, I think he may have slipped a bit here in that he has already admitted to a belief in an objective morality. He does refer to it when mentioning "solidarity", that for him is an essence of objective morality. Further, with Christopher, is the idea of "religion leaving me alone I'm fine". This position often brought forward these days is a stone in my

I must say I am surprised by Hitchens' notion that he was born with an inherent moral code or innate sense of morality. I'm fairly certain that he was taught a moral code by his parents or relatives or whoever raised him. And probably also by the community around him. If Hitchens had had the same sort of childhood and upbringing as, say, Saddam Hussein or Hitler or Charles Manson, I imagine he might have developed a very different moral, immoral or amoral outlook. I'm not so sure that morality is inherent in any of us, unless it is nurtured, taught and encouraged in our early years.
Which does make me wonder what any of us essentially and innately is and whether or not we do actually have free will. I was surprised that Hitchens gave no credit to parents or mentors for his moral outlook.

I think there's actually a significant disagreement here. Bob challenges Chris Hitchens thesis that religion is *uniquely* poisonous in human affairs. Bob's is that poverty and/or tribalism is often very poisonous, so, it's too difficult to tell whether just subtracting religion would make human affairs less poisonous. Bob also said at one point that the good/bad contribution of religion was around 50/50. I'm not sure if he would endorse that statement in hindsight, but at the very least, Bob thinks that religion is often a good thing, so often in fact, that it's very hard to tell if it's a good or bad thing, on balance. Chris Hitchens often responds that it is weird that someone would stop doing good things if they no longer had their faith, but see this is changing the subject, in a subtle and powerful way. One of the relevant topics is whether religion inspires people to do good things that they wouldn't otherwise do. For one thing, Hitchens wants to say that religion isn't a unique cause of goodness, but is a unique cause of badness. It's hard for me to believe it is so

Quoting Ken Davis: Stu Kauffmann on Religious Naturalism

Kauffman reminds me of Wright. It appears that they are having a hard time letting go of some "spiritual" idea. So, in desperation, they hang on to some nebulous idea. For example there is nothing more cloudy than a former baptist turned budhist. Kauffman is proposing what he thinks will be the answer for all of us. Because reductionism didn't come up with "the answer" we will now look in another direction. Yes, says the Budha, because there is no answer. It seems that the emerging consensus seems to be that religion is what it is - whatever we all want it to be in our minds. It seems to have some purpose though. And that is what we struggle with.

the little glut fanboys is funny and pathetic. Hitchens clearly doesn't make sense, and is incoherent in his philosophy, and true to form, his fanboys have nothing to say but "my side won, nanny nanny hony". can any of you try explaining why? or is that a bit beyond your capabilities?

Hitchens has the depth of a thirteen year old who just realized he doesn't have to go to church every Sunday. Doesn't he realize that his sense of morality, whether imputed to social construction, "evolutionary instinct", or another equally abstract force, relies on faith just as strongly as any religion? His moral system requires an objective truth just as much as any religious person, but he lacks the self examination to actually recognize it. He does provide lots of pointless pith though.

I believe Mr.Hitchens moral intuitions are rendered to absolute truths by his arrogance. This comment is brought to you by a fellow died in the wool atheist Mr.Hitchens.

After reading the first couple of comments I had to get a comment in. From listening to these two for a while now the two of them are essentially atheist, secular, materialist, etc. In this debate their arguing on different levels, Wright is stepping back and coming at it from a scientific stance which is a reflection on his materialism, which is a reasonable position and most experts on this subject agree this is the proper way to deal with it...If its a natural part of our species then use science to understand it. Hitchens is coming at it from a more personal stance(not all), his despise of Islamic extremism, the church, etc. Both ways are needed but the first will be the more productive and fruitful of the two.

I am glad to see others saw the discussion the way I did. Perhaps Mr. Hitchens has gotten lazy from too much adulation by other atheists or from the weaknesses of the countless others he has debated on these topics, but Mr. Wright's techniques really exposed his worst features here. And almost all of it could have been avoided if he was willing to make perfectly obvious concessions such as Yes, the subtitle of the book was hyperbole and yes, the Israel/Palestinian conflict was not originally or primarily about religion but religion has made it worse and more intractable. But he somehow thinks it wise not to concede anything just as he somehow thought it wise in the foreign policy discussion to pretend he didn't understand Mr. Wright's distinction between causation and moral blame and just keep pretending to be astonished by Mr. Wright's lack of "morality." The bit about Hitler was completely over the top in its insincerity and showmanship. As I said, this was by far the worst I've seen Hitchens perform and I've watched many of these debates/discussion with him. Maybe he wasn't feeling

I listened to the somewhat heated exchange on Nazi Germany, Hitler and religion twice, but I am still puzzled by it. Who won? And what exactly was the issue? Perhaps someone can help me. Whether or not Hitler was an atheist, his Judeophobia was distinct from traditional Christian (or Catholic) anti-semitism: it was based on a pseudo-scientific racist ideology and an irrational, indeed psychotic hatred of Jews (Historians have been trying to explain the origin of that hatred for decades). If Hitler had never come to power it is certainly debatable whether we would ever have heard of the "final solution." Hitchens is certainly right when he says that centuries of Christian anti-semitism made nazism possible, but one should only add that it was Hitler and Hitler alone who made it a reality, unless you want to believe that the final solution was the inevitable result of Christianity, which seems to be Hitchens' position. But then how do you explain that there were Christian anti-nazis and anti-fascists in Germany and elsewhere in Europe? And this raises the question that Wright was attempting (I think) to pose: Could a believer in God have become Adolf Hitler?

Mr. Wright tried to make the point that many people have reached the height of evil even though they did not believe in religion. Hitchens seemed to take great offense at being told that an Atheist did evil things, which was confusing (at least to Mr. Wright and to this viewer), then after a lot of back and forth Mr. Hitchens did actually try to explain a little bit that he took great offense at the particular idea that Nazism was not a religious movement since he believes that fascism in general at least took great advantage of traditional European religious antisemitism. I think Mr. Wright would say "Sure a believer in God could become Hitler, but so could someone who doesn't believe in God...it is not necessary to believe in God to do evil which is what at times Hitchens seems to be suggesting, although I'm sure he wouldn't state it like that exactly." Abu Noor Al-Irlandee

Quoting Francoamerican: I listened to the somewhat heated exchange on Nazi Germany, Hitler and religion twice, but I am still puzzled by it. Who won? And what exactly was the issue? Perhaps someone can

I recently published an article on how Dr. King interpreted Christianity. He rejected entirely the doctrines of the faith including the notion that Jesus was God and heaven/hell. He also saw the Bible as myth and realized how Christianity was simply a mix of the other faiths of the time. It is in the Nov/Dec issue of Tikkun magazine or available here online: http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/nov_dec_09_scofield

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: I think Mr. Wright would say "Sure a believer in God could become Hitler, but so could someone who doesn't believe in God...it is not necessary to believe in God to do evil which is what at times Hitchens seems to be suggesting, although I'm sure he wouldn't state it like that exactly."

If Wright was only saying that both believers and non-believers can do evil, he wasn't saying anything of much significance. We all know that, from personal experience and from history, and Christians et al. know it perhaps better than most... To refute Hitchens, which is what I thought Wright was trying to do, he would have to show that religious belief (faith), as opposed to disbelief, makes (some) people better in (some) way.

Quoting Francoamerican: If Wright was only saying that both believers and non-believers can do evil, he wasn't saying anything of much significance. We all know that, from personal experience and from history, and Christians et al. know it perhaps better than most... To refute Hitchens, which is what I thought Wright was trying to do, he would have to show that religious belief (faith), as opposed to disbelief, makes (some) people better in (some) way.

Actually, no. He was trying to refute Mr. Hitchens statement that "religion poisons everything." I think you capture Mr. Hitchens' frustration that Mr. Wright's point was incredibly easy to prove but Mr. Hitchens simply refused to admit that religion did not poison every single thing. You would think we all know that which is why it seemed so strange when Mr. Hitchens reacted so strongly to Mr. Wright simply trying to establish the fact that many people do great evil without religion. Mr. Wright's primary examples of ways that religious belief could make some people better in some ways were the example of being taught to love people of all colors in his own childhood church in the south and Dr. King, other religious civil rights leaders

I don't think that's right. All Bob has to show is that Hitchens' thesis is unwarranted, and all he has to do to accomplish that is show that the issue is more complicated than Hitchens supposes. So in order to do this, all Bob has to show is that faith *many times* makes people better. Bob is not saying that there is something essential about faith that improves people, but rather that faith could many times be quasi-epiphenomenal (caused by the environment but in turn doesn't exert causal influence on it) or that it many times causes good (admitting of course, that it many times causes very bad things). No one in this dispute is saying that religion, as one of its essential properties, has the quality of making people better, nor is that a necessary proposition to assert in order to refute Hitchens.

What difference does that make? Are you asserting that MLK was a reductionist-materialist? Because if he believed that religion was a conduit for good and retained any mysticism whatsoever, then he's still a point in favor of religion. He wasn't orthodox in his heart and mind, but the question hasn't been about doctrinal purity, but religion in general.

Incidentally, it looks like a very interesting article, I plan on reading it. I do wonder what you believe it contributes to the Wright/Hitchens debate... Perhaps my question will be answered when I read it, but from your quick summary, it doesn't seem to be a point in Hitchens favor. Wouldn't you agree?

Quoting Jay J: I don't think that's right.

All Bob has to show is that Hitchens' thesis is unwarranted, and all he has to do to accomplish that is show that the issue is more complicated than Hitchens supposes.

So in order to do this, all Bob has to show is that faith *many times* makes people better. Bob is not saying that there is something essential about faith that improves people, but rather that that faith could many times be quasi-epiphenomenal (caused by the environment but in turn doesn't exert causal influence on it) or that it many times causes good (admitting of course, that it many times causes very bad things).

No one in this dispute is saying that religion, as one of its essential properties, has the quality of making people better, not do is that a necessary proposition to assert in order to refute Hitchens.

I disagree. The issue is more complicated, I agree, but if all Wright can say in defense of religion is that non-believers are sometimes evil too he is merely stating a banality. He seems to want to say more than that. Since Hitchens argues that religion is

Where did you get the idea that Mr. Wright was "defending" religious belief? He was only 'defending' it to the extent that he was arguing it doesn't "poison everything." I agree it seems to be a relatively banal observation, but we couldn't really get into the meat of where it might lead because Mr. Hitchens refused to grant it. The further point would be more along the lines of what Mr. Wright said towards the end that religious belief whether he or Mr. Hitchens share it is not disappearing off the face of the earth and that to the extent we all agree it can have good or bad effects or be used in good or bad ways it is probably more likely to have bad effects or be used in bad ways if the religious people feel they are under attack from people like Mr. Hitchens who continually insist that what is very important to them is the root of all evil. Abu Noor Al-Irlandee

Quoting Francoamerican: I disagree. The issue is more complicated, I agree, but if all Wright can say in defense of religion is that non-believers are

The issue is not pro and con. It is con versus someone who simply says that the con argument is ill-conceived and unwarranted. So Bob need not defend religion per se, see?

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Where did you get the idea that Mr. Wright was "defending" religious belief? He was only 'defending' it to the extent that he was arguing it doesn't "poison everything."

I agree it seems to be a relatively banal observation, but we couldn't really get into the meat of where it might lead because Mr. Hitchens refused to grant it.]

The only way to get Hitchens to grant the point---that religion doesn't poison everything---would have been to show how religion does the opposite, i.e. improves people. Instead, Wright (as Hitchens points out) led the discussion astray when he brought up the irrelevant example of evil-doing non-believers such as Hitler.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: The further point would be more along the lines of what Mr. Wright said towards the end that religious belief whether he or Mr. Hitchens share it is not disappearing off the face of the earth and that to the extent we all agree it can have good or bad effects or be used in good or bad ways it is probably more likely to have bad effects or be used in bad ways if the religious people feel

Quoting popcorn_karate: the little glut fanboys is funny and pathetic.

Hitchens clearly doesn't make sense, and is incoherent in his philosophy, and true to form, his fanboys have nothing to say but "my side won, nanny nanny hony".

can any of you try explaining why? or is that a bit beyond your capabilities?

isn't this of a piece with with hitchens' style of "argumentation" ? in other words: funny, pathetic, and not at all surprising.

Quoting Francoamerican: The only way to get Hitchens to grant the point---that religion doesn't poison everything---would have been to show how religion does the opposite, i.e. improves people. Instead, Wright (as Hitchens points out) led the discussion astray when he brought up the irrelevant example of evil-doing non-believers such as Hitler.

That is impossible. Believers would have to stop telling non-believers what they should believe. But when is that likely to happen?

Why impossible? I have plenty of relationships with people who are not believers or who have different beliefs than me but we are able to be respectful with each other and live and work together. And we don't have to hide our beliefs and practices from each other or keep them private, either.

Quoting Jay J: The issue is not pro and con. It is con versus someone who simply says that the con argument is ill-conceived and unwarranted. So Bob need not defend religion per se, see?

Ill-conceived if you say so. But Wright's argument is trivial.

Perhaps it only takes a trivial argument to refute Hitchens claim. The triviality or lack thereof of Bob's argument is not that important. We didn't come here to see anyone wow us with a new argument or reveal something unseen. If someone comes along with an overly ambitious claim, often all it takes is pointing out banalities to refute the claim. That these banalities are then criticized on account of their being banal is ironic.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Why impossible? I have plenty of relationships with people who are not believers or who have different beliefs than me but we are able to be respectful with each other and live and work together. And we don't have to hide our beliefs and practices from each other or keep them private, either.

That isn't the question. As long as there are believers and non-believers there will be public disagreement between them. That doesn't prevent people from living together peacefully, at least in secular western societies. If believers can only respond to criticism or ridicule of their beliefs by violence, they only confirm what non-believers have always suspected of them: that they are not good citizens.

Quoting Jay J: Perhaps it only takes a trivial argument to refute Hitchens claim. The triviality or lack thereof of Bob's argument is not that important. We didn't come here to see anyone wow us with a new argument or reveal something unseen. If someone comes along with an overly ambitious claim, often all it takes is pointing out banalities to refute the claim. That these banalities are then criticized on account of their being banal is ironic.

I didn't criticize because they are banal. I criticized them because they are irrelevant. It just so happens that they are also banal.

Ahh. Forgive me for overemphasizing your concern for their banality. Perhaps there is something wrong with my reading comprehension skills. But see, when Bob brings these things up that you see as banal or trivial, (which is what you focused on) they are counterpoints to Hitchens claim that religion is uniquely poisonous. I have no idea why you see them as irrelevant, and I'm starting to suspect that you really don't understand how the argument should be conducted, since you for some weird reason thought that Bob was under some obligation to mount a defense of religion in general; he's not.

Quoting look: Looking at Haidt's 5 dimensions, religion encompasses all of them, so maybe religion is the sole factor that allowed our forward progress.

I'm not sure that it follows that since religion encompasses all of the 5 dimensions, that it is responsible for our forward progress. It could just as easily follow that because we posses these needs/dimensions, inherently, we developed religion to possess these characteristics. I do like Haidt's list and need to investigate it more. They seem to speak to Hitchens' notion that there are evolutionary roots to morality, which I tend to think is the only way to see the thing. But we will never know how we would have turned out if it hadn't been for religion. I guess I think that religion is, at its root, a manifestation and fulfillment of our needs. I think as we become more aware through science of how we got here and what it really means that we are here, we may dispense with the need for religion. I doubt that will happen any time soon....either the dispensation of religion or the awareness and acceptance of what the hell is really going on here.

Francoamerican, You are clearly very confused:

The only way to get Hitchens to grant the point---that religion doesn't poison everything---would have been to show how religion does the opposite, i.e. improves people. Instead, Wright (as Hitchens points out) led the discussion astray when he brought up the irrelevant example of evil-doing non-believers such as Hitler.

In order to refute the point that religion poisons everything, it is absolutely not incumbent on Bob to show that it does the opposite. I'm really surprised that you would think so. Now maybe Hitchens is different, maybe in his case the only way for him to grant that religion doesn't poison everything is to show how religion does the opposite, but that's Hitchens' fault if that's the case. All Bob has to do is show that the thesis Hitchens is advancing is unwarranted, and to do that all Bob has to do is point toward cases where religion seems to have motivated people for good and where people were motivated to do bad things from non-religious sources of motivation. Nowhere does Bob have to take on the task of showing that

Great to see Hitchens debating Bob here, though I found Bob's yelling and stridency very irritating. Anyway, I think the point that Hitchens was making is that religion fosters tribalism, and unlike other bad ideologies, gives divine permission to its believers. As to why people do horrible things, I don't think any of the so called 'new' atheists deny that there are many factors...it's just that religion is one enormous factor which is often overlooked or brushed off like a non-issue.

Quoting Markos: I must say I am surprised by Hitchens' notion that he was born with an inherent moral code or innate sense of morality. I'm fairly certain that he was taught a moral code by his parents or relatives or whoever raised him. And probably also by the community around him.......

The thing is that all the folks you mention were also born with an inherent moral code. I think basically what Hitchens believes (if I may be so bold) is that morality does not need a supernatural cause. We are born with the things which are necessary to have developed the system of morals we currently have. And if we were not, morality would not exist. This is certainly not to say that our environment doesn't count. Nature and nurture are inextricably bound.

Quoting badhatharry: ...
I think as we become more aware through science of how we got here and what it really means that we are here, we may dispense with the need for religion. I doubt that will happen any time soon....either the dispensation of religion or the awareness and acceptance of what the hell is really going on here.

The latter is the one I would love to have someone answer.

Quoting Markos: I must say I am surprised by Hitchens' notion that he was born with an inherent moral code or innate sense of morality. ... I'm not so sure that morality is inherent in any of us, unless it is nurtured, taught and encouraged in our early years.

Ever heard of a guy named Steven Pinker? Or, for that matter, a guy named Robert Wright? Clearly we get some of our culturally-specific moral views from our parents, neighbors, teachers and religious leaders (for example, very few people would arrive spontaneously at the conclusion that women ought to be forced to walk around in a niqab), but the idea that each individual's character and 'big picture' sense of morality is merely (or even primarily) a product of his or her upbringing has been pretty thoroughly debunked by modern science.

Bob: Thank you for the thoughtful critique of Hitchens’ argumentation style. I like Hitchens and agree with him on many fronts, but I often find myself annoyed by his lack of maturity as an intellectual. He is often prone to hyperbole and commits a number of basic logical errors, a few of which you rightly highlighted in the debate. Perhaps he is (understandably) defensive given the cavalcade of nut jobs he has to deal with on a daily basis. I only wish that he would have a greater variance in tone and realize that there are a plethora of religious and non-religious individuals that do have a far wider range of sophistication than he allows for. Hitchens often automatically jump to conclusions about what religious people believe, likely because he’s grown inured to grappling with the most incoherent, idiotic, and out of touch members of the religious community. You’ve done a great job at pointing out many of the lacunas in Hitchens’ arguments, which isn’t a small feat given his wit and intelligence. And by the way, yes Bob, you were correct in catching Hitchens in that slippery maneuver when he tried

Quoting Jay J: I think there's actually a significant disagreement here.

Bob challenges Chris Hitchens thesis that religion is *uniquely* poisonous in human affairs. Bob's is that poverty and/or tribalism is often very poisonous, so, it's too difficult to tell whether just subtracting religion would make human affairs less poisonous.

This is a good explanation of the conflict and I would say that there is no way to know what subtracting religion would result in. One can only guess. Hitchens feels/thinks that his guess is the best. Historical examples fall short because they all require that you guess again at why things occurred the way they did. No one can do that entirely accurately.

For one thing, Hitchens wants to say that religion isn't a unique cause of goodness, but is a unique cause of badness.

Another good observation and one could say that he shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

The only question is what motivational power religion has, and whether it's more often a good or bad thing.

And the weirdness really is not the issue. How you arrive at good action isn't relevant here.

Hitchens is cocksure that religion

Quoting gman:
Perhaps he is (understandably) defensive given the cavalcade of nut jobs he has to deal with on a daily basis. I only wish that he would have a greater variance in tone and realize that there are a plethora of religious and non-religious individuals that do have a far wider range of sophistication than he allows for. Hitchens often automatically jump to conclusions about what religious people believe, likely because he’s grown inured to grappling with the most incoherent, idiotic, and out of touch members of the religious community.

I like Hitchens, too, so don't be too offended when I say he asked for it. He makes a great living as a commentator and author and his ego, I am sure, is thrilled at the notoriety he has received. Having to deal with a few nut jobs now and again gives him no excuses. Lesser mortals like myself meet them on the bus every day.

Quoting ledocs: Is it literally true that cannibalism is inherently self-destructive, from the point of view of natural selection, as Hitchens maintains? Isn't it the case that most forms of cannibalism involve only the occasional or ritual eating of human flesh, that it's far from an exclusive diet? So it strikes me as highly unlikely that cannibalism has become rare because it is inconsistent with the survival of the species. It might be inconsistent with the optimal survival of the species, which may be all that natural selection requires, but that did not seem to be Hitchens's point. But, actually, the rarity of cannibalism probably has little to do with natural selection, which, if true, would be another reason for thinking that natural selection does not provide a good foundation for a moral/ethical system. I have a comparable objection to what Hitchens said about incest. People who practice incest do not typically do so exclusively. I don't think incest is inconsistent with the survival of the species.

There are only few animal species that engage in cannibalism. There is probably a built-in instinct to refrain from that kind of behavior. Of course, incest is quite

Quoting Jay J: All Bob has to do is show that the thesis Hitchens is advancing is unwarranted, and to do that all Bob has to do is point toward cases where religion seems to have motivated people for good and where people were motivated to do bad things from non-religious sources of motivation. Nowhere does Bob have to take on the task of showing that religion in general is a good thing or that religion generally doesn't poison everything.

Just a little question. You say that Bob doesn't have to take on the task of showing that religion generally doesn't poison everything. And yet you say that he has to point towards cases where religion seems to have motivated people for good. I know I am jumping in a debate you are having with Franco and therefore my question may be naive, but aren't the two situations I cited above the same thing? Just saying....

Thanks badhatharry, I like what you say about bad actions coming from people. There's a Reason Magazine article that ends with a saying I think you'll like: http://reason.com/archives/2005/01/0...non-believers/

Good question, and a welcome one. I think all Bob has to do is show that the question is too difficult to answer. I don't think the issue is Bob: pro, Chris Hitchens: con. It's Chris Hitchens, con, Bob, reasonably agnostic and ambivalent (the reason I call his agnosticism and ambivalence reasonable is because it would be a gargantuan task to do all the social scientific work we would need to do to get a good handle on the issue). Showing where religion is sometimes good is an effective way to begin to show that the issue is too complex and multifaceted for Hitchens very stark thesis. So showing that we should stop short of proclaiming that religion poisons everything is not the same thing as showing that religion doesn't poison everything. In other words, if someone says "I think the proposition that religion poisons everything is unwarranted," we should not assume that they also must think "religion does not poison everything."

Christopher is exactly right when he says Bob has "....never attributed the cause of any of this to itself, to its texts, to its faith, to the preachments of the imams, it's invariably the outcome of some grievance that is inflicted upon them." Bob says that isn't true, but then he follows with this: "American foreign policy should not give the Imam the rhetorical tools to effectively pull people." Bob still doesnt get the complete fallacy in this argument. It was wrong in his op-ed and it's wrong now. Using this logic, American foreign policy has as much to do with muslim jihad violence as the Danish cartoons, in effect nothing, because if people can cite a perceived grievance as the cause of violent reaction, even murderous response, then you are effectively at their mercy to do whatever they say to avoid violence and murder; the violent and murderous make the rules. And it doesn't even have to be a real event they wish to take offense at; if you blame perceived offense instead of the real cause, unlawful incitement and action, for violence and murder then even fake offenses

Quoting Jay J: Thanks badhatharry,

I like what you say about bad actions coming from people. There's a Reason Magazine article that ends with a saying I think you'll like:

http://reason.com/archives/2005/01/0...non-believers/

I have read Harris, Dennett and Dawkins. I guess they could be the unholy trinity of the 'new atheist' movement. But then there's Hitchens....the unholy quartet? They have, I suppose, done some service in getting atheism out of the closet, but I doubt that people who had independently come to that conclusion needed much help. I just am not able to agree with the notion that religion is to blame for our ills or that the world would be any better off without it. For all of Harris's and Hitchens's erudition this seems like a naive notion, for which there is no proof at all. Couple that with the reality that religion is not going away any time soon and the idea is downright quixotic. But I suppose it's a good way to sell books.

Quoting Jay J: Good question, and a welcome one.

I think all Bob has to do is show that the question is too difficult to answer. I don't think the issue is Bob: pro, Chris Hitchens: con. It's Chris Hitchens, con, Bob, reasonably agnostic and ambivalent (the reason I call his agnosticism and ambivalence reasonable is because it would be a gargantuan task to do all the social scientific work we would need to do to get a good handle on the issue).

Showing where religion is sometimes good is an effective way to begin to show that the issue is too complex and multifaceted for Hitchens very stark thesis.

So showing that we should stop short of proclaiming that religion poisons everything is not the same thing as showing that religion doesn't poison everything. In other words, if someone says "I think the proposition that religion poisons everything is unwarranted," we should not assume that they also must think "religion does not poison everything."

Thanks! It been a while since Logic 101 and I find the techniques involved in good debate uplifting. It's difficult to separate our emotional and rational parts and but it's always good to effort at it.

... I suppose it's a good way to sell books

Well, I imagine a set of books that declared open intellectual war on fundamentalism, rather than religion in general, wouldn't be nearly as sexy than the set of books the new atheists have actually released (which of course target not just fundamentalist and fanatic religion, but religion as a general thing).

I completely agree. Hitchens was all over the place. The obvious athiest-fanboy fawning here is embarrassing. I often respect - and generally agree with - much of what both men have to say. But Hitchens is a pompous twit and Wright did quite well against his boorish bullying. And what was Hitchens going on about being insulted by examples of secular pathology? Please.

Quoting BlackSwan13: The same list that has Ben Bernanke as No. 1.

I don't think we should be sheep following lists and ranking our thoughts regarding a discussion on a list.

I agree. Didn't you see the smiley face? Abu Noor Al-Irlandee

I simply posted it because to expand people's knowledge about how Dr. King interpreted Christianity. Hitch and Wright talked about King and it might have been helpful for them to know how he interpreted Christian theology. Maybe it wouldn't have. But in general I believe that by exposing the theology of people like Dr. King, other liberal religious leaders and historical figures such as the "founding fathers" religion can become more tolerant and reasonable. I don't see it as an either or. Perhaps some would like to see all religion disappear, but this is like saying I would like to see all murder disappear...its not gonna happen. The fact is that liberal religious people have done more to challenge religion than Hitchens or any of the new atheists ever will. I think Hitchens recognizes this as he states that he is a "Protestant Atheist." Tolerant, less dogmatic religion is better than fundamentalism always. In my opinion it is a much more effective strategy to try and move religion towards being more liberal and tolerant vs. making it disappear. Christians who have held unorthodox beliefs such as Dr. King and the "founding fathers" among many

Well said.

The debate would work better if Bob would make positive claims. I'm sympathetic to his position but he states it in a way that makes it seem trivial compared to Hitchens'. At points it seems that all Bob is trying to do is get Hitchens' to agree to the trivial point that yes religion doesn't poison everything. Because Bob doesn't make the argument that religion has been a positive force in the world it makes someone like me who isn't expert on the topic think it is because the argument can't be made. Another thing that I'm unclear of with Bob's argument is his Marxist position. On the one hand it claims we need irrational beliefs to get by and on the other hand he seems to claim that religion is an effect rather than a cause and therefore can be cancelled out from any analysis of the state of the world with a stroke of algebra.

Isn't Hitchens on the record as loving the ritual of the Anglican church?

Hitchens derives his morality "Because it is what makes us survive." So mass murdering rapist Genghis Khan has an estimated 16 million descendants. Sounds like it was a successful strategy. When saying you want all kids at the school vaccinated, well, why? If your kid is vaccinated, you are safe, right? So to say you have an interest in having other children vaccinated to keep your kids safe is a specious argument. Furthermore, your so called "morality" is merely an enslavement to our genes. Those same genes generated the religions you so hate, that do such terrible things. See how we go round and round? Was Saddam Hussein such a bad man? After all, he kept Iraq together and safe from other countries. In fact, at one time he was thinking of making his fellow Arab nations a powerhouse with control over the oil spigot to the western world. Is that evil? Or is that just "survival." The attempt to apply "morality" to that situation is absurd.

Quoting edbarbar: Hitchens derives his morality "Because it is what makes us survive." So mass murdering rapist Genghis Khan has an estimated 16 million descendants. Sounds like it was a successful strategy.

When saying you want all kids at the school vaccinated, well, why? If your kid is vaccinated, you are safe, right? So to say you have an interest in having other children vaccinated to keep your kids safe is a specious argument. Furthermore, your so called "morality" is merely an enslavement to our genes. Those same genes generated the religions you so hate, that do such terrible things. See how we go round and round?

Was Saddam Hussein such a bad man? After all, he kept Iraq together and safe from other countries. In fact, at one time he was thinking of making his fellow Arab nations a powerhouse with control over the oil spigot to the western world. Is that evil? Or is that just "survival." The attempt to apply "morality" to that situation is absurd.

Strategies for "us" aren't necessarily congruent to strategies for "me." If the former are marginally more beneficial than the latter, then you have a demonstration of Bob Wright's non-zero thesis. Just because occasional

I really am sorry "Jay J" is seen all up and down this thread, (I really am) but see I just think it's a very important point: *Chris Hitchens position is that religion poisons everything.* Yes, all other things equal, it seems like a trivial point for Bob to make, but it is in direct rebuttal to the thesis he's challenging. Now, I know Hitchens' subtitle is not necessarily something we have to receive literally or rigidly, but Hitchens makes claims that Bob attempts to refute by pointing out counterexamples. Hitchens is the one with the positive claim to make, and Bob is challenging it. In order to challenge it, Bob doesn't need to make the opposite claim, for example, something like "Religion is good." So, when Bob provides counterexamples, it is incumbent on Hitchens to persuasively explain them away so that they don't appear to contradict his central thesis, that religion's contribution to the world is bad on balance, and that human history would be much better had religion not been a part of it. If Bob made a claim like "Religion is good," then that would be an issue to consider. Instead, the debate allowed focus on one issue, namely, whether

Jeff, 16 million descendants doesn't sound like a wild aberration, whether or not the tactics used to accomplish this are encouraged today. But, all other things equal, I agree that strategies considering "us" are marginally better than strategies considering only "me." But the distinction in real life is hardly that stark; even dictators and conquerers have to cooperate sometimes, right?

Quoting Ocean: Religion has been so deeply woven into our history that it's difficult to imagine how events would have developed without it. I do agree, though, that tribalism would have made people group around something else, and fights would have been triggered by some other outrage.

This is why I tend to agree with Bob that it's impossible to know whether the effect of religion was on balance good or bad (and it's silly to demand, as Hitchens did, that someone have a position on it). On the other hand, I think the ability of humans to treat other ideologies in the same way they do religion and kill for ideological reasons suggests that a specific belief in God or some such is not remotely necessary for the bad stuff.

It depends on who the "us" is. Ghengis Kahn and his hordes did quite well, thank you very much. Sounds like GK had a good "us" strategy that paid off well for him and his hordes. Sounds like Muslims might have a good "Us" strategy, and Saddam Hussein had a pretty good one too. However, I think you will find that Hitchen's doesn't like their "US" strategy too much.

Quoting thornybranch: Neither are personal attacks, and I'm surprised by Hitchens crudeness on this point.

Hitchens then challenged the commenters to "weigh in" on who was right. I'm only speaking about this direct point, (not as to whether it was a valid argument to bring up Hitler in the first place.)

I'm not surprised, as Hitchens seems more concerned about winning an argument than exchanging ideas and understanding his opponent, which is to me contrary to bloggingheads. For the record, though, I though Hitchens sounded a bit unhinged at various points (including the one you mention) and Bob came across quite well. I suspect reaction will depend to some degree on preexisting sympathies, though.

Quoting Francoamerican: The only way to get Hitchens to grant the point---that religion doesn't poison everything---would have been to show how religion does the opposite, i.e. improves people. Instead, Wright (as Hitchens points out) led the discussion astray when he brought up the irrelevant example of evil-doing non-believers such as Hitler.

Wright pointed out that people are able to buy into ideological reasons to do bad without a religious belief (and if one argues that ideology can be akin to religion, which I would agree with, you are still left with the fact that humans create these even without supernatural views or a belief in God or gods or whatever). He also pointed out that religion has good effects. Hitchens' claim that the bad effects over time have outweighed the good effects are entirely unproven and without support from Hitchens. Given this, Hitchens merely ranted and repeated himself.

That is impossible. Believers would have to stop telling non-believers what they should believe. But when is that likely to happen?

Speaking of which, I somewhat doubt Hitchens is remotely inconvenienced by believers. I've been an atheist in the US and currently am pretty impious, and somehow

Quoting Jay J: Jeff,

16 million descendants doesn't sound like a wild aberration, whether or not the tactics used to accomplish this are encouraged today.

But, all other things equal, I agree that strategies considering "us" are marginally better than strategies considering only "me." But the distinction in real life is hardly that stark; even dictators and conquerers have to cooperate sometimes, right?

I'm not sure I want to back down from that characterization, though I think I see your point. The success of Genghis Khan is an iconic example, I think, of the sort of thing that cooperation strategies seem designed to counter - to the extent that that language ("design") can be applied here. It's "aberrant" in the sense that there seems (to me, anyway) to be a pattern in which broadly cooperative strategies have seemed to generally win out over overtly selfish strategies. But, like I said, I also understand that Khan's immediate success was certainly based on a deeply cooperative set of strategies. I just think there's a possible distinction that can be made here, between broader forms of cooperation (in which the benefits are fairly generic) and more lopsided approaches. That, at least, would be consistent with an overall assumption that cooperative behavior makes available a

I would say the proposition that broadly cooperative strategies have won out over overtly selfish strategies is pretty close to indisputable, at this point. And the assumption that cooperative behavior makes available a greater range of benefits, on the whole, than selfish behavior, is intuitive or compelling enough to count as a shared premise (this shared premise though, applies when everyone, or roughly everyone, is behaving cooperatively; what to do when some aren't behaving cooperatively is another, more complicated, issue). Again since our diavlog I realize more directly how things can be said in un-edited discussions that the speaker might not mean literally, or might say differently if they had another chance, but I think this is pretty consistently an issue with Hitchens and with Secular Humanism in general. What I'm getting at is the question of where their morals come from. I should stress again that I don't believe faith in a creator god makes this question about morality any less perplexing, it's just that New Atheists, Secular Humanists, or what have you, stress that one should only believe in what there is evidence for, according to their scientific world-view. And this seems to make belief

Quoting Jay J: Ahh. Forgive me for overemphasizing your concern for their banality. Perhaps there is something wrong with my reading comprehension skills.

But see, when Bob brings these things up that you see as banal or trivial, (which is what you focused on) they are counterpoints to Hitchens claim that religion is uniquely poisonous. I have no idea why you see them as irrelevant, and I'm starting to suspect that you really don't understand how the argument should be conducted, since you for some weird reason thought that Bob was under some obligation to mount a defense of religion in general; he's not.

I know how the argument should be conducted---but preferably not by you since you seem unable to read. I didn't say that Wright was under an obligation to mount a defense of religion in general. I said that it is no reply to Hitchens' argument, if it is an argument, that religion poisons everything, to say that some non-believers are bad or wicked. That is irrelevant, uninteresting, and banal. All he is saying in pointing to people like Hitler is that there are OTHER causes of evil than religious belief. So what? We already knew that. His reply

Quoting Jay J: In order to refute the point that religion poisons everything, it is absolutely not incumbent on Bob to show that it does the opposite. I'm really surprised that you would think so. Now maybe Hitchens is different, maybe in his case the only way for him to grant that religion doesn't poison everything is to show how religion does the opposite, but that's Hitchens' fault if that's the case. All Bob has to do is show that the thesis Hitchens is advancing is unwarranted, and to do that all Bob has to do is point toward cases where religion seems to have motivated people for good and where people were motivated to do bad things from non-religious sources of motivation. Nowhere does Bob have to take on the task of showing that religion in general is a good thing or that religion generally doesn't poison everything. ..

Actually, if anyone is confused it is you. I didn't say Wright had to show that religion in general is good. I said it would have been a better reply to Hitchens if he had tried to show in

Quoting Jay J: Good question, and a welcome one.

I think all Bob has to do is show that the question is too difficult to answer. I don't think the issue is Bob: pro, Chris Hitchens: con. It's Chris Hitchens, con, Bob, reasonably agnostic and ambivalent (the reason I call his agnosticism and ambivalence reasonable is because it would be a gargantuan task to do all the social scientific work we would need to do to get a good handle on the issue).

Showing where religion is sometimes good is an effective way to begin to show that the issue is too complex and multifaceted for Hitchens very stark thesis.."

Precisely: Showing that religious belief sometimes does good is the only effective reply to Hitchens. So why did you object to my statement above asserting that it is irrelevant to reply to Hitchens, as Wright did, by saying that non-believers sometimes do evil? Apparently, you think that Wright was effective in showing that religious belief sometimes makes people morally better. Perhaps you would like to cite one of his more effective arguments? The Sunday School ditty perhaps? Martin Luther King? Would you care to elaborate?

Quoting Jay J: So showing that we

Quoting stephanie: Wright pointed out that people are able to buy into ideological reasons to do bad without a religious belief (and if one argues that ideology can be akin to religion, which I would agree with, you are still left with the fact that humans create these even without supernatural views or a belief in God or gods or whatever). He also pointed out that religion has good effects. Hitchens' claim that the bad effects over time have outweighed the good effects are entirely unproven and without support from Hitchens. Given this, Hitchens merely ranted and repeated himself..

They both ranted, but I thought Hitchens ranted better. Wright, as I have pointed out several times in this thread, was less effective because his main riposte to Hitchens consisted in saying that there are OTHER causes of evil besides religion. True, but irrelevant. I didn't find him very persuasive on the good effects of religion. And how could he be? He is a non-believer and must therefore think that when people say they are being good because of their belief in God, they are merely deceiving themselves.

Quoting stephanie: Speaking of which, I somewhat doubt Hitchens is remotely inconvenienced by

I admire Hitchens but he disingenuously took ridiculous positions:
* for one to find any specific good result from religious belief requires "taking responsibility" for all the bad
* an atheist has cause to find offence in someone mentioning a secular bad guy on topic in a debate As apologia, a bit of outrageous flair sells more books (and we all have to earn a living). Secondly, this is probably more fun for him at this point in his debating career. Kudos to Wright for keeping his cool.

Quoting edbarbar: It depends on who the "us" is. Ghengis Kahn and his hordes did quite well, thank you very much. Sounds like GK had a good "us" strategy that paid off well for him and his hordes.

The point, obviously, was not that any survival strategy is normatively justified to the degree that it's successful. The point was that the human race would never have evolved to the point that we did if we did not have some innate impulse towards morality. In other words, a natural moral impulse was a prerequisite for our survival as a species; we wouldn't be here without it. Certainly it cannot have been monotheism that endowed human beings with their first inkling that murder is morally wrong. For these purposes, "murder" refers to wanton killing of members of your own community, as opposed to the killing of out-group members during the course of a war (a prohibition against which is not required for survival -- and which, perhaps for that reason, is endorsed by god in both the Bible and the Koran). The development of our natural faculty of reason and of human solidarity has enabled us

Agree.

If you like combat, a great dialog. If you like an illuminating discussion, forget it. Two intelligent people with interesting ideas who attack each other constantly (directly and indirectly) rather than trying to really move forward the debate. The combat, which can only be evaluated on style rather than substance, is a draw with both losing. Wright stuttering and shrill, Hitchens arrogant and blatantly unfair. An aside: before getting plastic surgery or platform shoes to improve my lot in life, I think I'd opt for a deep voice with a laconic British accent. I'm sure people would listen to me much more than they do.

Ocean said:

There are only few animal species that engage in cannibalism. There is probably a built-in instinct to refrain from that kind of behavior. Of course, incest is quite common in other animal species. In this case the rejection of incest may be more specific to humans.

I did a google search on "cannibalism natural selection." Preliminary results: (1) I don't think there is a consensus in favor of the proposition that "there are only few animal species that engage in cannibalism." Some sources describe it as commonplace. (2) There is a debate about whether cannibalism was common in prehistoric human populations, with the current consensus inclining to the view that it was. (3) Quite recently, it has been suggested that a gene was produced to protect against a fatal prion disease that was killing people who had consumed human flesh in rituals in Papua New Guinea. The genetic adaptation would have occurred very recently. The link below is one of two I found to this research.

So I get the impression that I was at least correct in thinking that the subject of cannibalism and its place in evolutionary theory is far

read more . . .

Bob's story about the song in his Sunday school points precisely to the problem with religion and why it poisons everything. It engenders a habit of mind that is potentially quite pernicious. Suppose that a new song was taught in which Jesus taught us to love all children EXCEPT the red, the black, the yellow, etc. If it's merely a way of inculcating values isn't there a better more secure way of doing so that would not as easily lend itself to this perversion?

I understood Bob's question to be a meta-ethical one, not an empirical one. Other than just getting it from the context, Bob is well-versed in evolutionary psychology himself, and that makes me doubt that he thinks there's an issue about *how* humans came to be moral. So the issue, it seemed to me, was a *meta-ethical* one, which has to do with how our moral assertions are justified. Theists imagine themselves to have solved meta-ethical questions by reference to the existence of a creator god (they're obviously wrong about this). I posted earlier about how I think it's weird that when the New Atheists get asked about how they justify their morals, the question is usually prefaced as a challenge from theism, as if theism is any better off here. But it still seems that the New Atheists should answer the question, insofar as they believe in right and wrong, and their general standards of evidence for belief seem to be in tension with their particular belief about the existence of a right and wrong. So I got my impression of what Bob was getting at by the context; he referenced Hitchens *belief* in

Francoamerican, The thesis Chris Hitchens advanced is that religion poisons everything. You are imagining that the only way to refute that thesis is by advancing this: "Religion doesn't poison everything." You're wrong. And yes, defending the proposition "religion does not poison everything" would be a general defense of religion. OK? BTW, the phrase "religion poisons everything" is shorthand for the thesis that religion is uniquely evil and that its absence would have made human history less brutal and unjust, and its elimination now would improve our lot. Therefore, since you're imagining that Bob must believe and assert the counter of the thesis Hitchens if advancing, then yes, it would take a defense of religion generally to do that.

I wonder why you slip in a "seems" before "motivate."

Because the spirit of the argument coming from me (and I think from Bob) is that it is difficult to tell what someone's true motivation is. Exercising that epistemological modesty, it seems to motivate some people to do good. It also seems to motivate people to do bad. Of course I don't think it would be scrupulous to assume that all the seeming good coming from religion isn't due to religion while all the bad from religion is due to religion, and I don't think the reverse is a scrupulous position either. Nevertheless, if it appears that religion sometimes causes good and sometimes causes bad, being modest about what's really going on doesn't stop us from making the argument. Of course that modesty isn't a strength when going up against people who come across extremely cocksure, and have an audience who responds positively to that.

Here is what I said. Note that the sentence is in the conditional: "If believers can only respond to criticism or ridicule of their beliefs by violence, they only confirm what non-believers have always suspected of them: that

Precisely: Showing that religious belief sometimes does good is the only effective reply to Hitchens. So why did you object to my statement above asserting that it is irrelevant to reply to Hitchens, as Wright did, by saying that non-believers sometimes do evil?

I think we need to back up and make sure we agree on the thesis Hitchens is advancing. "Religion poisons everything" is shorthand for the proposition that on balance, religion has been a force for bad. Additionally, it is that religion is unique in its contribution to badness. In other words, even though there may be examples of religion doing good, its on balance contribution is bad, and if you subtract religion, you get less badness. OK? So, the counterproposition to this thesis would have to be a general defense of religion, such that religion's on balance contribution can be shown to be good. I have been asserting that Bob need not be this ambitious to refute Hitchens. OK? So to refute Hitchens, Bob can go one of two routes, A) On balance, religion's contribution to the world has been good or B) Hitchens hasn't proved his thesis, and in fact there is good reason to believe it

Quoting Jay J: Francoamerican,

The thesis Chris Hitchens advanced is that religion poisons everything. You are imagining that the only way to refute that thesis is by advancing this:

"Religion doesn't poison everything."

You're wrong..

No, I am sorry but you are wrong about what I said. I said Wright cannot refute the proposition by saying that there are other causes of evil---besides religion. That is all I said. Frankly, I don't see how such a vague statement as that of Hitchens could ever be refuted. But at the very least one would have to show that religious belief exerts a positive influence on believers---by making them morally better, for example--before one could even hope to convince Hitchens that his statement is false.

Quoting Jay J: And yes, defending the proposition "religion does not poison everything" would be a general defense of religion. OK?..

Not necessarily. If the world religions are a hodgepodge of many different things---superstititions, metaphysical beliefs, moral sentiments, works of art, hatred of infidels,---then a general defense of religion is impossible, at least for anyone who stands outside them and thinks it is more important to think correctly than to believe correctly. But it may still be possible to defend certain aspects

Hitchens is right in insisting that religion, despite its good intentions, is at the root of many evils. The fundamental religious beliefs that serve to fortify one particular religious group's sense of understanding can manifest themselves in an evil way towards other religious groups. Christianity, as an example, is a religious tradition that defined itself in opposition to another religious tradition from its very inception, and is therefore permanently and hopelessly poised against that other tradition. The Christian insistence on an ahistorical Resurrection is at the root of Christian anti-semitism; Christianity is therefore hopelessly anti-semitic. For more details see:
http://jmreligion.wordpress.com/

so what about all of those religions that were suppressed by Christianity? Are those just as evil, merely because they are religious? This is the problem with Hitchens. He won't even acknowledge these persecuted forms of religion as valid.

Quoting Jay J: I think we need to back up and make sure we agree on the thesis Hitchens is advancing. "Religion poisons everything" is shorthand for the proposition that on balance, religion has been a force for bad. Additionally, it is that religion is unique in its contribution to badness. In other words, even though there may be examples of religion doing good, its on balance contribution is bad, and if you subtract religion, you get less badness. OK?

So, the counterproposition to this thesis would have to be a general defense of religion, such that religion's on balance contribution can be shown to be good. I have been asserting that Bob need not be this ambitious to refute Hitchens. OK? So to refute Hitchens, Bob can go one of two routes,

A) On balance, religion's contribution to the world has been good

or

B) Hitchens hasn't proved his thesis, and in fact there is good reason to believe it is unwarranted

Now, the reason it is relevant to bring up historic evils done by people who were non-believers or states whose official status was atheistic, is to provide counterexample to Hitchens thesis that religion is uniquely evil and that the

Francoamerican, In a recent post, I said this: "Francoamerican, The thesis Chris Hitchens advanced is that religion poisons everything. You are imagining that the only way to refute that thesis is by advancing this: 'Religion doesn't poison everything.' You're wrong. And yes, defending the proposition "religion does not poison everything" would be a general defense of religion. OK? BTW, the phrase "religion poisons everything" is shorthand for the thesis that religion is uniquely evil and that its absence would have made human history less brutal and unjust, and its elimination now would improve our lot. Therefore, since you're imagining that Bob must believe and assert the counter of the thesis Hitchens if advancing, then yes, it would take a defense of religion generally to do that." To which you replied,

No, I am sorry but you are wrong about what I said. I said Wright cannot refute the proposition by saying that there are other causes of evil---besides religion. That is all I said. Frankly, I don't see how such a vague statement as that of Hitchens could ever be refuted. But at the very least one would have to show that religious belief exerts a positive influence on believers---by making them morally

You are just playing with words. If I believe that the proposition "CO2 causes global warming" is unwarranted (because there is insufficient evidence for it), then I am obliged to believe that the counterproposition is true, namely that "CO2 does not cause global warming." As long as I lack evidence to support the first proposition what else can I believe? Or perhaps you think I should simply suspend judgement forever and believe neither proposition? Or perhaps both? The same goes for Hitchens' proposition: If I believe that the proposition "Religion poisons everything" is unwarranted (because there is historical evidence to the contrary--the existence of saints for example), then I must believe that the counterproposition "Religion does not poison everything" is true. Why? Because there are some things, saints, who are not poisoned by religion.

No Franco, Actually this is a very important point. To say that a proposition is unwarranted is not the same as saying that it's false. For example, an argument from Bill can be unwarranted today, but evidence coming to light at a later date may make the Bill's conclusion warranted. And when this happens, Bill deserves no credit, (if the reasons Bill marshals in support of his conclusion are vindicated, then so

I need to know if religion really does poison everything because I want to eat this peanut butter sandwich here and I'm hungry right now!

LOL! I wish I had thought to say that.

HITCHENS > BOB
we still <3 Bob but . . .
hitch is right !

Quoting badhatharry: I'm not sure that it follows that since religion encompasses all of the 5 dimensions, that it is responsible for our forward progress. It could just as easily follow that because we posses these needs/dimensions, inherently, we developed religion to possess these characteristics. I do like Haidt's list and need to investigate it more. They seem to speak to Hitchens' notion that there are evolutionary roots to morality, which I tend to think is the only way to see the thing.

But we will never know how we would have turned out if it hadn't been for religion. I guess I think that religion is, at its root, a manifestation and fulfillment of our needs. I think as we become more aware through science of how we got here and what it really means that we are here, we may dispense with the need for religion. I doubt that will happen any time soon....either the dispensation of religion or the awareness and acceptance of what the hell is really going on here.

Well said, but although we may dispense with the need for religion, I don't think we'll be able to do away with our spirituality. I see

decency character
These should be the goal posts, not beliefs, however deranged. Hitchens problem is that while he does care about those first two he has a skewed view on the inherent negatives of all religious beliefs. I am not as neutral as Bob on religions and believers role in character development and the propagation of decency in society, but I have no inherent problem with people believing things I see as nonsensical. I care far more that a persons ethics are sound than their beliefs are sound. But when I see beliefs used as tool and justification for bad behavior, I DO get hostile to such beliefs because they become part of the problem. I do NOT absolve rotten beliefs that are fertile ground for rotten behavior. Bob does not want to do that, and that is a part of his problem. What the hell is the POINT of a belief system or ethical framework if not to promote the good, and buffer against the bad?
Who here honestly thinks the muslim population is the only group in the world that has stresses upon it? If you notice certain areas of the world that have both

I am only half-way through this diavlog, at about the moment of the absurd "personal offense" incident, and I have to take a break to comment. It is enormously frustrating to watch a debate in which one of the participants' goals is to obscure meaning. I have failed to follow his journey into the God wars, and was hoping to hear what he actually thought on the matter. For the first ten minutes, all good. But then the sloppy thinking started in. Based on this diavlog, the nub of Hitchens' thought is that religion is a malign force in society in excess of any other social movement. Okay, fair enough point. I think this is really where the whole atheist backlash really finds its voice. The question is: is it true? I still waffle on the point and would like to hear a clear description of the case. Hitchens, of course, alludes to it only obliquely, then spends the next 20 minutes debasing the conversation and Wright with misdirection. Wright's various forays into the contention are batted away with schoolboy debate tactics. Wright observes that some good comes from people inspired by religion. He just wants a straight acknowledgement of this and

Okay, a bit more. In part one of this diavlog, I made the argument that Hitchens has the mind of a believer, and his debating style illustrates it:

It occurred to me, as I listened to him offer incredibly sweeping statements of assumption ("we would have had to deal with Iraq eventually"), that Hitchens is a man of belief. While it's true that he's one of the world's great anti-religionists, that doesn't change the facts. His habit of mind is to assemble facts after he's found his truth. Listening to the diavlog was frustrating because so many of his points rested on deeply-held, totally unsupported 'facts.'

These beliefs are absolute and immutable. Shading, softening, contextualizing them--not possible. Debating a true believer is a fruitless and frustrating exercise: there's never any hope of arriving at a truth that hasn't already been unshakably established.

The evidence of this--and why I find this exercise tiresome--is in this clip. In it, Hitchens refuses to believe a personal story of Wright's. This is magical thinking. If a piece of evidence doesn't confirm your belief, you must reject it, not change your belief. Throughout the diavlog--and part one as well--Hitchens does this.

And yet one (potentially) final comment. Hitchens' complaint is not with all religion--anyway, not in this diavlog. This is much the same as with the current crop of atheists. Their complaint is with the Abrahamic religions. Traditional religions, Buddhism, these are ignored. Not a major point, but Hitchens has elevated his thesis to a rather ecclesiastical universal claim. (Though apparently he's reconsidering it a bit.)

Quoting Alworth: And yet one (potentially) final comment.

I, for one, hope you'll continue. You're doing a superb job eviscerating Hitchens here. A pleasure to read. Viva Portland, my former home!

hitchens debates with his hands: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/247...7:20&out=07:25

Agreed. Your comments have been a great stand-in for the diavlog which I can't quite get up the energy to watch. I am an Atheist who agrees with much of the things the New Atheists say, and applaud them for saying it, but I find Hitchens insufferable for all the reasons you mentioned. I disagree when Bob says that the New Atheism is a form of fundamentalism, but when I hear Hitchens bloviate, I must agree that he sure sounds the part. For what it's worth my take is that ethics and mores are a result of an evolving brain leading to incredibly complex social interaction for our species. This coupled with a desire to try to find patterns and explain the mysteries of life, led to the conceptual leap that is religion. It has it's positives (providing moral guideposts for those that need them) and negatives (intolerance etc.) and my main issue with it is that we pay disproportionate deference to the goals of it's proponents even when their "beliefs" can adversely effect the rest of us. But in the end, I'm tired of the whole discussion.

I'll second this. (And as a former Portlander and Santa Cruz native to boot!) This display has really lowered my opinion of the man. Which is unfortunate because he can be quite brilliant at times.

Alworth, I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, but when you say "not a major point" I have to say you're selling your argument a bit short. See Hitchens' claims is that *religion* is poisonous, not evidence proof ideologies in general (I'm sure he would think these are poisonous too, but religion is a distinct, unique poison). If there are important enough examples of these kinds of poisonous ideologies from the secular world, and on the other hand, significant enough religious examples of the sort of rational mysticism he applauds wittingly (or maybe unwittingly) in Spinoza, then his thesis disintegrates into something like, "people shouldn't be irrational, they should care about forming sound beliefs, etc." But see that's very boring. No one would argue with it, it wouldn't be bombastic, and people wouldn't be interested in seeing him all over the world debating religionists. I'm not saying I can peek into his heart and read his motives, I'm just saying if your point goes through, (and were accepted by enough people, hypothetically) it would mean his thesis is unwarranted, and then that in order for the thesis to be tweaked to meet only the harmful forms of religion, it

There are two aspects of your comment that I would like to respond to. The first is about cannibalism in animals. According to what I could find, it is more common in invertebrates and fish. As you move into more phylogenetically recent species, it becomes less and less frequent, and under very specific circumstances. But, if you have other sources that state otherwise, it would be interesting to read them. The second aspect has to do with Hitchen's arguments about possible origins of morality.

... It was pretty shocking to hear Hitchens say, "Well, I don't know where our fundamental moral intuitions come from [since religion is excluded by him as a possible source]" and then go on to say some imprecise things about possible biological sources for fundamental moral prohibitions. Wright had a very good point there. To paraphrase, "How can you be so critical of religion, Christopher, when you have nothing truly rational to put in its place, and you nevertheless are far from loath to make moral judgments?"

I can only repeat what I said in a previous comment. For the atheist, all statements about morality are created by humans. There is no other source. Whether it's the result of collective agreement on moral norms, or the work

When Marx said "religion is the heart of a heartless world" he didn't have in mind the priest-ridden dogmatism Hitchens rightfully hates. This argument was over with the definition of terms. Anyway, both sides looked exhausted -- and sounded like they were breathing helium. Is there something wrong with the playback?

I can only repeat what I said in a previous comment. For the atheist, all statements about morality are created by humans. There is no other source. Whether it's the result of collective agreement on moral norms, or the work of some advanced-for-their-times individuals, or the consolidation of natural tendencies and prohibitions (the biological/instinctual contribution) may not be well understood. But using the idea of God as the 'creator of the rules' is equivalent to creationism or intelligent design. It provides an easy answer to a question that is complex and not well understood yet.

I didn't find this particularly helpful the first time, so repeating it doesn't help all that much either. Hitchens could have said what you've said, plus something else, like the basic moral principles are based upon a social contract to insure survival, or well-being, or whatever, but he just sort of stammered. I can see that a committed atheist thinks that any reference to "God" is empty nonsense. But Wright was saying that religion at least sometimes attempts to provide the metaethical ground which Hitchens would not even look for. You seem to think that it's a sufficient reply to say, "But

Thanks for the kind words to my various rants. And also for the Rose City props! (People from small, parochial towns love to hear how lovely their town is; it's like praising someone's children--always a sure winner.) Jay, Well, maybe it is a major point. It is to me--I am a Buddhist, and so much of the critique feels irrelevant to my religion. I could imagine Native Americans, Quakers, and Shinto practitioners feeling much the same. I would love to hear Hitchens' description of Japanese history through his particular religion-is-the-font-of-evil filter. It doesn't line up quite as well. I guess, to step away from Hitchens' performance, one thing he said really did strike me as valid. He only alluded to it in passing a couple times, but I think it's key: unlike other social movements, religion has an absolute authority. Within cultures, nothing approaches the kind of force religion maintains. I wouldn't be quick to dismiss this as merely a matter of the afterlife, either. We are complex beings, and our motivations are bound up in our tribal affiliations and our sense of morality; these are at least as profound as our concern for the afterlife. Hitchens is right when he says that once a religion authorizes

Quoting Alworth: I guess, to step away from Hitchens' performance, one thing he said really did strike me as valid. He only alluded to it in passing a couple times, but I think it's key: unlike other social movements, religion has an absolute authority. Within cultures, nothing approaches the kind of force religion maintains. I wouldn't be quick to dismiss this as merely a matter of the afterlife, either. We are complex beings, and our motivations are bound up in our tribal affiliations and our sense of morality; these are at least as profound as our concern for the afterlife.

Hitchens is right when he says that once a religion authorizes an act, that act becomes suffused with a power nothing else can give it. Once authorized, the act becomes an expression of moral goodness, ultimate loyalty, a statement of self. To me this is where the truth lies: religion is power, an accelerant. Used by the corrupt or immoral, it precipitates atrocities. Used by the benign, it is a gentle tonic, a community-builder. Used by the wise and good, it can activate populations to great acts. You get MLK or the crusades.

I think that while this point sounds really important at first I am not really sure that

I finished listening to the podcast yesterday, and I think Wright destroyed Hitchens in this debate. Hitchens' chief debating techniques apparently consist of the following: 1) Throw in voluminous references to philosophers, thinkers, political movements, and historical events, including excessive contextual detail even when irrelevant. This has the desired effect of taking up a lot of time and making Hitchens sound smart despite being wholly unrelated to the substance of his arguments. 2) Jump from topic to topic so that Wright can never fully explore the import of any particular philosophical or intellectual doctrine that Hitchens purports to espouse. This allows Hitchens to avoid making embarrassing admissions (e.g., that he apparently believes the moral sense we are "born with" is sufficient moral guidance for humans in modern society). 3) Incessantly bring up the most horrible elements of religion even when totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. E.g., when Wright attempts to illustrate for Hitchens a positive effect of religion by recalling how his Sunday school experiences made him more accepting of other races, Hitchens runs off the rails discussing some horrible elements of Christianity. It has literally zero relevance to Wright's point

Quoting Runaway Horses: 3) Incessantly bring up the most horrible elements of religion even when totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. E.g., when Wright attempts to illustrate for Hitchens a positive effect of religion by recalling how his Sunday school experiences made him more accepting of other races, Hitchens runs off the rails discussing some horrible elements of Christianity. It has literally zero relevance to Wright's point that religion has positive effects in addition to its negative effects.

Agreed, Hitchens does not want to concede any positive effects of religion, and so he ignores them when they are self evident.

4) Claim that Wright is being "rude" and "offensive" by bringing up examples of areligious historical figures who committed some of the twentieth century's defining atrocities. This was surely one of the most bizarre segments of the debate, and I literally burst out laughing (while riding the train no less) when I heard this part of the podcast.

Again, I think it gets back to an inability to concede points. He was backed into a corner with the obvious line of questioning from bob, a corner he has no way of getting out of

Quoting JonIrenicus: This is the biggest issue for secular ethicists. Our morality is just harder to craft a foundation for. In Hitchens defense, while the foundations of his ethics are extremely nebulous, his philosophy is sound I think.

Most secular people shy away from making strong moral statements, he does not, he does not give people a pass if muslim or non western or non white, he has the quality I value more than the foundation of ethics, functional ethics that promotes the good, and fights against the bad.

As sloppily as he gets there, I would rather see more of that in people than this more carefully constructed, but feckless ethical stance that makes no judgments about better or worse ways to live.

Well said, but at the end of the day we're all ruled by practicality and inertia, be it in matters of state or the personal. You have to love Hitchens for tilting at windmills.

Hitchens, for all his unruly talk of religions being inherently bad, at least seems to hold that character matters, and does not do what so many liberals and other secular people have done, and give people a pass on bad behavior and absolve them of their own faults with their own negative and destructive beliefs.

Straw man.

Quoting Runaway Horses: 3) Incessantly bring up the most horrible elements of religion even when totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. E.g., when Wright attempts to illustrate for Hitchens a positive effect of religion by recalling how his Sunday school experiences made him more accepting of other races, Hitchens runs off the rails discussing some horrible elements of Christianity. It has literally zero relevance to Wright's point that religion has positive effects in addition to its negative effects.

I don't know. Is there a yin and yang to the benefits of religion? Religion can be a salve to prejudice, but it also justified slavery. The poor are always with us, but the well-off may justify their wealth through the Protestant work ethic or through good living which results in the bounty of God's love, etc.

Quoting look: I don't know. Is there a yin and yang to the benefits of religion? Religion can be a salve to prejudice, but it also justified slavery. The poor are always with us, but the well-off may justify their wealth through the Protestant work ethic or through good living which results in the bounty of God's love, etc.

You are absolutely right, and I don't doubt that Wright would also agree with you here. Wright's stance is that religion has done both good and ill, and that it's not at all clear that, on the whole, religion does more bad than it does good. In arguing this point, Wright tries to shift the burden to Hitchens by getting Hitchens to concede that religion does on occasion produce good results. If Hitchens were to agree with that statement, then the burden would logically be on Hitchens to demonstrate that the harms of religion outweigh the benefits. Hitchens refuses to make the concession, but Wright is (cleverly) pushing such a minor argument at that point that by rejecting it Hitchens looks ridiculous. If you ask me, I think that religion generally does more harm than good, and I am, for

Quoting JonIrenicus: This is the biggest issue for secular ethicists. Our morality is just harder to craft a foundation for. In Hitchens defense, while the foundations of his ethics are extremely nebulous, his philosophy is sound I think.

Most secular people shy away from making strong moral statements, he does not, he does not give people a pass if muslim or non western or non white, he has the quality I value more than the foundation of ethics, functional ethics that promotes the good, and fights against the bad.

As sloppily as he gets there, I would rather see more of that in people than this more carefully constructed, but feckless ethical stance that makes no judgments about better or worse ways to live.

If Hitchens could just untie this sense from the notion that all religious belief is inherently destructive, he would be better off.

But no one is perfect (except me, I am the only person I have ever found to be right nearly 100% of the time, odd that).

Although Bob Wright isn't an atheist, I think he does a pretty good job of fleshing out a coherent and sound moral philosophy without reliance on the

Quoting kezboard: Straw man.

Is it? Take Major Hasan. Hitchens could not concede that our actions in Iraq and the middle east led to his radicalization (Hitchens = almost physically impossible for him to yield points), so I'll do it for him. Our actions did lead to Major Hasan killing his fellow soldiers. The lesson Hitchens would draw is that the guys culture/religious beliefs are broken and backwards and warped, and gave him ammunition and encouragement in going overboard. The lesson Bob might draw is that gee, had we not gotten involved over there in the first place this would not have happened.
And you know what? Bob is right !!!! But so is Hitchens. (the so what argument)
So where do I place the onus of the military shootings? Hasan, his culture, and his religious upbringing for allowing his warped take on the world getting through unchallenged.
The Danish cartoon incident. On the newspaper side, the crime, insensitivity towards muslim beliefs by publishing the demeaning cartoons. On many of the muslim demonstrators side, the crime, riots, property destruction and murder.
hmm, lets check those scales again, insensitivity vs riots/property damage/murder... I think I am going to say the latter crimes, and group that engages in

Robert lost the opportunity to question Christopher what a world expunged of religion would be like. In fact, such a world is an impossiblity. Why? Because cults, particularly personality cults, would proliferate...and are they not like religions? The point is that while Christopher is right that religions poison, at worst, and obscure, at the very least, reality....we will never be able to get rid of them in one form or another.

Quoting ledocs: I didn't find this particularly helpful the first time, so repeating it doesn't help all that much either.

I suspect that is because we are talking about somewhat different aspects of this topic.

Hitchens could have said what you've said, plus something else, like the basic moral principles are based upon a social contract to insure survival, or well-being, or whatever, but he just sort of stammered.

My comment was a speculation on what Hitchens' may think but didn't quite articulate in this diavlog.

I can see that a committed atheist thinks that any reference to "God" is empty nonsense.

I wouldn't say all atheist would say 'empty nonsense', but I agree with the general idea.

But Wright was saying that religion at least sometimes attempts to provide the metaethical ground which Hitchens would not even look for.

Religion provides moral principles. These have been changed and improved over time to accommodate a more developed human morality, such as the case for slavery in the bible and the like. I do agree with Wright that for many people, these moral rules (backed up by the possibility of divine enforcement by eternal punishment or reward) are necessary as

I finally got around to watching the interstitial parts of this diavlog, and now I've finally found the "taking offense" part that people mentioned in the forum but I didn't know what they were talking about. So if Hitler were an atheist it would be offensive to all atheists? Man, just imagine how the vegetarians feel, Christopher.

Quoting Michael: Robert lost the opportunity to question Christopher what a world expunged of religion would be like. In fact, such a world is an impossiblity. Why? Because cults, particularly personality cults, would proliferate ... and are they not like religions? The point is that while Christopher is right that religions poison, at worst, and obscure, at the very least, reality ... we will never be able to get rid of them in one form or another.

On what ground do you assert that "cults, particularly personality cults, would proliferate"? You're certainly right that personality cults are like religion (North Korea is a land of perpetual worship), but it's not at all clear that these would spring up wherever religion fades. The five least religious countries in the world are Estonia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and the Czech Republic; none is characterized by an unusual attraction to cults or strongmen. Irreligious Japan has had a cult problem, but the most notable and dangerous cult (Aum Shinrikyo) never had more than 9,000 members in Japan, and now only has about 2,000. And the country's post-war politics certainly aren't characterized by worshipful love of its prime ministers or emperor. So the evidence for your claim

Quoting Runaway Horses:
If you ask me, I think that religion generally does more harm than good, and I am, for all practical matters, an atheist. Nonetheless, I think Wright won this debate.

Does that mean that it is because you are an atheist (although you did walk that back a bit) that you think religion generally does more harm than good?

Quoting JonIrenicus: Again, I think it gets back to an inability to concede points. He was backed into a corner with the obvious line of questioning from bob, a corner he has no way of getting out of except through concession (logically), but he can't bring himself to do it, so he goes on those riffs.He tends to argue for the sake of winning, not to get at the truth of things, in that way his style is in some ways like Rachael Maddow. Primary debating rule - Concede nothing. It is a character flaw/quirk that causes him to get twisted into knots at times.

This is the way I saw Hitchens also, but gee, he's so smart, I thought maybe I was wrong. My brother in law was like this (before my sister divorced him). He could always think of just one more thing to say, which would take things in another direction so much so that you sort of forgot the point being made.
It's a form of bullying and a form of bluffing. I think Bob did a good job of trying to keep him honest, shrill voice and all. But for me, the bigger point

Quoting Jay J: No Franco,

Actually this is a very important point. To say that a proposition is unwarranted is not the same as saying that it's false. For example, an argument from Bill can be unwarranted today, but evidence coming to light at a later date may make the Bill's conclusion warranted. And when this happens, Bill deserves no credit, (if the reasons Bill marshals in support of his conclusion are vindicated, then so is the warrant of his proposition, but if his conclusion turns out to be warranted in the future in light of newer and better reasons, then this does not vindicate the warrant of his argument)..

No Jay J, it is not an important point. I am using warranted and unwarranted as they are used in normal idiomatic English, in which they are equivalent to supported or unsupported by empirical evidence, justified or unjustified by empirical evidence. The examples I gave were clear enough, a proposition involving a cause/effect relationship and a proposition involving a whole/part relationship, both of which fall under the canons of ordinary logic. If you want to indulge in hair-splitting be my guest, but I am not interested.

Quoting Jay J: And yes, I think

Quoting Runaway Horses: I finished listening to the podcast yesterday, and I think Wright destroyed Hitchens in this debate. Hitchens' chief debating techniques apparently consist of the following:

6: quote Marx from memory....

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: ....and my main issue with it is that we pay disproportionate deference to the goals of it's proponents even when their "beliefs" can adversely effect the rest of us. But in the end, I'm tired of the whole discussion.

We also pay in the form of not charging taxes on their often very lucrative enterprises.

Quoting look: Well said, but although we may dispense with the need for religion, I don't think we'll be able to do away with our spirituality.

I see you've only been registered here since July. If you haven't seen them, here are the Haidt vlogs:

http://bloggingheads.tv/search/?part...dt,%20Jonathan

Thanks, I was very interested to learn more about him and his ideas. He's at UVA, which is where Richard Rorty taught. I wonder if they knew each other. As far as not being able to do away with our spirituality.....what do you mean by spirtuality?

Quoting Emef: An aside: before getting plastic surgery or platform shoes to improve my lot in life, I think I'd opt for a deep voice with a laconic British accent. I'm sure people would listen to me much more than they do.

hilarious

Quoting Jay J: I understood Bob's question to be a meta-ethical one, not an empirical one. Other than just getting it from the context, Bob is well-versed in evolutionary psychology himself, and that makes me doubt that he thinks there's an issue about *how* humans came to be moral.

Yeah, good point. To be clear, I certainly didn't mean to suggest that the author of The Moral Animal doesn't believe that human beings have an innate moral sense that is a product of evolution. I was reacting to the post just above mine, which had mischaracterized Hitchens' position (suggesting that it followed from what Hitchens had said that Ghengis Kahn's actions should be considered moral if they helped him survive). But in a bigger picture sense, you're right; Wright's question, to which Hitchens didn't provide a good answer, was where Hitchens thinks his particular morality comes from (i.e., a meta-ethical question). I tend to think that the reason Hitchens has a hard time answering it is that it's extremely hard for anyone to provide a convincing answer to that question. But it would nice to hear Hitchens acknowledge that it's a serious challenge. As others have noted, he's not

Irenicus said:

The fact that some guy attacks another for a perceived slight does NOT absolve the guy who attacked. Does NOT mean the one at fault is the provoker. And that is precisely the sort of backwards logic employed and wrightians (yes.. I made that up - yes it's bad).

How many times, in the course of two hours of talking to Hitchens, did Wright say that he was not absolving Hasan or any other criminal from guilt, blame, and consequent punishment? I think I heard him say that at least three times. But yet you persist in bringing up this red herring. Wright's position is that there are many proximate causes for a crime, some specific to the criminal and his psychology, circumstances, and perhaps ideology (as in the case of Hasan), some historical/political/sociological. He is focused upon the practical question of how to reduce crime, which would involve addressing all its causes. What you have said above is, as often, MORONIC.

Quoting ledocs: .....To summarize, I can see that Hitchens hates religion. I’m certainly no fan of organized religion myself. But what I don’t see is that Hitchens loves truth. However, if we take Hitchens’s ego and need for fame and money out of the equation, difficult though that is to do, I can see him and Wright as friends in a pacific and cosmopolitan culture of Hellenizers who combine the search for a theory of everything with a taste for good whiskey and the occasional dalliance with a person of undetermined sex, or perhaps with hermaphrodites.

Great post ledocs, but, as you know, the dominant maître à penser on bhtv is Darwin, not Plato or Kant. Your conclusion made me laugh. Because you are absolutely right: Wright and Hitchens are like two peas in a pod....though not hermaphroditic.

Quoting Francoamerican: This is exactly what I said on several occasions during this exchange: That the only counterargument to Hitchens would be examples, drawn from history or from personal experience, that show the positive influence of religious belief on behavior, i.e. examples that show how the belief in God or the afterlife or whatever makes people better, more moral, happier.... One example or a thousand examples, it doesn't really matter.

Since Hitchens believes that there is no validity in religious beliefs, he would say to any example of the positive influence of religion that it came from the person and not the religion, so how can he say that bad influence comes from religion and not simply from the person who happens to be religious? I don't see that he can have it both ways.

I am using warranted and unwarranted as they are used in normal idiomatic English, in which they are equivalent to supported or unsupported by empirical evidence, justified or unjustified by empirical evidence. The examples I gave were clear enough, a proposition involving a cause/effect relationship and a proposition involving a whole/part relationship, both of which fall under the canons of ordinary logic. If you want to indulge in hair-splitting be my guest, but I am not interested.

Franco, even by your own formulation, this standard of belief is not one where it is incumbent on a person to choose pro or con. You have asserted that one must believe the counterproposition of what one disbelieves, and that is a crock, just about anyone here could tell ya that. In other words, it's not esoteric, and you don't have the knockdown argument on this point from common language that you assert. So your belief that one must believe the counterproposition to what one disbelieves (or more precisely, what one thinks is unproven, or more precisely, unwarranted) is still just hanging out there...

From your POV, scepticism may be "warranted." For most people who have to make practical and

Quoting Francoamerican: I agree that Wright doesn't have to prove that religion has been on balance good. But he does have to show in what respect and how it has been good.

not really, he can simply point out that Hitchens has no basis for proving his thesis, therefore hitchens has a FAITH based position - and is now indistinguishable from the religionists he so despises. it then becomes incumbent on Hitchens to show why his religion is better than the others. The essence of Bob's problem with the new atheists (in my reading of him and them), is that they pretend rationality, while making unexamined claims that can only be based in faith because there is no science to support them.

Jay J. says... As I said above, I have nothing more to say to you. You didn't even bother to answer the questions I asked you. You take far too many words to say far too little, and I have the impression that you know little about philosophy or the history of the philosophical discussion of religion. Since I not terribly interested in Wright or Hitchens, I am even less interested in what you have to say about them.

Replying to:Wm. Blaxton Since the beginning of WW II till this moment, the world has been dominated by religions or, in the case of communist or fascist regimes, by personality cults. Do the math under Mao, Stalin, Franco as well as the great religions...literally billions of people dominated by a form of religion and/or personality cult. You cannot name a historical time or place when this was not so. In our time, I actually don´t consider Europeans to be secular either. Rather, their societies are so exhausted and so miserable due to recent catastrophic conflcts that they even don´t want to procreate much less indulge religion. At bottom, the problem with this diavlog is that Robert and Christopher come from such different places and address different audiences. Robert is from God-worshipping middle-America and sees himself as a jounalist/author with diplomatic responsibilites to finesse potential civilizational conflicts. Christopher reflects secular Europe who sees himself as a journalist/author with socratic responsibilites to inform others of raw, unvarnished truths.
While both postures are necessary to navigate us through these troubled times, only truth-saying is appropriate in this forum.

Quoting popcorn_karate: not really, he can simply point out that Hitchens has no basis for proving his thesis, therefore hitchens has a FAITH based position - and is now indistinguishable from the religionists he so despises.

it then becomes incumbent on Hitchens to show why his religion is better than the others.

The essence of Bob's problem with the new atheists (in my reading of him and them), is that they pretend rationality, while making unexamined claims that can only be based in faith because there is no science to support them.

You are right that there are no scientific or rational arguments against religious beliefs. Religious beliefs about God, the universe, the soul, freedom and immortality are not demonstrable. Hence they cannot be refuted. Hitchens mistakes the dross of religion for the substance. But I think Wright could have done a better job of showing how religious beliefs may in some cases have made believers better people.

You take far too many words to say far too little

That's a stylistic complaint, not a substantive one, but in any case, I realize that my word use hasn't been particularly economical. It's burdensome to have an interlocutor who gets the most fundamental things about the discussion wrong. Trust me, my painstaking tutorials hurt me worse than they hurt you.

I have the impression that you know little about philosophy or the history of the philosophical discussion of religion.

For the record, my critiques of your arguments are about your arguments, and trace actual things you've said, and have been supported by reasons. On the other hand, this critique of me is about me, and stated in general like this, is merely an ad hominem.

You didn't even bother to answer the questions I asked you.

You asked if I thought the right thing was just to have no opinion on the pro or con of the debate, and I said yes. When you asked why I don't defend Bob's actual defense of religion, or why don't I mount my own, well that was never my intention when I started posting. My interest from the beginning was in the ground

It's taken a few days for me to listen to this whole diavlog, but I've finally gotten around to it. I was expecting it to be more interesting than the last one, or at least less annoying, since I'm much more amenable to the new atheist point of view than I am to the still-defending-the-invasion-of-Iraq-in-2009 one. I haven't read Hitchens's book, but I always liked the subtitle "How Religion Poisons Everything" -- it's the sort of thing I've said to myself while thinking about the Israel/Palestine conflict, or the Catholic charities' reaction to gay marriage in DC, or whatever. Religion has a way of making bad situations much worse -- any political struggle can be turned into a holy war, thereby eliminating the possibility of compromise. Apparently, though, that isn't Hitchens's point. It seems like he's saying that religion is the cause of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and that's, frankly, horseshit. Despite what Hitchens was insinuating, Zionism used the Jewish Bible and thought of the 'Holy Land' the way other Central European nationalist movements used important symbols and thought of their land, because Zionism is essentially a Central European 19th-century nationalist movement. Modern-day religious settlers think of their Zionism differently, but that isn't

This is stupid. We have morality because it helped us to survive and beat out competitors is not morality. It's simply survival. Or are we now on to relative morality? Male polar bears cannibalize their young. Is it moral? If some group decides that it must kill all those who are not a member of their religion, is it moral? If it has a survival benefit the answer, according to Hitchen's reasoning, is "Yes." Was Genghis Kahn moral, according to Hitchen's reasoning "yes." If you get me, the answer to what is wrong and evil (immoral to polite folks) is that which threatens the group. That is the end of it. Yet he rails against religious practices cement people together. Why isn't that immoral? After all, Jeez, you have all those christians from Texas and the South out their fighting his Iraq war because they have the belief of life ever after. Check out New York. I don't see proportionate deaths in the death maps. My Hitchen's own reasoning, he ought to embrace the religion that is saving his group. Destroy Christianity, and who is going to protect the group? BTW, I'm an atheist.

Quoting ledocs: Irenicus said:

How many times, in the course of two hours of talking to Hitchens, did Wright say that he was not absolving Hasan or any other criminal from guilt, blame, and consequent punishment? I think I heard him say that at least three times. But yet you persist in bringing up this red herring. Wright's position is that there are many proximate causes for a crime, some specific to the criminal and his psychology, circumstances, and perhaps ideology (as in the case of Hasan), some historical/political/sociological. He is focused upon the practical question of how to reduce crime, which would involve addressing all its causes. What you have said above is, as often, MORONIC.

Of course he is not letting Hasan off the hook personally. That is not the point. Absolve Hasan? Bob does something even more devastating and destructive, he absolves the society and culture that produced him from fault for the beliefs and attitudes they allow to propagate. That fault he shifts upwards to the causes of how society got that way, and what shall we do to get the rot in a society to force its own change for the better? Is it

And insofar as I argue for people to be better, I will not shy away from faulting destructive beliefs that are causing people HARM and retarding their development and prosperity.

They NEED to look in the god damn mirror more than most societies, and arguments like Bobs give them more and more reasons not to, shifting fault away, always away never internally, never towards an idea that the world, the society is what we make of it. All he wants to do is point out the society is what was left to us, and what about changing it for the better?

I am sorry to all those who don't get it, but THAT question deals almost entirely with what they do NOW, not how they got there, but where they DECIDE to go.

I think this is all a little meaningless, Jon. It sounds nice, but it's ultimately meaningless. What does it mean, in practical terms, to place the burden of change on societies? What should Bob be doing? What should the US be doing as a matter of policy? Of course it would be nice for, say, al-Awlaki or other radical imams to decide that they were going to stop preaching fire and

Quoting Runaway Horses: You are absolutely right, and I don't doubt that Wright would also agree with you here. Wright's stance is that religion has done both good and ill, and that it's not at all clear that, on the whole, religion does more bad than it does good. In arguing this point, Wright tries to shift the burden to Hitchens by getting Hitchens to concede that religion does on occasion produce good results. If Hitchens were to agree with that statement, then the burden would logically be on Hitchens to demonstrate that the harms of religion outweigh the benefits. Hitchens refuses to make the concession, but Wright is (cleverly) pushing such a minor argument at that point that by rejecting it Hitchens looks ridiculous.

If you ask me, I think that religion generally does more harm than good, and I am, for all practical matters, an atheist. Nonetheless, I think Wright won this debate.

Understood, thanks for the clarification.

Quoting badhatharry: Thanks, I was very interested to learn more about him and his ideas. He's at UVA, which is where Richard Rorty taught. I wonder if they knew each other.

As far as not being able to do away with our spirituality.....what do you mean by spirtuality?

Spirituality is probably not the right word, but I mean that Man has a sense of transcendence/separation from nature due to his consciousness, and therefore wonders "what the hell is really going on here." And is able to see the wonder and beauty of the universe.

Irenicus, with more complete nonsense:

Absolve Hasan? Bob does something even more devastating and destructive, he absolves the society and culture that produced him from fault for the beliefs and attitudes they allow to propagate. That fault he shifts upwards to the causes of how society got that way, and what shall we do to get the rot in a society to force its own change for the better? Is it not reasonable to expect that however a society got a certain way based off historical analysis, that we place a REAL burden on societies no matter WHAT they have endured to take some responsibility about how they behave and the beliefs and attitudes they allow to thrive?

Please provide citation, quote, dingalink, something to substantiate your completely absurd characterization of Wright. I would like you to point to someplace where Wright absolves Afghan society for the irrationalities and abhorrent conduct of the Taliban, or says anything that would be analogous to such an absolution. This is a complete and utter misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Wright, I am virtually certain. Wright's point is that US policy has to take account of the

Quoting ledocs: Irenicus, with more complete nonsense:

Please provide citation, quote, dingalink, something to substantiate your completely absurd characterization of Wright. I would like you to point to someplace where Wright absolves Afghan society for the irrationalities and abhorrent conduct of the Taliban, or says anything that would be analogous to such an absolution. This is a complete and utter misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Wright, I am virtually certain. Wright's point is that US policy has to take account of the irrationality of Islamic fundamentalism, which cannot be altered overnight. He is fully aware of its irrational sides. The reason to try to understand it, and how it came to be, is to better understand, from a practical point of view, how to deal with it. Wiping it out militarily just isn't that easy, even if doing so could be justified morally.

And what society is it that produced Hasan? I thought it was the US, primarily. He's an American. So the society which Wright would be absolving, if he had absolved any society, which he has not, would be the good old USA.

The Taliban emerged in a backward and very poor society. It's true that not all backward and poor societies produce phenomena

Quoting kezboard: I think this is all a little meaningless, Jon. It sounds nice, but it's ultimately meaningless. What does it mean, in practical terms, to place the burden of change on societies? What should Bob be doing? What should the US be doing as a matter of policy?

As mentioned in the other response, the policy prescriptions were not the scope of my tirade. It was more an attack on a certain attitude. You could want us out of the middle east tomorrow and still believe what I said earlier.

Of course it would be nice for, say, al-Awlaki or other radical imams to decide that they were going to stop preaching fire and brimstone and jihad and look practically at the situation in the Middle East and think about how they could change their societies for the better. I recently read a book (Inside the Kingdom by Robert Lacey) that included the story of one former Islamist radical, Mansour al-Nogaidan, who did just this. He was radicalized in the eighties, dropped out of school and started preaching jihad; but his religious philosophy changed after he was imprisoned for burning down a video rental store and started

Quoting Jay J: For the record, my critiques of your arguments are about your arguments, and trace actual things you've said, and have been supported by reasons. On the other hand, this critique of me is about me, and stated in general like this, is merely an ad hominem. :

No, your critique was not about my arguments. You paid no attention to them, but simply went your own merry way. My only point from the very beginning of this exchange was that it is no reply to Hitchens to say, as Wright did (or implied), that the evil done by non-believers is an argument against Hitchens. One cannot refute the proposition that religion "poisons everthing" by saying that there are other causes of evil than religious belief. You then replied that I was taking the formula "religion poisons everything" too literally and that what Hitchens really meant was that religion is uniquely evil in its effects. Wright was responding to this extreme idea, and not to the silly formula "religion poisons everything." You apparently think that your restatement of Hitchens ("religion is uniquely evil") is better than the one used by BHTV staff "religious poisons everything." It is

All I want, is for people like you and Bob to pay SOME lip service to the notion that the cause of a societies problems and successes has to do with more than external factors. That you do not go out of your way to point to every cause under the sun except for those that are self induced.

Really, that's all you want? Then why don't you just read my prior post? I listed lots of factors, prominently including poverty and physical isolation, that are primarily internal to Afghanistan. US policy errors constituted just one in a list of many, mostly internal factors. So I fail to understand your complaint. No, I think the problem is the same one that Hitchens had with Wright and which forced Wright to repeat himself several times on this point. Providing causal explanations for an undesirable political or moral phenomenon is not the same thing as exculpating or absolving the bad actor(s). Let's take the case of the typical young black ghetto criminal in the US. One approach is to say that the criminal is just evil. Catch him, try him, convict him, and then lock him up and

By the way, as a nonbelieving and nonpracticing Jew, I want to weigh in on the controversy here involving the Holocaust. My view, and here I agree with Hitchens, is that the Holocaust would and could not have occurred in the absence of close to 2000 years of Christian anti-Semitism, which had been especially virulent in Germany, especially in the middle ages. I also think that there is a strong strain of anti-Semitism that was inherent to Christian teaching and practice in many quarters and for a long while. It was a big moment when the Catholic Church finally formally repudiated the charge that the Jews had killed Christ. On the other hand, when Hitchens takes offense because Wright says that Hitler was a secular criminal, that was just one of those bizarre Hitchens debating tricks that backfires unless the viewer/listener is predisposed for some odd reason to worship Hitchens or to be spellbound by him.

Quoting ledocs: By the way, as a nonbelieving and nonpracticing Jew, I want to weigh in on the controversy here involving the Holocaust. My view, and here I agree with Hitchens, is that the Holocaust would and could not have occurred in the absence of close to 2000 years of Christian anti-Semitism, which had been especially virulent in Germany, especially in the middle ages. I also think that there is a strong strain of anti-Semitism that was inherent to Christian teaching and practice in many quarters and for a long while. It was a big moment when the Catholic Church finally formally repudiated the charge that the Jews had killed Christ. On the other hand, when Hitchens takes offense because Wright says that Hitler was a secular criminal, that was just one of those bizarre Hitchens debating tricks that backfires unless the viewer/listener is predisposed for some odd reason to worship Hitchens or to be spellbound by him.

True, Hitchen's reaction was bizarre, but it was an odd thing for Wright to say in a debate about the evils of religion that a "secular criminal" like Hitler is proof that religion is

My only point from the very beginning of this exchange was that it is no reply to Hitchens to say, as Wright did (or implied), that the evil done by non-believers is an argument against Hitchens. One cannot refute the proposition that religion "poisons everthing" by saying that there are other causes of evil than religious belief. You then replied that I was taking the formula "religion poisons everything" too literally and that what Hitchens really meant was that religion is uniquely evil in its effects. Wright was responding to this extreme idea, and not to the silly formula "religion poisons everything."

You apparently think that your restatement of Hitchens ("religion is uniquely evil") is better than the one used by BHTV staff "religious poisons everything." It is better only in the sense that it allows you to win a specious argument. Unique means "one and only," so obviously if Hitchens means, as you interpret him, that religion is uniquely bad or evil, he must mean that there are no other causes of evil than religion. It is the one and only cause. Or perhaps (milder version) he means that its

No one thinks Bob was taking Hitchens to say that religion is the only cause of evil. Instead, pointing to these non-religious examples of historic wrongs is meant to get us to take seriously the possibility that all kinds of institutional and cultural factors lead to evil, that religion is merely one of them, (which can also lead to good outcomes, BTW), and that religion is not unique (unrivaled, unusual) among them.

Christian anti-semitism by no means explains the depth of Hitler's hatred of the Jews. Pseudo-scientific theories of superior and inferior races and Hitler's belief in the destiny of "Ayrian" Germany were at least as important.

The point is that Hitler's ideology could not have prospered and found fertile soil in the German public had it not been for the long history of Christian anti-Semitism. My view is that the history of Christian anti-Semitism is a necessary but not sufficient causal explanation for the Final Solution. I don't think it's odd that Wright brought up secular horrors or Hitler within the context of doing so. I thought you just said that the thesis Wright is trying to refute is that religion is a uniquely maleficent cause of horrors. It's relevant to cite secular causes of atrocities to refute this.

Quoting Jay J: No one thinks Bob was taking Hitchens to say that religion is the only cause of evil. Instead, pointing to these non-religious examples of historic wrongs is meant to get us to take seriously the possibility that all kinds of institutional and cultural factors lead to evil, that religion is merely one of them, (which can also lead to good outcomes, BTW), and that religion is not unique (unrivaled, unusual) among them.

Unique doesn't mean unrivaled or unusual, not in any dictionary I am familiar with, although many Americans use the word incorrectly. Here is what you said: "And I don't think anyone is saying that Bob refutes Hitchens completely by pointing to non-religious sources of evil, rather, what is being asserted is that these historic examples of non-religious sources of evil are relevant. The reason they are relevant is that the overall thesis Hitchens is proposing is that religion is uniquely bad, and its contribution on balance is very bad, such that the subtraction of religion would have made human history better." In any case, as I said, the argument that Wright makes about Hitler is irrelevant to his main purpose: to get Hitchens

Quoting Jay J: No, it is not a knock-down argument for Bob to point to other causes of evil, it is counter-evidence. And you really don't have to say that it's milder to say that religion's badness is one of a kind, unique in its power to lead astray, because this is part of what Hitchens believes. The idea that Hitchens thinks there are no other causes of evil is just another distraction. Pointing to other causes of evil is to provide support for the proposition that religion is just a gloss that covers inevitable human tribalism, injustice, and brutality. It's a proposition we should take seriously, but stop short of endorsing fully, as we don't know enough. But the mere fact that the proposition is one of the ones we should take seriously, should cause us to doubt the proposition Hitchens is advancing..

Not only is it not a knock-down argument to point out that there are other causes of evil than religion, such as brutality and injustice and tribalism, but it is also nothing but a banality to say so (as I pointed out at the very beginning of

From the indispensible Hitchenswatch: Not that wishes, let alone Christmas, count for much in the Hitchiverse, where all such "magical" thinking is strictly forbidden and perpetual bile for perpetual hate figures is the force that gives life meaning. There'll be no turkey, no pudding, no tree, no Bing Crosby, and no crackers at the Hitchens residence again this 25th of December. Like the White Witch of Narnia, he'll continue to hold his kingdom under a spell that ensures it's always winter but never Christmas.

Quoting nikkibong: From the indispensible Hitchenswatch:

Not that wishes, let alone Christmas, count for much in the Hitchiverse, where all such "magical" thinking is strictly forbidden and perpetual bile for perpetual hate figures is the force that gives life meaning. There'll be no turkey, no pudding, no tree, no Bing Crosby, and no crackers at the Hitchens residence again this 25th of December. Like the White Witch of Narnia, he'll continue to hold his kingdom under a spell that ensures it's always winter but never Christmas.

The graphics at the top of that page are a nice touch. I think Hitchens would like them most of all, with the main complaint that only ONE of his vices was showcased! Though I have to wonder, what exactly did Hitchens DO to you to make you hate him so much. Saying off things can only get one so far, this is more Steve Newlin territory style hatred.

Quoting ledocs: Really, that's all you want? Then why don't you just read my prior post? I listed lots of factors, prominently including poverty and physical isolation, that are primarily internal to Afghanistan. US policy errors constituted just one in a list of many, mostly internal factors. So I fail to understand your complaint.

No, I think the problem is the same one that Hitchens had with Wright and which forced Wright to repeat himself several times on this point. Providing causal explanations for an undesirable political or moral phenomenon is not the same thing as exculpating or absolving the bad actor(s). Let's take the case of the typical young black ghetto criminal in the US. One approach is to say that the criminal is just evil. Catch him, try him, convict him, and then lock him up and throw away the key or kill him. Another approach, the "liberal" one, is to think that the person was probably not born evil but that some combination of lack of opportunity, parental love, exposure to bad influences, just a host of personal and cultural factors, combined to produce an anti-social individual.

The complaint is that "US policy errors" is what Bob and others like him

Unique doesn't mean unrivaled or unusual, not in any dictionary I am familiar with, although many Americans use the word incorrectly. Here is what you said:

"And I don't think anyone is saying that Bob refutes Hitchens completely by pointing to non-religious sources of evil, rather, what is being asserted is that these historic examples of non-religious sources of evil are relevant. The reason they are relevant is that the overall thesis Hitchens is proposing is that religion is uniquely bad, and its contribution on balance is very bad, such that the subtraction of religion would have made human history better."

In any case, as I said, the argument that Wright makes about Hitler is irrelevant to his main purpose: to get Hitchens to admit that he is wrong about the evils caused by religion. Even if you reject Hitchens' claim about the origins of Nazism in Christian anti-semitism, Wright has accomplished nothing when he says that evil has other causes than religion. He has merely stated a banality, as I said at the beginning.

Franco, surely you realize that we all own dictionaries right? Dictionaries are records of how words are used. "Unique," from the Merriam-Webster

Quoting nikkibong: From the indispensible Hitchenswatch:

Not that wishes, let alone Christmas, count for much in the Hitchiverse, where all such "magical" thinking is strictly forbidden and perpetual bile for perpetual hate figures is the force that gives life meaning. There'll be no turkey, no pudding, no tree, no Bing Crosby, and no crackers at the Hitchens residence again this 25th of December. Like the White Witch of Narnia, he'll continue to hold his kingdom under a spell that ensures it's always winter but never Christmas.

Charity is also being kind to all people, including the ones you disagree with. Whenever possible we all need to be careful not to become that which we hate.

I suppose this thread is ended but, on this Christmas eve, couldn't let Christopher Hitchens's remarks on Christianity go unanswered: Yes, there is much that is absurd about a literal interpretation of the Bible, and the Mosaic conception of a tribal god is not an edifying one. But when read as literature as opposed to divine revelation, a reading I know Hitchens is equipped to do, there is another theme at war with the first, which is associated with the name of Abraham: the idea of a just God who judges all men according to their deeds. Out of this idea -- and here I will merely state rather than attempt to argue the point -- emerged our contemporary enlightenment ideals of liberty, fraternity, and equality. About Christianity and slavery: as Nietzsche charged, Christianity is a religion of slaves. It was a faith made for ordinary men and women trapped in bondage with no way out, which taught non-resistance to exploitation. And yet by a counterintuitive logic like the logic of jujitsu it led to an end to slavery and to the emergence of the liberal democratic state. It is no accident this development first

It seems like, before digging too far in, they should have cleaved religion from spirituality (or, what I like better, Wright's definition of "alignment with the moral axis"). Organized religion is not necessary to align with the moral axis, nor is alignment with the moral axis guaranteed by organized religion. Given such a cleavage then, I can probably accept, to a reasonable extent, that organized religion has created a lot of poison. Has it "poisoned everything" as Hitchens asserts in his subtitle? Well, if you use the old joke, "adding a drop of soup to sewage just gives you more sewage, and adding a drop of sewage to soup still just gives you more sewage", then perhaps Hitchens has a point. Yielding any part of one's thinking to unquestioned dogma is like adding that single drop of sewage...hence creating poison...albeit maybe just a little.

Quoting Auburn2010: It seems like, before digging too far in, they should have cleaved religion from spirituality (or, what I like better, Wright's definition of "alignment with the moral axis"). Organized religion is not necessary to align with the moral axis, nor is alignment with the moral axis guaranteed by organized religion. Given such a cleavage then, I can probably accept, to a reasonable extent, that organized religion has created a lot of poison. Has it "poisoned everything" as Hitchens asserts in his subtitle? Well, if you use the old joke, "adding a drop of soup to sewage just gives you more sewage, and adding a drop of sewage to soup still just gives you more sewage", then perhaps Hitchens has a point. Yielding any part of one's thinking to unquestioned dogma is like adding that single drop of sewage...hence creating poison...albeit maybe just a little.

Nicely said.

or, if you prefer in the intellectually veneered vernacular of these particular diavlogs, hoist by his own petard. Bob styles himself the great defender of the believing masses from the intellectual class who would tell them that their beliefs in myths amount to nothing more than, well, belief in a myth. As he can't help but tell us every single time, Bob grew up a good church going boy in Texas and gosh darn it if he ain't going to remember where he came from and stand up against that very same class to which he now belongs. The problem, of course, is that when ever so slightly pushed Bob cannot get himself to admit that he himself actually believes. Or at least in any version of a God that would be recognizable to any of those same God-fearing people he thinks he is so valiantly defending. Echoing Sam Harris' point that a Christian is really no closer in belief to a Jew than to an atheist, the "positive direction of human development in a material world" that Bob finds tingly in a religious sort

Excellent post Ledocs. Merry Xmas everyone!! --Uncle Eb

Quoting edbarbar: This is stupid. 'We have morality because it helped us to survive and beat out competitors' is not morality. It's simply survival. ... If some group decides that it must kill all those who are not a member of their religion, is it moral? If it has a survival benefit the answer, according to Hitchen's reasoning, is 'Yes.'

Have you ever heard of the difference between a normative and a descriptive argument? I already explained this above, but the argument is not that every behavior that helps us survive ought to be considered moral. It's that as a descriptive or factual matter, the human capacity for moral reasoning -- that is, for thinking in terms of right and wrong -- is a product of natural selection, and was not bequeathed to us by god. Another descriptive argument, a corollary to the first, is that certain basic tenets of morality may be shared across human societies precisely because their complete absence in any community would tend to make survival impossible. The tendency to think of murder as wrong or immoral is likely inherited and innate; no society needs to be exposed to the Ten Commandments

Quoting nikkibong: From the indispensible Hitchenswatch:

Not that wishes, let alone Christmas, count for much in the Hitchiverse, where all such "magical" thinking is strictly forbidden and perpetual bile for perpetual hate figures is the force that gives life meaning.

Thanks for the link. "Hitchenswatch" is now one of my go-to websites. Nice to see some push back.

There'll be no turkey, no pudding, no tree, no Bing Crosby, and no crackers at the Hitchens residence again this 25th of December. Like the White Witch of Narnia, he'll continue to hold his kingdom under a spell that ensures it's always winter but never Christmas.

Ah but there will be plenty of booze, which is all Hitchens really cares about.

The complaint is that "US policy errors" is what Bob and others like him choose to highlight and place a special weight upon, as if it was anything close to the major cause for the problems overseas in places like Afghanistan or pre invasion Iraq or Iran. If he just made the point of historical context on its own without the links back to blaming the US, his argument would be taken with a bit less resistance. But he is not really interested in railing against the full suite of causes that produce the problems in said cultures. His interest seems to be exclusive to our role. Sort of defensible if making the case we can only change our behavior and not others. But completely lacking an acknowledgment - that does not come across as tacked on - that we are NOT the source of problems around the world. If he just made it more clear that he did not think we were, that had we done nothing there, had Israel never been created, 95% of the problems existing now, would still exist, I'd be off his back about

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: Have you ever heard of the difference between a normative and a descriptive argument?

I already explained this above, but the argument is not that every behavior that helps us survive ought to be considered moral. It's that as a descriptive or factual matter, the human capacity for moral reasoning -- that is, for thinking in terms of right and wrong -- is a product of natural selection, and was not bequeathed to us by god. Another descriptive argument, a corollary to the first, is that certain basic tenets of morality may be shared across human societies precisely because their complete absence in any community would tend to make survival impossible. The tendency to think of murder as wrong or immoral is likely inherited and innate; no society needs to be exposed to the Ten Commandments to figure this out.

get god out of it. You claim there is a morality in people, but you don't bother to prove it is there. How certain are you these so called morals aren't a product of society operating with peer pressure. Looking at the light skinned American blacks, I can tell there is

Quoting edbarbar: You claim there is a morality in people, but you don't bother to prove it is there. How certain are you these so called morals aren't a product of society operating with peer pressure.

If you're interested in this subject, I recommend that you read Wright's The Moral Animal and Pinker's The Blank Slate.

Quoting edbarbar: Looking at the light skinned American blacks, I can tell there is a tincture of white in them. That means white men essentially raped black women, did not recognize their children, all the while maintaining their "moral" integrity. So since you seem to be having a hard time following, the morality is simply one that is imposed on man against his innate behavior via peer pressure of society. Is that the "morality" you believe in?

I am indeed having a hard time following. If your question is whether I believe that any behavior that enhances your ability to pass on your genes is as a normative matter morally justified, then you haven't understood anything that I've written.

Quoting edbarbar: Let's take this little back and forth between us. I see you using arguments such as "you aren't making sense," to reduce the value

Quoting onelessfixie: Bob styles himself the great defender of the believing masses from the intellectual class who would tell them that their beliefs in myths amount to nothing more than, well, belief in a myth.

I've never seen Bob doing so. Granted, I haven't seen every diavlog Bob's been in, let along every other public argument, but he certainly didn't pursue such an argument in this one, or in any of his recent ones on bloggingheads and that doesn't seem to be what he's doing in his book, so I wonder on what you are relying for this claim.

The problem, of course, is that when ever so slightly pushed Bob cannot get himself to admit that he himself actually believes. Or at least in any version of a God that would be recognizable to any of those same God-fearing people he thinks he is so valiantly defending.

He doesn't believe in the kind of idea of God that you are referring to. So? Why should he? It's irrelevant to the argument over whether "religion poisons everything" or the influence of religion at all. As is perfectly compatible with being a good materialist, Bob

Stephanie, I wish i knew how to search the older diavlogs (help anyone?), but I very clearly remember an exchange between Bob and Mickey towards the end of one of their conversations (probably re Evolution of God) in which Bob becomes very emotional and says something to the effect of "I am just not going to stand by as these "New Atheists" insult the intelligence of religious people for their beliefs. It's just wrong." He has actually expressed this same general sentiment a few different times on bloggingheads. There are two problems with his grandstanding on this issue. First, nowhere in either of his books does Sam Harris (who certainly must qualify as a New Atheist if anyone does) attack the intelligence of believers. He simply says that religious people believe in something that is not true and that the excuse making and pandering to those false beliefs which takes place in the larger culture has real and dangerous consequences. And that points up my second concern, which is that Bob disqualifies himself from any serious discussion of these topics by his inability (or unwillingness?) to express

Quoting onelessfixie: I wish i knew how to search the older diavlogs (help anyone?), but I very clearly remember an exchange between Bob and Mickey towards the end of one of their conversations (probably re Evolution of God) in which Bob becomes very emotional and says something to the effect of "I am just not going to stand by as these "New Atheists" insult the intelligence of religious people for their beliefs. It's just wrong." He has actually expressed this same general sentiment a few different times on bloggingheads.

It's reasonably easy. Go to advanced search and put in Bob (or Mickey's) name and their diavlogs will come up. You can choose the ones of interest and see the topics. If you steer me to the ones you are thinking of, I'll listen and respond, as I suspect my take will be somewhat different than yours.

i invite you to try to parse the Afterword to the Evolution of God.

Okay -- I'm reading the book now, so will get back to you on this shortly (as soon as you follow up re the diavlog referred to, as I expect to finish this weekend).

I do

Quoting Wm. Blaxton:
I am indeed having a hard time following. If your question is whether I believe that any behavior that enhances your ability to pass on your genes is as a normative matter morally justified, then you haven't understood anything that I've written.

There is really no point in talking about normative morality without a basis for it, is there? I claim there is no basis for morality in physics. So from where do you get the basis for it? It sounds like Hitchens gets his authority because he believes something about himself. I'm also trying to make the case that what people think they believe as moral often is not, such as the case of slaveholder sex with slaves. I think you refer to this as descriptive. The purpose of discussing this is to show the basis for descriptive morality is wobbly at best, and if you don't even know where you are and how you got there, it's quite difficult to say where one "ought" to be.

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: This is kind of obvious, but the fact that other human beings often act in ways that you and I consider immoral does

Quoting edbarbar: If by reason you mean natural selection gives you a way to come to conclusions about what morality ought to be, then I disagree.

If you still think after everything I've written here that I might believe that "natural selection gives you a way to come to conclusions about what morality ought to be," then clearly we're not communicating. Maybe I've been unclear. At any rate, I don't really have anything else to say that I haven't already said above.

Quoting edbarbar: I'll also try to find out about the Iraq war composition of Christians. I looked through the death maps by largest states, and largest deaths, and I found many deaths in places in TX with relatively low population. That's far from a "proof," as is your note that some states with low populations and low percentage of Christians have deaths means much about the Christian composition of the Army.

Even if you were to discover that every single U.S. soldier killed in Iraq were a Christian -- which of course isn't true -- it wouldn't even suggest that any significant number of them were, as you put it, "out there fighting his Iraq war because

Another descriptive argument, a corollary to the first, is that certain basic tenets of morality may be shared across human societies precisely because their complete absence in any community would tend to make survival impossible

I can't take much from this statement. As you say, it may or may not be necessary for survival, and I think impossible to prove as a practical matter. After all, we have only the limited examples of enhancing group survival as stumbled upon by evolution, and those which our limited imagination can conjure up. I think we may have different definitions of what morality is. I don't believe there is such a thing as morality. I believe there are survival mechanisms only, and in order to invent morality you have to base it on some axioms (hopefully self consistent axioms). I also reject the idea that just because something "is", "improves the chances for" or "is necessary" for survival does not make it moral. I could use this same argument to say that religions are moral. Religions have popped up all over the world, extend the group to potentially much larger sets of people, and therefore enhance survivability. I view humanism as being based

Edbarbar, you have made a complete fool of yourself, I regret to say. Reading your posts is torture.

Quoting edbarbar: I also reject the idea that just because something "is", "improves the chances for" or "is necessary" for survival does not make it moral.

I certainly agree; the fact that a given behavior will improve your chances of passing on your genes does not, taken alone, render that behavior morally justifiable or unjustifiable. In fact, that has been my whole point since my very first post responding to you: while the human capacity for moral reasoning is a product of natural selection -- as may be the ubiquity of certain basic mores -- it very obviously does not follow from this fact that every behavior that improves your chances of passing on your genes ought be considered morally good. So who are you arguing against?

I ought to ask you the same question. My point all along is there is no such thing as morality other than with a religious basis (a set of axioms we believe provide us with one).

It's reasonably easy. Go to advanced search and put in Bob (or Mickey's) name and their diavlogs will come up. You can choose the ones of interest and see the topics. If you steer me to the ones you are thinking of, I'll listen and respond, as I suspect my take will be somewhat different than yours.

I dug and dug around last night and could not find the exact sequence, but it is there somewhere! It's either in a episode with Mickey or with Joel A. or even maybe with George, but it happened. Bob, if you are watching, when did you launch into your tirade about "just about having had enough" of atheists attacking believers?

This is clearly a significant difference between us, as I don't see how it's relevant to the topic he and Hitchens were debating, which did not relate to Bob's beliefs and clearly Bob's beliefs aren't those Hitchens and his ilk like to mock. (Much as Hitchens had trouble not falling into that mode during the argument.)

Bob's argument is that (i) human development is on a generally positive course away from zero/sum relationships and towards a more

one of hitchen's main fallacies: 1. "evil done with religious sanction ('God commands us to do this deed') is more powerful (i.e., worse) than evil done without religious sanction." 2. "good done with religious sanction ('God commands us to do this good thing') is no more powerful than good done without religious sanction." In Hitchen's world, religion is a force that can only make things worse, it doesn't seem to be able to make what is good any better. Seems to me if religious sanction/belief has recognized power to influence human thought and behavior, that power must be acknowledged to work in both directions. In this Wright is correct: religious belief in practice is a wash.

I'm a fan of both R. Wright and C. Hitchens and will sometimes struggle to keep up intellectually in reading their stuff or listening to them talk. I think Mr. Wright's frustration with Mr. Hitchens was the answer to Mr. Wright's basic question: In what way does religion poison everything? I found Mr. Hitchen's answer unfullfilling myself. I think the best answer we got was Mr. Wright's own statement that Mr. Hitchen's book sub title is hyperbole. Despite this I loved the debate and could have listened to these two great intellects banter about for another 75 minutes.

Quoting onelessfixie: Bob, if you are watching, when did you launch into your tirade about "just about having had enough" of atheists attacking believers?

I just don't see how being fed up with attacks on believers of a certain sort leads to any kind of assumption that Bob shares the religious beliefs of those believers or that he should or that we should find the differences in his beliefs from theirs relevant, which was the original claim you were making. I tend to agree with Bob that Hitchens' line of argument is not likely to be convincing to those not already convinced, but I don't really like that style of discourse (as highlighted in some political discussions here, so it's not due to the topic), so maybe I'm underestimating it.

Bob's argument is that (i) human development is on a generally positive course away from zero/sum relationships and towards a more collective and cooperative understanding and (ii) that this "evolution" (which, by the way, he never really bothers to prove in any meaningful way) is somehow evidence of some "purpose" is the "design" of the system.

That is is consistent with a reasonable belief in

Okay, not really. But maybe this one thing ... How is a good stereotypical liberal American greenie supposed to respond to this? ;^)

That was quite a miss match. Wright was clearly not up to the measure of Hitchens.
Still... It was good again to see it demonstrated that moralities are not so much products of religions so much as social values dependent constructs used as tools by religionists. Used, but not with justifiable authority.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: I'll have you know Mr. Wright is the No. 27 Top Global thinker while your boy Hitchens is only No. 47. So there!

Even Tariq "poster boy" Ramadan made the list... How can we take the list seriously at all. And how on earth could a Clinton make the list... It seems a little popularist..