Hitchens (God is not Great) with Sam Smith this weekend

Myksyk

Heard this morning that Sam Smith will have Christopher Hitchens on his programme this week discussing his book "God is not Great" with Eamon McCann and David Quinn. Didn't quite catch the details ... think it's Sunday.

PDN

Recently I was stuck in an airport & was reduced to reading the International Herald Tribune. Amid all the baseball and endless Republican/Democrat waffle of American politics I found this, a reprint of a New York Times article by David Brooks. A bit off subject, I know, but the mention of Hitchens triggered a random connection in my head.

QUASI-RELIGIOUS AND PROSPERING
Catholics create a hybrid culture

The pope and many others speak for the thoroughly religious. Christopher Hitchens has the latest best-seller on behalf of the antireligious. But who speaks for the quasi-religious?

Quasi-religious people attend services, but they're bored much of the time. They read the Bible, but find large parts of it odd and irrelevant. They find themselves inextricably bound to their faith, but think some of the people who define it are nuts.

Whatever the state of their ambivalent souls, quasi-religious people often drive history. Abraham Lincoln knew Scripture line by line but never quite shared the faith that mesmerized him. Quasi-religious Protestants, drifting anxiously from the certainties of their old religion, built Victorian England. Quasi-religious Jews, climbing up from ancestral orthodoxy, helped shape 20th-century American culture.

And now we are in the midst an economic boom among quasi-religious Catholics. A generation ago, Catholic incomes and economic prospects were well below the national average. They had much lower college completion rates than mainline Protestants. But the past few decades have seen enormous Catholic social mobility.

According to Lisa Keister, a sociologist at Duke, non-Hispanic white Catholics have watched their personal wealth shoot upward. They have erased the gap that used to separate them from mainline Protestants.

Or, as Keister writes in a journal article, "Preliminary evidence indicates that whites who were raised in Catholic families are no longer asset-poor and may even be among the wealthiest groups of adults in the United States today."

How have they done it?

Well, they started from their traditional Catholic cultural base. That meant, in the 1950s and early '60s, a strong emphasis on neighborhood cohesion and family, and a strong preference for obedience and solidarity over autonomy and rebellion.

Then over the decades, the authority of the church weakened and young Catholics assimilated. Catholic values began to converge with Protestant values. Catholic adults were more likely to use contraceptives, and fertility rates plummeted. They raised their children to value autonomy more and obedience less.

The process created a crisis for the church, as it struggled to maintain authority over its American flock. But the shift was an economic boon to Catholics themselves. They found themselves in a quasi-religious sweet spot.

On the one hand, modern Catholics have retained many of the traditional patterns of their ancestors -- high marriage rates, high family stability rates, low divorce rates. Catholic investors save a lot and favor low-risk investment portfolios. On the other hand, they have also become more individualistic, more future-oriented and less bound by neighborhood and extended family. They are now much better educated than their parents or grandparents, and much better educated than their family histories would lead you to predict.

More or less successfully, the children of white, ethnic, blue-collar neighborhoods have managed to adapt the Catholic communal heritage to the dynamism of a global economy. If this country was entirely Catholic, we wouldn't be having a big debate over stagnant wages and low social mobility. The problems would scarcely exist. Populists and various politicians can talk about the prosperity-destroying menace of immigration and foreign trade. But modern Catholics have created a hybrid culture that trumps it.

In fact, if you really wanted to supercharge the nation, you'd fill it with college students who constantly attend church, but who are skeptical of everything they hear there. For there are at least two things we know about flourishing in a modern society.

First, college students who attend religious services regularly do better than those who don't. As Margarita Mooney, a Princeton sociologist, has demonstrated in her research, they work harder and are more engaged with campus life. Second, students who come from denominations that encourage dissent are more successful, on average, than students from denominations that don't.

This embodies the social gospel annex to the quasi-religious creed: Always try to be the least believing member of one of the more observant sects. Participate in organized religion, but be a friendly dissident inside. Ensconce yourself in traditional moral practice, but champion piecemeal modernization. Submit to the wisdom of the ages, but with one eye open.

The problem is nobody is ever going to write a book sketching out the full quasi-religious recipe for life. The message "God is Great" appeals to billions. Hitchens rides the best-seller list with "God is Not Great." Nobody wants to read a book called "God is Right Most of the Time."

Dades

Good heads up, Myksyk.

I often listen to Sam Smith on that show. Today FM's Sunday Supplement I think?
I recall David Quinn was the subject of some vitriol here after his meeting with Richard Dawkins a while back.

Should be interesting!

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

Good heads up, Myksyk.

I often listen to Sam Smith on that show. Today FM's Sunday Supplement I think?
I recall David Quinn was the subject of some vitriol here after his meeting with Richard Dawkins a while back.

Should be interesting!

David Quinn is actually a very good debater. He is one the brightest intellectuals in the Catholic Church. Obviously I don't agree with his viewpoint but he pretty much destroyed Dawkins in that debate exposing the many Straw man arguments Dawkins uses and cornering Dawkins on Free will showing is inability to even be able to discuss it.

Hitchens, flip flops on many of his political opinions. He used to be a wooly liberal and was well known for writing: 'The Trial of Henry Kissinger'. It's quite a verbose book and not one of my favourite books. In fact anything Kissinger has writtern is of a far better intellectual quality, for example 'Does America need a foreign policy' or 'Diplomacy'.
Anyway, Hitchens ended up supporting the neo-cons and the Iraq War. He was in also in a famous debate with Galloway about it and ended with a rather caustic closing line which perhaps shows his real motives as a writer:
"Well this is America, so let's sell some books!".

Hitchens was also nominated in the Guardians top 5 intellectuals last year ( a list that also includes Dawkins and Chomsky).
Hitchens is an excellant business man, he's obviously spotted a demand in the market for more theology bashing judging by the amount of books Dawkins sold.
I am not sure I rate him as highly as an intellectual. It's just more rehashing of arguments from Russell and more stating the obvious and occasional straw manning of theology.
Oscar Wilde said the sign of a good debater / intellectual was one who could argue his opponent's side better than him, I don't think Dawkins / Hitchens are good debaters.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

maybe oscar wilde was talking out his ass?

maybe they're not good debaters, but men with good opinions?


you got a link to that dawkins interview you mentioned?a religious person getting the better of him in an argument is something I just have to see

Sapien

Tim Robbins wrote:

David Quinn is actually a very good debater. He is one the brightest intellectuals in the Catholic Church. Obviously I don't agree with his viewpoint but he pretty much destroyed Dawkins in that debate exposing the many Straw man arguments Dawkins uses and cornering Dawkins on Free will showing is inability to even be able to discuss it.

I'll have to disagree with you there. I think Quinn is awful in debate - the difference between him and Jonn Waters amounting to a haircut and a sedative. He suffers from genuinly not understanding the atheist, non-religious, non-conservative mindset and, in fact, is sorely prone to straw men himself.

Tim Robbins

Mordeth wrote:

maybe oscar wilde was talking out his ass?

maybe they're not good debaters, but men with good opinions?


you got a link to that dawkins interview you mentioned?a religious person getting the better of him in an argument is something I just have to see

He also got hammered by Ger Casey on the late late show. Sapien, I agree Waters is out in the clouds at times, but Quinn is a very good debater. He did his homework on Dawkins as did Casey and they both came out stronger. Generally that's the idea in debating. Find your opponents weak spot and go for it. It's nigh impossible to come out with a water tight argument for anything.

Quinn and Casey are the two who have come out strongest in debates against Dawkins and I have seen / heard at least 10.
Who would you say has done best in an argument with Dawkins?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i dunno, i'm about halfway through now.. quinn has been talking for a few minutes and he seems to have missed dawkins points.

his very first point was dawkins set up a straw man by comparing belief in god to belief in faries, how in the hell is that a straw man? it's a bloody perfect comparison.

--edit

wtf? atheists don't believe in free will?

what the **** was that man smoking.. now I'm personally not sure about the idea of free will, but I'd be fairly confident in saying that most atheists do ****ing believe in free will.

i don't think dawkins handled that question very well, but the other chap made a complete arse of himself.

Tim Robbins

Mordeth wrote:

i dunno, i'm about halfway through now.. quinn has been talking for a few minutes and he seems to have missed dawkins points.

his very first point was dawkins set up a straw man by comparing belief in god to belief in faries, how in the hell is that a straw man? it's a bloody perfect comparison.

--edit

wtf? atheists don't believe in free will?

what the **** was that man smoking.. now I'm personally not sure about the idea of free will, but I'd be fairly confident in saying that most atheists do ****ing believe in free will.

i don't think dawkins handled that question very well, but the other chap made a complete arse of himself.

Dawkins straw mans by arguing that theists don't accept evolution theory, Quinn got him on that.
Quinn also pointed out that Science cannot explain the origin of matter and that is the real puzzle i.e. not evolution.
Now while that doesn't mean Religion is correct and atheism is wrong but it shows that Quinn is picking holes in Dawkins not the other way around.

Quinn made a point about objective morality and Dawkins should have hammered him on it but he didn't.

Debating isn't about being right or correct, it's about coming out stronger than your opponent. I think Quinn is wrong, but he came out stronger than Dawkins in that debate.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

he did't argue that theists don't accept evolutionary theory, that's just what quinn said he argued. dawkins said that there were some people who were so adept at mental compartmentalisation (what a ****ing word) that they were able to combine being perfectly good scientists *and* believing that the book of genesis is literally true. This is probably true.

Quinn also pointed out that Science cannot explain the origin of matter and that is the real puzzle i.e. not evolution.

I don't think science ever said it could... I think bonkey would be the man to ask about that. But from what I remember of some of his posts, it doesn't make much sense.. as the laws of physics we have are based upon the universe drummed up after the creation of all this matter. So we have absolutely no frame of reference when we talk about the before time, if there was a before time.. if there was time, before.

Now while that doesn't mean Religion is correct and atheism is wrong but it shows that Quinn is picking holes in Dawkins not the other way around.

of course he is, you;'d have to be a godawful debater indeed not to pick at least a few holes in your opponents argument.. people are incredibly fallable, even when they're right.

I'd have to disagree with you about who came out stronger there, although I watched the pat kenny interview earlier and I did think ger casey (that the name?) made some very interesting points and argued very well for his position, didn't agree with much of what he said though.

Sapien

Tim Robbins wrote:

He also got hammered by Ger Casey on the late late show.

I don't believe that either. I think Casey had the advantage of easy answers and Dawkins was burdened with the task of unravelling tricky abstractions for the benefit of a not particularly enlightened or friendly audience. It would be easy to say that Dawkins, with his occasional pauses and gasps of exasperation, failed to convince - but try to undermine the cause of all causes fallacy on the fly in a brightly lit studio surrounded by a glowering audience, and see how well you do.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Sapien, I agree Waters is out in the clouds at times, but Quinn is a very good debater. He did his homework on Dawkins as did Casey and they both came out stronger. Generally that's the idea in debating.

His first intelligible rhetorical gambit was to accuse Dawkins of believing in the genetic determinism of morality. A more shambolic straw man of Dawkins position, I cannot imagine.

He rather cheaply at one point says, in his best schoolteacher voice, and in reference to his own interpretation of the implications of atheism on free will, "Now Richard, if you haven't gotten to grips with that you seriously need to". And people accuse Dawkins of arrogance?

Tim Robbins wrote:

Find your opponents weak spot and go for it. It's nigh impossible to come out with a water tight argument for anything.

But that's not what he, or Casey, does. They find points in the argument that are abstract or long obfuscated by powerful and widespread misconceptions. They pose problems that Dawkins could dispose of with ease and aplomb given a while to compose a few paragraphs. In fact, all of the "weak points" they find in his books are invariably supported or clarified within the chapter. Just because a point is difficult to make or justify under pressure, doesn't mean it's weak.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Quinn and Casey are the two who have come out strongest in debates against Dawkins and I have seen / heard at least 10.

A combination of style, zeal, unscrupulousness, dishonesty and a tireless obsession with philosophical dead-ends and artifacts of theology like free will and hope that are simply incommensurate with science or even modern moral philosophy.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Who would you say has done best in an argument with Dawkins?

I've no idea. I tend to take note of arguments rather than people, and am inclined to be annoyed when style, personality and oratorical performance get in the way of logical engagement.

Zombrex

I think Dawkins has trouble understanding where people like Quinn are coming from. When Quinn or someone like him says "Ah yes, but why does matter exist in the first place. That must be because of God?" it stumps Dawkins.

Its not because it is a particularly intelligent or clever point, but for the exact opposite reason, it is such a stupid conclusion, that sets up the implication that there must be a purpose in the first place and then answers it by definition (there must be a purpose to the universe, who ever gave the universe purpose is God, therefore God must exist).

All Dawkins can do is stare with a rather bewildered look on his face as he realises he is debating an idiot. Or worse, he gets annoyed because Quinn is asking him such ridiculous questions. But that unfortunately leads to Quinn looking like he has caught Dawkins out with his cleverness, and makes Dawkins come across as someone who is getting annoyed his theories are being picked at.

Dawkins, if he wants to come across better in debates like this, needs to understand better the faulty logic someone like Quinn is using if he is going to be successful in coming back against this faulty logic in public debates.

Which is why I hang around the Creationism thread a lot

Tim Robbins

Mordeth wrote:

I'd have to disagree with you about who came out stronger there, although I watched the pat kenny interview earlier and I did think ger casey (that the name?) made some very interesting points and argued very well for his position, didn't agree with much of what he said though.

The fact is theology doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to logical discourse. Dawkins should be able to destroy Quinn or Casey. I think many of the posters on this forum would. I think Dawkins get tongue tied quite quickly.
He refuses to do debating officialy where you debate under agreed rules. I would guess this is an admission on his part he is a perhaps a better writer than debater.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

The fact is theology doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to logical discourse. Dawkins should be able to destroy Quinn or Casey

oh come on..

I'm going to college in September (hopefully) to study philosophy... a bloody discipline devoted to the defense of indefensible positions. People can find excuses, arguments, rationalisations or proof anywhere they want to if they look hard enough.

Tim Robbins

Myksyk wrote:

Heard this morning that Sam Smith will have Christopher Hitchens on his programme this week discussing his book "God is not Great" with Eamon McCann and David Quinn. Didn't quite catch the details ... think it's Sunday.

Sorry getting back to the OP.
Eamon McCann is in his own words a "radical atheist". But he a committed supporter of the Palestinians, almost to the point you would think he is a supressed Muslim. Should be an interesting show, can you give time, and date details?

Dades

I'm assuming this is the show.

11.30 – 1.00 Sunday morning.

Orizio

David Quinn and Eamonn McCann?Embarassing to say the least.

Tim Robbins

Mordeth wrote:

oh come on..

I'm going to college in September (hopefully) to study philosophy... a bloody discipline devoted to the defense of indefensible positions. People can find excuses, arguments, rationalisations or proof anywhere they want to if they look hard enough.

I think it's the other way around, philosophy questions what appears to the lay person a reasonable good argument and shows that it's not.

Following this, I would say Richard Dawkins would be better off in debates letting his opponent try to argue his theological hypotheisis and then pick at it. Instead he argues atheism and then allows his opponent to pick at it.

There are other problems with his debating techniques, I really don't think he understands the human condition and why humans tend to like saftey crutch of religion.

I also don't think he understands the philosophical concept of consequentialism.
He tends to think Religion is bad, primarily because it's irrational. However, many things are irrational. Adopting a consequentialist's hat: something isn't bad because it's irrational, something is bad usually because of a bad consequence.

It is irrational for me to support Leinster rugby team but what's the consequence of it, it's a bit of fun and excitement.

It is irrational for someone to accept a theological hypotheisis but so what it might help deal with a depressing humdrum life.

It it irrational for someone to accept a theoglogial hyoptheisis, and become biggoted to those who accept a different one. This can produce consequences of hate, violence etc.

So a better argument would be: Religion is a bad thing if its taught in way that the believer does not fully respect those who don't accept the same hypotheisis as the believer.

aidan24326

Tim Robbins wrote:

So a better argument would be: Religion is a bad thing if its taught in way that the believer does not fully respect those who don't accept the same hypotheisis as the believer.

Well that's a fair point. But I find it odd that you think David Quinn 'beat' Dawkins in the radio debate. All he did from what I could hear was make the same tired old argument of 'there is a universe therefore god made it'. In my opinion it's difficult to have an intelligent debate/discussion with someone who so obviously fails to see the flaw in that 'logic'. Quinn can be a good speaker on other issues and isn't quite in the same pseudo-intellectual category as Waters but when it comes to religion he is blinkered by his own steadfast adherence to his christian faith, and like many believers he won't allow something as awkward and annoying as the truth to get in his way.

Tim Robbins

aidan24326 wrote:

Well that's a fair point. But I find it odd that you think David Quinn 'beat' Dawkins in the radio debate. All he did from what I could hear was make the same tired old argument of 'there is a universe therefore god made it'. In my opinion it's difficult to have an intelligent debate/discussion with someone who so obviously fails to see the flaw in that 'logic'. Quinn can be a good speaker on other issues and isn't quite in the same pseudo-intellectual category as Waters but when it comes to religion he is blinkered by his own steadfast adherence to his christian faith, and like many believers he won't allow something as awkward and annoying as the truth to get in his way.

Well my background my explain some of my "unusual" reasoning.
I did a lot of debating in School and I remember when you were given a motion you didn't agree with, which you had to argue. It turnt out to be a pain in the h8le. But you see the art of debating and some of the techniques in arguing.

The way I would look at Christian / Atheist debate is that Christianity or Theism is way way way way harder to argue (because it contains no logical argument) and if in a competition I would hate to have to argue it.

Quinn did very well, Dawkins should have hammered him. Dito Casey. To not get hammered in a debate with an acclaimed academic (Dawkins) in a debate about something where you have to argue the harder side is an achievement.
Their techniques were clever and something I would point out to anybody who wanted to learn the art of debating.
For example, they went in the debates letting Dawkins argue atheism first and then went on to pick holes in his arguments.

More specifically, they read his book, let him speak about it and then picked holes in it as you can pick holes in any argument. This was quite clever. They controlled the conversation this way. Dawkins should of let them argue their theology first and then pick holes in it.

Quinn also knew that Dawkins doesn't like talking about "free will" so he made him talk about it. Not that Quinn had a better explaination but he made Dawkins look like he didn't know something he should.

Again good debating tactics.

Both Quinn and Casey controlled the discussion much more than Dawkins did.
Clever stuff. Neither had to rely on quoting scripture like some of our friends in C forum have to rely on when debating with us. Because they know quoting scripture can be easily rebutted.

Basically if I had to argue against Dawkins I would be happy enough with either Casey or Quinn's performance.

Remember, if Dawkins was a good debater these debates we are discussing, would be convincing those who aren't committed theists to arrive as atheism. He has persuaded very few people. He is generally preaching to the converted and to people who just think people like Quinn or Casey are *ssholes and are unprepared to give them any credit at all.

I sometimes thinks it's more a business enterprise than an intellectual one.

Tim Robbins

Just had a listen to the discussion, all the usual stuff nothing great.
Quinn went for the usual strategy, avoiding reference scripture and just came out with his usual
* Many respected Scientists belief in God
* The uncaused cause argument
* Nitpicked a few of Hitchens arguments.

Hitchens appears to be piggy backing Dawkins, who just piggy backed other atheist intellectuals. Nothing really new. A good question to put to Hitchens, would have been what is the difference between your arguments and those of other atheists e.g. Dawkins - do you offer anything new to the debate?
Sam Smyth could have put this to him.

aidan24326

Tim Robbins wrote:

I sometimes thinks it's more a business enterprise than an intellectual one.

That would always be a concern, what motivation lies behind the whole enterprise. In fairness to Dawkins though I don't think he's just in it for the money. He wouldn't be short of a few quid already and doesn't need the money at this stage. What he's achieved is itself open to debate but at least he has helped to put the issue in the public mindset and get people thinking. Those of a srong faith won't be swayed by anybody, we all know that, but it's still no harm to expose the flaws in what they believe, lest they profess to have all the answers while actually having none at all.

radiospan

Anyone got an mp3?

It might show up on this podcast during the week I suppose: http://audio.todayfm.com/sundaysupplement.xml

mike65

Hitchens was on Newstalk this morning, at the start presenter Karen Coleman
actualy warned those of a religious persuasion that the interview might offend! I would have texted her but I could remmeber the number and was pretty busy.

Mike.

Tim Robbins

aidan24326 wrote:

That would always be a concern, what motivation lies behind the whole enterprise. In fairness to Dawkins though I don't think he's just in it for the money. He wouldn't be short of a few quid already and doesn't need the money at this stage. What he's achieved is itself open to debate but at least he has helped to put the issue in the public mindset and get people thinking. Those of a srong faith won't be swayed by anybody, we all know that, but it's still no harm to expose the flaws in what they believe, lest they profess to have all the answers while actually having none at all.

Fair enough, but I think there should be more emphasis on respecting alternative viewpoints. I find Dawkins totalitarian.
I bought Hitchens book today, just read the first two chapters, nothing special so far.

Dades

mike65 wrote:

Hitchens was on Newstalk this morning, at the start presenter Karen Coleman
actualy warned those of a religious persuasion that the interview might offend! I would have texted her but I could remmeber the number and was pretty busy.

That is fascinating on so many levels.

Maybe next time they'll provide buckets of sand for people to bury their heads in.
I think I would have tried to text too.

Myksyk

I was at the John Waters v Chris Hitchens debate in the Gate Theatre yesterday afternoon. I was quite impressed with Hitchens who was articulate and erudite ... albeit pretty strident ... and it would be fair to say he wiped the floor with Waters. I think he's best described as Dawkins with a (wicked) sense of humour. When asked by the interlocutor Brenda Power if he had ever prayed his reply was "once ... for an erection"! He stepped out of line once or twice with the audience questions ... there were a few people there with obvious agendas not related to the debate and Hitchens actually told one of them to F*** off. Overall, I thougth he was convincing, humorous and a strong debater. Well worth the effort to attend ... just to see John Waters roundly spanked!

Tim Robbins

Myksyk wrote:

I was at the John Waters v Chris Hitchens debate in the Gate Theatre yesterday afternoon. I was quite impressed with Hitchens who was articulate and erudite ... albeit pretty strident ... and it would be fair to say he wiped the floor with Waters. I think he's best described as Dawkins with a (wicked) sense of humour. When asked by the interlocutor Brenda Power if he had ever prayed his reply was "once ... for an erection"! He stepped out of line once or twice with the audience questions ... there were a few people there with obvious agendas not related to the debate and Hitchens actually told one of them to F*** off. Overall, I thougth he was convincing, humorous and a strong debater. Well worth the effort to attend ... just to see John Waters roundly spanked!

I find it embarassing as an atheist that an atheist can't argue his point of view just by using logic and intellectual arguments and as to resort to what you described.

Was there many people there?
Sounds like he was preaching to the converted and not many people who went would change their opinion. What type of intellectualism is that?
Just finished Chapter 4 of his book last night, so far I would rename it to
"This book is not great".

Múinteoir

Tim Robbins wrote:

Just finished Chapter 4 of his book last night, so far I would rename it to
"This book is not great".

Myksyk

Tim Robbins wrote:

I find it embarassing as an atheist that an atheist can't argue his point of view just by using logic and intellectual arguments and as to resort to what you described.

Was there many people there?
Sounds like he was preaching to the converted and not many people who went would change their opinion. What type of intellectualism is that?

I think your point is fair Tim ... as I said it was out of line. However, his intellectual arguments were strong and well articulated. He should have stuck to them.

Regarding the audience, it was hard to read but based on the 'clapometer' response, probably half and half.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

I find it embarassing as an atheist that an atheist can't argue his point of view just by using logic and intellectual arguments and as to resort to what you described.

What, atheists can't have a sense of humour?