14 responses so far »

• Michelle B : Jun 19, 2008 at 3:16 am

  I saw this months ago when it was originally posted at the Dawkins site. It was delightful to see it again.

  Actually, there is a high chance that the four men are speaking in Hitch’s home, so he certainly is not the odd one out in that regard! Seriously, they are all the odd ones out, that is what is so marvelous about them all–they have individualism pouring out of each and every pore. Hitch’s emphasis on the morally/intellectually curdling effects that religion have on culture and customs is very important, and I welcome any opportunities in which Hitch can drum that point over again and again and again.

• Jeff Milner : Jun 19, 2008 at 1:53 pm

  My complaint about Hitchens is not so much that he is the odd one out, but that he tends to monopolize the conversation. The reason it feels as though the other three of them are just debating with Hitchens is not so much that they are fundamentally different (though that may be the case) but it’s Hitchens constant insistence on hearing his own voice. After sharing his opinion, instead of letting the others respond, he cripples the conversation by constantly restating his own.

• Tom Foremski : Jun 21, 2008 at 2:08 am

  This is smashing TV.

  Yes, take away religion’s tax status and ban evangelism. Let the church compete in the marketplace of ideas.

• Tim Hayes : Jun 21, 2008 at 1:31 pm

  As much as I tend to agree with the neo-atheists philosophically, I worry a bit about the quasi-evangelical fervor of many of their “followers.” Old tendencies die hard (if at all), and I think many of those who’ve abandoned monotheistic religions for atheism are still inclined to treat their intellectual heroes like cult figures. I suppose this could be the inevitable first stage of any transformation of values, but the herd instinct in action always sends a shiver down my spine.

• Paul Schuh : Jun 24, 2008 at 8:16 pm

  What an unbelievably pompous group of pseudo-intellectuals. They live to hear themselves talk about subjects to which they have slavishly wasted their lives. How very sad.

• martin : Jun 25, 2008 at 6:28 pm

  They should get out a bit more.

• ross : Jun 28, 2008 at 8:14 pm

  An enjoyable and literate conversation. Even more interesting, is the choice of drinks! Hitchens is a beer and cigarettes guy, Dennet is a martini man, Harris I think is drinking scotch, but sadly on the rocks. I respect him as much as Dawkins, but the rocks in the scotch take him down a notch in my estimation. But what is Dawkings drinking? Is that a margarita in a scotch glass? It looks like something green. A challenging question for the ages.

• ross : Jun 28, 2008 at 8:22 pm

  Oops - I stand corrected. It appears that HItchens has a scotch and I dare say neat. Clearly his atheismhas given him a strong sense of propriety, though I can’t abide the whole cigarette thing. That’s an anachronism.

• taelor : Jul 3, 2008 at 8:53 pm

  Dennett seems use of cheesy analogies makes me cringe. He’s nowhere near as sophisticated as the others.

• Dan Westlake : Aug 7, 2008 at 5:20 pm

  I’m very surprised that Smashing Telly views “.Hitchens… (as) possibly out of his depth”. To my mind Hitchens and Harris come across here very well and Dennett and Dawkins as exceptionally stupid. They, Dennett and Dawkin, are of course both highly intellegent men but as the BNP voting mensa member illustrates intelligence and stupidity aren’t mutually exclusive. Anyway, for two highly articulate and intelligent speakers debating Religious Belief in the Modern World don’t watch that watch this:

• Dan Westlake : Aug 7, 2008 at 5:21 pm

  http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=Christopher%20Hitchens%20vs.%20Alister%20McGrath&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#

• Dan Westlake : Aug 7, 2008 at 5:26 pm

  oops, I think this is the correct link:

  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6851159367044940771&ei=KnabSK6uHoeAjgLblo3RDw&q=Christopher+Hitchens+vs.+Alister+McGrath&hl=en

  (sorry for taking up three posts)

• Bushrod Lake : Aug 11, 2008 at 11:21 am

  This erudite apologia for the strong stand taken against the verifiable excesses of Religions is overdue, and welcome.
  But the unstated implication throughout is Atheists are more “scientific” than non-Atheists. Nonsense! They both rely of Faith but with a different epistemology. Science deals with pragmatic questions that appeal to Evidence. Religion deals with existential questions that appeal to Compassion, and not subject to quantifiable measurements.
  Now the Atheists have Historical examples: the Soviet Union, the Peoples Republic of China, and the Enlightenment inspired United States of America to the degree it was created by Atheistic principles. I’d say the last last two are presently in quite as dangerous territory as Soviets were before they collapsed.
  Evolution rewards those that last, and it seems to include some mature religious faculties.
  (I could state this more strongly than “seems” using the historical evidence)
  I thank the four individuals for their independence of thought.

• admin : Aug 30, 2008 at 10:04 pm

  @ Bushrod. I like your argument except for the following:

  Science is different from faith exactly because it is based upon evidence. Many scientific hypotheses have been shattered by lack of or opposing evidence.

  The ‘atheist’ demons of the 20th century, from Stalin to Pol Pot all had one thing in common - blind faith in their own ideology, despite the evidence of its failings. Just as the Byzantine Christians rejected Roman Gods to replace them with their belief system, Stalin replaced supernatural beliefs with his own.

  The scientific model is genuinely different and has no fixed belief that wouldn’t be dropped tomorrow, if the evidence changed.

  Religion is a subset of ideology - supernatural ideology and therefore Stalin and Pol Pot belong in the same camp as Christians and Zoroastrians.

Leave a Comment