[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2946111449177217752]
(via)
-
Subscribe
3,200 subscribers. 10,000 daily views.
Recent Comments
Debbie: This world is too full of hate and that saddens me. Live and let live. Abortion is nobody’s... Thoughts from an Abortion Doctor
John C: Anti-no, “I” dont have any credibility either but the difference is that “I”m not... Leviticus Also Said…
Custador: “Matt and Mark record “My God, My God, Why hast Thou forsaken me?”; John, “It is finished”; and Luke,... Leviticus Also Said…
Daniel Florien: When you have indigestion when you’re reading it, you know it’s true! I’ll Let No Flimsy Fairy Tale Push Me
Mary Lynne: Hmm – I wonder what a “true fairy tale” would be. Is that like jumbo... I’ll Let No Flimsy Fairy Tale Push Me
Antiutopia: John C — Christ himself doesn’t have any credibility with these ignorant morons — do you... Leviticus Also Said…
Uzza: Cool story. It reminds me of Confucius, meeting the mad hermit of Chu, who told him it was... I’ll Let No Flimsy Fairy Tale Push Me
-
21 Comments
Wow, I have to say his response to the bit about Stalin, etc, was brilliant.
Thanks for posting this. I wish Hitchens would actually answer the questions in the first half — there seems to be a disconnect, and it’s not like there aren’t good answers to those questions.
I wish Hitchens had a better habit of putting the microphone closer to his mouth. His British mumblings often trail off making it hard to understand him sometimes.
My favorite quote at the end:
“Religion often has the affect of making very intelligent, very sensitive people talk in a most terrible form…”
(or something like that, as evidence of his trail offs)
The thing I don’t like about Hitchens is he always looks on the verge of drunkenness. But he’s very intelligent.
Who was the other guy? Bit of a pompous ass.
I agree there are good answers, but I almost wish Hitchens had been more evasive. After every question, I found myself thinking that Hitchens should turn the question back on the interviewer and ask for a single reason why, for example, “reason” cannot be the result of material processes.
The answer I would have given: “What reason?” On a daily basis, I am witness to a million little irrationalities in myself and others. “Reason” seems to be the exception in the course of human events. Of course, human minds have a confirmation bias and the few instances of good sense end up shining brighter in memory than the desert of nonsense in which they’re buried.
The answer to why the products of a human imagination are worth more than those of a chimp is also obvious to any but the most blinkered: take a look at who’s buying them. Hitchens probably doesn’t have a big audience among chimps, after all. Likewise, not too many chimps seem to read the Bible. The interviewer seems to think he has access to some super-human criteria to judge the quality of the work of man. Myself, I don’t think it’s so incredible to believe that man takes man seriously because man is a social animal, and because he depends on other men for his livelihood, his entertainment, and his emotional needs. The interviewer forgets that the audience for works of human imagination is other humans, usually humans from a similar cultural tradition to the originators of the works. For an opossum, a mother’s lullaby probably isn’t any more significant than the whisper of wind through the trees; for the mother’s child, the comparison is altogether different.
And this is one of the more annoying points about arguing with theists. They work from the assumption that Cartesian dualism is valid, that a mind is a mind is a mind and they never dig any deeper into what the word “mind” even means.
Heh.. I agree. I used to not like him partly because of that, and also because he always seems so pompous. But, I’ve grown to like him a lot, and now believe that his turgidity is ok because he is so intelligent.
Hitchens does superior so very well.
For anyone interested in a related topic, I recommend The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley. This is a discussion of how altruism might develop from evolution.
Hitchens is brilliant again!
Who is the buffoon interviewing him?
“I recommend The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley”
Ooo, looks good. I put it on my Amazon wish list. Thanks!
@Daniel:
If you’ve read Hitchens, you know he is often on the verge of drunkeness. It’s one way to distinguish himself from his brother.
@Daniel-
I was just wondering how it is that you decided to feature that (particular) graphic on your homepage? I think its fantastic…was just hoping to hear your thought process on the selection out of all the millions of possibilities…why that one?
Thx John
Since when was it advantageous for social animals to evolve the impulse to steal? That host is an idiot. Theft, like all other moral actions is about game theory, and in a society where you are very likely to meet someone again, the possible negative is much greater than the small reward. Theft is largely an illogical act.
Dan L. asks:
“Who was the other guy? Bit of a pompous ass.”
His name appears at 12:18 – Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institution.
More info: http://www.hoover.org/bios/robinson.html
Hitchens is brilliant, as usual.
@John C: Because I liked it, and I wanted something with a little snow for the winter season.
That was awful. Hitchens hardly answered any of the guy’s questions at all. Even when he did actually stay on topic, it was all poorly constructed. Had I watched that as a Christian, I would have shaken my head and the sleazy-looking drunk guy who mumbles a lot and can’t seem to answer any questions.
The only bit he did relatively well was when asked about Stalin & co. Even then, though, he didn’t follow his arguments through to their conclusions. He left is all vague, allowing the interviewer (and me) wondering if he meant to blame religion. It took prodding for him to actually explain what he meant, and by then he’d gone back into his mumbling stupor mode.
I’ve never been a fan of Hitchens, and this certainly isn’t going to make me change my mind.
What a genius! Hitchens speaks the truth.
“Religion often has the affect of making very intelligent, very sensitive people talk in a most terrible form…
… of piffle.”
Great quote. Great interview. I also appreciated that the interviewer actually had two brain cells to rub together and could manage to even *slightly* stand up to the intellectual dominance of Hitchens.
Hitchens is very bright, and he likes to use facts. What I don’t like is that he failed to point out the problems inherent in Robinson’s questions. I suppose he assumed that we’re all intelligent enough to see them… But some people aren’t. I appreciate that he was tackling them questions from within the parameters they set forth (no small task), but breaking that intellectual “fourth wall” would have also been valuable.
Robinson makes me a little nauseous.
I’m tired of hearing that same ridiculous argument about how materialism fails to account for organization simply because subatomic particles move randomly.
It’s greedy reductionism and fallacy of composition at its very worst.
Randomness doesn’t equate evenness. To take just one example – van der Waals forces. Is Robinson aware of how randomly this force arises, how weak it is at the atomic level, but yet how strong it is at the cellular level?
It is also wrong to assume that system level properties are simply the additive properties of components. Once a system is established, it can exhibit top-down feedback control to the component level, constraining their behaviour.
You don’t have to look at complex vertebrates like human beings to see this happening – look at the coordinated behaviour of slime molds and multicellular bacteria!
Indeed, higher level systems behaviour such as minds and “souls” are emergent from component interactions, but they not created without material components.
If they believe in the existence of the supernatural so much why not simply assemble purely supernatural systems without material parts?
How about a supernatural supercomputer that can fit in your pocket? Or supernatural machines that can replace amputated limbs and broken spines?
All this metaphysical babble is pointless word gymnastics and only serve to reveal their lack of knowledge about modern systems science.
Love it. I think this is at the heart of most religious views of atheism. Without God, people would be raving, immoral lunatics – or so they think. Our family makes a point of living a highly “moral” lifestyle – manners, kindness to others, civic service, strong character (interesting – some views of what morality represents could vary wildly) etc. all without God. Our Christian acquaintances assume we have Jesus in our hearts, but in reality we have reason, and know that without the basic tenets of “morality,” -those things that make living with other human beings possible and positive (sometimes)- we cannot function or hope to continue as a human race. It’s liberating to live morality without God. Our morality is true and genuine, because we are doing what we do for the goodwill of our fellow humans without the assumption that we’ll secure a ticket to a heavenly afterlife.
LH, you succinctly summarise the source of all religion when you say:
“All this metaphysical babble is pointless word gymnastics and only serve to reveal their lack of knowledge about modern systems science.”
Religion is the result of fear and misunderstanding, the people who assembled the various religious dogmas lived in a universe they could not possibly understand, or even contemplate. As Mr. Hitchens points out in his book, the time has now come where even the most simple amongst us have access to the sort of knowledge which allows us to see through the myths, stories and lies of religion.