Christopher Hitchens on Charlie Rose 04-May-07 (Part 3)

[Redshift313]

It makes NO practical difference whether or not God exists !!! It does, however, make a practical difference to what degree we have Scientific understanding of nature... It's the ONLY thing that makes our lives BETTER then that of our ancestors.

[owlcu]

Illusion is a necessary and "ineradicable" (1:36) part of a sane human experience. No one is more logical than the lunatic. This is why the genius Freud, who like Hitchens thought he could figure everything out, chomped on a cigar until cancer ate away his jaw. And why Hitchens clutches his bottle for dear life after each interview. It's too late for Freud, but Hitch might want to read Ernest Becker's "The Denial of Death" (Pulitzer, 1974), and spare himself a bit of exasperation.

[RamsesReturns]

Religion fading fast? Hmm it doesn't appear that way. It appears only those who oppose God are louder, but those who believe in God are gaining momentum. Look at the world around you, it appears those 2000 year old men are spot on with their prophesies. I love listening to intelligent men with no foundation beneath their feet who are always PREOCCUPIED with arrogant attempts to sweep God under some carpet. I find it amusing. If they really were sure, they wouldn't give God the time of day.

[hznfrst]

@RamsesReturns If the god-botherers would keep it to themselves we would most happily ignore them, but they *don't* keep it to themselves! They are constantly interfering with the advance of civilization by trying to force their idiotic and dangerous superstitions on the rest of us, forcing us to waste time fighting against these attempts to turn back the clock. And when they're not fighting rationalism they fight each other!

[RamsesReturns]

@hznfrst Turn back the clock? It appears the secular world aims to turn the world back beyond Christ... Sodoma and Gommora was destroyed some 5,000 years ago. Superstition can't accurately predict 2000 years in advance, nor can it manifest before you. I am no fan of religion and neither was Christ, people always find a reason to fight, you don't need religion for that.

[hznfrst]

@RamsesReturns You make no sense at all.



[RamsesReturns]

@hznfrst Take your time...

[hznfrst]

@RamsesReturns I have much better things to do.



[alandonald]

Thank god for Hitchens :)

[areyouquitemad]

Charlie Rose should just stop inviting people on his show and just talk non stop for the whole time (just like he does when he has guests!)

[austinrose99]

@areyouquitemad ...you are so right! It's even worse on cable TV - the hosts have these brilliant guests and just talk right over them...so painful to watch. They just want to hear themselves talk...why bother.

[Lion117]

his right about music - poetry - fiction -prose bit.

exactly my intuition too...

[FiddleSteaks]

... and the host is so weird...

[FiddleSteaks]

"I;m NOT USING 'WE' AS IN THE ROYAL SENSE"

that cracked me up big time. I love his ego.

[infokemp]

Thomas Jefferson was the truest and greatest American of them all!

[adamdaye]

Christopher Hitchens is a true inspiration,

"Life's to Short to Believe In Another one" Adam Daye 01/01/09 09:005AM

[RamsesReturns]

@adamdaye "Life's to Short to Believe In Another one." Adam Daye

Maybe that's why people search beyond. Life's just long enough to work out an eternal home for your soul.

[lancemannly]

@RamsesReturns

seems like a waste of time, you could spend your life actually doing something of interest.

[RamsesReturns]

@lancemannly I am never without something interesting before me. In fact, I often wish I were less creative.

[aserfozo]

Why can't more interviewers be more like Charlie Rose? Instead we get stuck with a bunch of people looking for nothing more than soundbites rather than actually trying to delve into what such prolific people are actually thinking. It does the American public a great disservice.  Thank you PBS. Intelligent conversation for intelligent people.

[Myndir]

Absolutely. It's discussion in the same manner you'd tend to find in a dinner party of academics.

[malchichikov]

4:41, Charlie's flipping him off! ;-)

[minnbassman]

Hitchins, the athiest, is always interesting. I am an Agnostic, no atheist, but Hitchins is more convincing than Dawkins.  Dawkins can come across foolish at times, even infantile. Hitchins has a more persuasive argument. Yet, since I'm Agnostic, none of them work...

[ultraviolet99]

Since you're an agnostic, your argument doesn't work.

[minnbassman]

I must be slower than I thought, because i didn't get that post.  Why does being an Agnostic make arguments not work?

[brettski34]

obviously, being agnostic doesn't make your arguments worthless, but when you make cynical posts, don't be surprised when you get cynical replies.

[frattydan]

I know nothing about the specifics of your views on god, but I would not be surprised if practically speaking they differed very little from those of any atheist. Dawkins in The God Delusion takes some time to flush this out, of course emphasizing Bertrand Russel's classic take on this.

[tristramshandy3]

allow me to educate you: agnostics DO NOT KNOW if there is a god or not (all humans are agnostic, some of us have the courage to admit it), atheists claim that there is no god.

do you understand the difference? one is rational, the other is emotional and irrational.

your welcome

[frattydan]

Although some choose to make that distinction, many atheists believe it to be a rather useless one. Bertrand Russel famously illustrated this in his example of a giant teapot circling our galaxy. I suggest you go read it yourself, but the jist of the argument is that in a very strict sense we are all 'agnostic' about that teapot, but we all conduct our lives as if we are a-teapotists. The point is, the distinction is rather meaningless.

[tristramshandy3]

how is the distinction meaningless? one group denies the existence of god, the other group says they don't know. that is a HUGE difference, and your inability to differentiate reflects poorly on our culture of demonizing ALL non-believers and lumping them all into one hell bound basket.

I am agnostic. I reject atheism as wholeheartedly as I reject theism.

WE are ALL agnostic, but only some of us have the courage to admit it.

Take it easy bro.

read shakespeare :)

[frattydan]

I believe there is no god, but I freely admit that a god may exist. If you want to call me an agnostic rather than an atheist, feel free to do so. This is a purely semantic point, but if I'm necessarily an agnostic because I acknowledge the logical possibility of god, then who the hell qualifies as an atheist? (hint: no one).

Your refusal to acknowledge this legitimate point makes me wonder if you're simply an idiot or willfully ignorant. "Read shakespeare" comments make me suspect the former.

[frattydan]

It seems like you're operating under the assumption that beliefs fall under either yes, no, or I don't know. But this isn't how beliefs works. When evaluating a proposition based on evidence, our belief in that proposition should mirror how good the relevant evidence is.

So my question to you is, what about people who are 65%, 75%, or 85% sure that there is no god. Are they agnostic because technically, they don't know? If your answer is yes, then good luck finding any 'true' atheists.

[BW022]

It isn't a huge distinction. At some point something is so unlikely that it isn't worth time considering.

Would you consider yourself an agnostic about invisible pink unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster? Or would you just say that they are so unlikely as to be assumed not to exist?

Of course any honest atheist knows that there could be a god. They are just honest in that there is no more evidence for one than a flying speghetti monster - and assume neither exist until given proof.

[tristramshandy3]

any honest atheist knows there could be a god. perhaps that's true, but if it's true, then so is the converse, and any religious zealot, no matter how devout, knows there might not be a god.

we are all agnostic. the honest, brave humans admit it.

good day sir :)

[BW022]

No, the converse it not true. How an honest person thinks in no way equates to what a zealot might belief.

Atheism is merely accepting that something without any evidence should be treated as false. We do that with the FSM, IPU, Thor, etc. If you want to say that you are agnostic about God, then by all means explain why you think that God might exist anymore than the FSM?

How sure are you about God? 50%, 25%, 5%, 1%, 0.1%, etc. How little evidence do you need to not believe in something?

[tristramshandy3]

I am 99.9% sure that god, at least as described in the christian-judeo tradition, does not exist. So, the only thing keeping me from calling myself an atheist is my refusal to admit something I cannot prove.

The argument against the god of the bible is rather strong. A jealous, insecure, hate-filled murderous yet merciful, all-knowing, all-powerful being?

that is less believable than pinky and the brain running things.

seriously.

anyways, gotta run, suppas done and the kids won't eat no muffins

[D33veeoss]

I'd like to trash this pink unicorn argument to it's core.

Look, the question is, "where did we come from?" Now, there is zero evidence for any claims at all. I'm factual to the core so far right? OK, now you have person A speculating that the cause was "a god of some sort with whatever attributes" And you have person B speculating that it was, "something other than a "god""

Person B must PROVE HIS CLAIM or else we call it "faith", "belief", "religion".

Atheism, is religion. Absolutely.

[BW022]

Wrong. Person B only has to say "I don't know" or "There is not enough evidence to know".

However, if person A wants to say God (without evidence) then person B can say IPU. A then says "It's not the IPU" and B then asks "Why isn't IPU as likely as God?"

IPU just points out that anything that can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And shows how religious folks will naturally apply that premise to everything except their own religions.

[untamedromeo]

Dawkins is the author of "The Selfish Gene" and that is a seminal work. He is too nice and logical and not aggressive when he should be. Still a genius though.

[wonderfulkeithfloyd]

Thanks so much for uploading this - brilliant.

[MikeD273]

what was the book/who was the author, he was referring to near the 5 minute mark?

[aronrosenthal]

MikeD273, He's talking about Baruch Spinoza

[MikeD273]

thank you:)

[GjVj]

Thanks for posting!

[kat1989]

good interview thanks

[brautigan81]

very cool interview, thank you very much

[JKalaster]

He often does talk about Bush, and I think there's another video of him on Charlie Rose that he speaks more about.

[DraculaVision]

Hitchens explains more persuasively here than in any other video I've found why he supports the war. But what still doesn't ring true, is why he remains silent over the role religion has played in the Whitehouse under the current administration. I barely hear him acknowledging Bush's religiosity, let alone criticising it. Why does he seem so untroubled by a president who has done so much to promote religion at the expense of reason?

[TheBannedAtheist]

The terms Bush and neocon are chronological irrelevancies; this debate would be a valid talking point 10 years ago, 50 years ago or 100 years ago.

[SCODgreenhood]

"Wish thinking"! The neocon view is almost as fanatical as the religion views he opposes, yet he is not willing to fight on the front lines & commit his life, just the lives of others. Black & White politics is very 1948-84. For all his intelligence Hitchens is a hypocritically naive contrarian. He does however give the best support for the Bush Regime while opposing the authority of Religion. Very interesting *****

[TheBannedAtheist]

There is more to the debate than "the Bush regime" and "neocons". You are speaking from emotion here, and I'm sure you're not as idiotic as you make yourself seem. The debate is about whether the people of Iraq have the right to live with dignity and happiness and whether the existence of radical Islam is compatible with the existence of secular civilization. The answers: yes and no respectively.

[TomPiltoff]

Wow, where do I begin to explain the stupidity of what you said?

For one, the military is a VOLUNTEER SERVICE. Nobody is sent to war against their will.

Second of all, although your point would be just as invalid if he were a healthy 21, Hitchens is nearly 60.

[johnclavis]

Well, be fair, the people who joined were used to 10 years of not being sent somewhere without a hell of a lot of debate and assurance. President Cheney and VP Bush pushed for war with Iraq and lied us into war. The soldiers who joined the army to get some college money or insurance for their kids didn't count on trigger happy war profiteers sacricing their asses. That part WASN'T voluntary, you dig?

[Atheos1]

go to the 4:40 mark, charlie rose just picked his nose, ate it, and flipped hitchens off at the same time, genius

[hunterthompsonfear]

A great discussion. Thanks for uploading this.

[Wheezee5]

Why has it survived? Humans are looking for a reason to be - a purpose - answers to the unknowable and they are willing to believe in anything that will fulfill that need, whether it is Thor or a biblical God or the Easter bunny.

[12Zwolf]

Thank You for posting.

There isn't a Santa Clause, there isn't a Jesus, there isn't a Muhammad, there isn't a Buddah, there isn't a Vishnu; the true freedom is to be anti-theist.

Thank You, Christopher Hitchens, for the reminder that the defeat of theism is the victory of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Valkyrie Ziege Mourne

[littlebilly19]

well said

[12Zwolf]

Thank You, as the written word, is the writer's voice.

Valkyrie Ziege Mourne

[nickvanzetti]

i'm not a muslim but i would like to quote the Koran; i do not worship what you worship,i will never worship what you worship,to you your way,to me my way. peace!!

[geyser]

Thanks for this...

[Hicksville]

"Great botanist" ..with a smile on his mouth. Ha! Jefferson the pot smoker. :P

[mjn76]

We don't "suck on wafers", you tactless jerk.

This is why it's so hard to take atheists seriously: they misrepresent and mock people's faith and simultaneously expect those people to listen and respect their lack of faith. My criticisms of Hitchens on this point could go on, but the pompous ass thinks his five senses are the limits to human experience, which he hasn't proven and cannot prove.

[BeyondDGrave]

Prove that you deserve the respect in the first place for taking part in such silly animalistic rituals. Then, maybe people will take you seriously.

[NorthernStorm8]

Ha! And you can't prove any of your superstitious mumbo jumbo. The burden of evidence is on the people who believe in Gods and fairies, not on the rational.

[grayabc1234]

'Sucking on wafers' was a figure of speech, can't you see this? You need to realise that just because he can't prove what you say, this in NO way proves that there's a god, and religious people/ groups make no effort to do so, which is the most pompous thing of all.

[Tesselator]

Gawd! I wish I could see things in the same way Hitchens sees them. It would make all this moral delima so easy! But the FACT that the CIA is essentially under control of the NWO International Bankers which is all tied up in Naziism, the promotion of the very WORST kind of communism, and world domination under a 1 world government. Therefore I just can't see it. Even if it's true and he's right.

[BSTres]

I'm fairly new to the world of Christopher Hitchen and find his arguments, reasoning and register compellingly provocative and yet, at the same time, incredibly plausible.

I think that his (along with others in his peer group) growing prominence within the intellectual arena is poignant, as the time is now undoubtedly right for a serious evaluation of those opinions he validates so well.

[BBMix]

I utterly agree.

[tynitty516]

hitchens has good points just because he leans more right doesn't make him wrong on facts..... i dont agree with his conclusions from those facts but at least its based on something unlike the NEO-cons with 0 facts

[Hez1337]

What!? Hitchens said Einstein believed in a God, thats total rubbish. I cant believe that he didn't mention that Einstein referred to God as nature or the universe. weird, i cant imagine Hitchens being uneducated on Einstein, but i would think he is here, if not, he was at least misleading.

[JoshSitar]

He's not uneducated on Einstein. Come on.

[Hez1337]

Guess your right, these quotes probably refer to theism:

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems naive."

I wonder what he means by deist, what kind of entity did he believe in. I REALLY dought he meant some all powerful Jehovah guy

[inlogicwetrust]

No, Hitchens commented on Einstein quite rightly. Einstein can be quoted numerous times saying he believed in Spinoza's God. The easiest resource to access on this is the website: einsteinandreligion dot com

[Hez1337]

But why are Richard Dawkins and Hithens kinda contradicting themselves? or are they? Im refering to what dawkins says in the god delusion regarding einstein.

[Hez1337]

Also, just because he refers to God as the universe, in a metaphorical sense, why should he be labelled a deist?

[inlogicwetrust]

I have not read 'The God Delusion' so I do not know precisely what Dawkins says, however, I will assume Dawkins labelled Einstein an atheist, and if by 'atheism' one means the denial of the existence of a personal God, then Einstein certainly was an atheist. I am not sure who it was that labelled him a deist, but he could certainly be called one, more accurately however, Einstein was a pantheist. Thank you.

[Hez1337]

yes Dawkins refers to Einstein as a pantheist, therefore wouldn't be inaccurate to call him a deist? Referring to nature as "God" metaphorically does not mean that he thought something created the universe, or am i wrong

[inlogicwetrust]

Deism is the doctrine that belief in God can commend itself to the human mind by its own inherent reasonableness without being supported by appeals to alleged devine revelations or imposed by religious institutions. Many popular forms of deism argue that God created the universe and left it to its own device, however, this concept is not necessary for deism. So Einstein was both a deist and a pantheist. Thank you.

[Hez1337]

No, thank you.

[thobern]

He categorically denied a belief in a personal God. Einstein, like Hawkings, simply used God as a metaphor.

[SmokescreenNinjaz]

True.

[Hez1337]

well this was exactly what i thought, is what inlogicwetrust said wrong?

[thobern]

I don't know if Einstein was a Deist, but "inlogicwetrust" is being incredibly poncy (pseudo-intellectual). Deism is simply the belief that God can be found through reason and observations of the natural world, not in Holy books and scriptures. Pantheism, I believe, talks of an all encompassing, metaphorical God.

[Hez1337]

Thats sounds about right, which brings me back to my original question :S

why does Hitchens call him a deist in this video, While Dawkins only mentions pantheism in his book? I can definitely see how Einstein being a pantheist is justified (ive read the god delusion) but i don't see how he can be called a deist.

:S

[thobern]

Perhaps the two terms are often confused. The problem with Einstein is that so many people take his quotes, out of context, to justify their own viewpoints; it becomes impossible to form a clear picture of what he actually believed. The only Dawkins that I've read, is the Ancestors Tale; so I couldn't comment on the God Delusion.

[SmokescreenNinjaz]

inlogic, read the god delusion. it'll be worth your precious time.

[sacs1800]

TheChileman

If you are going to attack Hitchens for his ideas ("ignorant," "unoriginal"), have at it.

But don't be so abrupt (and dare say, unoriginal) as to make your assertions without any evidence.

[TheChileman]

Not one original thought in Hitchens head. Riding on the coattails of Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris in his latest book. His overview of the Iraq war and the Middle East are stunning examples of equal parts ignorance and arrogance. He truly is a US citizen.

[chachieb]

I disagree with you on this originality, as for the "coattails of Dawkins" he has maintained this point of view BEFORE Dawkins stole his ideas from Douglas Adams. And I might add Hitchens is not too cowardly to stand up to the radical Islamists ,, Dawkins clearly DOES. You are just upset about his opinion of Iraq, this is made very clear.

[clarkanorak]

btw, Douglas Adams became an atheist after reading Dawkins....Respect where it is due.

[chachieb]

I did not know that, all this time I thought Dawkins was influenced by Douglas Adams.

[clarkanorak]

Dawkins calls Adams his first and maybe only convert.

[Hez1337]

So what if Dawkins etc use old arguments, its not like creationists have made new arguments for the existence of god, they still spew the same bullshit over and over.

[lollygager3664]

I'm a U.S. citizen. One of hundreds of millions. Many of us are intellient, loving, worldy people.

[Smaug84]

LMAO, most of the worldly US citizens tend to have either been in the military or have been the child/spouse of someone that's in the military.