Christopher Hitchens Pew Research Center Forum

Brothers Christopher and Peter Hitchens squared off in a debate over whether civilization can survive without God. Christopher, the older of the two, is a renowned atheist thinker and author. Peter, the lesser known of the two, is a practicing Christian and also a well-regarded author.

Christopher Hitchens is going through a very public battle with cancer, a subject that came up often during the debate. Michael Cromartie from the Ethics and Public Policy Center, moderated the debate and mentioned Christopher, who lives in the District of Columbia, was attending in between doctor appointments. Peter Hitchens had flown in from England specifically for the lunchtime debate.
He argued civilization could survive without God and in many cases is surviving without God.

"There used to be a word which could be used unironically," he said. "People meant what they said when they said the word Christendom. There was a Christian world. Partly evolved, partly carved out by the sword, partly defended by the sword, giving way and expanding at times. But it was a meaningful name for a community of belief and value that endured for many, many centuries. It had many splendors to its name, but it's all gone now."

Hitchens said that today, in "huge parts of what we might call the industrialized modern world, tens of millions of people live in a post-religious society. It's hard to argue that they lead conspicuously less civilized lives than their predecessor generations."

He added, "I don't think it's really true to say that we live less civilized a life than those of our predecessors, who believed there was a genuine religious authority who spoke with power."

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• christopher
• hitchens
• pew
• research
• forum
• debate
• center
• religion
• hitcharchive
• Peter
• Hitchens

[jssherrard]

Magnetic north most certainly does shift, as do our ideas of morality. The former a fact of physics and geology, the latter a fact of human evolution. Morality must change over time, and for that we should all be very glad indeed! Today slavery is properly recognized as an atrocity, yet this is a recent development. As are the ideas of equality based on race, gender and sexual orientation. Oxymoronic 'biblical morality' was outdated many lifetimes ago, perhaps before it was even written.

[jssherrard]

I find Peter's assertion that without god, without a totalitarian dictator threatening eternal punishment, he would act less morally to be absolutely disingenuous. Could he really mean these words?!? I seriously doubt it. Perhaps the religious mind simply cannot process the concept of morality as an innately human trait. How sad it is that he would belittle himself in such a way, willingly (servilely even) denigrating the core of his own integrity as a human being. Sad and contemptible.

[smurfieboo]

where can I find the full debate?

[MisterFro9]

I hate how this guy became famous for atheism, it is so unfair that we must be represented like that.

[wilkja02]

Peter Hitchens never ceases to amaze me in his simple mindedness. For such an intelligent guy he is quite stupid.

[lumpagogo]

The Humanists and the Atheists are, as are the Religionists, anthropocentric and a bunch of species-ists. We must say: "Boo!"

[mymom1234]

What apple does?

Now thats bad brother Hitchens, doesnt your religion say, you shouldnt worship sth besides god?

[CntrBrdr]

Language, like morality, also shifts. There is no set-in-stone English, say, but rather it is the agreed upon code of guttural oinks and grunts we make to convey ideas. Similarly, morality is a general-consensus agreement about the ways we should treat each other. To not see either as a 'shifting' and 'living' institution is folly.

[ballersack]

@jssherrard

What is so hard about understanding convergence versus fluctuating/oscillatory morality? A change of morality towards a single constant position (which is what I have been arguing), is completely different than a morality which one day views slavery as wrong and the next views it as okay, and then the next day as wrong etc.. as you most certainly must believe.

You keep stating that convergence implies continual change, which simply isn't the definition of convergence.

[CenkIsAdorable]

If you close your eyes and listen to Peter Hitchens, he sounds almost exactly like Christopher.

[jssherrard]

@ballersack No, what you in-fact said was: "I disagree. Morality doesn't always change over time..."

Yes, there are good reason to suspect that our morality has evolved along with humanity. Do you know what evolution is? Change over time. I don't know where you got this "fluctuated" nonsense, but it wasn't anything I said! Try reading what has actually been asserted (including by YOU) before you respond next time instead of arguing against imagined positions no one has offered. Yikes...