Hitchens, Dawkins & Grayling

http://socraticmama.com/ [Inspiration & Support for Secular Families]

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/wed-be-better-off-without-religion
27th March 2007, debate: "We would be better off without religion"

PROPOSING THE MOTION: Christopher Hitchens, Professor Richard Dawkins & A.C. Grayling.

Christopher Hitchens begins by making the case for religion being at the root of many conflicts that have shaped the 20th-21st century world, citing the current situations in the Balkans, the Middle East, and Northern Ireland. Here, it has been intra-faith disputes that have caused or aggravated the conflicts and slowed political and social progress.

Richard Dawkins focuses his support for the motion on the blind faith that leads even intelligent people to deny key scientific principles, citing many American students' opposition to the theory of evolution as an example.

Anthony Grayling illustrates how the Bible's view of what constitutes a good person is at odds with the modern Western view of what constitutes a good person, arguing that it is possible to appreciate the natural world and feel such emotions as empathy, sympathy, and love without holding religious views.

OPPOSING THE MOTION: Dr Nigel Spivey, Roger Scruton & Rabbi Julia Neuberger.

Dr Nigel Spivey opens the opposition by offering an archaeological and anthropological perspective. Pointing to the "Creative Explosion" of 40,000 years ago, he suggests that religion is a concept that is part of the human nature, and that a world without religion would be one without such fruits of human creativity as Venice, the Taj Mahal and King's College Chapel, Cambridge.

Rabbi Julia Neuberger argues that, whilst atheism preaches certainty and disrespect of other religions, religion preaches uncertainty and tolerance. She suggests that it is certainty and conviction -- not religion -- that produced the Crusades, fascism, and Jewish, Christian, and Islamic fundamentalism.

Roger Scruton argues that rejecting religion on some of its irrational principles does not make sense, and that science is just as capable of producing disasters as religion. Religion, he says, offers help to people who are affected by man-made or natural disasters, and provides "why" answers -- the reason why things happen and what life is for -- whilst science can only provides causal explanations.

First Vote: 826 For, 681 Against, 364 Don't Know
Final Vote: 1205 For, 778 Against, 103 Don't Know

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Hitchens
• Dawkins
• Grayling
• religion
• Balkans
• Ireland
• science
• evolution
• Bible
• Nigel Spivey
• Roger Scruton
• Rabbi
• Julia Neuberger
• archaeologo
• anthropologo
• Crusades
• fascism
• Jew
• Christian
• Islam
• fundamentalism
• Judaism
• Darwin
• Debate
• Creationism
• Charles Darwin

[TomVodkaCollins]

@nightjarflying Thanks for the upload. I've been trying to find it in full length.

[nightjarflying]

@TomVodkaCollins No problem

[andresdohko]

oh man this makes me miss Hitchens even more!

[TomVodkaCollins]

British Betty White doesn't understand how cause and effect works. Scientists/doctors treated women and homosexuals badly historically because they were reared in a culture almost completely informed by a religion that tells them women are chattel and homosexuals are evil, therefore sick and in need of a cure.

Spivey is a posh asshat. Zeus was gay? Then who are Aega, Demeter, Thalassa, Eos, Hera, Callisto, Danaë, Harmonia, Europa, and Io, name a few? Every tale of Zeus has him seducing females.

[dopeasfuckk]

1:14:10 hitchens kills it, then dawkins gives the 'fuck yeah' nod.

[cbawt]

i have to admit i don't have great knowledge of the "works" except Dawkins who's books i do love and recommend. But don't get "zealuos" my friends - on either side of debate...

i'm very much an atheist, but consider if aristotle, plato or socrates himself joined in this debate their contributions might well look most like the ones of Spevy. watch out that you don't forget this "debate" seems to promise something it cannot deliver, check motives, check motives ladies and gentlemen! :)

[qbvet]

Haha, I absolutely love how Mr. Dawkins opens his speech.

[MarkandJeremy]

When Hitchens gets furious - 'How dare you!'

[guwest2]

@blaatdaap he did a pretty good job of making an ass of himself prior to the closing statement too.

[blaatdaap]

Scruton made an ass out of himself with his closing statement. 'in the name of atheïsm'. What a joke.

[lamplighteyes]

Does Spivey really think that if there was no religion all the painters, architects and musicians he cited would become talentless or lose their ability to create? Is not a very large part of it that at the time Venice was built or the Sistine Chapel ceiling was painted, the church had an enormous amount of money and could pay immensely talented people to work for them? Van Gough may have painted wonderfully in religious fervor but Bob Dylan and Cat Stevens turned shite when they found God.

[BatmanOneOhOne]

Dawkins' opening statement was weak. Hitchens was golden, though. As usual.