Rate this book

Hitchens Vs Blair. Christopher Hitchens, Tony Blair (2011)

by Christopher Hitchens(Favorite Author)

3.81 of 5 Votes: 3

ISBN

0552777900 (ISBN13: 9780552777902)

languge

English

genre

Nonfiction

publisher

Black Swan Books, Limited

review 1: “Hitchens vs. Blair: The Munk Debate on Religion” was a debate between former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a Catholic raised by vehement non-believers, and the author, journalist and atheist, Christopher Hitchens. On the whole, I was hoping for something more in-depth but the debate was in keeping with the resolution:“Be it resolved that religion is a force for good in the world.”One of the drawbacks of this debate was the narrowness of the dichotomy drawn between atheism and organized religion. Within this debate, “organized religion” referred to a belief in a monotheistic Judeo-based God, the integrity of which depends on a belief in the revelatory miracles provided to man by this one anthropomorphic God. Had a broader conception of “God” been consi... moredered, Hitchens would have had far more difficulty supporting his arguments.Hitchens begins his defense by rightly stating how organized religion makes extraordinary claims without ordinary evidence. He then goes on to describe the “leap of faith” one needs to take in the absence of evidence and how adherence often leads to wilfully blind behavior, the ignorance of which has been responsible for innumerable heresy-based persecutions of otherwise innocent people and genocides throughout the last 20 centuries. But Hitchens relies too heavily on this level of historical critique which is an insufficient approach for several reasons.In order for Hitchens’ points to be relevant, the examples provided should have come primarily from the modern era. Education levels were dreadfully low during late antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Life for every citizen was nasty, brutish and short until at least the late 19th century for most Westerners. One must also accept, as Blair illustrated, that fanaticism is not relegated to religion. The communists and fascists responsible for the harshest travesties of the 20th century sought to eradicate religion and were thereby vehemently non-religious. Hitchen’s approach also fails to consider the silent majority of those who subscribe to religion and do good or simply employ religion positively and consistently in their lives. Where religion works, we never hear of it; where it doesn’t, that is all we hear from critics like Hitchens. Blair claims that, for many, organized religion provides a positive progressive structure by which to live, the benefits of which I too have witnessed. Too often Western citizens, and particularly my generation, will claim they are secular humanists, but I question the extent to which any of them actively cultivate a meaningful ethical approach to their lives. Those claiming an adherence to atheism or secular humanism will often justify not cultivating an ethical approach to their lives or not tackling the larger philosophical and scientific questions we face based on a rejection of what they perceive is hypocrisy or a lack of evidence to support the miracle elements of organized religions. But that doesn’t mean that some type of God doesn’t exist that they should strive to understand or that they shouldn’t attempt to cultivate a structured ethical approach to their lives whether divinity based or not. Organized religion makes it far too easy for them to passive aggressively dismiss this task, succumb to laziness, and thereby fall prone to reverting to our base sensibilities which typically encompass selfishness and short-sighted thinking. Cultivating a selfless and systemic frame of thinking requires on-going work and I would argue that few atheists or “humanists” consistently commit to this task. An ongoing study of philosophy may in part fill this vacuum but I would argue hope beyond oneself is the primary fuel for that fire.Take two men, for example. One quietly subscribes to an organized religion whereas the other subscribes to a philosophical and consumer-based materialism. The religious man theoretically attends church every Sunday and listens to an ethical lecture 4 times a month, 52 times a year. Thus, each week, the religious man is encouraged to consider how his last week went and how he could improve himself next week when considering the ethical theme presented. The “secular” non-religious man never exercises this opportunity and is thereby less exposed to a continuous ethical frame by comparison. Not only may the secular man be more prone to reverting to his base sensibilities, he may also run the risk of exacerbating the existing cynicism he has developed from his already hopeless existential framework, a cynicism that clearly emerges in the writing of Hitchens. On the one hand, I think it is fair for Hitchens to point out the dangers of polarized religious thinking and the hypocrisy that often goes with it. Many Christians have little awareness of how far their lifestyles have gravitated away from the original principles of Christianity. At one time, Christianity was diametrically opposed to materialism until the time of the Renaissance when their societies began to incrementally reinterpret these principles to modernize and essentially live contrary to the original orthodoxy. Thus, if Christianity has become so splintered and fragmented that its essence no longer exists—what is the point in subscribing to it? That, in part, is Hitchens’ point and it is a good one at that. According to Hitchens, the attempt of Christians to have it both ways has led to a great deal of hypocrisy and a great deal of suffering for millions of people throughout history, but like the lives of those victims that is where Hitchens’ critique lived and died. Hitchens completely ignores the good that has and could result from religious collaboration and activity in the modern era. Blair contended that despite the rise of secularism in the West, Abrahamic religions are on the rise in both the east and south, and are rising in the aggregate relative to Western secular populations. Hitchens conceded this was true but hoped these societies would increasingly adopt secularism as opposed to religious principles to inform public policy decision-making. Blair agreed and explained that, when it comes right down to it, public policymaking “is” always based on secular considerations and has had little to do with religion including the diplomatic processes that ensue in the Middle East. According to Blair believing otherwise skews the reality and obscures the point which is to capitalize on the opportunities presented by collaboration between religions moving into the 21st century. Blair contended that the three Abrahamic religions have been consistently collaborating to secure peace and advance major philanthropic efforts throughout their storied history and have made a great deal of progress in the 20th century in this regard. Many, if not most, humanitarian efforts are carried out by faith-based organizations. Given how organized religions are on the rise, Blair believes we should seek to spend our resources achieving common ground between religions because each religion, at its core, provides people with an incentive to be better than they would otherwise be. And ultimately, this is what this debate was about. So, depending on your view as to whether there is potential for good works between religions and from religion will determine your perspective. Contrary to what Hitchens’ fans will have you believe, there was no clear winner to this debate. At the evenings start, over half were against the resolution and only a quarter were for it. This enabled Hitchens to sing to his choir but even then, relative to the proportion of their beginning percentages, Blair made a slight gain from the previously deemed “undecided”. One of the problems inherent but not addressed within this debate was the lack of distinction drawn between deism (logically supported agnosticism) and Judeo-based religions. Blair contended that many people believe in or experience the numinous; the power or presence of something divine, however defined. I would argue this is also true for many self-proclaimed atheists. When entering a broader discussion of these issues, I have found that most “atheists” have heard the term “agnostic” but are unfamiliar with the formal arguments that go along with it never mind being able to articulate these arguments to an extent that defines their own belief system. In other words, most people believe they are left with only the two options of atheism or organized religion despite being somewhere in-between. In my view, the deist arguments for the existence of God made by classical philosophers (unimpeded by the persecuting constraints of the Abrahamic religions), Spinoza and Einstein are strong and in increasing alignment with the contemporary discoveries made in theoretical physics. But atheists rarely go there because it forces them to accept their limitations (what they don’t know) and the infinite number of possibilities that may exist beyond our current capacity to understand them. Instead, they will often assert this inherently limited positivist view and lock their critique down on the hypocrisy of organized religion which is easy, albeit lazy, pickings. There are two problems with this. One is that it is another form of dogmatism. Those who believe all has or can be explained through our existing knowledge and capacities are never those who develop new ideas that advance us around the curve. Secondly, the atheist approach to the unknown is often cynical, hollow and negative, the fundamental premise of which may spill over into how they view the world and live, a pessimism that certainly spills over in the writings of Hitchens. By comparison, deists or those subscribing to faith have the type of hope these nihilists are lacking. As such, they will often take a more positive approach to the unknown and life which in terms of action turned third-party benefits is far more productive.4 out of 5 stars for this Munk Debate!
review 2: Another little book (I'm away for the weekend, and only have space for little ones) that's worth more than it weighs. The questions are important, and the opinions are impressive. I side with Hitchens, but loved hearing the debate; both men are/were smart and capable. More people should ask themselves these sorts of things, and if they don't, they should ask themselves why not. Very stimulating reading. less

Download links for: Hitchens Vs Blair. Christopher Hitchens, Tony Blair

Advertising