Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Notes from a Debate on God - Hitchens v. Turek

Last night, I attended a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Frank Turek on whether or not God Exists. The debate was handled well, but I felt Frank Turek was a little outmatched. I was relieved that no chairs were hurled or pitchforks and torches brandished. I left during the Q&A because Turek started circling his arguments and I got bored with the dogma. I am a monstrous fan of Christopher Hitchens, so to actually see him debate in person was incredible.

The sum total of the debate was that Hitchens believes that religion requires a person to become an absolute slave to a totalitarian dictator who may not even exist. Meanwhile, Turek was pretty much the run-of-the-mill Christian Apologetic and made the typical arguments for God (note, specifically the God of western religion). The debate shifted near the end, focusing on such typical subjects as a woman's right to chose, morality, ethics and so on. I found this slightly disappointing in that I wanted a more substantial debate that did not fall into the routine and predictable dogmas.

I could think of various ways to answer Turek and I felt that Hitchens sort eased around the questions, either because he didn't want to answer or because it wasn't worth expending the energy because someone like Turek wouldn't have cared to listen anyway. It comes the point that it's not worth arguing, since the other side isn't interested in listening to reason, only in proving their moral superiority or justifying their beliefs. Its not that I condemn one side or the other. I just feel a public debate should rise above such childishness.

Here's a great review of the debate that goes into more detail.

Holding the Line.
Bri

5 comments:

Rudy said...

Thanks for the link to my review, though you may want to link to the review directly, instead of my journal.

Anonymous said...

"It comes the point that it's not worth arguing, since the other side isn't interested in listening to reason, only in proving their moral superiority or justifying their beliefs. Its not that I condemn one side or the other. I just feel a public debate should rise above such childishness."

Does your observation about not listening to reason apply to both sides, or just to the theist's side?

It seems to me that to a large extent, the point of a debate is to justify ones beliefs.

Bri said...

I would say it applies to both sides. I think a public forum and debate should be to present beliefs, not necessarily to insult the opposition or sink to tactics that are childish or absurd and undiplomatic. Hope that clarifies. :)

Rudy said...

I've posted the second part of the analysis, if anyone is interested.

http://rudyhenkel.livejournal.com/2869.html

Branden said...

Thanks so much for this post, really helpful material.
gmc dealerships | anti anxiety | dermatologist in dallas