Is religion the problem? This was the topic of my debate with America's leading atheist Christopher Hitchens before a packed house of a thousand people at the Ethical Culture Society auditorium in New York city. Hitchens is the author of God Is Not Great and I am the author of the new book What's So Great About Christianity. Unfortunately the organizers had to turn more than a hundred people away. It was a ferocious and lively debate, which also had its light moments, and many people on both sides said afterward that it was the best God v. atheism debate that has so far been held.
The current crop of atheists -- Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker -- are mainly Darwinians who don't believe in God because they regard evolution as providing a sufficient accounting for life. Hitchens, however, says he is not an atheist but an "anti-theist." By this he means that he isn't just an unbeliever; he hates the God of traditional religion. He condemns Christianity as a wicked religion involving a sadomasochistic God who indulges in a gruesome sacrifice of his son. And why? To compel people to grovel before him. And if they don't (in Hitchen's portrayal) God hurls them into hell for eternity. Hitchens sees the crimes of religion, such as the Inquisition, as stemming from the inherently totalitarian nature of religion.
My argument in the debate was that Christians would hardly recognize their beliefs and practices in this harsh and unbalanced account. For Christians, God helps to give ultimate meaning to life. Religion gives us a moral code to live by and to teach our children. Faith helps us to deal with hardship and suffering. The prospect of the afterlife gives us hope and helps us to believe that there is eventual justice in which the good are rewarded and unrepented evil held accountable. For Christians it is not the death of Christ but the resurrection that is the central doctrine. Sadomasochism doesn't even enter into it.
Some of the most lively moments in the debate came when Hitchens and I discussed whether religion or atheism is responsible for the mass murders of history. I pointed out that even the Spanish Inquisition--a favorite atheist bugaboo -- killed 2,000 people over 350 years. By contrast, atheist tyrants like Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot killed tens of millions within the space of a few decades. Hitchens sought to argue that Communism retained many of the features of autocratic religious states. I countered by saying that if we hold religious regimes responsible for the crimes done in God's name, we should hold atheist regimes responsible for the crimes done in the name of creating an atheist utopia. Let's not blame religion not only for its own offenses but also for the offenses done by atheists on behalf of an atheist ideology.
Who won? That's for you to judge. Hitchens and I are scheduled to appear tonight on Hannity & Colmes on the Fox News Channel to have another swing at each other. Our debate was also taped by C-Span 2 (Book TV) and will be aired on Saturday at 7 pm Eastern time.
You can watch the entire debate here.
If you want to read more about my views, you can find them in my new book What's So Great About Christianity.
Reader Comments ( Page 8 of 44)
106. The many must struggle, be deprived, and suffer so the few can live well.
God must have loved the poor he made so many of them - so they could provide the means for the few to revel in luxury !
The meanest crawl to to top on the backs who labor the hardest.
Ever wonder want unemployed priests, ministers, rabbis, imans, etc. would do for a living.Ever go through a Mexican town - the largest building is always a church.Probably so in most poor country villages - hey the tower of power.
DocWho at 8:41PM on Oct 24th 2007
107. I don't agree with atheist. I'd like to debate one of those guys. Religions describe ethical codes for the prolongation of our race...like quantum numbers for an energy level, there are many solutions. They shouldn't have involved god though. Now people who don't agree with religions ways of getting people to follow their codes, attack something completely seperate from religion. They're so bitter at the good intended misleading that they renounce something thats sort of undeniable to any man of science...well except for those men of science who are bitter. I could be wrong though. Alex
Alex Casanova at 8:43PM on Oct 24th 2007
108. It reminds one of Babel. Darwinism may explain something about life but it doesn't explain how anything exists at all, but then neither does religion.
Paul R. Gregory at 8:42PM on Oct 24th 2007
109. christianity is the enemy #1 of JESUS christianity is composed of too many denominations that war against each other thus bringing confusion as you all can read on the comments of the people tonight.
Benny at 8:53PM on Oct 24th 2007
110. I don't agree with atheist. I'd like to debate one of those guys. Religions describe ethical codes for the prolongation of our race...like quantum numbers for an energy level, there are many solutions. They shouldn't have involved god though. Now people who don't agree with religions ways of getting people to follow their codes, attack something completely seperate from religion. They're so bitter at the good intended misleading that they renounce something thats sort of undeniable to any man of science...well except for those men of science who are bitter. I could be wrong though. Alex
Alex Casanova at 8:47PM on Oct 24th 2007
111. The debate wasn't about whether or not there is a "GOD" but whether religion is good or bad for society. The crusades, the spanish inquisition, the muslim wars, and other holy wars are the direct result of religion. That is not to say that religion is "bad" but when people make a decision based on radical faith and discard their intuition, logic, and compasion, it gives religion a bad name and creates voilence and 'evil' (paradox). There is nothing wrong with those who do not believe in a higher power in any way, and do disagree with D'souza that under athiest rule, anything goes; there is still compasion, guilt, and natural good intention that drive most peoples' actions. There is obviosly a higher power, not a man with a white beard who sits on a throne of gold or the Christian or Jewish or Hindu or Muslim figure of god (eventhough that sort of figures are usaully symbolic rather than assumed to be physical), but there must be a higher power; usaullyalthough some people arent given the mind to comprehend such a phenomenon. In my opinion D'souza won the debate; he seems like an interesting guy to talk to about this sort of thing. And for the record, there is most certainly other life in existance out in the far reaches of the universe or even galaxy.!
Damon Simms at 8:51PM on Oct 24th 2007
112. Religion is a cose which humans use.
abdul w. majid at 9:09PM on Oct 24th 2007
113. Religion is a cose which humans use.
abdul w. majid at 9:10PM on Oct 24th 2007
114. There are no winners, only losers. I will say this, in order to completely describe any 1 thing, you must describe the entire universe. This my friends is almost impossiable. A tree can not grow if there is nothing to plant the seed, and a clock will not tick unless someone whines it up. The problem is, people try to take complete ownership of the Most High thru their theological point of view. Most don't believe in the Most High, but every1 has a god. Wether it be money, some diety,science, intelect, or there own selfish desires. Which 1 is yours?
gossridah at 8:53PM on Oct 24th 2007
115. I would rather believe in a God and be wrong than to believe in no God and be wrong. Religion and faith separate "man" from the rest of the animal kingdom. Without this moral compass we are just like any other beast in the wild.
MiddletonRM at 8:53PM on Oct 24th 2007
116. I am glad this debate is taking place because at least God is being talked about. This will generate many discussions. This topic will always be a hot topic. It is really interesting to me that some are upset in who got the last word because truly in the end it will be God. Whether you believe that to be true or not still makes it true. If you do not share my belief you do not have to but you also should not get so angry because it is my belief which is my God given right.
janelle at 11:50AM on Oct 25th 2007
117. Who can really say who "wins" a debate? I'm atheist leaning, so I'd naturally find Hitchens' arguments on that topic more compelling. Then again, unexpectedly good points by the debater I'm less likely to agree with can be oddly even more compelling to me. I think that's true regardless of which side you might align yourself with if you're trully listening to both sides. So how and why would you measure which debater won? Did either debater convince a lot of people to switch sides? Probably not. Debating isn't about winning and losing converts, and it's certainly not about scoring points as if it were a game with prizes given at the end. For the debaters themselves, it's simply a chance to get one's ideas accross in a fair and hopefully civil forum in comparison to different view points. For the audience, it's about hearing those ideas which they may have never heard before, or maybe just haven't heard put into the debaters' perspective before. Those who win are those who come out still thinking about the viewpoints presented in the debate long after it's over.
abupaul at 8:56PM on Oct 24th 2007
118. Who won the entire debate can't be determined from a brief excerpt, however, my vote is in for D'Souza in this round. Hitchens used his talent for verbosity to filibuster his way out of answering the original question posed by D'Souza. He completely changed the subject, which leaves one to believe he didn't really have a good answer for the original question.
pattieruth52 at 8:54PM on Oct 24th 2007
119. Dinesh D'Souza is like every Christian I've known, including the idiot that runs this country; you're either on page with them or they'll lie their mouths off about you. D'Souza's first comments on this site are prime examples...I, perhaps like Hitchens, don't hate "a God" I hate idiots like D'Souza that need to organize a God Mafia and take my right to understand God and enforce a God-Mart franchise.
Paul at 8:54PM on Oct 24th 2007
120. Considering that Dinesh has demonstrated in the past, his complete and total ignorance of American culture, politics,and history, it doesn't surprise me that he is falsely portraying himself as the savior of Western civilization.
gshort3011 at 9:00PM on Oct 24th 2007