My Father's Debate With Christopher Hitchens
Some of you may know that I'm the daughter of David Berlinski, known, among other things, as the author of The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions. (He's best known to me, of course, as my affectionate and devoted father, but you would be more likely to know him for that book, or one of his many other wonderful books about mathematics and science.)
My father was in Birmingham, Alabama last week to debate Christopher Hitchens on the topic, "Does Atheism Poison everything?" It was a long-scheduled event. As I'm sure you all know, Hitchens was recently diagnosed with esophageal cancer, and the prognosis is very grave.
My father is here in Washington D.C. with me right now--sitting across from me, in fact. He was profoundly impressed, he said, by Hitchens' dignity and courage even in attempting to make the trip down to Birmingham. Although ostensibly devoted to the topic that atheism poisons everything, the evening, he reports, was largely "a well-merited celebration of Hitchens' appearance."
I asked him, of course, how the debate itself went. "I should note," he says, "that Hitchens' presentation was lucid and fully conveyed by his inimitable bass baritone, which did not flag during the entire evening. I suspect that deep down, we discovered we held a surprising number of beliefs in common. Hitchens was asked what he thought the weaknesses of Pascal's Wager might be, and he allowed himself to expatiate on them. I was asked for its strengths, and since this was a discussion about atheism, I acknowledged that it really had none. The wager of course plays a certain role in the history of philosophy and theology, but the role that it plays in history has very little to do with the claims that it makes on belief; and the claims that it makes on belief have very little to do with the role that it plays in history.
"There does come a point, of course, when in his desire to witness the second coming of H.L. Mencken, Hitchens embraces a position that I could not possibly accept. But I suspect there's very little help to be gained from argument on this point. An immense amount depends on temperament and a determination not to worry over-much about being sophisticated. In any event, I was glad to see him in Birmingham, toddling off to the bar, smoking like a chimney, eating with gusto, and quoting English poetry sonorously. Alllow me to repeat what I said to him at the debate: 'Hey Christopher: L'Chaim.'"
I second the sentiment, as I'm sure we all do.
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: My Father's Debate With Christopher Hitchens
From: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html
FI: ...Tell me, what is it about Americans and religion? Why is it that religion, often very primitive forms of religion, is so powerful in perhaps the richest, most advanced, most consumerist nation on Earth?
HITCHENS: I'm an atheist. I'm not neutral about religion, I'm hostile to it. I think it is a positively bad idea, not just a false one. And I mean not just organized religion, but religious belief itself. Why is the United States so prone to any kind of superstition, not just organized religion, but cultism, astrology, millennial beliefs, UFOs, any form of superstition? I've thought a lot about it. [...] Maybe - and this is a conclusion that I am reluctant to come to - it is because there is no established church here. A claim that is made for established churches is that in a way they domesticate and canalize and give a form and order to superstitious impulses. That's why they usually succeed in annexing all local cults and making them their own, etc. Part of their job is to soak up all the savagery around the place.....
Jun '10
Re: My Father's Debate With Christopher Hitchens
The article I mentioned above is principally about Mother Teresa (while she was still alive) and contained this note from the editor:
"As Free Inquiry was going to press, we heard that Mother Teresa was suffering from heart trouble and malaria and there was concern about her chances of survival. It was, therefore, suggested to the editors that it would be inappropriate to print an interview that contains criticism of Mother Teresa's work and influence. However, in view of the media's general failure to investigate the work of Mother Teresa or to publish critical comments about her, the editors felt it important to proceed with the publication of this revealing interview."
It lncludes:
HITCHENS: ....She is old, she has had various episodes with her own health, and she checks into some of the costliest and finest clinics in the West herself. I hesitated to put that in the book because it seemed as though it would be ad hominem (or ad feminam) and I try never to do that.
-----
[Note that when Mother Teresa died (sometime after this interview) she died not in a fancy hospital, but in bed, in her tiny sleeping quarters, and in pain.]
May '10
Re: My Father's Debate With Christopher Hitchens
Claire: I transcribed this quote from Hitchens two weeks ago from his interview with Jeffrey Goldberg because I thought it surprising--a concession of sorts to your dad's point of view:
"I have high confidence in that position: religion is man-made, that all gods found so far are man-made. It does not say--at all--that there may not be a prime mover or a higher intelligence. But I say that no one has yet earned any claim to act in that entity's name, no one has the right to tell me what to do because they have a divine wand."
Puzzling, no? Sounds more like an agnostic than an atheist. I wonder what Mr. Berlinski would make of that.
Edited on Sep 11, 2010 at 8:11amMay '10
Re: My Father's Debate With Christopher Hitchens
Scott, Ben Stein elicited a similar comment (about halfway into that video) from Richard Dawkins in Expelled. Dawkins allowed for the possibility of intelligent design. He just preferred to chalk it up to aliens rather than to a deity.
Atheists are better described as materialists. They object to any concept of spirits, rather than only to God. It is different from philosophies like taoism, which accepts the existence of spirits but rejects theism.
Edited on Sep 11, 2010 at 9:17amMay '10
Re: My Father's Debate With Christopher Hitchens
I think that Dr. Berlinski may be my current favorite living polymathic public intellectual. Why? Because, in addition to the scythe-like ability to debate and puncture the vain pretensions of the pompous, the ability to clarify and explain difficult concepts, and the sweeping range of interests, he is unceasingly courteous and- best of all, extraordinarily witty, but in a totally self-deprecating manner. A joy to listen to. I wish he did a daily podcast; I'd subscribe.
Almost all humans have blind spots. In many ways, greater ability masks greater blindness in that particular area. Christopher Hitchens has shown, through the years, an integrity that is rock-solid. His blind spots are, as noted above, Mother Teresa (a great lady who was also not perfect, as none of are), Ronald Reagan, and certain aspects of Israeli foreign policy. But he is extremely good and courageous on so many other things- and his integrity in breaking with The Nation is still unmatched among the Leftist intellectual class.
I wonder what he and Peter (who is quite devout in Anglican circles) say too each other when they meet? (if they do)
Jul '10
Re: My Father's Debate With Christopher Hitchens
These sentences can only be written by an academic.
The second sentence is unintelligible, which follows from the first because of his dubious assertion that it has no strengths.
This is contradicted by the fact that you're talking about it right now, nearly 400 years later.
Sep '10
Re: My Father's Debate With Christopher Hitchens
I adore Christopher Hitchens, and mostly agree with him about religion, but it seems to me that he has one foot firmly and insistently implanted in the Old World; otherwise, he would see that the early hysteria surrounding Barack Obama and the belief that the Left has the last word on social morality is every bit as religious as the idiotic views of the nutcase in Florida (whose name shall never be uttered be me). Confusing, if not confessing, mellifluousness over meaning, he chooses sides well but friends badly, though with a decency and courage that makes you want to embrace him rather than push him away. Claire, your father's words "An immense amount depends on temperament and a determination not to worry over-much about being sophisticated," is so New World and, thus, very comforting to me.
May '10
Re: My Father's Debate With Christopher Hitchens
Michael Tee
....The second sentence is unintelligible, which follows from the first because of his dubious assertion that it has no strengths.
This is contradicted by the fact that you're talking about it right now, nearly 400 years later. · Sep 11 at 9:44am
Michael, I find your criticism unintelligible. There is nothing whatever about having "strengths" that dictates whether or not someone would remember and discuss a proposition years later.
Obviously, Dr. Berlinski, as a philosopher, is acutely aware of context and debate. What is impressive here is his understanding, as an agnostic Jew, of the way the wager contradicts Christianity. An omniscient God would be quite aware that one who adopted Christianity as a cynical form of fire insurance was not a sincere follower, rendering the wager meaningless. This it has no real claims regarding belief.
Jul '10
Re: My Father's Debate With Christopher Hitchens
Watching Mr. Hitchens proceed with strength and dignity in the face of his challenge is inspiring. It reflects a fullness and meaningfulness of human life that would seem to fly in the face of his professed atheism. Where does such a fullness of spirit come from, if not from God?
Hitchens' struggle with cancer is instructive. He seems insipred - literally filled with the spirit - and yet he refuses to budge off of his silly little soapbox. Here's hoping that God knocks his feet out from under him so that he may clearly see the majesty of the heavens above before his time runs out.
May '10
Re: My Father's Debate With Christopher Hitchens
It feels ironic that I've seen a video of Claire's father before seeing her. Apparently, her grandparents were great musicians, and her mother as well. I might see the whole family in action before Claire makes her first YouTube appearance.
Duane Oyen
An omniscient God would be quite aware that one who adopted Christianity as a cynical form of fire insurance was not a sincere follower, rendering the wager meaningless. This it has no real claims regarding belief. · Sep 11 at 5:22pm
There's a difference between pretending to believe in God and acting on the assumption that God exists while continuing to seek truth. In the latter scenario, Pascal's Wager seems reasonable. As you said yourself in this thread, Saint Thomas "made a conscious decision to accept and try to have faith" while he could not believe, and Jesus showed him mercy.
In other words, Pascal's Wager isn't good as an end, but might be acceptable as a temporary justification for a life ordered according to theological guidance.
May '10
Re: My Father's Debate With Christopher Hitchens
In Hitchens's weak defense, he has not had much good to say about Obama once he took office. And Hitch, unfortunately, doesn't get into domestic affairs very much. I wish he could be convinced that movies and television can, and sometimes, do, rise to the level of literature.
May '10
Re: My Father's Debate With Christopher Hitchens
There's a difference between pretending to believe in God and acting on the assumption that God exists while continuing to seek truth. In the latter scenario, Pascal's Wager seems reasonable. As you said yourself in this thread, Saint Thomas "made a conscious decision to accept and try to have faith" while he could not believe, and Jesus showed him mercy.
In other words, Pascal's Wager isn't good as an end, but might be acceptable as a temporary justification for a life ordered according to theological guidance. · Sep 11 at 8:14pm
Don't forget that Pascal's wager is addressed to who is so made that he cannot believe.
"I confess it, I admit it. But, still, is there no means of seeing the faces of the cards?" Yes, Scripture and the rest, etc. "Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?"
It seems Pascal had the pretending scenario in mind.
Sep '10
Re: My Father's Debate With Christopher Hitchens
Very true, Mr. Webb. But when Hitchens does get into domestic issues and Obama, it's very discouraging (to me). I gasped once to hear him describe Obama as "too clean" (politically). He also thinks Americans are wrong not to want this collectivist scheme called Obamacare, adding that one of his "loves" is the National Health Service. I wonder if he realizes that were he in England he would likely have to buy additional insurance to fight the good fight he's fighting, and if so, why the love? On Charlie Rose, Hitchens admitted his disappointment with Obama, stammering to say the president is likely a "very weak guy." Why the hesitation? I believe it's because Hitchens can't quite give up the smooth-sounding pretensions of the Old World, where the group, not the individual, is the basis of all social and cultural morality and where class belies one's identity as much as status.
John M. Webb
In Hitchens's weak defense, he has not had much good to say about Obama once he took office. And Hitch, unfortunately, doesn't get into domestic affairs very much.
May '10
Re: My Father's Debate With Christopher Hitchens
Aaron Miller:
Duane Oyen
An omniscient God would be quite aware that one who adopted Christianity as a cynical form of fire insurance was not a sincere follower, rendering the wager meaningless. This it has no real claims regarding belief. · Sep 11 at 5:22pm
There's a difference between pretending to believe in God and acting on the assumption that God exists while continuing to seek truth. In the latter scenario, Pascal's Wager seems reasonable. As you said yourself in this thread, Saint Thomas "made a conscious decision to accept and try to have faith" while he could not believe, and Jesus showed him mercy.
In other words, Pascal's Wager isn't good as an end, but might be acceptable as a temporary justification for a life ordered according to theological guidance. · Sep 11 at 8:14pm
Of course- I was pointing out where the wager itself is not meaningful- it is the condition of the heart accepting grace, not doing mechanical works, like walking around the stupas to gain favor or reciting "vain repetitions". In the other thread I was responding to the particular point of Midget Rattler.
May '10
Re: My Father's Debate With Christopher Hitchens
Great post, Claire. Interesting comments, all. I just want to note that I always find it inappropriately humorous when a writer or commentator refers to a person who has a terminal diagnosis and says that their "condition is grave." It is just such a morbid play on words under the circumstances and given their soon destination. ;-)