A Hitch in Hitchens: Observations From the Turek-Hitchens Debate

11 Comments

1. Brian
   Posted September 10, 2008 at 10:35 am | Permalink

   I will keep my eye out for the audio.

2. Rudy Henkel
   Posted September 11, 2008 at 5:10 am | Permalink

   Thank you for linking my article. And yes, I cannot deny that Hitchens lost the debate; he was in the poorest form I’ve ever seen him.

   I have posted the second part of the analysis, which looks at some of the specific arguments. Come and disagree with me if you like! I do not censor posts at all.

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

3. admin
   Posted September 11, 2008 at 8:01 am | Permalink

   Thanks Rudy. One thing I don’t understand is Hitchen’s position on moral absolutes. Can you explain? How can he claim to believe in moral absolutes without God?

4. Rudy Henkel
   Posted September 11, 2008 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

   Hitchens claimed to believe in morality, not necessarily in moral absolutes. For example, we have good reason to thing that all people (with the exception of sociopaths and psychopaths,) are biologically predisposed towards certain moral behaviors. This gives a basis for morality, if not necessarily objective morality. I talk about that question somewhat in the second part of my article.

5. Brian
   Posted October 7, 2008 at 8:07 am | Permalink

   Full MP3 Audio of the debate between Christopher Hitchens and Frank Turek can be found here at apologetics315.com.

6. Derek
   Posted October 31, 2008 at 8:50 am | Permalink

   Completely agreed. Hitchens was in very poor form (he didn’t even look well imo), and though I believe that Turek’s points are easily shown unsound he certainly won the debate. Unfortunate.

7. Fran
   Posted December 24, 2008 at 11:30 am | Permalink

   Rudy Henkel said:
   “we have good reason to thing that all people (with the exception of sociopaths and psychopaths,) are biologically predisposed towards certain moral behaviors.”

   Confusion arises because Christians believe almost exactly the same thing. The difference is that atheists believe the predisposition toward certain moral behavior is biological in nature… whereas the Christian believe this predisposition comes from God placing it in man’s spirit to begin with.

   So both can say that man is predisposed towards certain moral behavior and therefore this gets us nowhere but right back to the beginning of whether the Christian God exists or not.

8. admin
   Posted December 30, 2008 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

   Hi Fran,

   Christians derive their morality from the Holy Bible, thus it is objective in the sense that God is the ultimate reality. I cannot see how atheists can have a BASIS for their morality other than pragmatism.

9. Steven
   Posted February 28, 2009 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

   Oh God. Turek won the debate? To me, he seemed chewed up and spit out – not to say that Hitchens was at his best, but that he had the very weakest of arguments.

   It is quite clear from a systematic review of the natural order that morality and so-called moral actions derive themselves naturally. Why do piranha not devour each other during feeding frenzies? Why do bats occasionally sacrifice some of their own scavenged repasts to share with those less fortunate? Complex biological species in complex ecosystems are playing a game of life – those equipped well will proliferate. Morality arises due to the need for some varying levels of cooperation amongst the population to ‘win the game’. Clearly it predates – and is not founded upon – theology.

   The BASIS through which actions can be ‘rated’, if you will, on a scale of good to evil, is very clearly subjective for each individual who poses the question. Things we morally consider evil like murder and lying are considered as such for a reason – if their frequency should become commonplace and unpunished, our survival will suffer due to a lack of cooperation amongst the population. However, this evilness is NOT absolute, and is apparent when you consider lying to Nazis to hide Jews in your attic, or murdering a man who is standing above you trying to take your head off with an axe. I feel sorry for you if you cannot accept that moral judgment is grounded in your own hearts and “pragmatism”. Last I was aware, pragmatism was a good thing. The reason you are AWARE of a distinction between good and evil is because your brain is hardwired to see both, and we have evolution by natural selection to thank for allowing us this amazing capacity.

10. admin
    Posted February 28, 2009 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    You can see my thoughts on your argument here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDLoxbegKGo

    Enjoy.

11. Christian
    Posted March 15, 2009 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

    Who won the debate is subjective. Most atheists will claim Hitchens won, most Christians will say Turek won. Be that as it may, Hitchens was his typical self, using name calling as his argument; this is not abnormal for atheists. Hitchens and his fellow atheist intellectuals like Dawkins, Harris, Maher, etc, have made a career out of generalizing and calling Christians names and God a delusion. Ironically, atheists accuse Christians of being irrational and extremist when it is atheists who exhibit such behavior. Further, atheists may claim humans are biologically predisposed to “morality,” but where is there evidence? Atheist morality spans from altruism to hedonism or moral relativism; at the most extreme, atheists do not see anything wrong with Hitler’s actions since there is no objective moral code to follow, it is subjective. Therefore, what exactly Hitchens basis morality on is a mystery.