Hitchens-Roberts: "The Great God Debate"

Hugh Hewitt hosted a debate between atheist Christopher Hitchens, whose writing I sometimes admire, and Mark Roberts, who has provided some good commentary on Hewitt's radio show over the years.

I've reviewed Hitchens' presentation of his atheism before. What I've seen of his arguments thus far surprises me a little for its lack of sophistication. For example the debate opens with the issue of moral foundations.

HH: I want to begin, though, by asking a question of Christopher Hitchens and Mark Roberts that comes from Christopher’s brother, Peter, in the Daily Telegraph this week, where he writes, “Where is Christopher’s certain knowledge of what is right and wrong supposed to have come from?” Christopher Hitchens, how do you respond to your brother?

CH: Well, it’s the most commonly asked question of unbelievers, or perhaps I should say atheists, and I regard it, though you put it very politely, as a slightly insulting one. But the suggestion that you make is that if I don’t respect a celestial dictatorship that’s unalterable, nothing is going to prevent me from lying, cheating, raping, thieving and so on. Well, I can’t exactly tell you why I don’t do those things, or why I enjoy, say, going to give blood, which I do. After all, I don’t really lose a pint, but somebody gains one, and I have a rare blood group, and I might need some blood one day myself, so it seems an all-around very satisfying transaction. In a sense, do I need to say much more than that?

(HughHewitt.townhall.com)

That's not the whole of it, of course, but Hitchens' opening provides an apt enough picture of atheist notions of morality. Ayn Rand may have provided the most vigorous attempt to date, in spite of its many problems.

I'll probably draw out some of the more interesting arguments for commentary over the next couple of weeks.