On September 7, 2010, a debate was held between famous Neo-Atheist Christopher Hitchens, and Agnostic David Berlinski on whether Atheism poisons everything. The debate was held two years after Berlinski published his book "The Devil's Delusion" in response to many critiques targeted towards religion by the Neo-Atheist (Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris), or the "four horsemen." Christopher Hitchens, having been diagnosed with cancer shortly before the debate, still mustered up the strength to respond to Berlinski's challenges towards the new wave of modern militant Atheism. The debate was sponsored by the Fixed Point Foundation, and held in Birmingham, Alabama. Despite being seven years old, this exchange between two of the world's leading intellectuals continues to create a sensation for those who watch it and is still re-uploaded to multiple social media platforms. To be brief, I will outline each of the contestants arguments. Here is a rundown of the debate.
David Berlinski began the debate with references to the bloody failure of the "Enlightenment" period. Berlinski points out that after Atheistic revolutionaries renamed the cathedral of Notre Dam the "temple of reason", they proceeded to massacre Catholics throughout France. Berlinski later points out the role of Atheism in Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, and Maoist China in exterminating tens of millions of their population. Natural selection and science only gave justification and efficiency to the slaughter of millions through the creation of social Darwinism, chemical weapons, and tools of war.
Berlinski never states that Atheism is inherently evil or that religion is innocent. Rather, the point that he makes is that the shift of ideas towards Atheism, and away from religion, lead to the catastrophes of the past two hundred years. Man needs an objective morality to believe in rather than his own imagination. Berlinski makes the illusion that humanity is like a sick old man, and destroying religion is like kicking away his crutches. Religion is the foundation for morality in society, and Atheism poisons society by destroying this foundation, and only introduces chaos.
Christopher Hitchens opened up his arguments by pointing out the religious components of the two world wars. Christopher brings up, in what is his strongest argument, the church support by all nations for the First World War as if it were another crusade. He describes World War 1 as a "theocratic war", and an attempt by other churches to expand Christendom. The Germans in both wars walked into battle with "gott mitt uns" inscribed on their belts, and in the oath taken by members of Hitler's infamous SS the lines "I swear before almighty God" are spoken.
Hitchen's main point is not that religion is inherently evil, similar to Berlinski's view of Atheism, but rather that religious elements provide man a "justification for everything." Atheism to Hitchens is not a moral standpoint; rather, it is a simple denial of the existence of God. There can be many types of Atheists, but religion unlike Atheism provides ultimate moral and scientific justifications for anything. To Hitchens, humanity is like a sick man holding crutches, only that religion adds a chained iron ball to his ankle.
What is interesting about this debate is the nature of each contestant's worldviews. Hitchens is a die-hard Neo-Atheist who has always been very vocal about his opinions. Berlinski is a lesser known agnostic who, though he doesn't believe in God, thinks that religion is vital for the continuation of morality, while Atheism leads to nothing. Berlinski also denies Evolution, and is very pessimistic about many scientific assumptions, and the belief that science can make a better world. There are many debates between Hitchens and other Christians, Muslims, and Jews, but the fact that he is debating an agnostic over the importance of religion makes this debate fascinating.
Although the debate was about whether Atheism poisons everything, Hitchens did little to discuss this point. Hitchens attempted to shift the focus on religious beliefs corrupting people, and concluded, like in many of his other debates, that religion is only another form of totalitarianism. Berlinski did well to stay on point and not focus much time on Hitchens' diversion, and did admit several times that he doesn't deny the evil of religious belief. Both, however, made challenging points to people of all worldviews. It was fascinating to watch the two go at it, and both Mr. Hitchens and Berlinski are full of intelligence, wisdom, and a talent for debate. Anyone interested in apologetics would do well to watch this discussion between two of the best intellectuals of our time.
