A Clumsy Debate

I'm getting annoyed about the atheism-theism debates. No, not because I have a particularly strong view on one side or the other, but rather because after offering me a few years of intrigue, the arguments on either side have not progressed an inch. When I started to watch and read about the arguments, it seemed pretty fascinating. Both sides had an arsenal of weaponry to fire at each other - some of it very effective, some not so. But a few years on, I've gradually come to the realisation that neither side wants to move on. Neither side can come up with new or interesting thought processes with which to renew the interest in the debate, and as a result the whole thing has stagnated.

When Richard Dawkins released 'The God Delusion' in 2006, the fight arguably reached its very peak. Open discussions on talk shows and news broadcasts outlined the premise of the conflicting views and further writings added fuel to the fire. It became a real hot topic thanks to a bit of a mainstream breakthrough with Dawkins. Since then, books have been published promoting either side, but few people have truly moved discussion beyond where it was left by Dawkins. Often the focus tends now to be on the effect of religion, or where its place in society lies.

This is acceptable if we are happy to conclude that the arguments of God's existence are irreconcilable. Both sides understand each other's position but a fundamental difference, whether that be in the way people consider the arguments or indeed the very nature of the person themselves, keeps them from coming to an agreement. That's fine. However, people won't let the debate lie, and I'm not talking about the budding new philosophers only just entering the debate and therefore understandably wanting to flex their cerebral muscles on the issue.

Thinkers continue to peddle out the old arguments that have persisted for centuries, and became more prominent in recent years, as if they are something new. Both sides are very guilty of this. For theism, there have been recent speakers such as Ray Comfort and William Lane Craig re-inventing the design argument, with analogies that trace the outlines of Paley's watch. Often the cosmological argument pops in there as well, with almost no alterations made whatsoever. This wouldn't be such an issue, but the theories are tremendously antiquated, with the Cosmological argument put forward by Plato and Aquinas, and the design argument peddled by Aquinas (again) and Paley. That's not to say they're wrong, but they do not need to be re-emphasised as if they are new.

Atheists are guilty of this as well. Take perhaps Ricky Gervais (whom I love), or a few of the trendy thinkers in America at the moment. Though you might argue that they don't have to come up with arguments, but rather defend against them, atheists can often push forward the same mantras that are no longer an interesting idea. Things like "There's no evidence" is completely useless in the modern debate, because clearly a believer isn't arguing with the given premise that God leaves notes of his own existence for everyone to see. There are other reasons by which theists argue. The other big favourites include 'The Problem of Evil', which was part of David Hume's work.

There's nothing wrong with discussing old arguments such as the examples mentioned, but often in debates they don't go beyond the initial mention or summation. We could talk all day about the merits of the cosmological arguments or the problem of evil and possibly reach a few interesting ideas, but that rarely seems to happen unless you push this sort of thing to the real thinkers. Often it's pretenders who have a vague knowledge of the debate and reach little more than the conclusion they started with.

So we must decide where we go with the question of God's existence. I'd love there to be fresh new arguments and theories regarding the debate, but as we've had the same ideas reinvented for centuries now, I think a truly breathtaking new argument on the matter will be once in a handful of generations. Instead perhaps we have to consider moving forward from the debate. As inconsiderate and callous as it seems, it is maybe time to agree to disagree. We should analyse religion. We should analyse atheism. We should talk about both viewpoints' place in a society. We should talk about the moral implications, the social implications of both systems. We should talk about what we can learn from religion, and what we can learn from atheism. But with God's existence, it is perhaps time to let the debate rest and, unless anyone can think of something new, accept the merits of either belief.

I want the encouragement now to be for people to pursue more philosophical questions. Whilst this debate is the shop window, there is so much more inside. I don't know how, but it'd be great if people were coerced, through this age-old conflict, to move onto the other issues of morality, metaphysics and epistemology.

Hitch Dependency Syndrome

AKA: Why I’m going to miss that big lovely bastard

There’s almost no point listing superlatives about Christopher Hitchens. Not only have they all been uttered in the wake of his death, but it’s a certainty that any turn of phrase you could use to describe him would’ve been made 100 times better by the man himself. Hitchens was as eloquent as Stephen Fry, as intelligent as Bertrand Russell, and as outspoken as Roy Keane (I know I’ve cheapened the analogy by bringing a footballer into it, but nevertheless...)

To me he remains an inspiring figure. Just as I began to turn to philosophy, my main interest was in the debates of God. Dawkins impressed me with his calm rationality and persistent arguments, but Hitchens orchestrated a different dimension of respect. His willingness to say what needed to be said, his clear thinking and precise opinions, his superior wit: Hitchens was the master at what he did.

The videos of him on YouTube are what really blew me away. I spent hours just watching him speak. He would happily put himself into a debate, submerging into a hostile environment and come out looking the most reasoned by miles. Even when supporting points that even the most ardent of the anti-religious would fret over (such as the faith of Mother Teresa and Jerry Falwell’s death), Hitchens would at least rationalise his approach and would come out stronger for ignoring the usual taunts of the opposed (One frustrated priest laughably offered to ‘take it outside’ during one debate).

One of my favourite videos of Hitchens is him having a live discussion with a rabbi. The rabbi facetiously remarks that his son ‘cried more over his first haircut than his circumcision’. Hitchens goes quiet as the audience laughs, before launching into an impassioned tirade about the repulsiveness of such practices and the fact that they can lead to infection and death. His raise in tone showed that behind what initially appears to be a cold and stony exterior laid a heart that burned for the wellbeing of humanity.

He’s become a popular figure on YouTube for his impenetrable speeches and magical putdowns. The ‘hitchslap’ as it’s known by supporters is a running trend on YouTube, and I’m happy to be the amount of Hitchslap videos must be well into the hundreds. It seems when somebody speaks with such vigour, the scent of that aura is impossible to resist. Hitchens speaks proudly and fiercely, and destroys any track of reasoning that doesn’t satisfy him. The jugular vein of an opponent remains in his sights at all times.

It’s easy to speak highly of someone you agree so much with, but Hitchens had certain political opinions that I differed to. His support of the Iraq war and the Bush presidency (albeit only “slightly”) was perhaps a surprising conviction for a man who seemed so far away on the political spectrum. However, he was a man of priority, and he held in highest regard the protection of citizens from the forces of terror. There was method behind his unexpected thinking, whether you considered it right or wrong (the answer is wrong, by the way).

Despite being diagnosed with cancer last year, Hitchens continued to discuss, write and debate. His discussion with Tony Blair was a wonderfully intriguing bout. Both showed their class, Hitchens moreso in spite of his clear and distressing illness. It’s a poignant summation: Hitchens was a battler. He made the almighty force of religion look ridiculous, he fought under the banner of socialism in a country where it’s scoffed at, and he was an almighty power in the arena of debate.

I wrote the last half of that paragraph in present tense at first. I guess it’s still strange to know that Hitchens is now gone. He was an inspirational figure to me, and to many. His philosophy will live on in the people he influenced. Hitchens deserves his to find a place in his own personal heaven... for him that’s nothing at all. Here’s to his tremendous past, and non-existent afterlife.

RIP The Hitch.