Hitchens v. D'Souza on the Problem of Christianity

October 29th, 2007 at 10:22pm Mitch Mulhall 171

I watched Christopher Hitchens debate Dinesh D’Souza last weekend on the subject of “Is Christianity the Problem” (of "what?" is anybody’s guess; the answer "everything" is likely the premise). You can see this debate on Youtube. The video lags behind the audio, but if you can get over that irritation, it’s worth at least a listen.

What I admire about Hitchens is precisely the quality that made him look badly in this debate. Hitchens can undress an opponent with nothing more than wit, vocabulary, and for good measure, a dash of sarcasm, and that’s only when he’s using a pen. When his weapon is his tongue, he can reduce British MOPs like George Galloway to a mass of quivering spittle, dangling off the flesh of a wagging chin.

Was I disappointed to see Hitchens fail to put forth a better effort against D’Souza? Not on this subject.

Make no mistake, Hitchens puts forth some great arguments, but I think D’Souza got the better of him, at least last Saturday night.

One of D’Souza’s arguments I favor is made specious only by the value I place on the sanctity of human life, a subject about which I have no small amount of trouble being relative. It is exactly like minimalizing the roughly 3,800 (c. 1 September 2007) U.S. Soldiers who have died in the Iraq War by comparing the death toll to Viet Nam (~58,217), or World War II (~418,500), or World War I (~116,500).

To wit, D’Souza takes the air out of two atrocities, committed in the name of Christianity, and oft cited by Hitchens and others interested in demeaning the historical reputation of Christianity: the Salem Witch Trials, and the Spanish Inquisition. D’Souza asks us to consider the following questions:

How many people perished by the judgments of the Salem Witch Trials?
In the course of the 300-year Spanish Inquisition, how many were killed?

Notwithstanding the inexcusability of relativism where human life is concerned, the answers are 19 (fourteen women and five men) and 2000, respectively. (Yes, I am still corroborating these numbers).

Contrast this with the arguably a-religious regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Polpot, Ceausescu, and Kim Jong Il, a number that looks at 1,000,000 human lives as a distant spec in a rear-view mirror.

D’Souza’s point is that atheism, or a-religion, not Christianity, is responsible for the genocides of this world.

I realize this isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but I think this debate gives rise to many interesting considerations. But that’s probably enough for one night’s diversion…

Cheers,

Update, 04.04.2008: Video of the debate:

Entry Filed under: Books, Religion, Aspen, Colorado, United Post, Spirituality

16 Comments Add your own

1. Mitch.Mulhall | October 30th, 2007 at 9:45 pm

Interesting little tidbit regarding the Inquisition death stats cited by D'Souza... if it is true:

a) the Spanish Inquisition lasted 300 years

and

b) in those 300 years, approximately 2000 people were killed

What was the average annual murder rate?

6.666666666666666666666666666666...

Happy Halloween everyone...

(Just for fun, everyone, click the link... Bwaaaahhaaahaaahaaahhaaaa)

Cheers,
2. Michael Conniff | November 1st, 2007 at 6:54 pm

Mitch:

I know Hitchens better than D'Souza so I don't want you to take this as a direct take on your post. But as I've done my radio show for the last three-and-a-half years, I have been struck time and time again by how arbitrary religious faith can seem.

Thus, any action taken in what is the name of faith can have fateful consequences. Did George Bush's belief in "End of Days" lead us into Iraq? I don't think there's any question. Religion also leaves us with the dangerous tendency to see things in black and white, as strictly good or strictly evil.

Is Christianity the problem? I think the waning influence of the Christian Right in American politics is further evidence that when religion leaves and realm of faith to do battle of terra firma, it's almost inevitable the earth will move beneather their feet.

Best, Michael!
3. Mitch.Mulhall | November 1st, 2007 at 8:02 pm

Michael,

[when religion leaves and realm of faith to do battle of terra firma, it's almost inevitable the earth will move beneather their feet.]

Did you, like, borrow that from Beowulf?

Seriously, I've already stipulated I am no Christian apologist, and I think I've articulated my views on the "religious right" in a variety of posts and in a variety of contexts.

Your GWB "End-of-Days" thrust doesn't reveal much, but it does give me a good idea which blogs you read when you're not on Aspen Post.

Isn't your characterization of Christianity evidence of a mind that seeks a black-and-white understanding?

Cheers,
4. Mitch.Mulhall | November 1st, 2007 at 8:18 pm

Oh yeah, here's some info on Dinesh D'Souza. Frankly, I didn't know who the hell he was until Hitchens debated him last weekend... One observation: Hitchens often debates people who have just published a book...

Cheers,
5. reckless G | November 1st, 2007 at 10:08 pm

[D’Souza’s point is that atheism, or a-religion, not Christianity, is responsible for the genocides of this world.]

Neither religion nor non-religion is responsible for the genocides. Human nature is responsible. There is always an excuse given for horrendous acts of injustice and violence against other people. The excuse may be religious or not, but it’s never the real reason for the genocide. The reason is that we are mammals, and mammals are territorial and fight violently to gain dominance over others of their own kind.

The only difference between us and lions and tigers and bears, is that we feel the need to give an excuse. Why is that? Because we’re human and humans feel guilt and guilt is relieved by making an excuse. So violence against our own kind is in our nature and guilt is in our nature, therefore we’ll use any excuse we can to justify our violence. Religion has come in handy in the past, but security is currently en vogue.

This hypothesis is easily proved. The proof is all around us…because it is us. Just try to find one person who never justifies their wrongdoing, who never points at someone else as a reason for their own bad behavior, who never invokes their “rightness” as an excuse to abuse and dominate others. In fact, the practice is so prevalent that we have a special system set up to accommodate the giving of excuses. It’s called small claims court.
6. Mitch.Mulhall | November 1st, 2007 at 10:51 pm

[we are mammals, and mammals are territorial and fight violently to gain dominance over others of their own kind.]

Ah, the ever-popular apes-with-attitudes argument. Use it to your advantage whenever it suits your purpose, but make sure it doesn't tread upon your nature.

Cheers,
7. reckless G | November 1st, 2007 at 11:07 pm

Interesting response Mitch. I have three questions for you.

What is the advantage of this argument and to what purpose would I advance it?

Since my nature is the same as every human, which has been proven constant over time, how can making this argument possibly “tread upon my nature.”

If you believe that genocide is not a result of apes-with-attitudes, then how do you explain the widespread incidence of genocide across the entire religious, political, and ethnic spectrum throughout human history?
8. Mitch.Mulhall | November 1st, 2007 at 11:32 pm

G-

You're the one who just sprayed vitriol all over the room, and then you want me to refute your inarguable premise? If anything, this explains two phenomena: why you get invited to all the best parties, and why I help my children with their homework every night.

Cheers,
9. reckless G | November 2nd, 2007 at 5:00 am

Sprayed vitriol? What the?

I thought I was just answering your post's question as to the relationship (or not) between religion and genocide. It wasn't intended as a slight against you or the human race. Just an observation and certainly not inarguable, although I thought I gave pretty good proof.

But, even as I asked these questions of you, I knew you'd avoid answering them. You always do. Don't see how this trend of yours helps your kids with their homework.

"Dad, why did WWII happen?"

"Son, don't spray your vitriol in my direction."

Whatever.
10. alpha6 | November 2nd, 2007 at 4:59 pm

Whoa....cat fight....meow..phttt! phttt!

Maybe the Greeks had it right and the two can't be seperated.

Ares (Ancient Greek: Ἄρης, modern Greek Άρης [pron. "áris"]) is the son of Zeus (ruler of the gods) and Hera. Though often referred to as the Olympian god of war, he is more accurately the god of savage war, or bloodlust, or slaughter personified.
11. reckless G | November 2nd, 2007 at 6:29 pm

Funny you should bring that up alpha. I had a daydream a week or so ago about writing a play where all us regular AP bloggers were various Gods and Goddesses. Might follow that up one of these days. Thanks for the reinspiration.
12. Michael Conniff | November 5th, 2007 at 7:52 pm

Mitch:

I don't see Christianity as black and white--except when it's applied to politics for partisan purposes.

Best, Michael!
13. Mitch.Mulhall | November 5th, 2007 at 9:03 pm

Michael,

On this we agree. To borrow a phrase from you, “thanks for making my point.”

There must be way to change this. The central problem as I see it is that there are several domestic and foreign contingents who, for a variety of reasons, seek the elimination all vestiges of religious belief—however tenuous—from our government. Some regard the elimination of the U.S. and its citizens as the only effective way to do this. Others are satisfied with the removal of a monument of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of a Montgomery, Alabama courthouse. Apparently, no one’s noticed the façade of the Supreme Court… yet.

What makes politics so ugly is the Achilles' heel of our system of government: the idea that the strongest, most well-reasoned argument will carry the day. The First Amendment is a great doctrine, but it leaves a whole lot of room for three-card-Monte and those who would play you. What does this leave you? A long wade through an odiferous cesspool before you ever find a well-reasoned argument.

Cheers,
14. reckless G | November 6th, 2007 at 7:21 am

Well reasoned arguments are easily found. The problem arises from the difficulty we have in recognizing them.
15. Michael Conniff | November 7th, 2007 at 9:38 pm

["Some regard the elimination of the U.S. and its citizens as the only effective way to do this. Others are satisfied with the removal of a monument of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of a Montgomery, Alabama courthouse."]

Mitch:

You're a man of moderation. Though we've never met I respect you absolutely. But I find this statement to be absolutely and unequivocally abhorrent.

Let me make sure I know what you mean: are you connecting the dots between jihadists who kill for al-Qaeda and those of us who believe the Ten Commandments in the courthouse square is a bad idea?

I'm hoping (against hope) that I'm not getting this right. (Tell me I'm wrong.) But if a reasonable person like you can make this connection, it worries the hell out of me.

Let me try to clarify: the jihadists want to kill anyone who doesn't believe as they do. People who have a problem with your God in the public square have a problem when Church and State are not kept seperate.

In other words, if I were to use the tactic quoted above, I could make the case--though I never would--that the jihadis and the Christian Fundamentalists are BOTH trying to use religion as a weapon against those who oppose them.

Dear God, old chap, please tell me I got it wrong. And by all means make my point for me.

Best, Michael!
16. Mitch.Mulhall | November 7th, 2007 at 11:22 pm

Michael,

You said, "I don't see Christianity as black and white--except when it's applied to politics for partisan purposes."

I drew gray scales. You construed them as an equation, with Jihadism on one side and the removal of an Old Testament shrine from an Alabama courthouse on the other.

There's no shame in admitting your mind seeks a black-and-white understanding.

When are you going to endorse Hillary?

Cheers,