The Sophistry of Christopher Hitchens
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июн 2024
- To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
To purchase Cosmic Skeptic merchandise: cosmicskeptic.teemill.com/
-------------------------VIDEO NOTES-------------------------
Christopher Hitchens is one of the most beloved polemics to have been active in living memory. However, his remarkable wit sometimes conceived remarkably poor reasoning, something often unnoticed by those drunk on his elegance.
In this video, I take three typical examples of sophistic reasoning from Hitchens' various debates and speeches, and break them down to expose their flaws.
It is unlikely that I will ever cease praising Hitchens as my favourite writer anytime soon; anybody unfamiliar with my work who lands on this video should know that I take deep inspiration from him.
TIMESTAMPS:
Introduction - 0:00
The Moral Argument -- 4:10
Free Will -- 16:30
The Cosmological Argument -- 21:20
-------------------------------LINKS--------------------------------
Galloway vs Hitchens debate: • The Greatest Debate of...
'Why Women Aren't Funny': www.vanityfair.com/culture/20...
'Why Women Still Aren't Funny': • Video
'That's your opinion': • Joan Walsh Administers...
Hitchens, Letter to a Young Contrarian (affiliate link): amzn.to/2JP4fMb
[1] 'Christopher Hitchens - The morals of an atheist': www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOHgr...
[2] 'Best of Hitchslap Part 2': • Video (taken from the debate, 'We'd be better off without religion': • Christopher Hitchens &... )
[3] 'Christopher Hitchens destroys the myth that morality comes from religion': • Christopher Hitchens d...
[4] 'Christopher Hitchens on Morality': www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwaWJ... (taken from Christopher Hitchens vs Frank Turek, 'Does God Exist?'): www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7WBE...
[5] 'Best of Hitchslap Part 2': • Video (taken from Christopher Hitchens vs Rabbi David Wolpe: • Christopher Hitchens v...
[6] 'Best of Hitchslap Part 2': • Video (taken from Hitchens vs Turek: www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7WBE...)
[7] 'Something Out of Nothing - Christopher Hitchens': www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwxZX... (taken from Hitchens vs Turek: www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7WBE...)
The tu quoque fallacy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
---------------------SPECIAL THANKS-----------------------
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
Faraz Harsini
James O'Neill
----------------------------CONNECT-----------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Cosmic Skeptic Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
---------------------------CONTACT------------------------------
Business email: cosmicskeptic@gmail.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one is safe from criticism, it should stay like that forever
@@thomasgiannetti4032 Interesting how it seems paradoxical that statement in of itself: All claims are not safe from scrutiny.
Hitchens would most likely agree.
Yes, not even God. Or Voldemort. Or even Sauron, *and even IF any of these three DO exist!*
@Ali Hanif I dont think u understand alex's take on free will
@Ali Hanif "Consciousness itself is a mystery that can only really be understood in the context of a creator"
Consciousness itself is only mysterious in the context of mind-body dualism.
In the materialistic view, consciousness is merely the electrochemical state of our material brains, which gradually evolved into reasoning systems due to selection pressure. There is nothing mysterious about it.
I wish I was British so my arguments sounded more compelling.
I'm glad I'm not British so my arguments don't just sound compelling, so instead I'm required to actually make a compelling argument on itself before people consider it to be compelling enough. But if you rather live in the illusion of being able to make compelling arguments rather than to learn how to make compelling arguments I understand your wish.
BlacksmithTWD it was clearly a joke. people believed his dumb argument and she jumped to the reasoning being that he has a British accent.
@@mr.camera1585 Except that accents like his do literally have the effect of causing people to believe a speaker is more intelligent than they actually are. I have no doubts that Hitchens' accent played a role in how people perceived him and his arguments (I'm sure it plays a role in how people perceive Alex as well).
Wesley O. Yes, but it’s irrational to believe someone is smarter because of their accent.
@@mr.camera1585 Welcome to human psychology. A lot of our thought processes are irrational.
I loved the way he used to take his pause before the sentence was finished, in order to run right through to the next without interruption. I now do the same. Genius.
Smoking and drinking oneself to an early end is far from genius.
So is denying your creator, whom he knows exists now.
@@auntiesemite9295 You have no place in and should be excluded from all serious conversation. Geniuses tend to smoke and drink themselves into oblivion explicitly because of the stupidity of humans such you and your arguments.
@@auntiesemite9295 I'm glad to see Hitchens still gets on your nerves even after his passing. A brilliant man doing amazing work even when he is no longer with us. But please do keep carrying on and speaking ill of the dead and showing the world the true nature of religious people like you. For it is through the acts of people like yourself that most turn away from religions. Thank you.
If sophistry is genius.
@@shantilus did I mention content?
There's no best way to honor a man like Hitchens, than by exercising intelligent criticism on him. He would have been flattered and would have appreciated the clarity.
By naming this video “Sophistry of Christopher Hitchens”, a definite clickbait? I don’t think so! CH would not have gone this low to placate theists.
@@FitratAbdulla yes youre right because he wasnt capable of trying to understand the other side
Could be why he substituted funny one liners for actual responses to the hard questions
@@joedwyer3297 Yes, he did have an amazing talent to rebut your multiple line non sequitur BS with one liner quips 👍😁
@@FitratAbdulla yes he was genuinely brilliant at quips
If only he had anything else at all in his arsenal he'd have been pretty unstoppable!
@@joedwyer3297unstoppable in what regard?
Nothing says you respect someone's ideas more than being comfortable criticizing their failings.
Wujeeta try telling your girlfriend that
@@hugster2000 Get a smarter girlfriend
@@theveganwujeetaThat´s what she said. D:
Don't forget, logic and reason alone never convinced anybody. That's the secret of Hitchens's success.
@@carrstone01 Obviously given the state of religiosity, but it'd be hypocritical to criticize only those who disagree with you for faulty logic
Man I can't wait to see Hitchen's response video
It would be a linguistic warhead straight from heaven - oh, wait, there isn't one.
:(
Åh i hope a liguistic warhead from hell; the devil always seemed the better bloke and one with far superior taste in interior decor.
Too soon Soo soon 😂
Sometimes I watch Peter Hitchens do debates because of their familial charm
The question was "why do you find it insulting".and that's exactly what he answered in the beginning..
The glint in your eye and little smile you give when you say "Christopher Hitchens turned on his maker... then so can I" because you knew you just said something clever made me smile.
Yeah that was nice
TIMESTAMPS:
Part One: The Moral Argument -- 4:10
Part Two: Free Will -- 16:30
Part Three: The Cosmological Argument -- 21:20
Thank you!
Great video and as a side ... Would people be willing to share where you stand on these issues .... Ie morality free will and validity of the cosmological argument...
I think I have an original argument against contingency. Which is contingency being a formal argument is coherent, but coherence is not enough to show something as evident. And this can be further proved by rival coherent philosophical arguments, which physicalism/naturalism/materialism is not a rival to so is not similarly thrown into doubt because its not making contention to rival arguments with its argument. Like how science doesn't make a claim as to what caused the big bang (and the big bang even is still up for contention). Meanwhile gravity and other theories do not have coherent rival theories, and are further evidenced by technology and other real world exploits. Because of this, contingency being in contention that is, while the physical/material/natural does not have thorough coherent rivals, proves there are different degrees of evidence and also proves that philosophical arguments may not be enough evidence. For example contingency doesn't require a god, it could be a fundamental law. Which means for each rival possibility the stance is weaker, and theres no true rival theories to the physical explanations we observe. So we cannot conclude god is real. Also considering theres no rival theory for physicalism or the like, this proves omniscience cannot exist because no simple objects can both store and read information, especially a near infinite amount, and that object for example would need to understand itself thoroughly as well to meet the criteria for omniscience. Which means it needs to hold more information than itself, which is impossible. And will be the case until theres a competent rival theory for the more evident understanding of the world.
@@mimszanadunstedt441 I don't get the thing about omnipresent .. something could be omnipresent if say it is timeless ...
Christopher Hitchens did not enter his battles of words with the ambition of conducting a logically consistent philosophical debate. As a world leader of the atheist movement, he had every legitimacy to resort to the same rhetorical bag of tricks as his opponents. But if you are captious enough, the criticism is of course justified. ;-)
Thanks for your great work, Alex, keep on mopping the floor!
If he was alive, he would have probably loved this, considering the whole thing is based on his own principles.
I actually don't think so. He was very proud, as fun as he was to listen to. I think he would have bombarded us with more sophistry
@@davidanderson6055 No he wouldn’t. He was more gutsy than proud.
I tend to agree with David, don't think he would've appreciated it that much.
no way. i’ve been watching and listening to christopher for a while now and i never knew he even died. so sad, i’m shocked rn
@@meaninglessjunk9594 Yeah, he's been dead for years now. He got some sort of throat cancer. If the smoking didn't get him, the blasphemy probably did.
You really did a fine job with this. As a fan of Christopher Hitchens, I am glad to see these blatant weaknesses in some of his arguments acknowledged.
Thank you so much for this video, I really appreciate it. Christopher Hitchins content is some of my favorite on all of the World Wide Web. I appreciate your take on his lack of an answer in these cases. I believe I was so infatuated with his charisma that I looked right past it.
You've earned a lot of credibility for taking on our favorite thinkers. No one is above criticism. It is dangerous to become a fan (fanatic) for anyone.
Especially when it’s god
Jesus is above criticism bud
Well it’s easy to take on a dead person.
@@wyckofury2198 are alex’s refutations not valid?
@@ericsonofjohn9384 Accepting something without criticism is indoctrination. Brainwash
Very curious to see how Hitchens would have responded to such valid and thorough criticisms if he were still around today to see this video.
valid and thorough? The first clip is already Alex lying that Hitch did evade the question where the question shown was exactly what Hitch answers to. The critique does not fit the material used to critique! Look again at the Interview, at 4:40 ff Alex shows himself that Hitch was asked "why do you find it insulting". THEN he chides Hitch for not answering where he gets his morals from, when that was NOT the question!!!! Claiming he does not answer the question which was asked when it is exactly the other way around.
@Is Math related to science? Very rationale wow
@Is Math related to science? you either clearly haven't seen his body of work or have such awe in Hitch that you see him as infallible. Hitch was brilliant, but he wasn't perfect. His public debates were part performance art, and he used that to deflect once in a while. It doesn't make him less enjoyable or less brilliant.
Ugly German Truths I think he was referring to the question that the interviewer was referencing when he asked the follow up question “why is it insulting?”. I agree it was confusing and I thought exactly what you did until I listened again to the response that the interviewer was reading. I don’t think he was being intellectually dishonest but could’ve cleared up which question he was addressing for clarity’s sake
Probably that Alex should listen better to what is said. Hitchens is not asked by the interviewer how he gets right from wrong without a god, but rather he is asked why he thinks the question is insulting. Listen again, its not strange that Hitchens doesnt answer to something he wasnt asked.
Mad respect for this video, not just tackling the topic but doing so in such a methodical, convincing way. I think you did what I previously thought nigh impossible: proved a Hitch argument to be fallacious. Well done, you've earned a new subscriber. Looking forward to watching some more of your channel's past and future content.
Perhaps that’s because of your own pre-existing biases? Christians have been pointing to Christopher’s false arguments and underhanded misrepresentations of the God of the Bible for a very long time, but it took another atheist to get you to acknowledge them yourself.
@@simoncordingley3122 please don't speak for me, you clearly have no idea what I'm acknowledging.
@@dougdaniels7848 Yes, I do; you think it was impossible for Christopher Hitchens to be proven fallacious. You just said it.
@@simoncordingley3122 Christopher Hitchens proved himself fallacious by weaseling out from the questions he could not answer without unwillingly giving credit to God. So he chose "running away" by changing subject.
@@jounisuninen Yes, I’ve listened Christopher Hitchens quite a lot, and besides being eloquent and a great rhetorician with an Oxford accent, I don’t think I’ve heard him say anything about Christianity, in particular, that was very interesting. Nearly all his polemical arguments are based on arrogant straw man misunderstandings/misrepresentations of Christianity. He was so tiresome to listen to, but I can see how he could sound authoritative to a cynic’s ear.
I actually like Alex though. He’s an agnostic, which is at least an honest position to take. He also tries to steel man apologetic arguments, whilst being polite and respectful. It’s a totally different approach and one even Christians should learn from.
Coming from an infrequent but periodic viewer of your channel and the new one, great video. Kudos for taking on this important take on the record. Great editing,great subject matter, great video!
The first one on moral argument, the interviewer actually did ask “why is it insulting?”
Justin Willhoit right, but his previous question was not answered, which I think Alex is trying to get at.
It is true that hitchens didnt answer the question but there definitely is a secular and naturalistic answer for that question
Justin Willhoit I should have been more clear: Hitchens was asked where to get morality without God, he responds by saying it’s insulting, then the interviewer asks why he has responded in this way. My point was that he didn’t respond to the original question, and that asked why it’s insulting he just restated the question and asserted that it’s insulting.
CosmicSkeptic gotcha. Your point still stands and I agree. Thanks for the clarification
Christopher Combs what is it?
All fair points. Much like you, Hitchens is my favorite writer but he was, at heart, a bar fighter with a thick coat of academics and a wicked sense of humor.
Love the description of Hitchens as a 'bar fighter'.
@@alanalan9242 But only prepared to fight in bars that served a decent single malt ;-)
@1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV But only if the "Puppy" was a god bothering loon, which meant it was all to the good of humanity.
@1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV Let me help you with English, when the word puppy is expressed in "" the entity is not an actual Puppy. in this case it is clearly referring to something with the critical thinking skills of a puppy or to be precise a Theist like yourself. So the only thing I am excusing is dishing out abuse to Theists. Something which clearly can only benefit humanity.
@1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV lol, spoken exactly like a dimwitted Literalist! (maybe a kick in the head would help?)
What a superbly informative presentation!
I only recently discovered Hitchens (how I regret not hearing him during his lifetime!), and have been watching his old debates. Your points are well-founded and well-argued-something about those responses of his struck me as off, but you’ve articulated your criticisms masterfully. I daresay Hitchens would feel the same.
Nah, he wouldn't. He'd have explained why Alex had missed the point of a debate entirely. And likely reminded him of his losing record.
Watching Alex correct his hero while physically and visibly frustrated by how C.H conducted himself at times in the intellectual arena is why this channel is in my top 5. Mate, you are going to be a heavyweight I cant wait to see whats to come in your future.
What would come of his future 🤔
iDeas _ your mom
@@deeharris_4350 Potential is endless. Alexs mind can take whatever frontier or cause he wants to further and advance it further than most could in multiple lifetimes. I for one, think politics and any public position of power, should be held by those with the ability to discover and implement solutions to societies issues based on science and not ideology and beliefs. We should be so lucky. But can u imagine CS in parliament running circles around every smooth talking 2 buck used car salesman that passes for a leader these days. I'd pay to watch that shit lmao
@@HappinessOrDeath easily impressed
@@Harriett2423 sure am. Wish there were more examples of this then I could easily be impressed all the time
I am a Muslim and I have to commend you for an exemplary level of integrity and dare I say sincerity. The fact that you take the effort to criticize someone who could be considered representing the same camp as you, at least in some parts, is a great testimony to this. Kudos to you sir.
Awesome comment. That is why free speach and open criticism withotu malicious intentions and ulterior agenda should become the norm... when that happens, we could be able to make massive progress. That is one of the main contentions against religion. While changes to religious moral imperative happen (in Christianity especially, but I assume that many are made in Islam as well) it is always a struggle. Its not enough to establish "hey, this is better, we all agree and it makes sense". Aftewards there will still be the question of "but how can we explain in it in the context of our sacred text". And whats worse, the immediate expectation of a life-long religious scholar would be to dismiss it in the first round, because the second question is just too dangerous to deal with. Which naturaly, introduces exactly that agenda and ulterior motive, that the open discussion should avoid. I would be interested about what you, as a Muslim, think of this?
@@psychepeteschannel5500 Islam differs quite a lot from christianity in this regard. We have an extensive and old history in these fields. You can look up the concept of Double truth for instance which will give you the answer. We do not consider scholars infallible either. Neither do we believe that religion and reality are *ultimately* in odds with each other. Science as we know it has its limitations and is also ever evolving. That is the nature of science. We aknowledge the significance of it as well as it's limitations never dismissing it but rather challenging it as it should be in order for it to evolve. This is the reason why Islamic civilization grew and developed at such a rapid phase soon after 9th century and specifically in the field of sciences.
@@G00dwILLHuNt1n9 Thank you. I also dont think religion and reality are ultimately in odds. On the contrary, I think that it should converge at some point (thats why I would actually disagree with the Double truth kind of thinking, as far as I understand it (minimally)). But specifically in the questions of morality, it still seems to me that what I described in the previous comments stands. An open debate with no ulterior motives is magnitudes more difficult within a religious context, than a secular one. There are truths that need to be adhered to, ideally without question.
@@psychepeteschannel5500 @Psyche Pete's Channel English isn't my first language so excuse me for any possible errors in grammar.
In regards to the double truth theory, as I've understood it, it aknowledges that the scientific (agnostic) and theological approaches differ in their fundamentals. Agnostic being silent without the presumption of a Creator yet both can and will come in to the same conclusion about the reality, natural world etc.
That kind of leads to your unanswered question. I beg to differ and I believe the new atheist movement is a proof of this. They seem to be fundamentally atheistic, to me appearing to stand their ground on almost on an emotional level. Specifically Dawkins, Krauss and I do think also Hitchens displayed this to some extent. It is given that when you confront someone religious they are coming from a place where certain believes are a fundamental basis in their thinking but this applies likewise to the afore mentioned personalities.
Ultimately we can not proove or disapprove the existence of an ultimate Creator. We can make logical arguments against and for it but at the end of the day that's all what we are able to say about this subject. Therefore ultimately all we have is a belief or the lack there of.
@@G00dwILLHuNt1n9 i do not intend to enter the discussion, but If i'm not mistaken, the three atheists you pointed to shares the view of your last sentence. They're not staunch about there being no god. Dawkins especially is quite upset when people claim there is no god. Any honest (atheist) person genuinely curious about the subject would come to the same conclusion.
I am an old man. It is bracing to see someone in your generation doing so much better than many in mine -- we would laugh with Hitch and not bother to peek behind the curtain of his quick wit and erudition, something that Americans can be especially guilty of when deftly expressed in the King's. Very well done.
Three cheers for intellect.
Nonsense
@@ztrinx1 Go on, use your words. If you are able to.
@@YowzoeI am responding to a blanket statement without specific examples, that is the problem.
@@ztrinx1 not really -- there's a place for blanket exclamations of gratitude, isn't there? Relax the left brain and say something from the heart: it helps everyone
I find this a rather delightful listen, and I'm just at the prologue, but so wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your obviously sincere admiration of Christopher Hitchens, and your desire to honor him with appropriate and articulate challenges. While I might not be your expected demographic, as a former tax lawyer, artist, and mother to men and women your age, I shared your talk with "Beautiful Education Boy" with my youngest son. I've been an atheist down to my toes since I was small, because I have a brain, and can't help myself, but I live in a world where this isn't by far the norm. Therefore, I long for conversations with like-minded thinkers and this is a lovely substitute you offer me here. How very kind of you!
You know what I love about Alex? He doesn't believe his own role models are not subject to being wrong.
Everyone is wrong on some topics, we can only do our best not to.
That's Real Skeptic.. Criticism of even the person on the same side
Yeah, just because someone agrees with some or even most of the things someone else says doesn't mean that they agree with everything that the person says
@Vayne Carudas Solidor He is not unbiased. Alex knows that himself. I think you should watch talk he gave about why smart people believe stupid things. I paraphrase him: to say that you are not biased, that demonstrates that you are in fact biased.
Hitch was never on the dark side, that is why Cosmic Philospher does no longer like his arguments, the Philosophy studies have ruined him, taken him from the light into the endless navel gazing of the ivory tower.
@Vayne Carudas Solidor "no bias" , every single person on this planet has bias dude. Just because Cosmic Skeptic fairly critisces Hitchens doesnt mean he's a "true free thinker" and has "no bias". I disagree with almost everything Cosmic Skeptic says or believes in but I admire the fact he is honest enough to admit Hitchens was no way any sort of philosopher and and the same can be said about people like Dawkins or Tyson who meddle into philosophy while being clueless about it.
Problems start when you criticize the person and not the issue. It's a tactic oft chosen by those who appear to be unable to make a cogent , on-topic case and are then reduced to taking advice from the Bill Ayers playbook.
This is brilliant, I can't believe I have only just found you
Very crisp and clear thinking by Alex. I often listened to Christopher and enjoyed it, but was not aware of the fact that he sometimes answered evasively.
He did of course, because he was trying to win debates. not something Alex knows much about.
@@scottymeffz5025being consistent and honest is better than winning debates.
@@tranium67 I agree... unless of course, you're trying to win a debate.
Huh. Alex, you misunderstood the first one: the interviewer quoted Hitchens, then asked him *why he felt insulted,* not *why he disagreed with the argument.* Hitchens actually DID answer the question that was asked there: Hitchens was asked why he felt insulted by the statement, so he answered that he felt it was a serious insult to humanity in general.
A follow-up explaining why he disagreed would have been nice, but there may have been a behind-the-scenes reason he didn’t go there, or maybe he just thought he didn’t need to.
Perhaps because morality is an issue Alex seems to misunderstand himself.
@@skyeangelofdeath7363 Hang on, what do you mean?
@@camolotthe42 He is a subjective morality guy.
@@skyeangelofdeath7363 What do you mean exactly? I would say morality is subjective, but what I mean by that is morality does not exist outside of human experience. Within human society, morality is much less subjective because it is based on socially agreed upon/inferred rules, and for the most part individuals don't get to decide what those rules are. If there is an objectivity to morality, it comes from the power of group consensus. Kind of like how the value of money works.
@@skyeangelofdeath7363 Because that's how morality works? If morality were objective, than it would be a science and every society would have the exact same values. Give me one example of a morality that is objective.
I absolutely love when people healthily criticize the same people they otherwise adore. Love Hitchens and this video ❤️
To True 💙
What an odd thing to love
@1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV how about lambasting those who think genital mutilation is fine? Pretty damn good message to hammer home
1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV female genital mutilation is most often performed by women living in communities where that is a common social norm, predominantly in Africa with additional large groups in the Middle East and Southeast Asia (Indonesia most commonly).
While this is most often done in Muslim societies the practice predates Mohammed by at least half a millennia, being attested to by the ancient Greeks as an Egyptian practice of the time. The scope of FGM ranges from a ceremonial pinprick of the labia as a form of blood oath of sexual morality through pseudo-surgical removal of the clitoris, internal and external labia, and the permanent sewing of the vaginal canal to prevent sexual intercourse until it is ripped open when the woman’s marriage is consummated.
Make genital mutilation is far more common, of course, but is more often described euphemistically with the term “Circumcision.”
1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV correct, the communities with female genital mutilation are not (by and large) Christian.
Circumcision, or make genital mutilation, is predominantly Jewish, though given the total population of Christians vs Jews there are probably more circumcised Christians than there are Jews.
Great video, Alex. One thing I would add to contextualise - and maybe relativise - the “tu quoque” fallacy point: I believe the fact that this occurs pretty much lies in the nature of the argument. What I mean by that is that the main point of the religious side is basically “We’ve got all the answers (-> god)” and it’s just logical to at some point go “No you don’t!” and thus commit the tu quoque fallacy. If the main premise is that one side has all the answers and the other doesn’t then claiming that both sides in fact don’t have answers is actually a valid point for once.
I think he briefly touched on this in the video - the tu quoque fallacies he mentioned were in relation to Hitchens claiming that morality exists, and that free will exists, without providing any solid reasoning - I see what you mean when you say that neither side has a complete answer but Hitchens did go out and claim that these things exist and when asked 'how can you ground such beliefs without a creator' he basically said 'well a creator doesn't explain it'
Im actually going back on myself while writing this because that actually makes a fairly valid point - of course we can moreorless observe morality and free will in action, that means that they exist, not that they were put in place by a deity
I suppose his point is that we want to operate on evidence, and we have observed evidence of free will/morality so we can argue that they exist, but we haven't observed good evidence for a creator, or good evidence that said creator instilled moral value and free will into us, so the argument that morality stems from God is no better than the argument that free will is inate - I can't explain it and neither can you so why postulate a God as an explanation when that doesn't make things any easier, and it gives you something more difficult to explain/prove (similar to the point I hear Dawkins make on the idea of the universe requiring a creator)
I think there's some merit to the idea that existence and apparent morality require an explaination beyond natural science -> i.e. some eternal supernatural force or deity which doesn't 'have' or 'need' a scientific explaination - (although as Hitchens said, this leaves the theist with all his work ahead of him i.e. proving that he know this Gods will and that he cares about the universe and the human race) but his response (the idea that postulating a God doesn't help your case) holds a lot more water than Alex made it out to
@@joelmacinnes2391 One of the critics in the video had a point -- where did morality come from? Carbon atoms? Benzene molecules? I'm sure the atheist is going to say . . . evolution. But here's the problem . . . evolution is a dynamic, not a constant process. Objective morality is timeless. It doesn't not change. What is right/wrong today is the same as it was yesterday. Objective morality does not evolve. It is constant and never changes. Even if some kind of "morality" can come from evolution, it's not an "objective" one. This opens the door to the question -- whose "morality" is the right one?
My personal view on "morality" is that even from a religious perspective, there is no "objective morality." There is no objective morality whether you are religious or atheistic. Why do I say that? I say that because if you go back to the story about the Garden of Eden (ok, talking about specific religions here, particularly Judaism and Christianity), there were two trees: the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Why is it called "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?" Why is it not called "Law of Good and Evil?" I think the author of this story chose his/her terminology well. Good and evil were never absolute, they were always subjective, always dependent on the circumstances.
The belief in "objective morality" comes predominantly from Protestant Christians who believe in the Five Solas of the Reformation, who see things in black-and-white terms and believe in "the one true religion."
Can we get links to proper counterarguments and refutations as well, Alex? Curious as to how to address the theists' and apologists' positions. A probably good idea is an update video to this episode, where you can list (for educational purposes) the way Hitchens' should've best answered his interlocutors. I'm happy as the next objective thinker to see you expose Hitchen's sophistry, but as I might have missed it, mentioning the ideal rebuttal in a separate video might be illustrative too.
Is this really how we should go about determining our beliefs? I'm not attacking you as I'm as guilty of this as basically everyone else is, but your comment seems to imply you've made up your mind that there is no god, and are now looking for justification of that belief, and some answers to the theists arguments. It seems you have decided "well, people smarter than me have determined atheism is true so I trust them".
If I couldn't answer a slew of arguments about something, shouldn't that convince me to change my mind or at the least re-consider how sure I am of my beliefs? Isnt that what arguments are meant to do, change our minds and not to score points toward whatever our side might be? You've apparently already decided that the theists arguments are not good and now look for reasons why that's the case, maybe due to the respect you have for people like Alex or Hitchens.
Again I'm not having a go at you, I absolutely am guilty of this too. We all do it unconsciously to some degree. I just feel like so many people in both the theist and atheist camps have their minds made up due to personal, non logical reasons and then go searching *after the fact* for good arguments and rebuttals to justify their position. I don't want to hear that most atheists aren't guilty of this - that this belief is purely one of evidence, logic and reason because I've seen time and time again that's not the case for a large number of people. We get committed to a belief system and then find people smarter and better educated than us to justify why we're correct. I have been on both sides and did this (unconsciously) for both belief systems.
Since this is an atheist channel I'll say this as its more relevant to the audience here: many atheists I've met seem to have this sense of intellectual superiority and arrogance toward theists, as if only the gullible and ignorant could beleive in God so they dismiss any arguments before hearing them. I definitely did this when I was a full on atheist. Alex to his credit does not seem to do this, as evidenced by this video pretty well. He actually engages with the Christian side fairly - it just personally doesn't convince him. We should all have that mindset, whether we're religious or atheists.
Please do a whole series on this concept of clarifying points that went under our radar truth is ultimately what many of us seek I would be very grateful for the help!:)
At 5:20, I think you misheard the question. The interviewer clearly asked at 4:58 "Why do you find it insulting?"
I noticed that too. I'm inclined to give Hitch a pass on that one because two questions were asked. However, there are enough examples to sustain the point.
@@JohnDavidDunlap Agreed. I do remember watching the Turek debate years ago, and realising that sometimes Hitchens can actually be a rubbish debater sometimes.
I thought the same thing, but the interviewer reads the question "where do you get your sense of right and wrong" then reads Hitchens response "the question is insulting" and then asks Hitchens "why do you find it insulting". I don't think it was the best clip to use to make the point seeing as the interviewer didn't actually ask him about morality, but instead asks him about his response.
Absolutely. Good point
I disagree
You make unusually clear explanations that are excellent. I hope you continue your work so we can all benefit further.
As a fellow Hitchens fan (like everyone else here, I suppose) I thank you for this perspective. It's something I have noticed myself and it's good to have it pronounced.
To your first example:
I do believe you are being a bit of a sophist here yourself. Hitchens often takes a shortcut, as you point out, and you also highlight when he actually confronts the question but you seem to gloss over that somehow. His stance, as it seems to me, is that morality is a function of our biology. We have instincts as a race, as a carbon-based species. God doesn't enter into it, He is a cultural object made to control us.
The daemon, the internal witness, etc. is a personal intuition of the mind. If some people need to call this God, that is fair and incontroversial. The objection that Hitchens and other active atheists object to is the dogma of a binary, personal, authoritarian supernatural entity. I don't see how he is a hypocrite in this sense.
The burden of proof:
A free hour from your boss is not a free hour, it's a break from work. In the examples you mention Hitchens is always pressed for proof for God's non-existence. Who could answer that in all seriousness without looking foolish? One is not obliged to answer foolish questions at their level.
I admire your attempt to play devil's advocate but I feel like you are thumbing the scales, much like Hitchens sometimes did. ;) Your attack requires of him a philosophical stringency that you do not require of his opponents. After all, Hitchens is not attacking religion, he is defending against it.
I think that this is one of your best videos so far. Hitchens was the person that made me comfortable with my loss of religion, listening to him convinced me to call myself an antithiest, as opposed to being an atheist that was sad that god doesn't exist. I have only noticed a few of the issues you pointed out here, and near the end of the video i found myself thinking that if a christian was making this video and raising identical points, I would think that he misunderstood Christopher and I wouldn't be convinced at all. Thank you for making this controversial video and not only showing his mistakes, that flew right over my head, but also showing me how biased I was.
@Barthelemy What? Did you have a point? Sorry, I've been playing Food Chain Magnate in a world of Marble Chess.
@Him Next Door Your objections were addressed in the video. And Hitchens already stated that he expected no leniency.
Matt Dillahunty constantly states that 'he doesn't know' in his debates. He argues quite well that his opponents should admit the same. He seems to be doing alright as far a ticket sales go (as if that's the only reason we would've ever heard of him or The Hitch). And if the question is an insult...ok. Hitchens never had a qualm about insulting back, but, answer the question.
I don't doubt you watched the video, but I have my doubts that you paid attention.
@Barthelemy Alright. My question to you is what is conciousness? And if not the same...what are thoughts?
That has some wisdom to it. Still needs to be backed up....
And what is the source? Not another whispered voice of a being that will not stick around...?
Also, what are 'demons'? Schizoid impulses of god?
I love Hitchens (one of my kids middle names). I love what you are doing, Hitchens was freestyling and being a journalist, you are taking the arguments and advancing them by criticising them. This is how we get closer to the truth. Nobody should be above criticism. I hope in 20 years or so there is a cosmic sketic gen 40s that does the same, Standing on the shoulders of giants is how we progress.
😂😂😂
But he offered no answer only critiqued his
The meaning of identify morality with scientific knowledge is actually a way to create a caste immune from critics, especially about moral choiches.
@@mavrospanayiotis not really wrong there. They just make it up to us, given that we change our mind, morality has no objective meaning
@@matthewhinchliffe2334 i lean myself towards a subjective morality wich is very contextualized, although not completely arbitrary.
Brilliantly done. Thank you!
I am literally reading, god is not great, by Mr. Hitchens right now. I just started reading it, but I already know so much of its content by watching his debates. But I am finding new epiphanies on every page. I want more. Thank you.
I also gonna start reading that book once it arrives. And just like you, I have a feeling I’m gonna discover epiphanies that I never got from watching his debates. Maybe his words on paper will be easier to digest as well
Not gonna lie, but I love Hitchens. As a philosoph myself, I recognize he made some abysmal philosophical errors. However, as an orator and speaker, he was beyond impressive.
That's exactly what's said about U.S. televangelists...whom include the constant intoxication and florid bad health of Hitchens. Vile, bombastic, charlatan. NOTHING he ever said
will continue on as substantial. Which Harris, Shermer, Silverman's contributions will.
@@WayneLynch69 Whoops babbbam........now who do we have here......
he makes quite decent points on the spot though for example he said he didnt believe in a god and wouldnt want a god and he analogises god to north korea loved that speech
@@WayneLynch69 Unlike you, he lived and died with his boots on.
@@WayneLynch69 and why tf not
16:34 I think you missed one of Hitchens' arguments for human morality. He always said societies don't survive or last for very long if they allowed rape, murder, theft, etc. So it stands to reason that he believed morality was an emergent phenomenon from evolution, and since he was a dialectical materialist he almost certainly believed morality didn't have a permanent, objective basis but rather one that changed depending on the existing material conditions. Subsequent generations developed better senses of it. "The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living".
I think that's a good answer, but I'm not sure if Hitchens ever articulated it clearly enough to stick.
How do you explain the religion of peace was built on those principles and is the world's fastest growing religion.
www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Well, obviously, but that's not explaining a grounds for morality, it's giving an explanation of its origins. You might even say "but the race wouldn't survive if we didn't follow these precepts". Alright, maybe it won't, but why should I care about that for myself, except in so far as I care about the existence of the human race beyond myself? "Because you ought to care about the continued existence of the human race.." you say. "Ought I? Why?"I reply....You see the problem?
@@stu1002 What does "a grounds for morality" even mean?
Very well put @lavabug
troweltheory You’re asking the right questions. How does one ground morality? How does one ground any concept? How does one even certainly ground their own body on the ground?! Many paradoxes form at the ‘ought.’
The Hitch was a journalist and a debater, not a philosopher.
That's true. I was going to point that out.
thank you for doing this work
Some of these inconsistencies are hard to spot in real time given his mastery of the English language and oration. Good job Alex. You’re the most dedicated to consistency philosopher I have encountered in all of my exploration.
Yes, he was very witty, and people often mistake wittiness for a sound argument (especially if they already agree with it).
Haha That close up on Dawkins aggressively agreeing with Hitchens had me breath hard out of my nose.
hahaha me too!!
It’s Dunning Kruger my man. That’s all...
Natturner 100 bucks if you can tell me what I meant by that comment......seems you have no idea. It’s more than an appropriate response to this young kids misapprehensions on this topic, but alas another ignorant fool caught in the Vail of DK (there’s 1 hahaha) Sigh.... you just can’t go anywhere on the internet without getting into a fight. What a benign comment for someone to pick a fight over....lol. Clearly another misunderstanding individual. Good luck with that attitude bud. Take care.
Natturner cool. Well, you came out swinging! Truce? Haha!
Been out since 99....that term based on the research done then. I’ve used it thousands of times since then I’d imagine. What I meant was....Chris was too brilliant and as a consequence sometimes leaves his answers steeped in implication and a knowledge base most do not posses....but he...many times fails to stop there and further or better reiterate the point. He just moves on.
He’s the prime example of the high end of that terminology. For many years I was yelling at him on screen that....No they “don’t get it” and please DO NOT “leave it to the good graces of my audience”......because Chris, they don’t get it. That’s what I meant.
Natturner I hear ya there my friend!!!! Relationships are hard, let alone during unprecedented times. Everything’s amplified. All understandable....this whole thing has been very hard on everyone. I appreciate that though, and absolutely no harm done. My very best to you and yours. I keep telling myself “deep breaths!”...lol! Easier said than done though. Crazy times.
I thought of exactly the same problem about the moral argument, thanks for articulating the issue so well !
I love this review on Hitchens. So useful! Thanks
My absolute favorite Hitch quote: "Salvation is offered at the low cost of the surrender of your critical faculties."
Salvation is offered at the high cost of your personal sovereignty
Sometimes critical thinking can get in the way of living.
@@peteratkinson922also sometimes those who copy the framework of another’s critical thinking skills never truly think for themselves and in turn sacrifice their individual sovereignty
The notion of salvation exists because materialism is great with material problems, and terrible with problems of the soul.
@@Azoria4 Being a human is too complicated. Imma just be a dog 🐕
I miss Hitch. He wasn’t a philosopher by any means, but he was damn good at bulldozing through deep philosophical debate points. He wasn’t perfect, but he was important to the changing landscape of median public discourse.
Hitch was near about the text book definition of a bully and a purveyor of strawman fallacies .. i don't miss such a person, he hurt the cause of atheism more than theism!
@@averagestudent5223 Given the number of atheists who admire Hitchens - I doubt if your claim is true.
@@aerodrome4427 argument ad populum is a fallacy
@Dennis Sullivan They knew he had influence. Not because his arguments were all that persuasive; but rather his quick witted delivery as the root of his responses that swayed people. Not saying he wasn't a smart man in other aspects. He was a great orator,journalist,author(sometimes competent in debate),etc. But he was a terrible in terms of philosophy,imo. And could be overbearing in debates/discussions.
@@aerodrome4427 I think that’s the point. What I like to call “New Age” Atheists will admire a pseudointellectual celebrity like Hitchens or Dawkins et al, content with his surface-level witticisms on atheism as opposed to diving into any of the meat of the philosophy behind it. This is how atheism has just turned into yet another close-minded dogmatic religion over the past few decades.
very well argued! Thank you for sharing.
The thing is, once you start seeing the sophistry in Hitchens...you see more and more of it, and you can't unsee it.
Dawkins has been far more consistent in his sophistry, at the very least lol. Hitchens arguments was more bluster and passion than "materialist" (like Dawkins) or naturalist (like many scientists would argue). He had a particular hatred for the Catholic Church, and his personal animosity towards "organized religion" (which has many of the same flaws as any crowd/"gang" activity) definitely clouded his ability to have proper arguments against "Deist" worldviews, which don't require a "sky daddy" at all...God could be something as simple as "Intuition" or "Reason", or even "Art/Creativity". A living concept that continues to "paint" the world.
@@bernlin2000i dont think Hitchens or Dawkins really had a big problem with the idea that some deity or force created the universe - even if they didnt believe it - their quarrel was with the claims made by organised religion about morality and divinity as opposed to the mere concept that something caused the universe to be created
Hitchens' arguments were great for scoring points against Christians and Christianity, but outside of this sport of scoring points against Christians and Christianity, there was less value in his arguments.
Hitchens' arguments weren't worth much without the opponent. When the opponent stopped caring or stopped fighting back, it no longer mattered.
@@tomsmith6513 I'm not sure the God that Hitchens scored against was ever one that most believers believe in. There was always an element of straw man in Hitchens arguments. Many believers would AGREE that the Catholic church has historically been one of the most evil institutions in history. They hijacked Christianity in the same way Stalin and his cronies hijacked communism. Thus a good deal of the 'scoring' consisted of mis-direction against an easier target...which is the very definition of straw man.
@@bernlin2000 If your god is intuition, reason, art or creativity then we agree that your god exists. But you should stop calling it a god, because it's not.
Great video Alex. I always found Christopher Hitchens much better at raising criticisms of religion than he was at rebutting criticisms of atheism. I certainly think he deserves the praise given to him for being a passionate and eloquent antitheist, but a lot of his arguments were not airtight, and much better resources exist when it comes to actually getting down in the weeds of refuting religious arguments.
I don't know if these things are necessarily criticisms of atheism. But I suppose in this case we could make the positive claim of where morals come from.
@@thomasgiannetti4032 I think we mostly agree; I'm only talking about a few specific religious arguments when I say Hitch didn't provide the best responses. And yes, I think that failing to justify objective morality is only really a problem if someone in fact claims that secular morality is objective, which I don't think is generally necessary. In the cases Alex brought up here, Hitch would have been perfectly justified in saying "I don't have an answer for that question, but that doesn't make your answer any less wrong."
How do you rebut a criticism of atheism? Sorry I don't believe in monsters???
@Eddie Austin who says complexity and sophistication are indications of intelligence?
The statement:
I always found Christopher Hitchens much better at raising criticisms of religion than he was at rebutting criticisms of atheism
Yeah, in a way Hitchens reminds me a bit of Karl Marx. Marx had a superb criticism of capitalism (particularly the economic argument in Das Kapital), but the solution, "the dictatorship of the proletariat" and " the classless communist society" was almost as idealistic as the religions he criticized …
I guess criticism is easier than solutions, no matter who you are :)
I liked the way Hitchens could stick it in your face without provoking combat. I don’t really know the term and have not seen it used in action, but Hitchens may be an example of “take no prisoners”. He never asserted himself half-way. That would be a skill to have. I can only just imagine.
About the morality part. Hitchens often says quite clearly that the sense of right and wrong are inborn. That's why it's insulting. Through secular philosophy we also more clearly discover why morality is such a good thing and how to do it. Why do we have it? Because it helps us survive and it feels good. Hitchens just skips to the more relevant part which is tearing down the false premise that religion or god is why we have morality.
We already know right and wrong before we hear religious stories or commandments telling us. around 9:00 you talk about needing a justification for our moral instinct and that it's obvious we have a moral instinct. Well, you answer your own question. IT'S OBVIOUS WE HAVE A MORAL INSTINCT. Why do you have to justify something inborn? And why do you have to justify something where the opposite would lead to death and extinction? It's inborn, it's natural, we acted that way, we feel that way because it got us to now. The species survived because of it; before we had religion or even language.
"The love and protection of children is instinctual" boom, morality justified. And given the harm religion and god has done to children disproves them having any positive justification for religion. Humans could not have existed if they didn't have a sense of morality. We'd have extincted ourselves long ago. Even a child knows the feelings within us that arise when the self or others are hurt. A child can feel empathy and sympathy for another without and before religious instruction. Are you trying to be like Turek there and need a science explanation for which molecule or atom tells us morality? Well, that's not getting the point I think and science will honestly probably tell us in the future just like it's explained away all the other god from gap arguments in history.
"Why do people do good things when no one is looking?" Well, try answering it. Because they were taught philosophic morals, it feels good to do the truthful and justice thing. None of that has nothing to do with god or divinity which is the real point of this question in a debate with religion.
Well yeah, average moral equipment. The religious don't have that. Criminals don't have that. How do we know who has the proper moral equipment? The ones not killing and stealing. Heck, Hitchens even brings up a conscience. There's another moral justification. Where does morality come from? Our conscience. I guess it would then beg the question "where does your conscience get it from?" The same infinite tautology if it were god, where does god get his morality from? from god it's unanswerable because no one knows him, but we can say our conscience comes from within us.
13:20 of course you can argue it by just calling them psychopaths. We know what the definition of a psychopath is. Just don't be that; it doesn't feel good for the overwhelming majority of people to even pretend to be that. IF everyone was psychopathic (and we know they aren't because you and I aren't) we could have not survived. We could not have built anything.
tuquoqe is also just whataboutism.
What? 15:00 What innate qualities/intuitions like morality do we have within us that are false? I'd like any examples of that claim. Heck the interviewer had trouble even describing the issue.
Morality, we have an innate feeling of what it is and that it stands up to philosophic scrutiny. What more do you need? We also DON'T have an inate feeling to kill and steal.
Honestly, where does morality come from is a rather pointless question. Where it comes from doesn't matter as much as just having it. Who cares were it comes from? But we know it doesn't come from god because god isn't real and I'm sure I don't have to try and justify that here. Even if morality is subjective, who cares. That's a trifle. We created morality that works for humanity. Honestly that might even be more empowering for us humans.
You're looking for trouble kiddo! In all seriousness, I'm sure he would have loved to be held accountable for what he said by people who respect him. I'm glad you made this video.
How do you know this. You say your sure? OK then, Did you know him? Nine like wtf.
Eddie Austin I’m not sure. He was smart enough to know that he could make mistakes. So why wouldn’t he want to have those pointed out to him?
@Eddie Austin Pure speculation, but fun: I think he would have listened, and then used his massive intellect to weasel himself out of it. IOW, he would never have felt exposed, only that you were wrong.
@Auto Math
*"I'm sure he would have loved to be held accountable for what he said by people who respect him"*
All you need to do is read the comments here to see that many people here would rather Alex had kept his thoughts to himself. But they would by definition be propagandists, wouldn't they?
This is a really important critique - even as a fan of Hitchens I really appreciate this honest (and accurate) analysis
I completely reject it. Literally every word. I see no merit in it whatsoever.
In the great scheme of things, it has very little, if any, importance.
@@user-xh6rm8fd3w? It’s like baseball now 1/3 is actually really good 😂
I like Alex O’Connor, but he is a philosopher by training and he engages in a lot of philosophical “m@sturb@ation” that goes slightly beyond my attention span.
I love when he tries to placate theists by trying to “see” their point of view or arguments and often gets a praise for his “neutrality”. He is trying to bash Hitchens’ arguments accusing him of committing several of his favorite philosophical “fallacies” 🙄
He named this video “Sophistry of Christopher Hitchens”. Definitely a clickbait for theists.
@@critiqueeverything3297 Like the great once CH said: If you disagree, you can pick a number, stand in the line, and ki$$ my a$$ 😁
Nice watching this after the recent interview with his brother.
Oh dear 🫣
If talking to an imaginary friend isn't silly, then what is?
This just shows how intelligent Alex actually is. The fact that he is willing to point out flawed arguments of one of his biggest idols, just shows his honesty and his desire to encurage debates about anything to advance the knowledge of humanity. Thank you so much Alex for beeing yourself.
You make me cringe.
It doesn't take much intelligence to be intellectually honest
This guy is a psychopath.
@@keithtorres5743 he was ..read the description box
Alex is just nit-picking. Hitchens wasn't to waste his time giving lengthy answers to silly, insulting questions.
10:02 "If he was making a point that was somehow dishonest..." I have noticed Hitchens be evasive in his answers on quite a few occasions.
It reminds me of a moment when Christopher and his brother Peter Hitchens were on a show together and the host of the show said to Christopher "can you get to your point" and Peter then says " he likes to give at least a weather forecast before answering the question."
Probably the only comeback Peter could give to his brother, considering he's a doddering old conservative fool who is probably half the intelligence of his brother. Cristopher ran rings around him.
Ah, I see you are fan of CH.
@1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV If Christopher Hitchens was a senseless drunkard then where are you on this scale?
Excellent work. Thanks.
In your first point, he was directly asked why he found it degrading. You’re completely inaccurate there.
Pretty sure he was referring to the original question referred to by the interviewer not the interviewers question about something keynotes being degrading. It is inaccurate in the sense, that him repeatedly saying "this is not the question being asked" was actually him not being clear about the interviewers question, which was if it was degrading. It seems to me that people who can only ground their morality in Christian theology, lack the ability to ground any rational thought in regards to what is right? I'd rather just not have morality then, just throw out the thing well think of something better.
The first question actually WAS "Why do you find it insulting?", and Hitchens replied to that. Now I'm gonna watch the rest of the video 😄
Thank you! Although you missed the part that Hitchens said there’s no evidence that any gods exist, so why would I think morality comes from some thing that has no evidence. But I’m glad you hit on the other point. I honestly don’t know whether I should watch the rest of the video, if the first point was so poorly done by the video creator. It honestly reminds me of Christians that act like atheists in order to persuade atheists to become Christian. I was actually really excited to watch this video and listen to the arguments as his opening about Christopher Hitchens sums up my feelings, exactly. I even have a large custom playlist folder on my RUclips channel devoted just to Christopher Hitchens. But since the first point was so bad, it’s hard for me to have faith so to speak in the rest of the points. I guess I’ll try watching more.
@@ttrestle This video is from 3 years ago. I'm sure CosmicSkeptic has developed further. But in this video and some others I've noticed him to sometimes twist the questions and rely on unproven premises. But maybe I don't understand them correctly. Hitchens' reply to the question "Why do you find it insulting?" was perfectly fine in my opinion. The question WASN'T "Where does objective morality come from?". First of all we could discuss about whether there IS objective morality. But if you ask how humans know about objective morality, you already accept the premise that there IS one. Besides the fact that this wasn't the question in the video clip. I don't remember the rest of the video, tbh. It's been quite a while ago.
I wonder how did he not realize his mistake? I mean, he must've watched the clip at least 5 or 6 times when creating his video, and it's really clear that Hitches answered the question he was asked.
@@Fru244 Also Hitchins has spoken more on this issue explaining that evolution provides an explanation for morality. Dawkins has spoken more extensively on this issue and Hitchens and Dawkins often spoke together so I'm sure Hitchens well understood the issue. The narrator here also seemed to switch his criticism between Hitchens not having a justification for his morality and Hitchens not knowing where morality comes from. Two separate issues.
@@thenephilim9819
Wrong!
The interviewer was asking Hitchens why his answer to the question "where do you get your sense of right and wrong" is "that's an insulting question"
So already Hitchens avoided answering the question.
The follow up question is a push to make him answer the original one.
I haven't even watched the video yet but just the introduction has earned a Like and my subscription. To be willing to identify weaknesses in the arguments used by one's own side and the the willingness to identify the flaws in a hero one admires overall is the height of intellectual honesty and genuine enquiry. My hat is off, sir!
Where can I find this Histopher Chritchens fellow? 25:14
5mins in. The question was "why do you find it insulting." He did answer that question.
I was finding myself rather unconvinced by this RUclipsrs “take down”, he can’t even dissect the actual question that was posited, so I almost instantly thought, “this kid loves to bloviate and I wish I could hear Hitchens take him to task!”
Except his answer explained that he doesn't understand the intent of the question.
The question was never an attack on his ability to be a moral person, despite him taking it that way. That's why he's being asked why a non-judgmental question annoys him. It is not an accusatory question the way Hitchens is claiming it is, rather than a legitimate meta-ethical question.
@@mewster1818 No.
There was always this little bad feeling when watching some of Hitchens' debates but I couldn't quite put a finger on it until now. Thanks :)
same
I finally understand why it's hard for me as a non english speaker to follow some of the things he said. Some of the things he said just didn't make sense!
@1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV He was brilliant at raising arguments against religion and having mic drop moments as he was extremely historically knowleadgable, and that's what constituted a Hitch Slap, with a possible insult on the end. What he wasn't so good at is answering for the criticisms of atheism. If you just think he was a BS artist then you're butthurt and probably deserve a hitch slap.
@1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV Lmao
The Green Day singer has really moved into some heavy philosophising
baldrbraa 😂😂
Lol
25:40 and on. You make the best point of the talk, and I really appreciate it.
I'm reassured to hear the same reservations I have felt about CH's rhetorical style, albeit expressed better than I have. I'd be interested to know your own answer to the question of the grounding of morality; is there a good defence of moral realism, or is that as illusory as you believe free will compatiblism to be? Maybe you have addressed that elsewhere. Edit: just see your Roger Crisp video in my feed. Looks relevant, thanks.
I think "of course you have free will, you have no choice" is his way of answering you have no free will
That's sort of what I was thinking. Whether or not we have free will is irrelevant. You live and act as if you have free will, because what the hell else you gonna do?
It was no doubt a witticism.
It exposes the lack of free will in the Christian worldview.
@@unicyclist97 wrong, God is 4th dimensional so to Him he could see all of time and space at the same time and know what happens. Infinity means nothing in the higher dimensions.
So He gonna prove it?
And when he couldn't see who was with Balaam, even? Or that 1/3 of angels were suicidal or ignorant?
As a theist, I love your content and your intellectual honesty. Would that others in the debate (believers included) were as committed to truth!
as a radar mechanic, part time referee, and husky dog owner, i whole heartedly agree. more truth is better. although my wife tells me there are exceptions to this rule
@@lesterroberts1628 - yes, never tell your wife there are any other women that you find more attractive than her! That's a truth best kept to yourself.
@@5FateEditss If lying means a way better BJ, the truth be damned.
i've gotta say, it's refreshing to see a believer who has the intellectual honesty to recognize it in others (especially atheists, but not just us). i've been spending a lot of time online lately around a lot of believers of various faiths who don't, and it's nice to be reminded that there are some who do
Maybe when you reach your 13th birthday you’ll appreciate what Hitchens is saying. The question of where we get our moral knowledge if not from the supposition of a “God” is valid and does not prove the existence of God. Hitchens is saying it is built in to the human existence.
For the morality grounding argument, what would you suggest is a better response?
In the past I have watched him navigate with charm in order to not answer a question. He goes on and almost changes the topic putting back ob you sometimes using hypothetical situations.
He did answer the question the first time. The question asked was "why do you find it insulting?" not "how do you determine right and wrong without God?"
And he answers, it is insulting!
The question indeed was "why do you find it insulting?" and the reply "because it is degrading humans". Not only that, then he explained why it is degrading to humans as he seems to see it. To me this means that he sees human evolved morality as good, specially towards its keen.
His answer was insulting to the questioner who asked.
Might as well have asked "How can morality exist without fairies communicating at a subconscious level with our brains?"
Tyler Ward
And yet you believe we were magicked into being from nothing?
Interesting that nevertheless, he secured respect from his opponents as well as his fans. I predicted some of your objections when I heard the topics. It is true that a lot of us were so captivated with his charm and wit as to overlook certain rhetorical shortcuts. We saw them too. In the end, many of us who grew up watching various religious windbags get a free hand, get taken down a few pegs. It may have been incorrect, but ah it was glorious to watch.
Amen to THAT!
They weren’t shortcuts, those get you to the destination faster although perhaps unconventionally. They were non sequiturs and straw-men ending nowhere relevant. Antics like that did no service to those who care about the ideas being discussed and are looking for real answers. Then the echo chamber of his fans that responded with, “If you didn’t think he answered the question you’re just not smart enough to get it.” made it all the worse.
On the first point, how many atheists have I heard handle that query in more or less the same fashion...it's a matter of rejecting the premise. Such questions are self serving once uttered. Rejecting the premise could be for many the first and last step. Perhaps the second step would be to say that 'no, we can't be certain of the grounding of morality via the man-made creation of god nor can we claim its perfection via evolution. It is a developed trait, not an absolute.' Still and all, I prepose that if your question contains in it the assumption of faith, then it must be eschewed until such time as you can prove faith's promise as fact.
I don't really agree with Alex here, Hitchens wasn't a scientist, so he struggled when he had to answer questions with " I don't know ". People who study things through scientific process can easely say " I don't know " to those questions, because we actually don't really have an answer for those, that still doesn't make a dumb argument like the cosmological one true. So him stating to them that they don't know for a fact either, is quite logical of him.
I do believe that the question was "Why do you find it insulting?", and this is the question that Hitchens answered. The question was NOT "From what do you derive your sense of morality."
Yeah, I agree with you. He also did answered the question of where he derived his sense of morality in other conversations/deabtes. I feel like the selection of this specific interview was a little misguided :/
@@azerack955 Maybe, but the problem is on this ones, it would not make sense to talk about other ones except, maybe, in a remark.
@@xadielplasencia3674 the comment I replied to already answered that. I was simply mentioning that when he is asked the question "from what do you derive your sense of morality" he has given an appropriate response.
That's just one clip on the subject, he also shows a bunch of other clips with the question being more clearly as stated.
I was just explaining this to my mate, the question this lad is trying to frame can hardly be answered because its almost a purely philosophical question.
This video is so important. We need people like this calling out members of their own persuasions. It’s a like from me! 👍
It's utter magical thinking being used to justify magical thinking. He says Morality comes from God so how can you have Morality without God. Logic 101 kills that circular logic one day one. It wouldn't get anywhere. And yet Alex proposes he can judge Hitchens on philosphy. Alex is a mental midget.
Alex, I really appreciate your content. I found your channel years ago as an agnostic, and found you to be the most articulate and logically grounded amongst the popular atheists on YT. Im christian now, but I still watch a lot of your content. This video I esp appreciated, because the Hitchens v. Turek debate was just painful to watch, and it was even more painful to see so many atheists cheering for their team in the comments despite the clear fallacies Hitchens was putting forth. As a christian, you remind me not to mindlessly cheer on any apologist no matter what their argument is, such as Kent Hovind, just because we "are on the same team". Let us all pursue truth through honesty and humility!
Hindsight is a wonderful thing to be able to interrogate a dead persons former debates and comments!
The hardest thing to do. Brilliant, honest and couragous critique of a hero ! Well done Alex ! More of this please.
I think Hitchens would be proud. Nothing is sacred, not even him.
While I certainly don't regard all that Hitchens said as infallible, I do feel that his take on grounds for morality is sufficient.
The evolutions of psychological traits are tricky to grasp in their intangiblility. But they require no more grounds as do green eyes or short stature. Such that those born without such sensitivity to empathy suggest the same variation that we see among all naturally occuring traits.
would you agree that william lane craig makes all these points to him in his debate (and pre-debate meeting which was with a few other Christians)?
I have loved hitch for a long time and when I saw/clicked on this video I was ready to lose respect for CosmicSkeptic, but then he quite directly and correctly showed that even someone like hitch is capable of fallacy, and did it without mocking him or degrading his character. Very well done sir. I couldn’t take issue with any of the things you pointed out 💪
"I was ready to lose respect for CosmicSkeptic" - How is it different from religious people, who doesn't like anyone who questions their religion?.
@@hamzapatel03 because “I was ready” is different from “I decided”. As a human being it’s impossible to enter a discussion or in this case a video without preconceptions or expectations, religious or otherwise.
I love Hitchens too but unfortunately nobody is 100% accurate or correct
Love Your Enemy - JESUS
I've got to say that I took issue with the first point, about the moral argument. Just insisting that he has got to somehow justify morality is not necessary, I think hitch clearly just sidesteps the question to show it as a distraction. The question of how to base morality is forever quarreled over and never answered satisfactorily, introducing a god into the picture doesn't help either. I'd bet Hitchins knew this and knew if he were to go into some ultimately flawed framework then that would just take credit away from him and his speaking against religion. I can almost guarantee Hitchins would have found the insistence for some metaphysical justification for morality absurd, he was a naturalist at heart and knew the only real answer to what morality is grounded in, is exactly what he explains in the clips: our instinctive sense of right and wrong. Alex and many people insist here that the validity of our moral instincts must be backed up by something more than that, I think it's relatively clear that on purpose or not, Hitchins simply didn't recognise the need for a higher validity or 'true moral code' as it wasn't needed, at least not so far as discussing the abolishment of religion.
Alex has to be the most unbiased person on RUclips, well done. I’d like to hear his criticisms on the other Horsemen.
Yes, i think Hitchens would have liked the young lad.
And more Hitch’s blunders ,please 😎😇
Yes I would love to hear some more criticisms as well! I often listen to Sam Harris's podcasts and would love to have an well meaning critic have a look at his thoughts and arguments.
He's not unbiased. He has status quo bias. He falls for capitalist realism.
Romanski how does nitpicking at his political views further this conversation?
Now this is something I did not expect to pop up on my feed.
About the first point - Hitchens is answering the question, which was "why you find it insulting?". Alex is the one changing the question regarding that interaction
I don’t think so; he’s giving the stereotypical response that everyone gives when they don’t a) understand the moral argument and/or b) don’t have a sufficient answer to it. In times like that, the tried and tested response is to feign insult. “How dare you!”, in your best Oxford accent is going to go a long way in deflecting reasoned discussion.
Yep, spot on. Literally minutes into this and Alex fell at the first fence. Schoolboy error. Made me at once choose to check the comments and surprised so few referred to it.
@@christovey6422 No, the question wasn’t simply, “Why do you find it insulting?”. He was answering the question, “Why do you find the question, ‘If you do not believe in God, what do you base your morality on?’ insulting?” It’s a question within a question.
So, Alex is correct. Hitchens is misunderstanding (or more likely, misrepresenting) the question and pretending to be insulted because he doesn’t have an answer.
@@simoncordingley3122 No, you are the one who is confused about the question and the wider implications.
You don’t seem to know or care that Hitchens answered that question many times, recognizing that it is not an easy question to answer, but that science, reason, philosophy and the dialectic are clearly better ways to get there than faith in a holy book.
Secondly, because even if you don’t believe that morality can be grounded in human solidarity, science or reason (if you don't believe that ethics is innate in all of us), that is not an argument for God or against atheism, which is the direct implication when this comes up in a religion debate.
Third, because Hitch was usually responding directly to someone who had just directly insinuated through Hitler/Stalin/Mao examples exactly what he said they were: that atheists don’t know right from wrong, and atheism leads to evil.
Fourth (related), because that is paired with the nonsense that religious people can ground morality in the Bible, which Hitchens did a terrific job of disputing. Asserting that God said something was right does not lead to a conclusion that it is right. If “might makes right” is your argument, you don’t know the first thing about moral philosophy and don’t get to lecture atheists about relativism.
@@ztrinx1 First, If I’m confused about the Moral Argument, so is Alex. This is doubtful.
Second, at best, all you’ve done to “prove” Alex wrong is to refer to examples we just have to take your word for, that are not the examples given here.
Third, the rest of your comment is just mere statements, straw men and ad hominems. I can’t be bothered arguing with someone who just asserts as fact “Christopher did a fantastic job at this or that”, or patronisingly puts words in my mouth about what it is I believe or what “nonsense” thing I ground my morality in.
I LOVE you for doing this man. I 100% agree with you about a lot of things and Christopher Hitchens is one of my heros as well. I have had my quirks with many of these responses of his. But this is why I love honest skepticism and this side of the theological argument. This side is always willing to look for the truth, no matter where it may lie, and to seek out and remind ourselves that even our heros and brightest minds of our cause are not always right. This gives us credence to our stance as we are always willing to listen to criticism because that's how the truth is found and progress is made. You're brilliant for doing this. 👏
Being fair with Hitchens, "how do you ground your morality?" is a question that assumes you can do that. His way of answering doesn't answer it but it does make you think about that.
Guille Muñoz
I think he has answered that, but not in the example provided. Perhaps he considered that people had digested his works to know he spoke of the golden rule and empathy. I believe he mansions human flourishing in one of his works if I am not confusing sources.
Morality exists because it confers an evolutionary advantage
If asked, I would say that my morality is the result of finding, through trial and error, by being told and by asking questions, the behaviors that work best, for me personally, in society.
As Laplace said, no need for a god in that hypothesis.
@Excalibur Yup. Complex Morality is a very subjective human construct. It doesn't really exist in nature.
That is a stupid question
In fact I think atheists are at a better place to ground their morality.
I don't have to refer to a book to written thousands of years ago to base my morality. Of course I will be more moral then those who follow a book written by a man who was a mugger (no seriously the man who wrote the Ramayana was a mugger)
Q. If there is no measurable Gravity at the centre of Gravity, what does that tell you about something coming from nothing?
Point 2: Wouldn't that really depend on the rebuttal question? If the point was interrupted by someone asking a question in the middle of a response to a previous question then is the rebuttal question really warranted in the moment someone is making a point? So is the one offering continuous rebuttal during someone making a point from a previously asked question Sealioning the questioned person or are they engaging in Maieutics?
5:20 The interviewer specifically asks him *why* he finds the question insulting. Maybe Hitchens should have ignored it and answered the underlying viewer question anyway, but he does respond to what the interviewer literally asks
+Nate Exactly.
I actually am on Hitchens side - for the most part he is not making sense - but the question presupposes he NEEDS to answer - H is right. To even ask the question supposes a radical ontology he need not assume. Wittgenstein made a similar argument for God. Theologians arguing for God insult the thing they worship. If God truly created the world its very existence is enough. To even argue the point is to assume a different ontology but why should a Christian do that? Questioning a premise is wholly legit on THIS point H is right. The other points are weak I admit.
@@darkthorpocomicknight7891 I think the point is that he's being completely dismissive of a common argument made by theists. If the goal of much of Hitchens' writing and public speaking was to debate theists and show why they are wrong, perhaps even convert them through "militant atheism," then he should have given a more thorough answer. In some sense by dodging the question he comes off as no different than the theists who often do the same.
I do get that what you're saying is that the question doesn't really deserve to be answered but not doing so seems counterproductive to me. It just makes those who already agree with you like you more and those who don't like you less.
@@user-ko7lz3kr1d No I mean LITERALLY he is not LOGICALLY obligated to answer
But you are right. Just because an opponent gives a badly worded question yes you can refuse but it looks poorly
for your side
But intellectual honesty means facing the best argument and struggling with it.
Hitch when he near death just became dogmatic and stopped listening. A great man but very flawed
Amazing video. I would normally run a mile at something like this presented by one so young. But this guy NAILS IT.
great lens Alex.
So, I've fallen in to the most lovely youtube hole I've been in for some time, the Hitchens-hole, he was a wonderfully talented and spirited person and I feel so lucky to have discovered him!
Here's my take on his stance.
He didn't actually give a shit about most of these questions, he was fighting a fight, not for the "answers" to all of these questions but for a way of life, where we apply the truths that we have discovered, in such a way that no one should be able to claim a higher truth on grounds of the supernatural. Otherwise known as secularity. From what I've seen so far, these debates obviously became just a part of the calling that he felt towards reading, writing and speaking. He was so good at speaking, that he ofcourse gravitated towards the most difficult topics to speak about (apart maybe from quantum physics and the like...). But the questions he was asked to answer, as you rightly put it, are questions for philosophers and scientists, and not reporters and authors.
You could say that he answered the questions by the way that he lived. He told stories that are worth listening to and to act upon, which in it's essence, is what a sacred text is.
So, to summarize, Hitchens mission looks to me something like this:
In order to have civil discourse, open dialogue, we are best off without the religious/supernatural/omnipotent beings, because they're ultimately phenomena that we can only approximate by symbolic representation, i.e. speech/text of highly abstract meaning etc., and because the human mind is WAY too pattern seeking in it's default behaviour, that sort of thinking is ultimately a threat to our species, it's like the nuclear bomb of arguments sort of, and you shouldn't use those, just like you should not call an opponent in a debate facist, even if they are, just talk long enough to them to let them expose themselves.
By the methods of science, reason, philosophy and other MODERN truth seeking domains, we will as a species be better able move towards increased globalised civility.
Because science can't lie, it's a method of obtaining truths, not a monopoly and conservation of them. And until we accept that no one can truly know what is true, we can't move beyond the instinct to kill and maim those who oppose our version of it.
This is by the way, not a defense of Hitchens as a person or debateur, I think your points are valid. It's more a posthume defense for the position he maybe failed to recognize himself being in, however smart and witty he was.
In closing I'd say that the best voice of reason nowadays to me is Sam Harris. What excites me about him, is that he is less combative than Hitchens and without being a pushover, which is a rare combination to have in a speaker.
While I agree that the question of how to morality is grounded is an important philosophical question that deserves a good deal of discussion, the way that the religious normally use this question is to imply or state outright that the moral instinct we have is evidence of God. Because this is an assertion without justification, I don't think any justification was necessary for Hitchens to dismiss it.
Hitchens agreed that people have morality, so it's fair to ask him how he thinks it is grounded if not in religion.
@@jrd33 I'm not saying it's unfair to ask him, I'm saying it's fair for him to address the insulting and unfounded implication of the question. The question only becomes more worthwhile if your remove this implication by striking the phrase "if not in religion." But this only highlights the absurdity of placing this burden of explanation on Hitchens, who is not a moral philosopher. Hitchens and Christians both agree that people have morality, but Christians are the ones who claim to know where this morality comes from, and Hitchens does not. This puts the burden of proof on the Christians, and I see know problem with Hitchens leaving it there.
@@dylanjones9061 Yes you're criticism is warranted, because Christians like myself don't know that God exists with absolute certainty, and nobody ever will. However, the very reason Christoper needed to expound on his position in relation to morality is that he had no means of being able to justify it in the first place, such that he doesn't know where our intrinsic sense of rightfulness and wrongfulness comes from. We believe that our moral worth, our sense of rightfulness and wrongfulness, comes from God particularly. "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will right them on their minds." Hebrews 10:16
As atheists, We don’t claim to know about the something from nothing argument, but religions do by stating the existence of God, but if we ask ‘how did that God come from nothing’, they can respond that he is all powerful and beyond our comprehension, the same that atheistic arguments state that the workings of the universe are intangible
@@replacekebab7669 Yes I see. Nobody can claim to know with absolute certainty the 'something from nothing argument,' however, at the very least, theists attribute their reasoning to God. Atheists can't give any explanation whatsoever, and that's fair enough.