Hitchens: deism, theism, wishful thinking.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 окт 2008
- Another piece of the debate Turek vs. Hitchens at VCU in Richmond, VA complete at:
www.vimeo.com/1904911
CH argument:
There is an infinite possibility of "god-assertions" (Ra, Jehova, Huitzlopochtli, etc. up to the "personal god") that cannot be disproven. Atheists however do not deny those gods existence, which is logically impossible, they simply say there is no empirical evidence for such an assertion.
Deism, while being empirically not necessary science offers better explanations is also not Theism: the argument from design does not imply (and cannot) the Christian god or any interventionist god.
Further, the spiritual language of many scientists does not necessarily mean they believe in god.
Interesting for those who want to learn how to argue consistently:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Gotta love him.
The guy at 7:23 is just amazed and delighted by Christopher's intelligence and wit.
Good catch. The young man is learning a lot there. And the guy behind him is scowling with his arms folded in defense.
Oh how I wish this man was still extant in our society. I miss his voice and his piercing skill of rhetoric on the issues that plague America and the International community. If hell does exist (not probable), then I will be in good company!
Miguel Henriquez maybe ill see you there one day. ha
Today more than ever
Well one can never know. I’m hoping Hitch went somewhere nice, but it’s equally as likely that he’s completely gone
So, just read his books and pass them on. Or, tell them to look on RUclips. Or, read his works in the best journalism magazines in the business. He will remain until the last atheist dies who has spread his works internationally.
Fantastic 👏
I know my cat thinks but does he believe in a god?No but he believes in food ,shade in the summer,a warm place in the winter.His job is to be as happy as he can while he's alive.
philip steyn does he use his tray?
philip steyn Yep, cats certainly do know what life is for.
I have four cats, and I'm convinced they ALL thing they're god. haha ha
Are you a cat? How do you know what the cat thinks?
no, they do not believe in anything. cats just accept reality. there is food. there is nothing to believe in. its an objective observacion
A god only exists in the mind of the believer, and nowhere else.
Excellent statement of faith.
***** www.quickmeme.com/img/8d/8d973af8092e26593ecfabaef23233f07db63e3e8754d8cb0552ca4080c4a283.jpg sooooooo Zeus doesn't exist only in the minds of people ooooor
pumpuppthevolume
Zeus only exists in Greek mythology, fiction, just like all the thousands of other gods men made up.
Poseidon63 yep
pumpuppthevolume Nope, was saying it is a statement of faith that there is no god(s).
best argument ever in the mankind.Even better than Darwin himself.we should be grateful that he is in our generation.
Many people might be surprised at the fact that Darwin believed in God.
@@hankdixon2960 i doubt it, pretty much everybody was back then.But just because he was a Christian doesn't stop his evidence being real, he merely tried as did many other religious scientists did to reconcile it to the bible somehow,].We have moved on since then and thankfully we don't all get brainwashed as a child.
@Interceptor Of course it is random.
It’s not random in the sense that the organisms who survive had to fight and bitterly survive each generation. It was the perseverance of each generation in life’s history.
@@hankdixon2960 in a god. Deism is not theism
Only found him after he died, much missed
While I was a christian, my sunday school teacher said, "Take every thought captive to the lordship of Christ," and called the love and service of unbelievers "incomplete" because of their lack of redemption.
"And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him." Hebrews 11:6
@@angelofdeathjk So in other words god need constant stroking of his ego by morons like you;)
@@angelofdeathjk the narcissism and egregious insecurity of your god has been perfectly exemplified in that sentiment. “Believe in me and love me or else”; omnibenevolent you say?
@@angelofdeathjk are you crazy...all wars are and were started by religious crazies...God does not exist....and if he did I would love to kick his arse..
e=mc2 except for atheists, and entropy dont apply to their world . . go learn what that means
Imagine that two such giants of history were born on the same day: Abraham Lincoln and Charlies Darwin.
And Image the Second Coming of Christ(opher)!!!
sorry, two ends of the spectrum. 😉
And Christopher hitchens
Mr Hitchens had these things pretty much nailed down and comes from a logical understanding of such things
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” ― Buddha Siddhartha Guatama Shakyamuni
Love Hitchens :( that is all.
Having any kind of meaningful conversation with someone that actually adheres to and believes in an organized religion is totally impossible. They believe they have already found the ultimate truth through their cult and its beliefs, you know it's bullshit, so, conversation over.
@tpstrat14 What you're saying goes both ways. Both sides, especially the atheistic side, loves to throw insults. It is very difficult to find civil discourse between the two sides.
A great orator for logic and reason-one the greatest in our time. He is truly missed . We have RUclips and other sites that keep his words and messages alive.
"I actually think Deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence, is not implausible to postulate. And I won't argue against it." -Lawrence Krauss
Interesting thought. It made wonder what the difference between a non existent God and an undetectable one is... .
@@judeboys6409 Difference being we are and can be controlled at will on one side and we have no superior controller on the other. And that the laws of the universe we know might be subject to change in the future on one side and not on the other. I'm gonna go with there's no god, but hey, if he doesn't wanna argue, it's his pov.
It is possible to agree with Krauss - a 'divine intelligence' is possible.
What is IMpossible is the god of every single man made religion.
@@mickeythompson9537 Unless of course the multiverse exists and each universe has a God :-)
It is hard to argue a Agnostic Deist. They use rationality and the study of nature and science to formulate their philosophical belief. The only way to argue is to counter intelligent design. I have seen and read men far more learned than Hitchens be proponents of intelligent design.
I am of course a Deist ;-)
What I find interesting is Atheists will readily accept a scientific possibility that relies on massive assumptions to make a theory valid - string theory, the assumption of other dimensional shapes and the resultant multiverse for example.
I would give anything to meet Hitch.... He's my idol & he died when I didnt even know about him. /:
Zombie Prodigy
Definition of “theism” : “ belief in the existence of a god or gods”
“Is it nonetheless possible for an atheist to say, a proclaimed atheist to say, as I I do proclaim myself to be, that God positively can be said *not* to exist? *No* .”
Or, if I may be permitted to paraphrase...
“The [theist] says there is no persuasive evidence of the [non]existence of [any] God has ever been advanced or adduced without convincing rebuttal, that no argument in favor stands or has been found to stand the test of argument and evidence, and we cannot at that we definitely know that there could [not] be such an entity...”
Christopher Hitchens is a man who believes that God does *not* exist, but who realizes that such an assertion *is untenable, unjustifiable, and unfalsifiable* -that it is an assertion that, based on his *own namesake principle, can and will be dismissed without requiring evidence* . So, he *ostensibly* alters the presentation of his position to be not opposition to the *existence* of God, but to *theism* . Yet, even then, the arguments that he submits to support *that* position are only tangential to the *singular belief inherent to theism* itself -the mere belief in the existence of God-and are instead related to *religious* dogmas, doctrines, institutions, practices, or tenets (primarily those of the Abrahamic faiths, specifically); thereby making them anti-*religious* rather than anti- *theistic* in nature.
Hence, he, his perspective, and his approach of argumentation are ultimately exposed as being as intellectually dishonest as the religious adherent who argues that his or her interpretation of God is the only “right” one.
@ratonL how do you define deism? As I understand it, a creator sets the rules of evolution and then doesn't intervene. Not a personal god but still the original creator of the universe. Thoughts?
Here is the thing that stuck with me from a marketing workshop I attended to update my skills for my job. People act on their perception of reality and not on reality itself. Hichens brings that point home!!!
@kathyreno2603 What you're saying is very true. But I think you need to apply the same point on both sides. Why else would there be credible scientists on both sides.
Thank you Melvin, for this wonderful channel of yours. I have such respect for this intellectual truth seeking man... Hitchens. I really miss this man.
@senrac85 No problem (about the delayed reply). Conflicting definitions? I suppose my next question is this: Supposedly, deistic thinking is based on the "clockwork universe theory", which is say that the supreme architect set up natural deterministic laws i.e. cause and effect. However, since discovery of quantum mechanics, this idea is no longer valid as randomness has been found to exist. To me, this fact renders deistic belief obsolete. Unless there's a reason I'm missing?
The world really needs more people like Hitch. No one better respects free discussion, use of the intellect, critical thought, and challenging established beliefs and tradition.
@Underground906 Whoa. I really didn't understand those 2 sentences. Are you saying the argument is 'something from nothing' vs 'something from something', and you also believe the latter is more probable, which you attribute to an intelligent designer?
Wish Hitchens lived till 12 April to witness pictures (blackholes) captured by event horizons. We greatly missed you
@ MrMalavon
(sorry for double post but 2 people said i heard incorrectly so i'm asking both :)
so...is he saying that deists each have there own "idea" of god, and that therefore it is personal? because the common meaning of a personal god is pretty much the opposite of the deistic... deity.
I love the end. "Good, not sure I'm going to need allll that." Haha, he could have demolished Turek in under a minute probably.
"Reside" to creation? What does that mean?
I’m not sure I quite understand what Christopher is implying here? Is he saying that deists are wrong on their beliefs?
@senrac85 Hello. I am very curious about what a deist believes! I cannot find agreeable definitions. Do you believe in a God that is omnipotent and omniscient but does not personally intervene i.e. sets the laws of nature and leaves it to its own devices?
How do you spell "equinous" because all I can come up with is "equine" and I don't think there at the beginning that he's posing a horse point.
Thomas Aquinas
@@TorturedMan-yg7wy Thanks!
I can listen to Hitchens for hours on end...His arguments are outstanding to say the least....
I do.
My question has always been: Where did god come from? Who made him. Self-manifested. A middle eastern god for the West? in all of the unimaginably vast universe>
The is an evolutionary answer to that. Watch Dr. Michael Shermer “ God does not exist” here on youtube.
It is a contradiction of terms. God , by definition, has always existed. If it has been created, it is not God so the argument does not hold.
I could say the same thing about the atheist position. The atheist would probably agree that the universe created them. However, what created the universe then? In other words, why is there anything at all?
Why doesn't anyone ever post the full debate?
@bagamer13 so im not sure about the wishful thinking part.
@senrac85 what do you beleive in what is this god or gods or whatever is out there
Very true. It's either someone convinces others of his/her own personal god (or this idea of a supreme that MUST be obeyed in order to avoid some form of punishment, or gain some form of reward), or that each one makes one up to justify things and act forcibly upon them even if such things prove useless or harmful.
@MrSammy2014
well said. but as a deist, should you be capitalizing god? ;P
@xboxboy40 Are you talking from personal experiences that you have had with religious people?
MegaZeroX well then you should watch more of his videos. But i will try and and ask you some questions like:
what "evidence" do you have there a god/why have you JUMPED to that conclusion?
why don't you believe the universe could have created itself with all the arguments/evidence; An example of this could be the Lawrence Krauss' (i may have spelt that wrong sorry) a "a universe from nothing" argument.
I would like to add: If you reread the Voltaire quote a provided you will see the part that reads "from this sole argument...". Here he is referring to the teleological argument. If one is convinced by the prime mover argument, first put forth by Aristotle then it is logical to favor a single agent. Coupled with the principle of Ockham and your argument becomes stronger.
I personally am not nearly as convinced by the necessity of a prime mover argument nor cosmological arguments, but some are.
You should always have a dictionary on hand Everytime Hitchens speaks.
Christopher Hitchens, the unstoppable force that smashes through the unmovable object of superstition.
"Can any man of serious reflection hazard his future happiness upon the belief of a story, naturally impossible, repugnant to every idea of decency, and related by persons already detected of falsehood? Is it not more safe that we stop ourselves at the plain, pure, and unmixed belief of one God, which is Deism, than that we commit ourselves on an ocean of improbable, irrational, indecent and contradictory tales?"
Thomas Paine's The Age Of Reason
this man is a great intellect, its edifying listening to his arguments...all of them
Christopher, as always, you are brilliant.
Great explanation of what the debate actually is
Deists don't assert certainty of any definition of god. Only that the natural law of physics are true; and that supports intellectual design.
Not true. A deist belies there is a supernatural god(s). But they do not believe in a specific god(s). A deist that does not believe in a god but only that the natural law of physics are true is the same as an atheist.
***** "A deist that does not believe in a god but only that the natural law of physics are true is the same as an atheist. " ---------completely senseless word salad
and yes a lot of deists if not most ......would just say ......the world leaves me with the impression that there is a designer ...and noting more
pumpuppthevolume “A deist that does not believe in a god but only that the natural law of physics are true is the same as an atheist.”
No it is not a senseless word salad. It is a fact that someone that does not believe in a supernatural god is in fact an atheist and not a deist.
***** dictionary.reference.com/browse/deism ..................wooooord salad.........u r basically calling someone a married bachelor
pumpuppthevolume Nope. I am calling someone that does not believe in a supernatural god(s) and atheist. Read the link you yourself posted. It says the same thing,
I was wrong on my assumption. That was a possibility, as I stated.
How do you know that the Abrahamic god is the true or right god? Do you consider other theists who don't believe in your god as troubling as atheism? I like spending my Sundays doing more fruitful things like fishing or kayaking or golf or making a wonderful breakfast for my family. I would rather give my money to secular charities. I would rather accept evidential info regarding explanations for questions of nature/cosmos.
Someone explain how deism is wishful thinking...
6:36 I mean, he doesn’t argue much at all against deism, more just implies he dislikes it. Of course it doesn’t help us reveal anything about the person of god, it can’t. But that’s just fine, as we don’t need it to. Overall, it still seems to be the best explanation there is.
I wish he'd shown it more for other opponents he had, but my god it was wonderful when hitches clearly didn't respect his opponent like here with turek.
Yes -- that kind of straw man approach is tedious. It's my least favorite thing about the argument, trivializing the magnitude of what we don't know. But the main thing is -- we don't know, and we're not making stuff up just because it reduces the anxiety of ambivalence, or the unknown, and that's more comfortable. Was this your response to the "blind atheist faith" issue?
@behemuth I don't know what you mean by *slap*, but the definition most reputable dictionaries have is "one who believes there is no god". Please go to evilbibleDOTcom and click on "definition of atheism".
Oh, and yeah, is it not possible that the order with which we perceive is really something we perceive because we are affected by it? By order here I mean to point to the way the universe works, either known or yet to be known. Like nothing and something, or pattern and randomness. Maybe we don't have to consider this "order" something so great beyond the idea that we have no power to influence it.
Deism for me is the best explanation for the world we live in. I will always believe in GOD because it is the best explanation for me. But being a Deist I can also believe in science, logic, and reasoning. We don't know how GOD created the universe that's what we have science for. Deists believe that GOD gave us reason to help better understand how the universe works. Because of science we have made so many beautiful discoveries. Science has done more for humanity than organized religion has.
I'm going to quote you in arguments I have. That was extremely well said.
This force cannot be described nor defined right now, but it would be silly to ignore the fact that matter has to have an original nothing, and that transition from nothing to substance is something inconceivable in the realms of current understanding. However, this is something very exciting, and deism does not dismiss that this origin must be explained through reason and logic. Until then, a "creator," in a sense, is the most reasonable explanation until further disproven, as with agnosticism.
So what if there is a huge list of gods?
AFAIK there are about 38,000 denominations of Christianity. So even if there is just *one* God, and even if god is the *Christian* God, any one of us who chooses Christianity as their religion has a 37999:1 chance of getting it wrong ANYWAY.
And for those who say that denomination doesn't matter... try telling an evangelical pastor that his brand of Christianity is purely optional, and he can go Catholic any time he wants.
Deism seems to be the most logical belief, and I'm not trying to deny anyone of their belief/perspective on "God". But I think that's rational that "God" doesn't intervene with human affairs, and we have the will to make our own decisions.Meaning that we are responsible for our actions, and what goes on in the Earth.So if anyone is to blame on why Earth is in the condition it's in is our doing.
What physicist is saying that something came from nothing? Saying all matter was condensed into one tiny space says nothing about where that matter came from. Michio Kaku has some books about the possibility of multiple universes and their interaction with ours.
@rockyfan21 This is not deism. The Deity concept is one of a God that does not care, or even perhaps know of human affairs. Being rewarded/punished after death for ones actions in life can only be explained with a caring God.
This man is a legend!!!
How atheist's feel:
1 Hi, there's a god who loves you!
2 Really? Where?
1 Well he's invisible.
2 Oh, well can I meet him?
1 Not till your dead.
2 Well can he say hi, so I can hear him?
1 Nope, but 2000 years ago some unknown persons wrote this book saying....
2 (walks away mid-sentence)
As hard as I struggle to feel it, I do not feel or think a 'personalness' to the 'other' of myself. I do believe there isn't an 'interference' in the business of it all.
hey i agree with u but we can never know how much belief affects people's descion makings. Just because someone proclaims that they believe in rapture or whatever crazy stuff, dosn't that will influence their desion they make. we just don't know
Right. " A personal god". In other words one that does me favors. And maybe others too.
Theists I talked to say I am " egotistical ". This is for thinking that there is no being superior to man, hence myself, also.🙄🙄🙄
I think Deism is misrepresented here. For one, there is no "personal god" in Deism, nor is there a basis on a "perfection" in the Universe. One cannot make the same argument against deists as against theists. Theists have a solid and normally universal basis for religion, but deists do not. The areas are as gray as different sectors of atheism itself. Deism, to me, represents the belief that there is no way to prove an "origin," so there must be a higher power humans do not currently understand.
garfocusalternate why "must" there be?
Dai Thomas dude that was a 5 year old comment.
@@SuperROBERTPAULSON because no other options
A head full of so much intelligence, knowledge and study cannot be silent. But if God is real then I’m happy for God to know that. How individuals try to manage that possibility is the trick.
hitchens was a great man/great mind for sure, its a total lost he had to pass away so fast
@khasseki Watch 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss". Its pretty eye opening.
@Vire70 We could create AIs in a simulation/program with very different fundamental reality/laws than our own. like objects flying up, immortality etc.. we could make it simpler or more complex. "Simulation Hypothesis" closely resembles that of Plato's "Allegory of the Cave", look it up. Anyway it's just my personal analogy of our existence.
Pagans, and Christians have their own definition of their god. The thing/event/cause behind the BB is the deist's own definition of a god.
@incomprehensible14 yeah, and thats because of the "a" in the beginning of the word... theos means god you know... And today, theism means a specific kind of god. the ism was never a part of my argument, theism was, as it is currently being used. there was no distinction between deism and theism then, that happened once people wanted to separate themselves from the chruch, but Aristotle's idea of a prime mover (as adopted by the church) could still answer questions without answers. thus deism.
here is one question to anyone religious: why is there a much larger percentage of literate and articulate atheists, as opposed to that percentage in any religious group. please, tell me why this would be....
@behemuth Furthermore,I actually googled the word "adeist". According to adeistDOTcom, an adeist is simply a person who's not deist. This definition includes atheists, theists, agnostics and (I would assume) pandeists. Your definition of atheist sounds more like the definition of agnostic. Since agnostics believe the existence/nature of god(s) is unknown and most likely unknowable to humans (including theists), they acknowledge the possibility of a deistic god(s) while totally dismissing theism.
RUclips is full of Muslim apologists arguing the god to worship is Allah, I have made videos repudiating their claims, Hitchens speaks alot of sense about what he says about religions.
@incomprehensible14 "Agnostic" isn't even the same category as theists and atheists. Gnosticism deals with knowledge and theism deals with belief, it's two separate categories and if you're a deist you're still a believer, meaning that in that category, you're either an atheist or a theist, there are no other options.
Now if I may take you back to the question -- why are you referring to "blind atheist faith" if it is not an attempt to discredit the atheist position in some way -- as it seems, by equating it or calling it parallel in some way to unquestioning Christian faith? This does not seem like a neutral observation, but a critical one. If I did not interpret it correctly, please clarify.
It’s not god I hate. It’s those that conceived the idea of him...
Oh -- I listened to them both when they first came out. We did think we could change the world by singing back then, and I did my share, I really did. Cute that you frame it as "have some faith" -- but you know, if you want to come visit me in the trenches some time where I fight the fight teaching -- a poor city college with many Muslim immigrant students who want the dream and need the most basic English to get it first -- you'll see how practical my vision of the gift and its limits is.
i accept that but it seems logical to me that there is no such thing as spontaneity. i.e these particles popping into existence is just how we observe them but probably do have cause, even if they are indirect. whether we will proove it or not, i don't know, but what we observe as spontaneous is not likely to truly be so.
The best summary on the subject of God and religion.
Let's just hope that when our progeny read history, they take historical and cultural context into account, and judge us based on our whole character and intentions, and not on our shortcomings that we would likely be embarrassed of had we been raised in their cultural surroundings with their moral scruples.
I'm just sad that I only just discovered Christopher Hitchens.
@behemuth Since you seemingly refuse to go to the website, I'll bring the website to you. As posted on evilbibleDOTcom : The etymology of the word "atheism" derives from the Greek word "atheos" meaning "godless". The "-ism" suffix, which can roughly mean "belief" was added later. The etymology of the word (atheism) means "godless belief".
You're right, but he didn't say it was impossible. He said, I may not be able to prove that a deist God doesn't exist (Aka that a deist God is very possible), but that a Theist God has no connection with a deist God
@incomprehensible14 No hold it, you have the definitions confused, look it up again. A/Gnosticism deals with whether you claim that knowledge on the existence of deities is attainable, while a/theism deals with whether you believe or not. A deist must hold a degree of theism, since they claim that there is a creator, in other words a supernatural deity which is responsible for the creation of the universe.
so...is he saying that deists each have there own "idea" of god, and that therefore it is personal? because the common meaning of a personal god is pretty much the opposite of the deistic... deity.
i suggest every serious critic of god read "Autobiography of a Yogi" by Paramahansa Yogananda. "Tell us how your assertion can be proven or disproven" Find a quiet place, sit down, and observe every thought you have for 24 hours. You will understand.
@Wordlaw12 they are called reading glasses.
A beautiful speech. It's poetic.
Hitchens book the Portable Atheist is a great source of wisdom. Love it.
DEScartes therefore think I am not wrote so can't be read in any English,as therefore am compute red text ,thinkpad? L .M en Tree?
Humanity if that were actually a thing owes great de t of gratitude to mr christopher. He was a gift.
@behemuth It's only based on direct experience. I wouldn't present it without having experienced it myself.
@crazyboyxx This isnt that complicated. Deism isn't a subset of either Atheism or Theism. Logically, deism and theism could be connected readily. However, it misses the point to take one trait that deism has in common with theism or atheism and say that its a subset of either. If anything theism is a subset of deism (that is if you must connect the concepts that way)
@avidalocan how is it more accurate to assert such a thing based on ones own limited logic, which in turn is based on human limitations in both mental capacity, instinctive or natural cognitive patterns and experience? it is not accurate at all, it is just another assertion based on no actual evidence. no human can blindly assert something like "there is a universally binding fact or truth behind all things" Some might use that as a placeholder, but saying it is fact is very very limiting.
I like his point at around 2:52 - 3:00 that everyone is, in some form, an atheist due to the fact all humans think other Religious Gods do not exist. If you are not a Hindu, do you think Shiva or Vishnu are real? Do they believe Yahweh is real?
Deism and Agnosticism seem to be the most moderate of belief systems in a world of polar opposite extremism. No one knows the answers. God or not, we have to deal with this existence ourselves.
Rephrase your second rather jumbled group of words into a couple of distinct and coherent questions and I'll address them....
Further, what Turek is trying to argue is that since we are here, then that's evidence for a god. Hogwash. There are better answers than that, and Hitchens pointed that out. We may not be able to "prove" Turek wrong, but we have much better reasons, based on evidence, that suggest he is probably wrong.
@M3t4lManiac Atheist is one who believes that there is no deity. Agnostic is one who holds the existence of deities unknown (even to christians) and probably unknowable: one who's not committed to believing in the existence or nonexistence of deities. The person who created the word gnostic isn't the same person who coined the term agnostic into English usage and so they're no linked that way. Huxley made it clear that agnosticism recognized the possiblity of God(s), but still rejects theism.
The guy he's debating must just want to get up and leave.