Frustrations
I accept that a majority of Christian literature is guilty of what I'm about to discuss.
Christopher Hitchens is perhaps the most intellectually dishonest debater I have witnessed. First of all, he avoids his discipline of biology and heads directly into philosophy. The problem isn't so much that he considers philosophy, but that he uses it to establish a fortress that leaves him impenetrable to attack by establishing false or hypocritical foundation. For example, D'Souza discussed in a debate the intrinsic nature of the universe where all of our scientific laws must exist as they do for any life to exist. Hitchens' response is to mention the fact that the universe is completely empty except for life on earth, and finishes his statement with "...some god." Applause follows. What Hitchens has done, however, is create a moral statement. His response has the assumption that there is some correct way to have created a universe. Furthermore, he could have made a similarly moral statement about a full universe with other populated planets. Ultimately the point makes no difference. It's meaningless and is about as close to a real rebuttal as me saying that getting a hangnail shows the moral inferiority of god. I have no issue with disbelief in God, at all. I get that. I spent 18 years of my life agnostic.
The other way he uses philosophy to defend himself (against Christians who are sadly unpracticed in philosophy) is with his arguments about religion as the cause of the world's problems. Here he philosophically argues that figures like Mao and Stalin weren't "true" atheists by establishing a false criteria. By saying that they perceived themselves as "god", Hitchens created a false definition of religion and thus attributed those atrocities to religion. Then, to further his point, he points out that Hitler claimed his Christianity, used the power of the Church, and burned some atheists first. Of course, here we find another false definition of religion as something that a person can use as an excuse, without any practice resembling a reflection of that faith. How foolish would it be to say "I'm in direct collusion with Christ when I burn people alive!" To some it would seem to make great sense, but to the devout it would be complete nonsense without some form of behavioral modification. The actual teachings of Christ look quite unlike this false image, and to believe so is to have a manipulated image or to be manipulating the image. Certainly in a world with mass production, there would be resources readily available to create an accurate image without an outside source manipulating your behavior. Furthermore, Hitchens argument ignores figures like Bonhoeffer and the Christian resistance groups in Germany as well as the large number of Christians who were also sent to the camps. Because Hitchens changes the criteria and definitions, however, he commits the greatest foul in philosophical debate.
Last, following the claim that religion is the problem, Hitchens (in his vast political science ignorance) completely rejects some very important aspect to international conflict (especially contemporary). For example, religion plays a fairly minor role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One can say "but it's the Jews is Muslims!" but that statement means very little. Consider Ahmadinijad's comment in reference to the Holocaust when he asks why the Palestinians should be punished for Hitler's actions. The problem isn't that there are Jews in the holy land, the problem is with empirical rule by the British and political posturing from the fifties onward. Hitchens can blame religion for the conflict, but he must first completely ignore the complaint of the Palestinians and the role of international politics.
Last, Hitchens is also (or acts) completely ignorant of the entire field of behavioral psychology. This is odd for a biologist. Particularly the evidence from behavioral psychology (and the great use of propaganda in most of the conflicts he mentions) to modify the behavior of those subject to the "powers". It's been well proven that it is possible to modify the unconscious behavior of a people to do things that they would otherwise find reprehensible (if you acknowledge that propaganda exists, then you MUST acknowledge this fact since it is inherent as a property of propaganda). Propaganda does not change opinion (despite popular belief) propaganda modifies behavior. BEHAVIOR. It's useless to change opinion if it results in no net gain. Hitler did not convince people to think differently of Jews, Hitler convinced them to kill Jews, turn them over, to give monetary and physical support to his party. All action. Stalin convinced people to subject themselves to a communism and continue contributing in spite of contrary evidence. Mao was able to rally the red revolution through propaganda. America was able to rally soldiers, money, and supplies. The power is in the ACTIONS. Hitchens commits the ultimate dishonesty when he suggests that religion is the focal point of these powers. He thus denies all other sources of power which may be abused by saying that religion itself is the problem, and not those in power abusing it and the people for their own personal agenda. He also ignorantly suggests that those who claim religious motivation are honest in saying such in all cases.
Christopher Hitchens is perhaps the most intellectually dishonest debater I have witnessed. First of all, he avoids his discipline of biology and heads directly into philosophy. The problem isn't so much that he considers philosophy, but that he uses it to establish a fortress that leaves him impenetrable to attack by establishing false or hypocritical foundation. For example, D'Souza discussed in a debate the intrinsic nature of the universe where all of our scientific laws must exist as they do for any life to exist. Hitchens' response is to mention the fact that the universe is completely empty except for life on earth, and finishes his statement with "...some god." Applause follows. What Hitchens has done, however, is create a moral statement. His response has the assumption that there is some correct way to have created a universe. Furthermore, he could have made a similarly moral statement about a full universe with other populated planets. Ultimately the point makes no difference. It's meaningless and is about as close to a real rebuttal as me saying that getting a hangnail shows the moral inferiority of god. I have no issue with disbelief in God, at all. I get that. I spent 18 years of my life agnostic.
The other way he uses philosophy to defend himself (against Christians who are sadly unpracticed in philosophy) is with his arguments about religion as the cause of the world's problems. Here he philosophically argues that figures like Mao and Stalin weren't "true" atheists by establishing a false criteria. By saying that they perceived themselves as "god", Hitchens created a false definition of religion and thus attributed those atrocities to religion. Then, to further his point, he points out that Hitler claimed his Christianity, used the power of the Church, and burned some atheists first. Of course, here we find another false definition of religion as something that a person can use as an excuse, without any practice resembling a reflection of that faith. How foolish would it be to say "I'm in direct collusion with Christ when I burn people alive!" To some it would seem to make great sense, but to the devout it would be complete nonsense without some form of behavioral modification. The actual teachings of Christ look quite unlike this false image, and to believe so is to have a manipulated image or to be manipulating the image. Certainly in a world with mass production, there would be resources readily available to create an accurate image without an outside source manipulating your behavior. Furthermore, Hitchens argument ignores figures like Bonhoeffer and the Christian resistance groups in Germany as well as the large number of Christians who were also sent to the camps. Because Hitchens changes the criteria and definitions, however, he commits the greatest foul in philosophical debate.
Last, following the claim that religion is the problem, Hitchens (in his vast political science ignorance) completely rejects some very important aspect to international conflict (especially contemporary). For example, religion plays a fairly minor role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One can say "but it's the Jews is Muslims!" but that statement means very little. Consider Ahmadinijad's comment in reference to the Holocaust when he asks why the Palestinians should be punished for Hitler's actions. The problem isn't that there are Jews in the holy land, the problem is with empirical rule by the British and political posturing from the fifties onward. Hitchens can blame religion for the conflict, but he must first completely ignore the complaint of the Palestinians and the role of international politics.
Last, Hitchens is also (or acts) completely ignorant of the entire field of behavioral psychology. This is odd for a biologist. Particularly the evidence from behavioral psychology (and the great use of propaganda in most of the conflicts he mentions) to modify the behavior of those subject to the "powers". It's been well proven that it is possible to modify the unconscious behavior of a people to do things that they would otherwise find reprehensible (if you acknowledge that propaganda exists, then you MUST acknowledge this fact since it is inherent as a property of propaganda). Propaganda does not change opinion (despite popular belief) propaganda modifies behavior. BEHAVIOR. It's useless to change opinion if it results in no net gain. Hitler did not convince people to think differently of Jews, Hitler convinced them to kill Jews, turn them over, to give monetary and physical support to his party. All action. Stalin convinced people to subject themselves to a communism and continue contributing in spite of contrary evidence. Mao was able to rally the red revolution through propaganda. America was able to rally soldiers, money, and supplies. The power is in the ACTIONS. Hitchens commits the ultimate dishonesty when he suggests that religion is the focal point of these powers. He thus denies all other sources of power which may be abused by saying that religion itself is the problem, and not those in power abusing it and the people for their own personal agenda. He also ignorantly suggests that those who claim religious motivation are honest in saying such in all cases.