Turek Vs. Hitchens

For all those interested, here’s a debate that took place on September 9 2008 between Frank Turek of crossexamined.org and Christopher Hitchens, who has been getting the occasional mention here lately. The subject of the debate – what else: Does God Exist?

Enjoy. πŸ™‚

Similar Posts:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

7 thoughts on “Turek Vs. Hitchens

  1. Finally got around to listening to this!

    I was going to comment that Hitchens is a master at avoiding the question, but he’s not even good at that. He got called on it several times during this debate, but was content to ignore it. He spends an awful of time decrying religion and doesn’t offer any affirmative evidence for his position. Did I miss it?

    Surely there is someone who is able to engage to a higher standard some of the common arguments Turek puts forward? If I was an atheist I’d be awfully frustrated at Hitchens. Or perhaps Hitchens avoids engaging in logic and reason as that would implicitly acknowledge the very thing he is denying? πŸ˜‰

    If the moral argument contends that for there to be any appeal to morality there must be an external objective moral standard (God), why must the standard be God (or given by God)? What line(s) of reasoning get us there? Why can’t morality be a collective (cultural, societal, religious, legal, whathaveyou) set of ideals or values passed down over hundreds or thousands of years, something we grow up with which becomes a normal part of our character? There are moral differences between many groups. The western world says domestic violence is immoral, however to the Yanomamo woman in the Amazon rainforest, the resulting bruising is displayed as a badge of honour.

  2. Nathan,

    You make a great point about the cultural relativity of morality. Why not root morality in our biology, in other words, in pain and pleasure? Actions that lead to pain and suffering are generally condemned (except in cases like surgery), and those things that bring pleasure and joy are encouraged.

    Also, though I am not a scientist, I would think that most think that matter is eternal. Besides, even the book of Genesis does not have God creating matter, but organizing it as a potter would with clay.

    Thanks Glenn for this post!

  3. If the moral argument contends that for there to be any appeal to morality there must be an external objective moral standard (God), why must the standard be God (or given by God)? What line(s) of reasoning get us there? Why can’t morality be a collective (cultural, societal, religious, legal, whathaveyou) set of ideals or values passed down over hundreds or thousands of years, something we grow up with which becomes a normal part of our character? There are moral differences between many groups. The western world says domestic violence is immoral, however to the Yanomamo woman in the Amazon rainforest, the resulting bruising is displayed as a badge of honour.

    My response to those questions would be, why don’t you read the literature where these issues are discussed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available