Really takes me back to my Sophomore year…
I really, honestly, think my head just exploded. Last night at the New York Public Library, there was a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton over the question of the existence of God. The event was moderated by the Dean of Harvard Divinity School Slate.com’s editor, Jacob Weisberg.
Now, take a minute to go clean up the shit in your pants from laughter and/or outrage, and then we’ll unpack this event. Ready? Good.
There’s a blow-by-blow account of the interaction over on the New York Times, so I won’t rehash the whole thing. Just, you know, be careful if you read it, because you’re bound to shit your pants at least once or twice more. Probably the juiciest zinger came from Sharpton:
“At the end what is refreshing is that you are a man of faith,” Mr. Sharpton told Mr. Hitchens, to much laughter, “because any man that at this point has faith that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has more faith than any religious person I know.”
Ouch. After the opening jibes, it more or less devolved into the following exchange:
Hitchens: God is an asshole.
Sharpton: That’s not an existential argument.
Hitchens: Religion does horrible things!
Sharpton: That’s still not an existential argument.
It’s funny that even though Hitchens wrote a fucking book on the topic, Sharpton more or less cleaned his clock, proving once again that you should never trust an avowed Trotskyist and former Nation columnist to make logical arguments. I do find it hard to swallow, however, that Al Sharpton was the most articulate God-believer to be found in all of New York City.
But anyway, all of that is beside the point. The real purpose of this event was to make a scene by inviting two ridiculous culture-war blowhards under the same roof, and then having the thing moderated by the ultimate scene creator/contrarian, the editor of Slate.com.
New York Public Library? Or Fox News? I report, you decide. But I really think that, even at the highest levels, our culture is screwed.
dave wrote:
I would like to see a Haiku about Tracy Simmons written by you.
“Dave, you’re nothing but a little shit.”
-Tracy Simmons
Posted on 07-May-07 at 10:22 pm | Permalink
neill wrote:
How does anyone get Al Freaking Sharpton to come off as a sober, reasoned, likeable person? Nice work, Hitchens.
Posted on 08-May-07 at 10:19 am | Permalink
patrick wrote:
Were you on drugs? “Cleaned his clock” by completely wimping out and refusing to defend the bible or christianity? The challenge was to debate Hitchens’ book, which attacks religion. Sharpton apparently didnt read past the title in only wanting have an “existential” discussion.
Posted on 08-May-07 at 11:36 am | Permalink
John wrote:
“…proving once again that you should never trust an avowed Trotskyist and former Nation columnist to make logical arguments.”
He’s a former-Trotskyist. And he’s not the only person to be young and idealist and who later renounced their views. I don’t agree with Hitchens on very much but you seem to be saying the man’s a complete idiot. I’d suggest you read his book before you condemn it. It’s slightly embarrassing, all this ad hominem attacking, when you’ve obviously not read the book and are basing your whole opinion of the debate on the fact that he’s an apostate leftist. What do politics have to do with it? Sharpton’s not an intellectual but Hitchens surely is (whether you agree with him or not).
Posted on 08-May-07 at 11:41 am | Permalink
pjk wrote:
Patrick, Sharpton was very smart because the quickest way to lose a debate is by allowing your opponent to force you to take up a more difficult position than you have to. Sharpton, however, stayed on topic (ie - “God,” not “Christianity”) and Hitchens did a pretty weak job attacking him on those grounds (I can think of about half a dozen arguments he could have used.) I’m admiring Sharpton’s debating skills here, not his love of Jesus.
John, I don’t consider someone who writes a book about Mother Teresa called “The Missionary Position” to be an intellectual. Neither is he an idiot. He’s a polemicist, and what polemicists do (and what he did for the Nation/the Trotskyists) is loudly defend whatever position they take up, just for the sake of being loud and defensive. Polemicists sell books, and they’re good at shouting people down and gaining followings, but they’re not particularly logical.
Posted on 08-May-07 at 12:27 pm | Permalink
Dan McCarthy wrote:
Nonsense. I was there, and know what I saw. In point-for-point terms, Hitchens destroyed Sharpton, made it evident he didn’t even really read the book (”I briefly went through it” whatever that could broadly mean..) and furthermore held on until he could hold no more onto the red-herring that Hitchens wrote a book not about Organized Religion but on how “God is not Great” - so Sharpton kept trying to engage Hitchens by saying that he’s not addressing it. However, the “God is not Great” is obviously a play on words from the “God is Great” chant and clearly states his book was “How Religion Poisons Everything” which Hitchens was debating just fine. Sharpton a couple of times tied Hitch’s stance on the war into it - which is fine by me as I disagree with him - and tried to use that albatross hanging from the ol’ man’s neck to deflect the fact that he (Sharpton) didn’t have a rhetorical leg to stand on.
But what could he debate anyway, even if he had addressed the issues discussed, or *gasp* read the book, as the form of debate is rooted in logic, point and counterpoint, and faith - which is all Sharpton focused on, swinging away with all his might - is, a priori, illogical. He didn’t have a prayer to begin with, and proved so when he got caught in his own logical nonsense when he admitted to being an agnostic by saying “I agree with brother Hitchens that one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God” which, of course, Hitch was quick to point out to the embarrassment of Sharpton.
No my little droogies, Sharpton was pounded until the pomade holding his hair in place was as frazzled as his ability to have an actual debate on the topic. A politician to the end, that one…
Posted on 08-May-07 at 12:52 pm | Permalink
John wrote:
(this is not the John of two comments up)
But Dave… you kind of ARE a little shit. At least, you were in college. And if you’re a real newspaper reporter now, then that would make you an asshole. Welcome to the club.
Posted on 08-May-07 at 1:15 pm | Permalink
Dan wrote:
This is a food fight between two pompous egomaniacs as usual casting no light on the subject
Posted on 08-May-07 at 1:20 pm | Permalink
pjk wrote:
quite the debater, Mr. Hitchens? I’m not so sure…
I like this little quote: “Mr. Hitchens: ‘Religion gets its morality from us; I think it’s fairly easy to demonstrate that.’”
which pretty much invalidates Hitchens’ entire premise that “religion poisons everything,” since he’s also saying that religion gets its standards from the society around it. so does religion poison us, or do we poison relgion?
Come on Hitchens!!! pull it together!!!
Posted on 08-May-07 at 1:31 pm | Permalink
Dan McCarthy wrote:
That’s incorrect, and taken out of context. What he goes on to say, at the debate and in the book, is that Religion gets its morality from us and as such, validates the idea that we need no organized sects or holy screeds or sacred land or imagined words to listen to or react in line with an ingrained moral compass within us all. Because the burden of proof lies on the side of the faithful, it’s up to them to prove otherwise (they’ve had 2,000 years to get it right, still chuggin’ away). From a naturalistic perspective, it would be maladaptive to humans as a mammalian species if it wasn’t in our best interest to help others in need on the whole (see example of the story of Jesus going out of his way to help the blind man in the New Testament).
If one was there, and looked through clear eyes and open ears the proof is in the pudding as to who won that “debate” - which it could even barely be called given the fact that Sharpton was essentially a last minute addition, and clearly had another agenda behind him (hence the constant attempts to bring the ol’ man’s stance on the War and WMD into the discussion right away, until realizing no one was all that impressed with the effort and the polemical stiffness of the Rev.)
Posted on 08-May-07 at 1:43 pm | Permalink
pjk wrote:
All RIGHT!! Hitch for Natural Law! The 18th century called, it wants its philosophy back!
And anyway, I think the French Revolution, the atheists in Red China and the Stalinists in the Soviet Union did a pretty good job of proving that “relgion,” as such, isn’t really the problem.
I’ve had this argument way, way too many times, and so I’m going to stop now.
Posted on 08-May-07 at 2:33 pm | Permalink
Dan McCarthy wrote:
As I’d imagine you would, given the tone. Well done, squaw. Flaubert would be proud.
Posted on 08-May-07 at 9:53 pm | Permalink
Dan McCarthy wrote:
Furthermore, I’ve no doubt you’ve tipped a wee toe in this water before, and had this conversation “way, way too many times”, but I’m curious - is it the debate on religion you’ve had too many times, or the discussion on what was or wasn’t said during the exchange, or who did or did not win the debate? I can say with cheery certainty that at least one of us knows the correct answer.
But, I don’t want to push someone on their own “blog for talented people”, and especially not challenge what was said at the debate - as I’m sure you were there, from the authoritative voice - so I’ll comply and cordially bow out. I noticed your resume is posted on here. I now understand the hesitation to go into any matter with relish and ginger; anything too revealing may scurry off a potential employer….
Posted on 08-May-07 at 10:01 pm | Permalink
jon wrote:
man, it’s always funny hearing sarcastic intellectual insults. whatever happened to “pistols at high noon?” or maybe we just need some infantile jabs in there to even things out a bit.
“anything too revealing may scurry off a potential employer….BUTTMUNCH!”
Posted on 08-May-07 at 10:38 pm | Permalink
pjk wrote:
Dan, you’re a weird guy. Thanks for stopping by.
Posted on 09-May-07 at 3:50 am | Permalink
Dan McCarthy wrote:
As a final point, and given the inherent “weirdness” of someone commenting on a debate to which one hasn’t attended, heard, or read - I will gladly do comrade Krueger the favor of posting this for all: http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/pep/audio.cfm.
It’s the audio of the debate, in it’s entirety. So, I urge anyone interested in the play-by-play, point for point exchange (or in Sharpton’s case more than once, pointless burbles pooling up from the dusty attic of his intellectual mind) to download it and listen for oneself.
Also, whether a Hitchens fan or not, I urge all to go to http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com. Don’t miss the posts by Greywolf, and by God’s Balls don’t overlook the comments sections there. Hilarious back and forths…
Posted on 09-May-07 at 10:18 am | Permalink
neill wrote:
Krueger?
I think the reason some of us don’t want to have this debate, Dan, is that it would validate the sort of juvenile, ham-fisted “analysis” that Hitchens brings to the table. There’s no honest intellectual point to trotting out the same tired points about religion’s illiberal consequences–whether that’s subjugation of women, enslaving minorities or fighting brutal wars–in the way he does it, because it’s been done before. Repeatedly. Or, to put a finer point on it, I’m not surprised that he claims to have come to his position when he was 9 because he presents himself like a 9 year old who’s decided he’s smarter than the adults in the room.
If he cares this much about carrying the secular flag, there are plenty of issues he could take up, like the war against reprod. rights in this country, rather than keep jerking off onto the written page and calling it “intellect.”
Posted on 09-May-07 at 1:25 pm | Permalink
Dan McCarthy wrote:
Interesting analysis, Neill. What an “honest intellectual point” is, I’m not quite sure, but given your want to never again return to the empty, tired issues of “subjugation of women, enslaving minorities” and other frivolous piffle, well, I’m sure I could take a crack at it in the quiet moments solipsistic inner-gazing. It seems to be the only way to crack your code. Like learning Italian to understand Dante…
Posted on 11-May-07 at 8:28 am | Permalink
neill wrote:
An honest intellectual point, as I described above, is material that isn’t straight out of high school speech class. Hitchens has consistently proven that he’s not the man to provide it, so I suppose I’m upset that he’s giving the rest of us atheists such a whiny, self-indulgent–solipsistic?–name.
Posted on 11-May-07 at 7:34 pm | Permalink
Dan McCarthy wrote:
Well, actually, you didn’t describe your definition of said material that “isn’t straight out of high school speech class”, so forgive us lesser mortals if the construct was misinterpreted. What I’ve been commenting on, if it hasn’t been entirely clear, has been the simple aspects to the debate between Sharpton and Hitchens. That’s it. Nevermind the want, or unwant, to induldge in the larger discussion of faith or even the greater matters which carries the secular flag - animated though that is - it was simply what was viewed, first hand, at the discussion which spawned this entire chain. I don’t think I’ve deviated from that, aside from the tantalizing danglers placed from commenters posting their opinions and inviting a quip here and there. No, I think I was clear from the get-go, saying that from the perspective of someone watching and judgeing a debate (which I was at, of course, and not commenting on it from second or third hand accounts) - Sharpton was spanked. So, forgive me if the material I’m op-eding is “straight out of high school speech class”, assuming, of course, that you were subjected to such a thing, instead focusing on refuting the original posting suggestiong that Sharpton took the thing in full (found this via the NYT blog, how, Peter, you were linked to it is a mystery to me but kudos to you anyway) is all I intended here. Views stretching into the greater stratosphere of the “God” debate, “Religion” debate, and “whiny, self-indulgent” rot will obviously be attached to it - but let’s not lose sight of what spurned all this, what?
Posted on 13-May-07 at 1:51 am | Permalink
John wrote:
Dan McCarthy, you are insane.
Posted on 14-May-07 at 10:06 pm | Permalink
Dan McCarthy wrote:
Thank you John. Your commentary is welcomed - brimming as it is with the moisture of wit and insight.
Posted on 16-May-07 at 1:54 pm | Permalink