Christianity Is Part of the Problem: Why Faith Is Bad – Christopher Hitchens Debate (2007)

Propellerads


Criticism of faith is criticism of the ideas, doctrines, validity, and/or procedures of faith, which include linked political and social implications.

Spiritual criticism has a extensive record. It goes at least as much back again as the 5th century BCE in ancient Greece with Diagoras “the atheist” of Melos, and the 1st century BCE in ancient Rome with Titus Lucretius Carus’ De Rerum Natura. It continues to the current working day with the arrival of New Atheism, represented by authors and journalists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Victor J. Stenger, and the late Christopher Hitchens. Alternatively, “spiritual criticism” has been employed by the literary critic Harold Bloom to describe a manner of spiritual discussion that is secular but not inherently anti-faith. Criticism of faith is complex by the truth that there exist a number of definitions and ideas of faith in different cultures and languages. With the existence of various types of faith such as monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, nontheism and various certain religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, and many some others it is not usually very clear to whom the criticisms are aimed at or to what extent they are relevant to other religions.

Critics typically consider faith to be out-of-date, harmful to the personal, harmful to society, an impediment to the progress of science, a supply of immoral functions or customs, and a political device for social regulate.

In the early twenty first century the New Atheists, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, were being well known as critics of faith.

Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens, assert that theist religions and their scriptures are not divinely inspired, but guy made to satisfy social, organic, and political needs.

Daniel Dennett has argued that, with the exception of additional contemporary religions such as Raëlism, Mormonism, Scientology, and the Bahá’í Religion, most religions were being formulated at a time when the origin of existence, the workings of the physique, and the nature of the stars and planets were being badly recognized.

These narratives were being meant to give solace and a sense of romance with more substantial forces. As such, they may have served a number of critical capabilities in ancient societies. Illustrations consist of the views many religions usually had toward photo voltaic and lunar eclipses, and the appearance of comets (types of astrology). Specified present comprehending of the physical earth, the place human knowledge has amplified radically Hitchens, Dawkins, and Onfray contend that continuing to keep on to these perception techniques is irrational and no for a longer period helpful.

In the 19th century, Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer argued that educating some suggestions to little ones at a younger age could foster resistance to doubting individuals suggestions afterwards on. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, use the phrase child abuse to describe the damage that some spiritual upbringings inflict on little ones which consist of:

Fear of punishment such as eternal damnation
Guilt about sexual urges
Depriving little ones the option to imagine freely or brazenly
Hitchens and Dawkins say that religions do tremendous damage to society in a few techniques:

Religions sometimes persuade war (Crusades, Jihad), violence, and terrorism to boost their spiritual goals
Spiritual leaders contribute to secular wars and terrorism by endorsing or supporting the violence
Spiritual fervor is exploited by secular leaders to guidance war and terrorism

While the causes of terrorism are sophisticated, it may be that terrorists are partially reassured by their spiritual views that God is on their facet and will reward them in heaven for punishing unbelievers.

These conflicts are between the most hard to take care of, notably the place each sides imagine that God is on their facet and has endorsed the ethical righteousness of their promises. A single of the most notorious quotations linked with spiritual fanaticism was made in 1209 for the duration of the siege of Béziers, a Crusader requested the Papal Legate Arnaud Amalric how to notify Catholics from Cathars when the town was taken, to which Amalric replied: “Tuez-les tous Dieu reconnaitra les siens,” or “Get rid of them all God will acknowledge his.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_faith

The Movie Archives

#christiantheology, #doctrinesofchristianity, #branchesoftheology, #christiandoctrines

27 Comments

  1. Karl-Johan Embretsen says:

    I've got difficulty in listening to D'Souza that I don't get with Douglas Wilson. I don't like listening to Dinesh and I don't like to be adressed as I'm an imbecile or a five year old

  2. Hawkeyes Higgs says:

    YOU MAY HAVE BEEN HURT BY PEOPLE POSING AS CHRISTIANS,SO HOW MANY CHRISTIANS DIED UNDER ROME SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY APPOSED THE THINGS YOU SEE ALL AROUND YOU, FIFTY MILLION ALEAST OVER ONE ERR FOR 600 YEARS
    SO DO NOT JUDGE BEFORE KNOWING ALL YOUR FACTS

  3. Xarxxon Xon says:

    Watch Sean Carrol vs WLC, Dr Carrol breaks D'Souza's non sense apart aswell.

    Peace

  4. carel crafford says:

    Everyone is here to try and learn something new

  5. Lee Z says:

    So D'Souza said that Hitler's regime was atheistic. Yet when confronted on this point, he didn't provide any evidence or argument in way of showing that Hitler was an atheist and had to retreat to a position that Hitler was merely anti-Christian. These are clearly two different positions. It was pretty clear that he knew Hitler may be, at most, anti-Christian instead of atheistic. Then why did he say that Hitler's regime was atheistic to begin with?

    But then again, I wouldn't expect consistency and honesty from an adulterer, liar, convicted felon.

  6. Shane Hamilton says:

    they both have one thing in common they both loathe the clintons

  7. Dave W says:

    i feel bad for Dinesh

  8. Johnny Cash says:

    It still amazes me how religion just thoroughly destroys logic and honesty in an otherwise intelligent person. Dinesh is a smart guy. But you would never know that from listening to his arguments. I find it hard to grasp that he actually believes the pure drivel coming out of his mouth. Some of the shit he says is just so obviously false, I have to think that no educated, intelligent person would dream of saying that without being extremely embarrassed. Yet here he is proudly proclaiming it. Religion is truly the antithesis of honesty and reason. It makes otherwise intelligent people say and do extremely unintelligent things. It makes otherwise moral people say and do extremely immoral things. I truly hope we can move past this as a species. If we can't, I see no hope for our future.

  9. unabnats says:

    '"rational in what way? we think in "rational terms" based on how are brains are set up. not on any laws of nature

  10. unabnats says:

    they had to be christian moron

  11. Eve Again says:

    Right at the end there, Hitchens sums up religion in an exclamation: The love of one person for another is sugar, but the love offered by religion is saccharin. It's an artificial substitute sweetness.

  12. Hans&Friend. says:

    I'm not the only one who said out loud " Come the fuck on." When Dinesh D'Souza said " If you are an unbeliever why be militant? I don't believe in unicorns but I haven't written any books on the subject." Comparing these two things in this case is just ridiculous. Whether you are Christian or an atheist you should recognize that as being silly. People do not claim to be inspired by unicorns daily, people do not argue for and against unicorns daily. People do not teach their children to pray to and worship the unicorn. People do not tell you that you are going to hell if you do not believe in the unicorn. Dinesh is either woefully dishonest by saying this, or woefully stupid.

  13. USERNAMEfieldempty says:

    At 27.45 D'Souza blandly reads out "like living in celestial North Korea" from Hitch's book because he knows that Hitchens uses that line to devastating effect. That is an extremely rude piece of gamesmanship in a debate, to steal your opponent's words. Souza is a very devious player and a money grubbing little "Guru" in the Indian tradition of hucksters. (He is also a charmless, chinless prick)

  14. Tony Terwey says:

    1:04:38 That which is good for the tribe and/or the self is good. That which is bad for the tribe and/or the self is bad. This explains why giving blood is good.

  15. Tony Terwey says:

    1:01:52 your decision to drop it is determined by your psychological/biological/environmental makeup. While we think we have free choice, we actually do not.

  16. Tony Terwey says:

    55:53 because neurons fit within the universe and must abide by its "laws"

  17. Tony Terwey says:

    45:43 I dare you to go ask any atheist if they believe that everything is permitted because we lack an imaginary friend. Morality is not equivalent to rule following.

  18. Tony Terwey says:

    45:07 If you're about to claim that Hitler was a Darwinist, you should know he denounced every form of evolution and if you read in context where he seems to be advocating for it, he's actually speaking about social and organizational evolution, which is completely contrary to everything Darwin said and stood for.

  19. Tony Terwey says:

    42:45 while Hitchens made a good point here, he broke the rules of the debate because he was supposed to be asking a question, but he's instead asserting a claim and evidence.

  20. Tony Terwey says:

    29:01 threat of eternal punishment seems like compulsion to me

  21. Tony Terwey says:

    28:19 A god like that, even if he existed (which he doesn't), would be malevolent to the highest degree and would punish people simply for disbelief whilst not punishing people who actually may deserve some form of punishment (though nobody deserves eternal punishment) such as murderers and rapists, whom he doesn't punish simply because they thought a make-believe character did magic tricks 2000 years ago

  22. Tony Terwey says:

    27:18 The Christian premise includes things that are proven incorrect, such as God's existence, a 6000 year old earth, and Jesus walking on water. The laws of nature aren't suspendible and this man is incorrect in his claims that they have exceptions, because his "evidence" is really just akin to the God of the gaps fallacy (i.e. We don't know so therefore my assertion is true)

  23. Tony Terwey says:

    26:20 a Misotheist is one who hates God, an antitheist is one who believes a God doesn't exist (as opposed to an atheist who doesn't believe a god does exist, which is different)

  24. Tony Terwey says:

    25:45 we do know. Knowledge is justifiable belief through verifiable data.

  25. Tony Terwey says:

    12:35 Nazi Germany was Catholic, and people do things because of their beliefs, while atheism is a lack of belief.

  26. Tony Terwey says:

    10:30 the universe doesn't "obey laws" we observe patterns that are never broken in the nature of things, and we label them. Not the other way around.

  27. Tony Terwey says:

    9:06 however, these were scientists from awhile ago. a vast majority of the scientists of the day are atheist/agnostic because they see the contradiction between science and biblical claims upon the universe