@ "Consciousness itself is a mystery that can only really be understood in the context of a creator" Consciousness itself is only mysterious in the context of mind-body dualism. In the materialistic view, consciousness is merely the electrochemical state of our material brains, which gradually evolved into reasoning systems due to selection pressure. There is nothing mysterious about it.
Great video and as a side ... Would people be willing to share where you stand on these issues .... Ie morality free will and validity of the cosmological argument...
I think I have an original argument against contingency. Which is contingency being a formal argument is coherent, but coherence is not enough to show something as evident. And this can be further proved by rival coherent philosophical arguments, which physicalism/naturalism/materialism is not a rival to so is not similarly thrown into doubt because its not making contention to rival arguments with its argument. Like how science doesn't make a claim as to what caused the big bang (and the big bang even is still up for contention). Meanwhile gravity and other theories do not have coherent rival theories, and are further evidenced by technology and other real world exploits. Because of this, contingency being in contention that is, while the physical/material/natural does not have thorough coherent rivals, proves there are different degrees of evidence and also proves that philosophical arguments may not be enough evidence. For example contingency doesn't require a god, it could be a fundamental law. Which means for each rival possibility the stance is weaker, and theres no true rival theories to the physical explanations we observe. So we cannot conclude god is real. Also considering theres no rival theory for physicalism or the like, this proves omniscience cannot exist because no simple objects can both store and read information, especially a near infinite amount, and that object for example would need to understand itself thoroughly as well to meet the criteria for omniscience. Which means it needs to hold more information than itself, which is impossible. And will be the case until theres a competent rival theory for the more evident understanding of the world.
Christopher Hitchens did not enter his battles of words with the ambition of conducting a logically consistent philosophical debate. As a world leader of the atheist movement, he had every legitimacy to resort to the same rhetorical bag of tricks as his opponents. But if you are captious enough, the criticism is of course justified. ;-) Thanks for your great work, Alex, keep on mopping the floor!
I loved the way he used to take his pause before the sentence was finished, in order to run right through to the next without interruption. I now do the same. Genius.
@@auntiesemite9295 You have no place in and should be excluded from all serious conversation. Geniuses tend to smoke and drink themselves into oblivion explicitly because of the stupidity of humans such you and your arguments.
@@auntiesemite9295 I'm glad to see Hitchens still gets on your nerves even after his passing. A brilliant man doing amazing work even when he is no longer with us. But please do keep carrying on and speaking ill of the dead and showing the world the true nature of religious people like you. For it is through the acts of people like yourself that most turn away from religions. Thank you.
@@meaninglessjunk9594 Yeah, he's been dead for years now. He got some sort of throat cancer. If the smoking didn't get him, the blasphemy probably did.
valid and thorough? The first clip is already Alex lying that Hitch did evade the question where the question shown was exactly what Hitch answers to. The critique does not fit the material used to critique! Look again at the Interview, at 4:40 ff Alex shows himself that Hitch was asked "why do you find it insulting". THEN he chides Hitch for not answering where he gets his morals from, when that was NOT the question!!!! Claiming he does not answer the question which was asked when it is exactly the other way around.
@Is Math related to science? you either clearly haven't seen his body of work or have such awe in Hitch that you see him as infallible. Hitch was brilliant, but he wasn't perfect. His public debates were part performance art, and he used that to deflect once in a while. It doesn't make him less enjoyable or less brilliant.
Ugly German Truths I think he was referring to the question that the interviewer was referencing when he asked the follow up question “why is it insulting?”. I agree it was confusing and I thought exactly what you did until I listened again to the response that the interviewer was reading. I don’t think he was being intellectually dishonest but could’ve cleared up which question he was addressing for clarity’s sake
Probably that Alex should listen better to what is said. Hitchens is not asked by the interviewer how he gets right from wrong without a god, but rather he is asked why he thinks the question is insulting. Listen again, its not strange that Hitchens doesnt answer to something he wasnt asked.
Thank you so much for this video, I really appreciate it. Christopher Hitchins content is some of my favorite on all of the World Wide Web. I appreciate your take on his lack of an answer in these cases. I believe I was so infatuated with his charisma that I looked right past it.
I am a Muslim and I have to commend you for an exemplary level of integrity and dare I say sincerity. The fact that you take the effort to criticize someone who could be considered representing the same camp as you, at least in some parts, is a great testimony to this. Kudos to you sir.
Awesome comment. That is why free speach and open criticism withotu malicious intentions and ulterior agenda should become the norm... when that happens, we could be able to make massive progress. That is one of the main contentions against religion. While changes to religious moral imperative happen (in Christianity especially, but I assume that many are made in Islam as well) it is always a struggle. Its not enough to establish "hey, this is better, we all agree and it makes sense". Aftewards there will still be the question of "but how can we explain in it in the context of our sacred text". And whats worse, the immediate expectation of a life-long religious scholar would be to dismiss it in the first round, because the second question is just too dangerous to deal with. Which naturaly, introduces exactly that agenda and ulterior motive, that the open discussion should avoid. I would be interested about what you, as a Muslim, think of this?
@@psychepeteschannel5500 Islam differs quite a lot from christianity in this regard. We have an extensive and old history in these fields. You can look up the concept of Double truth for instance which will give you the answer. We do not consider scholars infallible either. Neither do we believe that religion and reality are *ultimately* in odds with each other. Science as we know it has its limitations and is also ever evolving. That is the nature of science. We aknowledge the significance of it as well as it's limitations never dismissing it but rather challenging it as it should be in order for it to evolve. This is the reason why Islamic civilization grew and developed at such a rapid phase soon after 9th century and specifically in the field of sciences.
@@G00dwILLHuNt1n9 Thank you. I also dont think religion and reality are ultimately in odds. On the contrary, I think that it should converge at some point (thats why I would actually disagree with the Double truth kind of thinking, as far as I understand it (minimally)). But specifically in the questions of morality, it still seems to me that what I described in the previous comments stands. An open debate with no ulterior motives is magnitudes more difficult within a religious context, than a secular one. There are truths that need to be adhered to, ideally without question.
@@psychepeteschannel5500 @Psyche Pete's Channel English isn't my first language so excuse me for any possible errors in grammar. In regards to the double truth theory, as I've understood it, it aknowledges that the scientific (agnostic) and theological approaches differ in their fundamentals. Agnostic being silent without the presumption of a Creator yet both can and will come in to the same conclusion about the reality, natural world etc. That kind of leads to your unanswered question. I beg to differ and I believe the new atheist movement is a proof of this. They seem to be fundamentally atheistic, to me appearing to stand their ground on almost on an emotional level. Specifically Dawkins, Krauss and I do think also Hitchens displayed this to some extent. It is given that when you confront someone religious they are coming from a place where certain believes are a fundamental basis in their thinking but this applies likewise to the afore mentioned personalities. Ultimately we can not proove or disapprove the existence of an ultimate Creator. We can make logical arguments against and for it but at the end of the day that's all what we are able to say about this subject. Therefore ultimately all we have is a belief or the lack there of.
@@G00dwILLHuNt1n9 i do not intend to enter the discussion, but If i'm not mistaken, the three atheists you pointed to shares the view of your last sentence. They're not staunch about there being no god. Dawkins especially is quite upset when people claim there is no god. Any honest (atheist) person genuinely curious about the subject would come to the same conclusion.
All fair points. Much like you, Hitchens is my favorite writer but he was, at heart, a bar fighter with a thick coat of academics and a wicked sense of humor.
@1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV Let me help you with English, when the word puppy is expressed in "" the entity is not an actual Puppy. in this case it is clearly referring to something with the critical thinking skills of a puppy or to be precise a Theist like yourself. So the only thing I am excusing is dishing out abuse to Theists. Something which clearly can only benefit humanity.
Watching Alex correct his hero while physically and visibly frustrated by how C.H conducted himself at times in the intellectual arena is why this channel is in my top 5. Mate, you are going to be a heavyweight I cant wait to see whats to come in your future.
@@deeharris_4350 Potential is endless. Alexs mind can take whatever frontier or cause he wants to further and advance it further than most could in multiple lifetimes. I for one, think politics and any public position of power, should be held by those with the ability to discover and implement solutions to societies issues based on science and not ideology and beliefs. We should be so lucky. But can u imagine CS in parliament running circles around every smooth talking 2 buck used car salesman that passes for a leader these days. I'd pay to watch that shit lmao
23:42 O'CONNOR: [N]otice, anyway, how this is nothing more than a distraction. 24:12 O'CONNOR: He doesn't even _attempt_ to answer the question. In watching _this_ stuff from Christopher Hitchens, I never take it as sophistry and distraction to cover up his ignorance. Even though the format is supposed to be an intelligent debate, this stuff strikes me as much like the way in which I would respond if, for example, a stranger came up to me and said "Geez Louise! What is wrong with you?! Why would you wear those sandals?! You know they look super gross; don't you? What a fashion-fool!" I wouldn't think it my job suddenly to hop to it and generate real answers to the questions "What is wrong with you?" and "Why would you wear those sandals?" and "[Don't you] know they look super gross [ * * * ]?" In real life, I probably would say nothing; in uncharitable fantasy, I might imagine saying something like "I dono-why would you be such a dumb meanie?" I think it likely that Hitchens's view was "Oh, goodness. I'm here to respond to whatever somewhat reasonable points you make to support your contention that the God that you discern in the Bible exists. When you start bringing up silly stuff like the rhetorical question 'How do you get something from nothing?' as the supposed proof of Mary's parthenogenesis; Jesus's divinity and resurrection; and God's simultaneous omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, I, too, will take a break from serious argument and get my kicks by joining you in your dumb game of tossing around irrelevancies."
16:34 I think you missed one of Hitchens' arguments for human morality. He always said societies don't survive or last for very long if they allowed rape, murder, theft, etc. So it stands to reason that he believed morality was an emergent phenomenon from evolution, and since he was a dialectical materialist he almost certainly believed morality didn't have a permanent, objective basis but rather one that changed depending on the existing material conditions. Subsequent generations developed better senses of it. "The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living". I think that's a good answer, but I'm not sure if Hitchens ever articulated it clearly enough to stick.
Well, obviously, but that's not explaining a grounds for morality, it's giving an explanation of its origins. You might even say "but the race wouldn't survive if we didn't follow these precepts". Alright, maybe it won't, but why should I care about that for myself, except in so far as I care about the existence of the human race beyond myself? "Because you ought to care about the continued existence of the human race.." you say. "Ought I? Why?"I reply....You see the problem?
troweltheory You’re asking the right questions. How does one ground morality? How does one ground any concept? How does one even certainly ground their own body on the ground?! Many paradoxes form at the ‘ought.’
Please do a whole series on this concept of clarifying points that went under our radar truth is ultimately what many of us seek I would be very grateful for the help!:)
10:02 "If he was making a point that was somehow dishonest..." I have noticed Hitchens be evasive in his answers on quite a few occasions. It reminds me of a moment when Christopher and his brother Peter Hitchens were on a show together and the host of the show said to Christopher "can you get to your point" and Peter then says " he likes to give at least a weather forecast before answering the question."
Mad respect for this video, not just tackling the topic but doing so in such a methodical, convincing way. I think you did what I previously thought nigh impossible: proved a Hitch argument to be fallacious. Well done, you've earned a new subscriber. Looking forward to watching some more of your channel's past and future content.
Perhaps that’s because of your own pre-existing biases? Christians have been pointing to Christopher’s false arguments and underhanded misrepresentations of the God of the Bible for a very long time, but it took another atheist to get you to acknowledge them yourself.
@@simoncordingley3122 Christopher Hitchens proved himself fallacious by weaseling out from the questions he could not answer without unwillingly giving credit to God. So he chose "running away" by changing subject.
@@jounisuninen Yes, I’ve listened Christopher Hitchens quite a lot, and besides being eloquent and a great rhetorician with an Oxford accent, I don’t think I’ve heard him say anything about Christianity, in particular, that was very interesting. Nearly all his polemical arguments are based on arrogant straw man misunderstandings/misrepresentations of Christianity. He was so tiresome to listen to, but I can see how he could sound authoritative to a cynic’s ear. I actually like Alex though. He’s an agnostic, which is at least an honest position to take. He also tries to steel man apologetic arguments, whilst being polite and respectful. It’s a totally different approach and one even Christians should learn from.
Yeah, just because someone agrees with some or even most of the things someone else says doesn't mean that they agree with everything that the person says
@Vayne Carudas Solidor He is not unbiased. Alex knows that himself. I think you should watch talk he gave about why smart people believe stupid things. I paraphrase him: to say that you are not biased, that demonstrates that you are in fact biased.
Hitch was never on the dark side, that is why Cosmic Philospher does no longer like his arguments, the Philosophy studies have ruined him, taken him from the light into the endless navel gazing of the ivory tower.
@Vayne Carudas Solidor "no bias" , every single person on this planet has bias dude. Just because Cosmic Skeptic fairly critisces Hitchens doesnt mean he's a "true free thinker" and has "no bias". I disagree with almost everything Cosmic Skeptic says or believes in but I admire the fact he is honest enough to admit Hitchens was no way any sort of philosopher and and the same can be said about people like Dawkins or Tyson who meddle into philosophy while being clueless about it.
Problems start when you criticize the person and not the issue. It's a tactic oft chosen by those who appear to be unable to make a cogent , on-topic case and are then reduced to taking advice from the Bill Ayers playbook.
I noticed that too. I'm inclined to give Hitch a pass on that one because two questions were asked. However, there are enough examples to sustain the point.
@@JohnDavidDunlap Agreed. I do remember watching the Turek debate years ago, and realising that sometimes Hitchens can actually be a rubbish debater sometimes.
I thought the same thing, but the interviewer reads the question "where do you get your sense of right and wrong" then reads Hitchens response "the question is insulting" and then asks Hitchens "why do you find it insulting". I don't think it was the best clip to use to make the point seeing as the interviewer didn't actually ask him about morality, but instead asks him about his response.
Not gonna lie, but I love Hitchens. As a philosoph myself, I recognize he made some abysmal philosophical errors. However, as an orator and speaker, he was beyond impressive.
That's exactly what's said about U.S. televangelists...whom include the constant intoxication and florid bad health of Hitchens. Vile, bombastic, charlatan. NOTHING he ever said will continue on as substantial. Which Harris, Shermer, Silverman's contributions will.
he makes quite decent points on the spot though for example he said he didnt believe in a god and wouldnt want a god and he analogises god to north korea loved that speech
The glint in your eye and little smile you give when you say "Christopher Hitchens turned on his maker... then so can I" because you knew you just said something clever made me smile.
1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV female genital mutilation is most often performed by women living in communities where that is a common social norm, predominantly in Africa with additional large groups in the Middle East and Southeast Asia (Indonesia most commonly). While this is most often done in Muslim societies the practice predates Mohammed by at least half a millennia, being attested to by the ancient Greeks as an Egyptian practice of the time. The scope of FGM ranges from a ceremonial pinprick of the labia as a form of blood oath of sexual morality through pseudo-surgical removal of the clitoris, internal and external labia, and the permanent sewing of the vaginal canal to prevent sexual intercourse until it is ripped open when the woman’s marriage is consummated. Make genital mutilation is far more common, of course, but is more often described euphemistically with the term “Circumcision.”
1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV correct, the communities with female genital mutilation are not (by and large) Christian. Circumcision, or make genital mutilation, is predominantly Jewish, though given the total population of Christians vs Jews there are probably more circumcised Christians than there are Jews.
Justin Willhoit I should have been more clear: Hitchens was asked where to get morality without God, he responds by saying it’s insulting, then the interviewer asks why he has responded in this way. My point was that he didn’t respond to the original question, and that asked why it’s insulting he just restated the question and asserted that it’s insulting.
You're looking for trouble kiddo! In all seriousness, I'm sure he would have loved to be held accountable for what he said by people who respect him. I'm glad you made this video.
@Auto Math *"I'm sure he would have loved to be held accountable for what he said by people who respect him"* All you need to do is read the comments here to see that many people here would rather Alex had kept his thoughts to himself. But they would by definition be propagandists, wouldn't they?
I am an old man. It is bracing to see someone in your generation doing so much better than many in mine -- we would laugh with Hitch and not bother to peek behind the curtain of his quick wit and erudition, something that Americans can be especially guilty of when deftly expressed in the King's. Very well done.
@@ztrinx1 not really -- there's a place for blanket exclamations of gratitude, isn't there? Relax the left brain and say something from the heart: it helps everyone
I think that this is one of your best videos so far. Hitchens was the person that made me comfortable with my loss of religion, listening to him convinced me to call myself an antithiest, as opposed to being an atheist that was sad that god doesn't exist. I have only noticed a few of the issues you pointed out here, and near the end of the video i found myself thinking that if a christian was making this video and raising identical points, I would think that he misunderstood Christopher and I wouldn't be convinced at all. Thank you for making this controversial video and not only showing his mistakes, that flew right over my head, but also showing me how biased I was.
@Him Next Door Your objections were addressed in the video. And Hitchens already stated that he expected no leniency. Matt Dillahunty constantly states that 'he doesn't know' in his debates. He argues quite well that his opponents should admit the same. He seems to be doing alright as far a ticket sales go (as if that's the only reason we would've ever heard of him or The Hitch). And if the question is an insult...ok. Hitchens never had a qualm about insulting back, but, answer the question. I don't doubt you watched the video, but I have my doubts that you paid attention.
That has some wisdom to it. Still needs to be backed up.... And what is the source? Not another whispered voice of a being that will not stick around...?
I love Hitchens (one of my kids middle names). I love what you are doing, Hitchens was freestyling and being a journalist, you are taking the arguments and advancing them by criticising them. This is how we get closer to the truth. Nobody should be above criticism. I hope in 20 years or so there is a cosmic sketic gen 40s that does the same, Standing on the shoulders of giants is how we progress.
I find this a rather delightful listen, and I'm just at the prologue, but so wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your obviously sincere admiration of Christopher Hitchens, and your desire to honor him with appropriate and articulate challenges. While I might not be your expected demographic, as a former tax lawyer, artist, and mother to men and women your age, I shared your talk with "Beautiful Education Boy" with my youngest son. I've been an atheist down to my toes since I was small, because I have a brain, and can't help myself, but I live in a world where this isn't by far the norm. Therefore, I long for conversations with like-minded thinkers and this is a lovely substitute you offer me here. How very kind of you!
Some of these inconsistencies are hard to spot in real time given his mastery of the English language and oration. Good job Alex. You’re the most dedicated to consistency philosopher I have encountered in all of my exploration.
I would have loved to see a Peterson v, Hitchens debate on something. They would both cause each other to short circuit. It would be high drama though.
Great video Alex. I always found Christopher Hitchens much better at raising criticisms of religion than he was at rebutting criticisms of atheism. I certainly think he deserves the praise given to him for being a passionate and eloquent antitheist, but a lot of his arguments were not airtight, and much better resources exist when it comes to actually getting down in the weeds of refuting religious arguments.
I don't know if these things are necessarily criticisms of atheism. But I suppose in this case we could make the positive claim of where morals come from.
@@thomasgiannetti4032 I think we mostly agree; I'm only talking about a few specific religious arguments when I say Hitch didn't provide the best responses. And yes, I think that failing to justify objective morality is only really a problem if someone in fact claims that secular morality is objective, which I don't think is generally necessary. In the cases Alex brought up here, Hitch would have been perfectly justified in saying "I don't have an answer for that question, but that doesn't make your answer any less wrong."
The statement: I always found Christopher Hitchens much better at raising criticisms of religion than he was at rebutting criticisms of atheism Yeah, in a way Hitchens reminds me a bit of Karl Marx. Marx had a superb criticism of capitalism (particularly the economic argument in Das Kapital), but the solution, "the dictatorship of the proletariat" and " the classless communist society" was almost as idealistic as the religions he criticized … I guess criticism is easier than solutions, no matter who you are :)
There's no best way to honor a man like Hitchens, than by exercising intelligent criticism on him. He would have been flattered and would have appreciated the clarity.
@@FitratAbdulla yes youre right because he wasnt capable of trying to understand the other side Could be why he substituted funny one liners for actual responses to the hard questions
Great video, Alex. One thing I would add to contextualise - and maybe relativise - the “tu quoque” fallacy point: I believe the fact that this occurs pretty much lies in the nature of the argument. What I mean by that is that the main point of the religious side is basically “We’ve got all the answers (-> god)” and it’s just logical to at some point go “No you don’t!” and thus commit the tu quoque fallacy. If the main premise is that one side has all the answers and the other doesn’t then claiming that both sides in fact don’t have answers is actually a valid point for once.
I think he briefly touched on this in the video - the tu quoque fallacies he mentioned were in relation to Hitchens claiming that morality exists, and that free will exists, without providing any solid reasoning - I see what you mean when you say that neither side has a complete answer but Hitchens did go out and claim that these things exist and when asked 'how can you ground such beliefs without a creator' he basically said 'well a creator doesn't explain it' Im actually going back on myself while writing this because that actually makes a fairly valid point - of course we can moreorless observe morality and free will in action, that means that they exist, not that they were put in place by a deity I suppose his point is that we want to operate on evidence, and we have observed evidence of free will/morality so we can argue that they exist, but we haven't observed good evidence for a creator, or good evidence that said creator instilled moral value and free will into us, so the argument that morality stems from God is no better than the argument that free will is inate - I can't explain it and neither can you so why postulate a God as an explanation when that doesn't make things any easier, and it gives you something more difficult to explain/prove (similar to the point I hear Dawkins make on the idea of the universe requiring a creator) I think there's some merit to the idea that existence and apparent morality require an explaination beyond natural science -> i.e. some eternal supernatural force or deity which doesn't 'have' or 'need' a scientific explaination - (although as Hitchens said, this leaves the theist with all his work ahead of him i.e. proving that he know this Gods will and that he cares about the universe and the human race) but his response (the idea that postulating a God doesn't help your case) holds a lot more water than Alex made it out to
@@joelmacinnes2391 One of the critics in the video had a point -- where did morality come from? Carbon atoms? Benzene molecules? I'm sure the atheist is going to say . . . evolution. But here's the problem . . . evolution is a dynamic, not a constant process. Objective morality is timeless. It doesn't not change. What is right/wrong today is the same as it was yesterday. Objective morality does not evolve. It is constant and never changes. Even if some kind of "morality" can come from evolution, it's not an "objective" one. This opens the door to the question -- whose "morality" is the right one? My personal view on "morality" is that even from a religious perspective, there is no "objective morality." There is no objective morality whether you are religious or atheistic. Why do I say that? I say that because if you go back to the story about the Garden of Eden (ok, talking about specific religions here, particularly Judaism and Christianity), there were two trees: the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Why is it called "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?" Why is it not called "Law of Good and Evil?" I think the author of this story chose his/her terminology well. Good and evil were never absolute, they were always subjective, always dependent on the circumstances. The belief in "objective morality" comes predominantly from Protestant Christians who believe in the Five Solas of the Reformation, who see things in black-and-white terms and believe in "the one true religion."
Huh. Alex, you misunderstood the first one: the interviewer quoted Hitchens, then asked him *why he felt insulted,* not *why he disagreed with the argument.* Hitchens actually DID answer the question that was asked there: Hitchens was asked why he felt insulted by the statement, so he answered that he felt it was a serious insult to humanity in general. A follow-up explaining why he disagreed would have been nice, but there may have been a behind-the-scenes reason he didn’t go there, or maybe he just thought he didn’t need to.
@@skyeangelofdeath7363 What do you mean exactly? I would say morality is subjective, but what I mean by that is morality does not exist outside of human experience. Within human society, morality is much less subjective because it is based on socially agreed upon/inferred rules, and for the most part individuals don't get to decide what those rules are. If there is an objectivity to morality, it comes from the power of group consensus. Kind of like how the value of money works.
@@skyeangelofdeath7363 Because that's how morality works? If morality were objective, than it would be a science and every society would have the exact same values. Give me one example of a morality that is objective.
I miss Hitch. He wasn’t a philosopher by any means, but he was damn good at bulldozing through deep philosophical debate points. He wasn’t perfect, but he was important to the changing landscape of median public discourse.
Hitch was near about the text book definition of a bully and a purveyor of strawman fallacies .. i don't miss such a person, he hurt the cause of atheism more than theism!
@Dennis Sullivan They knew he had influence. Not because his arguments were all that persuasive; but rather his quick witted delivery as the root of his responses that swayed people. Not saying he wasn't a smart man in other aspects. He was a great orator,journalist,author(sometimes competent in debate),etc. But he was a terrible in terms of philosophy,imo. And could be overbearing in debates/discussions.
@@aerodrome4427 I think that’s the point. What I like to call “New Age” Atheists will admire a pseudointellectual celebrity like Hitchens or Dawkins et al, content with his surface-level witticisms on atheism as opposed to diving into any of the meat of the philosophy behind it. This is how atheism has just turned into yet another close-minded dogmatic religion over the past few decades.
5:20 The interviewer specifically asks him *why* he finds the question insulting. Maybe Hitchens should have ignored it and answered the underlying viewer question anyway, but he does respond to what the interviewer literally asks
I actually am on Hitchens side - for the most part he is not making sense - but the question presupposes he NEEDS to answer - H is right. To even ask the question supposes a radical ontology he need not assume. Wittgenstein made a similar argument for God. Theologians arguing for God insult the thing they worship. If God truly created the world its very existence is enough. To even argue the point is to assume a different ontology but why should a Christian do that? Questioning a premise is wholly legit on THIS point H is right. The other points are weak I admit.
@@darkthorpocomicknight7891 I think the point is that he's being completely dismissive of a common argument made by theists. If the goal of much of Hitchens' writing and public speaking was to debate theists and show why they are wrong, perhaps even convert them through "militant atheism," then he should have given a more thorough answer. In some sense by dodging the question he comes off as no different than the theists who often do the same. I do get that what you're saying is that the question doesn't really deserve to be answered but not doing so seems counterproductive to me. It just makes those who already agree with you like you more and those who don't like you less.
@@user-ko7lz3kr1d No I mean LITERALLY he is not LOGICALLY obligated to answer But you are right. Just because an opponent gives a badly worded question yes you can refuse but it looks poorly for your side But intellectual honesty means facing the best argument and struggling with it. Hitch when he near death just became dogmatic and stopped listening. A great man but very flawed
In respect to the moral argument chapter you state that Hitchens misunderstands the argument, but he wasn't asked about the argument, he was asked "Why do you find it insulting?" (see around the 4:57 mark). Feels a little on the nose to use this as example of him not answering the question when he quite obviously is.
I haven't even watched the video yet but just the introduction has earned a Like and my subscription. To be willing to identify weaknesses in the arguments used by one's own side and the the willingness to identify the flaws in a hero one admires overall is the height of intellectual honesty and genuine enquiry. My hat is off, sir!
Natturner 100 bucks if you can tell me what I meant by that comment......seems you have no idea. It’s more than an appropriate response to this young kids misapprehensions on this topic, but alas another ignorant fool caught in the Vail of DK (there’s 1 hahaha) Sigh.... you just can’t go anywhere on the internet without getting into a fight. What a benign comment for someone to pick a fight over....lol. Clearly another misunderstanding individual. Good luck with that attitude bud. Take care.
Natturner cool. Well, you came out swinging! Truce? Haha! Been out since 99....that term based on the research done then. I’ve used it thousands of times since then I’d imagine. What I meant was....Chris was too brilliant and as a consequence sometimes leaves his answers steeped in implication and a knowledge base most do not posses....but he...many times fails to stop there and further or better reiterate the point. He just moves on. He’s the prime example of the high end of that terminology. For many years I was yelling at him on screen that....No they “don’t get it” and please DO NOT “leave it to the good graces of my audience”......because Chris, they don’t get it. That’s what I meant.
Natturner I hear ya there my friend!!!! Relationships are hard, let alone during unprecedented times. Everything’s amplified. All understandable....this whole thing has been very hard on everyone. I appreciate that though, and absolutely no harm done. My very best to you and yours. I keep telling myself “deep breaths!”...lol! Easier said than done though. Crazy times.
This just shows how intelligent Alex actually is. The fact that he is willing to point out flawed arguments of one of his biggest idols, just shows his honesty and his desire to encurage debates about anything to advance the knowledge of humanity. Thank you so much Alex for beeing yourself.
5:23 No, sir, that was NOT the question. The question was (at 4:58) "Why do you find it insulting?" and Hitchens answered succinctly. We're off to a bad start.
@@user-xh6rm8fd3w Thanks for the reply. I could name a psychic medium who predicted more accurately concerning Iran that Hitchens. Hitchens was a person set up as if whatever opinions he had would be 1000 times more valuable than average. They were AVERAGE PERIOD.
as a radar mechanic, part time referee, and husky dog owner, i whole heartedly agree. more truth is better. although my wife tells me there are exceptions to this rule
@@lesterroberts1628 - yes, never tell your wife there are any other women that you find more attractive than her! That's a truth best kept to yourself.
i've gotta say, it's refreshing to see a believer who has the intellectual honesty to recognize it in others (especially atheists, but not just us). i've been spending a lot of time online lately around a lot of believers of various faiths who don't, and it's nice to be reminded that there are some who do
Maybe when you reach your 13th birthday you’ll appreciate what Hitchens is saying. The question of where we get our moral knowledge if not from the supposition of a “God” is valid and does not prove the existence of God. Hitchens is saying it is built in to the human existence.
Objective morality is an evolutionary trait, benevolence, altruism and empathy is exhibited to some extent by other mammalian species without a divine arbitor, the benefits of reciprocity releases dopamine and is essential for procreation
To be fair, _"what grounds your (sense of) morality?"_ is sophistry in the first place when asked by a theist. If objective morality works the way apologists claim, then there is no way to evaluate the underlying standard and no way to know whether it is actually good or just presumed to be so. So, rather than provide validation, "objective" morality actually pushes knowledge of goodness further out of reach.
It’s like theists try to stick religious claims wherever there is a gap in scientific knowledge. If there is anything that might look inexplicable, they label it as ‘God stuff’ and gladly mock atheists because they don’t have a theory to explain it.
Oswlek So, we have to be top of the meaning food chain? Even though we are the flotsam of a random process for avoiding predators and attracting mates, on a nondescript planet on a mediocre star with a rural address? I don’t see that as reasonable, rather ‘well let’s assume it cause it’s all we have’ whistling in the dark.
@@davidhawley1132 Right, how about this: there's no meaning: YOU PRODUCE MEANING. So, screw God, now everything is up to you. Sounds good, doesn't it? Anguish? Sense of vacuum? Get used to it, it's life, artists deal with that shit every day, why should you have a safe conduct?
Rolando G No, meaning is by definition from outside. How has a century of existentialism worked out for society? More nihilism. That idea is dead dead dead. We all suffer, and how do you know I am not an artist? While on the subject, you ever heard of Rembrandt, JS Bach, etc.?
Yes I would love to hear some more criticisms as well! I often listen to Sam Harris's podcasts and would love to have an well meaning critic have a look at his thoughts and arguments.
It's utter magical thinking being used to justify magical thinking. He says Morality comes from God so how can you have Morality without God. Logic 101 kills that circular logic one day one. It wouldn't get anywhere. And yet Alex proposes he can judge Hitchens on philosphy. Alex is a mental midget.
Interesting that nevertheless, he secured respect from his opponents as well as his fans. I predicted some of your objections when I heard the topics. It is true that a lot of us were so captivated with his charm and wit as to overlook certain rhetorical shortcuts. We saw them too. In the end, many of us who grew up watching various religious windbags get a free hand, get taken down a few pegs. It may have been incorrect, but ah it was glorious to watch.
They weren’t shortcuts, those get you to the destination faster although perhaps unconventionally. They were non sequiturs and straw-men ending nowhere relevant. Antics like that did no service to those who care about the ideas being discussed and are looking for real answers. Then the echo chamber of his fans that responded with, “If you didn’t think he answered the question you’re just not smart enough to get it.” made it all the worse.
While I agree that the question of how to morality is grounded is an important philosophical question that deserves a good deal of discussion, the way that the religious normally use this question is to imply or state outright that the moral instinct we have is evidence of God. Because this is an assertion without justification, I don't think any justification was necessary for Hitchens to dismiss it.
@@jrd33 I'm not saying it's unfair to ask him, I'm saying it's fair for him to address the insulting and unfounded implication of the question. The question only becomes more worthwhile if your remove this implication by striking the phrase "if not in religion." But this only highlights the absurdity of placing this burden of explanation on Hitchens, who is not a moral philosopher. Hitchens and Christians both agree that people have morality, but Christians are the ones who claim to know where this morality comes from, and Hitchens does not. This puts the burden of proof on the Christians, and I see know problem with Hitchens leaving it there.
@@dylanjones9061 Yes you're criticism is warranted, because Christians like myself don't know that God exists with absolute certainty, and nobody ever will. However, the very reason Christoper needed to expound on his position in relation to morality is that he had no means of being able to justify it in the first place, such that he doesn't know where our intrinsic sense of rightfulness and wrongfulness comes from. We believe that our moral worth, our sense of rightfulness and wrongfulness, comes from God particularly. "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will right them on their minds." Hebrews 10:16
As atheists, We don’t claim to know about the something from nothing argument, but religions do by stating the existence of God, but if we ask ‘how did that God come from nothing’, they can respond that he is all powerful and beyond our comprehension, the same that atheistic arguments state that the workings of the universe are intangible
@@replacekebab7669 Yes I see. Nobody can claim to know with absolute certainty the 'something from nothing argument,' however, at the very least, theists attribute their reasoning to God. Atheists can't give any explanation whatsoever, and that's fair enough.
I have loved hitch for a long time and when I saw/clicked on this video I was ready to lose respect for CosmicSkeptic, but then he quite directly and correctly showed that even someone like hitch is capable of fallacy, and did it without mocking him or degrading his character. Very well done sir. I couldn’t take issue with any of the things you pointed out 💪
@@hamzapatel03 because “I was ready” is different from “I decided”. As a human being it’s impossible to enter a discussion or in this case a video without preconceptions or expectations, religious or otherwise.
I've got to say that I took issue with the first point, about the moral argument. Just insisting that he has got to somehow justify morality is not necessary, I think hitch clearly just sidesteps the question to show it as a distraction. The question of how to base morality is forever quarreled over and never answered satisfactorily, introducing a god into the picture doesn't help either. I'd bet Hitchins knew this and knew if he were to go into some ultimately flawed framework then that would just take credit away from him and his speaking against religion. I can almost guarantee Hitchins would have found the insistence for some metaphysical justification for morality absurd, he was a naturalist at heart and knew the only real answer to what morality is grounded in, is exactly what he explains in the clips: our instinctive sense of right and wrong. Alex and many people insist here that the validity of our moral instincts must be backed up by something more than that, I think it's relatively clear that on purpose or not, Hitchins simply didn't recognise the need for a higher validity or 'true moral code' as it wasn't needed, at least not so far as discussing the abolishment of religion.
Love your channel Alex. While not always right, I think what was most attractive to me about Hitch was the shear depth of his knowledge. Every time I listened to him, I found myself subsequently researching some literary or philosophical point that he made.
He did answer the question the first time. The question asked was "why do you find it insulting?" not "how do you determine right and wrong without God?"
The question indeed was "why do you find it insulting?" and the reply "because it is degrading humans". Not only that, then he explained why it is degrading to humans as he seems to see it. To me this means that he sees human evolved morality as good, specially towards its keen.
In other clips of the same question, he still didn’t answer it. He answered it by saying we know right and wrong because we have an inner thought of right and wrong and that’s objective. That doesn’t explain how that’s objective and not subjective, particularly when he, himself, also stated sociopaths and psychopaths have different moralities. This means more than 1 standard exists, and objective morality also exists, so why is one correct and the other wrong? This was not answered by Chris.
@Kurapika Giovanna So it's only wrong because it might happen to you and you wouldn't like it. I'll pass on the probability that it happens to toy and you don't like it as a basis for morality.
@@peteratkinson922also sometimes those who copy the framework of another’s critical thinking skills never truly think for themselves and in turn sacrifice their individual sovereignty
On the first point, how many atheists have I heard handle that query in more or less the same fashion...it's a matter of rejecting the premise. Such questions are self serving once uttered. Rejecting the premise could be for many the first and last step. Perhaps the second step would be to say that 'no, we can't be certain of the grounding of morality via the man-made creation of god nor can we claim its perfection via evolution. It is a developed trait, not an absolute.' Still and all, I prepose that if your question contains in it the assumption of faith, then it must be eschewed until such time as you can prove faith's promise as fact.
You really did a fine job with this. As a fan of Christopher Hitchens, I am glad to see these blatant weaknesses in some of his arguments acknowledged.
At 14:33, CS says Hitchins commits a fallacy, saying that theists can't answer a question either. In general, this isn't always a fallacy if the wider question is "Atheists can't explain X, therefore a god exists" --- if theists can't explain X, then the theist argument is undermined. If that is the context, then "theists can't explain X either" is not a fallacy because it validly implies the conclusion that hitchins is aiming for --- that the theist argument does not work. I know that CS does point out that H is actually making a positive claim in which this is a genuine fallacy, but I think that there is still a lingering context, which makes me uncomfortable about saying that he misses his target --- especially since there are multiple interpretations of "objective morality", and it might be that Hitchins is dropping this in to tackle a specific one without developing that argument fully.
Being fair with Hitchens, "how do you ground your morality?" is a question that assumes you can do that. His way of answering doesn't answer it but it does make you think about that.
Guille Muñoz I think he has answered that, but not in the example provided. Perhaps he considered that people had digested his works to know he spoke of the golden rule and empathy. I believe he mansions human flourishing in one of his works if I am not confusing sources.
If asked, I would say that my morality is the result of finding, through trial and error, by being told and by asking questions, the behaviors that work best, for me personally, in society. As Laplace said, no need for a god in that hypothesis.
That is a stupid question In fact I think atheists are at a better place to ground their morality. I don't have to refer to a book to written thousands of years ago to base my morality. Of course I will be more moral then those who follow a book written by a man who was a mugger (no seriously the man who wrote the Ramayana was a mugger)
--- Regarding the point about why Hitchens found the first question insulting --- 5:00 I think you're beating around the bush here. The question posed was "where does he (Hitchens) get his sense of right and wrong [if he doesn't believe in God]". Hitchens responded in print that this question was "in itself insulting'. The reason the question is insulting, he says, is because it suggests that humans literally CAN NOT have their own moral compass, and that they NEED a divine dictator to teach them that. So Hitchens answers the question of "where does he get his sense of right and wrong from without God" by saying that God is NOT necessary for morality, and that it would be illogical to suggest he is since Hitchens is an example -right there - of a person who knows right from wrong, despite being an atheist. At 5:35 You claim Hitchens is wrongly responding to the question "How do you determine right from wrong without God" by answering "this is insulting because it suggests we can't tell right and wrong without God" and then you (Alex) say "well yes" as if he hasn't answered the question. The thing is, Hitchens HAS answered the question here: his answer is that he does not need a God to tell him right and wrong. So the question of "how do you tell right from wrong without God" when Hitchens can clearly do so, is like asking someone how they can be so good at a videogame without using a particular guide, even after they've just explained how they don't need the guide to tell them how to play. Guy 1: "Hey how are you so good if you've never read the guide" Guy 2: "I don't need the guide. I have my own intuition" Guy 1: "So how are you playing so well if you don't have a guide. Everyone needs the guide" Guy 2: "I just told you I don't NEED the guide. You're either suggesting I'm lying about having used the guide (which is false. I HAVE NOT used the guide) or that I really haven't used the guide and am therefore playing the game bad (which is more obviously false as you've acknowledged already that I'm good). That's a false dichotomy designed to make the only reasonable option for a 3rd party viewer to say that I must be *secretly* using the guide" Translating this into the Hitchens debate: Guy 1 is the person asking the question, Guy 2 is Hitchens, the "Guide" is God and the "game" is morality. Moreover, as Hitchens continues to state why the question is insulting, he lists examples. The point made is that it is degrading to say humans wouldn't be moral without God (i.e donating blood) because you are effectively saying humans are innately selfish and wouldn't do moral things unless they feared a punishment. Also for your point at 7:00 When someone asks "if not from God, WHERE does Hitchens get his sense of right and wrong from" the implication is that Hitchens doesn't have a sense of right and wrong, because he explicitly doesn't believe in God. So Hitchens is forced to answer the implied question which is "Are you actually moral, given that you are Godless?" Hitchens counters this by saying "I'm a Godless man, and I DO have morals, which is proof that you can have morals without God, so I must get these morals from *somewhere* other than God." He doesn't bring it up, but the answer is human conscience. The question of *exactly where* Hitchens morality comes from is irrelevant. This is because the subtext of the original question ("Where does Hitchens get his morality from?") was "is there actually a way to have morality if there isn't God in the equation?". The answer is yes, because Hitchens doesn't have God in the equation; and yet he can distinguish right from wrong via human conscience. That's not conflating two separate questions, it's reading the subtext of what the question was really asking which was is it possible to have moral grounding without God. The answer is yes. When someone asks you "How do you know right from wrong if you don't believe in God", what they're saying is "How can you come to a decision on whether something is right or wrong without a divine dictator TELLING you the answer?". The answer to this question is obvious, human conscience. The original question therefore, implies that human conscience is insufficient for moral grounding. Thats what makes it insulting.
I’m probably a lukewarm Christian at best, but Alex is undoubtedly among the most, if not the most intelligent and mature atheist thinker I’ve seen on UA-cam. Always humble and willing to take on the most difficult subjects and giving credit where credit is due. Huge props for being a true individual.
I LOVE you for doing this man. I 100% agree with you about a lot of things and Christopher Hitchens is one of my heros as well. I have had my quirks with many of these responses of his. But this is why I love honest skepticism and this side of the theological argument. This side is always willing to look for the truth, no matter where it may lie, and to seek out and remind ourselves that even our heros and brightest minds of our cause are not always right. This gives us credence to our stance as we are always willing to listen to criticism because that's how the truth is found and progress is made. You're brilliant for doing this. 👏
I do believe that the question was "Why do you find it insulting?", and this is the question that Hitchens answered. The question was NOT "From what do you derive your sense of morality."
Yeah, I agree with you. He also did answered the question of where he derived his sense of morality in other conversations/deabtes. I feel like the selection of this specific interview was a little misguided :/
@@xadielplasencia3674 the comment I replied to already answered that. I was simply mentioning that when he is asked the question "from what do you derive your sense of morality" he has given an appropriate response.
I was just explaining this to my mate, the question this lad is trying to frame can hardly be answered because its almost a purely philosophical question.
Cosmic Cynic. As an atheist he does not need to answer unanswerable questions. He just needs to point out that the question is unanswerable and that religion lying that the question is answerable: One, automatically discredits religion from being true. Two, discredits religion as being harmful because lying does not lead to maximising harmony and freedom.
9:10 "How to justify the moral action," I think I remember from somewhere Christopher Hitchens mentioning that the human species wouldn't survive without a moral instinct to work together as a group. Again I'm not too sure where he said this, but I remember him using selection pressures from situations where humans need to work together as a way to explain morality.
Although I firmly believe that Hitchens did have a well thought out explanation for this, the problem is that within these debates he did not do them justice and resorted to other tactics to win. I don't think he did this to "win" so to speak, I think he just got swept away in his answer and missed the point of the question because - in his head - he already knows that he has it right
That's sort of what I was thinking. Whether or not we have free will is irrelevant. You live and act as if you have free will, because what the hell else you gonna do?
@@unicyclist97 wrong, God is 4th dimensional so to Him he could see all of time and space at the same time and know what happens. Infinity means nothing in the higher dimensions.
5:20 [1] For me, Hitch was many things. Sometimes, I got the sense in some his debates he was tired of the same old clap trap and his flippant sophistry was a sign of contempt. I put this forward as a thought because in other debates, on the same argument he really goes to town. He was also a bit of a poet; and I get the idea he was trying to use transcendental notions to elevate people rather than drag them down to base, gross, and crass tit-fot-tat stuff. Yes, the question “how do you know right from wrong”; to express this as an insult is to make people stop and think it out for themselves. If people have to be TOLD this (what and where morals come from), then we have lost the argument already. So, for me, this response avoided the lazy and convenient path of having someone provide us the answer. If we have to be TOLD the answer, then in actually TELLING people the answer, it is morally tainted… in this, I think Hitch was being not only clever but demonstrating, leading and holding people to a higher standard...which is MUCH harder than just giving the answer to a silly question. 6:47 Yeah, Hitch also answers the IMPLIED question too; he heads that off at the pass. He says to the interviewer “I would choose not to believe [you would be immoral]” And in there is a hidden gem of what BEING moral is. He has answered the question by giving the other person scope and opportunity to act in an autonomous way → this is surely one of those actions that INCREASES human well being. TELLING people what morality is constrains them. And if he responded by telling people what morality is, he falls into the same trap as theists are; that Hitch places himself as an authority that dictates morality - that he becomes that God from which morals comes from. To stack up his argument, he can not position himself as such…
gepisar myeah... his weary contempt of the assumed need to refute the colour of the drapes down some abrahamic rabbit hole to satisfy the questioner’s intent was pretty evident to the never-religious. It’s insane really. No one should be expected to have the tolerance to answer stupid self-referencing questions in the language of the deluded else they’ll believe its context represents an aspect of one’s point of view. Boiled down, it’s a god-said-so assertion, and I for one have only contempt for it from start to finish. Hitchens was far more patient with it than me.
@@mstandenberg1421 i concur! And i think in that, Hitchens was expressing a certain decorum and exemplifying a humanist approach. It is a subtle response and what made him sublime.
Please watch and share with others my five brief videos in which I present examples of scientific facts contained in the Bible, facts that the writers thousands of years ago could not have been aware of without divine knowledge given to them by Jesus Christ / The God of the Bible. And today's scientists agree with those facts!
Hi Alex, As clever, witty and charming as he was, never heard Hitchens claiming he was a philosopher. Not to argue too much, but; just because you can make a hard questions, Doesn’t mean it requires a proper philosophical answer. Many time I heard him saying: taking refuge on irony. He was not trying to elevate his shady answer but to reveal how “unanswerable” the questions was and misleading if not stupid is to appeal to god. Kudos to you for this video 🍻
I finally understand why it's hard for me as a non english speaker to follow some of the things he said. Some of the things he said just didn't make sense!
@1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV He was brilliant at raising arguments against religion and having mic drop moments as he was extremely historically knowleadgable, and that's what constituted a Hitch Slap, with a possible insult on the end. What he wasn't so good at is answering for the criticisms of atheism. If you just think he was a BS artist then you're butthurt and probably deserve a hitch slap.
Thank you! Although you missed the part that Hitchens said there’s no evidence that any gods exist, so why would I think morality comes from some thing that has no evidence. But I’m glad you hit on the other point. I honestly don’t know whether I should watch the rest of the video, if the first point was so poorly done by the video creator. It honestly reminds me of Christians that act like atheists in order to persuade atheists to become Christian. I was actually really excited to watch this video and listen to the arguments as his opening about Christopher Hitchens sums up my feelings, exactly. I even have a large custom playlist folder on my UA-cam channel devoted just to Christopher Hitchens. But since the first point was so bad, it’s hard for me to have faith so to speak in the rest of the points. I guess I’ll try watching more.
@@ttrestle This video is from 3 years ago. I'm sure CosmicSkeptic has developed further. But in this video and some others I've noticed him to sometimes twist the questions and rely on unproven premises. But maybe I don't understand them correctly. Hitchens' reply to the question "Why do you find it insulting?" was perfectly fine in my opinion. The question WASN'T "Where does objective morality come from?". First of all we could discuss about whether there IS objective morality. But if you ask how humans know about objective morality, you already accept the premise that there IS one. Besides the fact that this wasn't the question in the video clip. I don't remember the rest of the video, tbh. It's been quite a while ago.
I wonder how did he not realize his mistake? I mean, he must've watched the clip at least 5 or 6 times when creating his video, and it's really clear that Hitches answered the question he was asked.
@@Fru244 Also Hitchins has spoken more on this issue explaining that evolution provides an explanation for morality. Dawkins has spoken more extensively on this issue and Hitchens and Dawkins often spoke together so I'm sure Hitchens well understood the issue. The narrator here also seemed to switch his criticism between Hitchens not having a justification for his morality and Hitchens not knowing where morality comes from. Two separate issues.
@@thenephilim9819 Wrong! The interviewer was asking Hitchens why his answer to the question "where do you get your sense of right and wrong" is "that's an insulting question" So already Hitchens avoided answering the question. The follow up question is a push to make him answer the original one.
Very crisp and clear thinking by Alex. I often listened to Christopher and enjoyed it, but was not aware of the fact that he sometimes answered evasively.
Oh dear, you’ve done it again. At 10:47 you state that Hitchens was asked “of those moral instincts that he has, how does he know they are objectively correct?” Again this was NOT Tureks question. Turek asked “when you do something wrong whose standard are you breaking?” Hitchens replies that you are breaking the standard of Socrates’ inner daemon or what Adam Smith called “the internal witness” Hitchens was usually very careful not to dodge questions. I applaud your willingness to always question even those who you look up to but unfortunately your arguments have not been rooted in facts but rather questions you seem to THINK he’s being asked and in doing so you may be do a great disservice to a writer and thinker you actually admire. I therefore think that if you truly want to be seen as making intellectually honest critiques, you may have the MORAL obligation to re-think the grounding of your arguments and state that they are ill formed and that you’ve mischaracterized the actual questions being asked. I think Hitchens would have held himself and you or me to that same standard.
@@mishadoomen8372 Good question, and please forgive the length of my response but I want to make sure I don't dodge it. I’m glad to see that you agree with me on the mistake that Alex made here and I can further clarify my comments. When I said that the arguments (plural) that Alex is making are “ill formed” I was referring to an earlier comment I had made in which I called out the same offense. In his critique at 4:40 regarding, as quoted by Peter Robinson, the “insinuation that [Hitchens] would not know right from wrong if [Hitchens] was not spiritually guided”, Alex states that “the question was asked ‘How do you determine right and wrong without God?’” However, again, if you review the video you’ll find the actual question that was asked by Robinson was “Why do find this so insulting?” Hitchens simply responds with why he finds it insulting which was exactly what was asked of him. Robinson did not ask the question that Alex says he does. I think there are a few important things to note here. Firstly, I’ll restate that if you are going to publish a video refuting someone else’s position (especially a person who is no longer alive to defend themselves) for as large an audience as Alex has, you are under an immense moral and ethical obligation to make sure you get it right because if you do not (as we are all in agreement is the case here) you are under an even bigger obligation to make a retraction for the reasons stated above. Alex is obviously an articulate, great thinker himself and I would hope he agrees. We would all want and be rightfully due such a retraction if our positions were presented under false pretenses in as large a forum as this one. Secondly, it should serve as caution to us all that when we set out to make a video or maybe even shape a position in our head, it is important to not let the desired outcome of the video/statement cloud some or all of our arguments. This can happen to any of us, as demonstrated here, even if we have good intentions. And lastly, if the arguments I’ve made above are still not persuasive enough, one should WANT to know when they have committed such offenses because it calls into question one’s capability of analyzing complex positions in a way that can be damaging to their own reputation. This is one of the first few videos I’ve seen of Alex’s and I am a fan of his channel and very interested in the topics he explores but because of his “ill formed” arguments here, I have been given the initial impression, or perhaps a new insight, that he has possible blind spots that he may not be aware of which, again is understandable as we ALL have them but is nevertheless something that I think we should all be on the lookout for as opposed to just blindly accepting false claims regardless of how well they are articulated or presented. In other words, I found myself asking “Is this a channel that has a tendency to intellectually misrepresent viewpoints in order to justify a claim?” which I’m sure is the last way Alex wants to present himself or his channel. I made no claim that ALL of his arguments are ill formed or that the rest of the video is in some way invalidated because of his initial mis-steps, although I do think some interesting insights could be uncovered if we were to juxtapose Alex’s presentation here with the full context of the debates in which Hitchens participated (but I fear I might be getting a bit longwinded). I simply mean to say that Alex should make the corrections where noted and that these were two very big red flags that jumped out at me right off the bat that should rightfully be called to his and our attention as I fear they may not have been obvious. Just as when Alex concludes about Hitchens to “not let the man’s aura blind you to his mistakes and faulty reasoning” we should similarly hold Alex’s presentation to the same standard. And so I will conclude by sharing in Alex’s sentiment in the hope that I have given you enough examples to help you spot these transgressions for yourself going forward. Cheers friends.
@@concreterobot3446 I think you are a very reasonable person and I agree with your intentions. I had the idea you were saying all of his arguments were ill-formed, but as it turns out that you did not, I can only say that I agree with you.
Good point. I'm surprised so many people here have missed the straw man. Hitchens never claimed that morality is objective. Nor was he so simple minded as to say there are moral people and then there are psychopaths. He refers to psychopathy merely as an example. Does Cosmic Skeptic really think Hitchens was unaware of the vast grey area? And Hitchens would have appreciated the irony; a sophistic argument that aims to reveal an opponent's alleged sophistry.
5:20 or so. No, the question from the interviewer was "Why do you find it insulting?" That is what Hitchens was answering. Not the question the interviewer read out.
I think I heard Hitch simply answer (paraphrasing) "I don't know how something comes from nothing, that is the point. I can say I don't know, that does not mean your answer is correct. I do not accept your "evidence" for that question." To which I have to say I agree. I mean, that process of "I don't know something. then It must be God's work" is the way every religion ever was created and developed. It is our first attempt of medicine, astronomy, etc. As Hitch says.
Mariano Manto to be fair, I didn’t hear him say that- it’s easy to presume he thought that way about it, but I’m not sure where in his answer here you got that
Sorry, I am late to the game. I just started getting your videos in my feed. I appreciate this critique. Like you, I have watched endless hours of Hitchens debates. He was a great debater, and as Harris said, he had more wit and class than some entire civilizations. Yet, he often leaned into appeals to the stone or strawman arguments. He also relied on quippy jabs and appeals to indignation. He could make the audience laugh away some arguments. He once even said, "I think we can laugh them out of that idea." While I deeply respect him, I respect the pursuit of truth more. I think this was largely the work and aim of his life. Criticism of anything inaccurate or incomplete is of the greatest importance in that pursuit. Ironically, he was the one to which I most attribute my pursuit of it.
While I applaud the skepticism, O’Connor gets something glaringly wrong right out of the gate.The first question addressed to Hitchens at 4:59 was specifically "Why do you find it insulting?" (in reference to why he feels insulted at the suggestion that human morality is shaped by God). Hitchens answered the question! He stated that he finds it insulting because it devalues human choice, and thus devalues human beings in general. The question was NOT "Why do you feel that morality can exist with divine guidance?" So, Hitchens did not dodge the question as claimed.
I was about to comment the same thing before seeing this. Now, onward with the rest of the video! Hopefully, this is the last of these mistakes as the guy is haemorrhaging credibility!
I can only agree with that comment, and furthermore if the questioner don't explain how morality have anything to do with divinity then there isn't really anything sensible to respond to. Like if someone asked how can you be moral without the teachings of Genghis Khan then they first had to explain why on earth they think Genghis Khan is moral. Otherwise it can be dismissed as the insulting nonsence it is, just like C.H. did. His not wrong either for not going along with the absurdety implyed (maybe acording to the unwritten british courtesy laws, but not anywhere else).
Honestly, a fantastic Video, When you can call out the sophistry of your most prized persons, it really shows a lot . As a former Christian fundamentalist, now residing in unknown territory between agnosticism and Theism, you have actually given me the confidence motivation and inspiration to jump out of my comfort zone and begin to write and make videos on the topic of Religion and Philosophy. Seeing someone my age do the things you do is incredibly inspiring- I started a channel a couple days ago and would love some support and feedback, subscriptions would really be appreciated. I'm only getting started, but 7 years as a Christian fundamentalist and now Theology student has thought me a thing or two.
@@bluelagoon228 For me The historical credibility of the resurrection was never enough to influence whether or not I stayed within Christianity. Now I will grant that a case can be made for the resurrection, but it's not entirely convincing, your dealing with historical data that cannot be verified, you can only say this "probably happened" like for example the apostles dying for the faith, or the 500 eyewitnesses, we don't really know that ANY of that happened, all we can do is say it is more likely or less likely. Christianity requires A LOT from you, and A LOT of sacrifices, if you're going to take it seriously. If it requires you to surrender your whole life to it then the evidence and reasons as to why you're believing it better be damn good.
Excellent top their work on this Alex. "The only way to trust a person's admiration for someone is if they recognize their faults." Very well said... Thanks for modeling responsible and constructive criticism of those you admire most. If we could figure out how to get more of us doing this.
@ 5:20 - Yes he is answering the question! Back at 4:58, the actual question was "Why do you find it insulting?" I take your general point - but that was a very bad example to base it on
He didn’t answer that exact question- why is he insulted by it? Why does he take offense? If there is no such thing as objective morality- why would being accused of not having such be offensive ? It’s just an appeal to emotions- how dare you suggest I have no objective morals!! That’s mean! Then going on to answer the question of whether objective morals exist- without even answering why that would be a good thing to have in the first place
I only recently discovered Hitchens (how I regret not hearing him during his lifetime!), and have been watching his old debates. Your points are well-founded and well-argued-something about those responses of his struck me as off, but you’ve articulated your criticisms masterfully. I daresay Hitchens would feel the same.
I think because the first question, about grounding morality, is so silly he would go on tangents to keep the thing entertaining. He may have been under the impression saying it was innate was good enough, as in "it's natural". Grounded on our very nature. The question of why it is natural is presumably evolution, and of course you could keep prodding and asking "yeah but why, from where?", but so could you of god. The only difference is that then they'd say, presumably "god needs no grounding" or something like that. And as to the observation of "with proper moral equipment", I believe it's pretty much just his way of saying "normal person". I think it unfair to take this question as more serious then it should be taken, namely, trying to answer it in a more thorough way than it would be answered by a christian theist.
This just popped up in my feed, rather inexplicably. I'm glad it did. Precisely how I feel about Hitch. I miss him a great deal. I have a similarly complex relationship with Dawkins, though he consistently fails to show the same deep well of self-awareness I feel was present in everything Hitchens did. You're a bright light young fella, more of you in the world and we might just make it.
If you think magical thinking is the way forward for civilization, try the conspiracy theories of the alt_Right. They employ the EXACT same logically fallacious style of statements.
I LIKE the fact that Dawkins sticks to his own areas of expertise and doesn't try to speculate about stuff outside of his wheelhouse. I wish more people would.
@@LolaLaRue-sq6jmHe steps overconfidently outside his wheelhouse all the time, what do you mean lol. An evolutionary biologist who hasn't followed the science for decades isn't going to have a particularly good and well-studied take on """wokeism""" or the many sociological and cultural factors at play with belief development, for example. And yet...
Alex, thank you for your intellectual honesty. A willingness to criticize “our own” when they err keeps us from sliding into petty tribal loyalties and demonstrates that our real goal is truth itself. You made an excellent point early in the video by observing that Hitchens, while a brilliant journalist, was not a philosopher. His points often were not exhaustively thought through, and he lacked the resources to defend himself in detail against seasoned debaters. Another example of this would be Hitchens’ fellow Horseman, Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is a brilliant scientist with many easily defensible positions against religion and the existence of God, but his lack of philosophical training often shows when he’s challenged. Fortunately the third Horseman, Sam Harris, makes up for both of their shortcomings in this regard.
Bob Smith Sam Harris is a hack and a low effort thinker. All the celebrity pseudo-intellectuals like Sam Harris, Dawkins, Jordan Peterson are hacks, as very frequently they speak to topics outside their field of expertise. They use their influence and authority to misinform their audience with biased opinions in the guise of demonstrable objective fact. Many positions I have heard from these types of actors often aren’t logically sound or consistent when held up to scrutiny and critical thinking. Logic and reason alludes these actors when it comes to their own intuitions and political agenda. Especially when they (with gross negligence) discuss issues beyond their qualifications that would allow them to engage with the topic with any real authority. They (more often than not) demonstrate a profound lack of integrity by failing to inform their position by the general consensus of experts in relation to the topic being discussed. Unless they are appropriately speaking about a topic in relation to their field of expertise of which they have authority, then I would recommend you seek knowledge elsewhere.
@@Necrophadez Well gosh, you sound like an incredibly reasonable and thoughtful person. I'm sure glad you don't bother giving examples of any of these 'low effort' thoughts whilst calling Harris, Dawkins and Peterson 'hacks,' despite the latter having very different beliefs to the former two. They also have 'many positions' that aren't logically sound, and 'demonstrate a profound lack of integrity' because they fail to base their arguments and philosophies on 'the general consensus of experts,' despite naming neither the experts nor the positions upon which they fail to inform themselves. Or why a position should be based on consensus. Or anything, really. You actually don't seem to specifically say anything except that you don't like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins or Jordan Peterson, and you can't really be precise about why that is either, even though you're so far talking exclusively about your own, pretty asinine and petty sounding, sad feelings. What is your area of expertise, I wonder?
I AM JURELL Nothing of which you have said in your response has even approached something representing an accurate or good faith engagement with what I actually said. You seem rather low effort intellectually yourself to be quite frank. You made hilariously unfounded assumptions. Firstly, of what relevance does Jordan Peterson having a different philosophical outlook than Dawkins and Harris have to do with whether they all engage in motivated reasoning and bad faith or negligent behaviour? Quite the asinine and pointless statement to make in response to the names I happened to pick. Then you went on to say you don’t understand why a position (that is in regards to scientific data) for example immigration and it’s effects on an economy. Why you wouldn’t base said position on the empirical studies and data and the conclusions of the general consensus of what the economists whom are qualified to read the data say. Then you finished it with “Or anything, really”... So base a position on nothing I guess. Real intellectual heavy weight. Edit: Also amusing that such a smooth brain would end a rebuttal with a question that presupposes a fallacious assumption. That being that I personally require qualification in any given field to necessarily be informed on the said general consensus on a particular topic in a field and thus brand certain positions that aren’t empirically or epistemologically true as misinformed or dishonest but overall negligent. Keep fuelling the comedy! 🤡👍
I also think Dawkins has been at a disadvantage, because his opponents, more frequently than not, did not have much knowledge of the sciences. It seemed Dawkins had to pull teeth at every turn just to explain how various organs within organisms have evolved to theologians and gurus.
at the beginning of the vlog, the interviewer asks hitchens why he feels it is insulting to ask where does he get his morality from absent a god. He answered the question. I dont see the controversy.
I'm 5:43 into this video, and there's a problem: the interviewer asks Hitchens "why do you find it insulting?". Hitchens then proceeds to answer why he finds it insulting. It then cuts to you, Alex, and you say "he's not answering the question about Morality", when he hasn't infact been asked this yet. I see your point, but already there's a huge flaw in your first critique.
The question "How does something come from nothing?" can either be answered with "I don't know" or less boringly by questioning the question. Hitchens, a literary giant with a reputation for entertaining his audience is not going to say anything boring. Besides he tended to be a bit wobbly with his science and this question is a scientific one.
Exactly! So annoying when I see people trying to actually answer that question. No, you don't know anything about that, stop trying to make up an answer. It's okay not to have one. And maybe discuss how the question itself is faulty from the start since it assumes there ever was such a thing as "nothing".
Hitchens did answer "I don't know" in the debate with Frank Turek. He used a suitcase analogy he said he'd got from Hawking, then said "I don't have to know, you (Turek) do."
@@Jaime-vs4eo The question is posed as a scientific question, as it's an attempt to refute Big Bang theory -- which doesn't even posit "something from nothing." It's so easy to answer, and Hitch does indeed fumble in this example. My answer: "I don't know how you get something from nothing. Why do you ask? In any case, if your hypothetical god is the originator, where did it come from?"
4 роки тому+2
*The question, "How does something come from nothing" in itself a loaded question. It assumes that something comes from nothing. If something came from nothing, then "nothing" wouldn't be nothing, because something came from it. Nothing cannot come from, nor can it lead to anything. It is nothing.*
You can admire Hitchens without being taken in by his razzle dazzle. He was a great orator & wit but he practiced all his material, especially the jokes, over & over on various audiences, just like a stand-up comedian. He was sometimes more eager to gain applause than to make a solid point cuz the boy had an ego on him like Mt. Everest. But first and above all, he was a champion of the worker, the poor, the oppressed and the marginalized wherever they were. And damn, do I MISS him!
For tv sit down interviews you are supposed to answer like he did, reframe and not actuallyadress the point, Bruce lee did this. For some reason humans are more entertained by this and view those answers as correct and smarter. But yeah it’s well documented and study and what your so supposed to do for interviews and debates on tv.
He didn't stand with the oppressed and marginalized of they happened to live in Iraq, however. Don't forget how in his later years he turned into just another neocon talking head.
On “free will” you actually missed Hitchens point when he responded essentially “if we need a God to have free will , we don’t have free will”. He is correct. Free will wouldn’t need an authority to exist. If it did.... it isn’t free will. Free is free. It exists without any need to be authorised or given by, or received from, an external entity. We can’t claim to have free will if we have it only as a beneficiary. It simply is.
Im a massive admirer of CH, as are you. I started watching this clip though, and got disenchanted after your analysis of the very first queston which CH as you say, didn't answer (re: morality). My humble opinion, comparatively to yourself admittedly is a somewhat uneducated one, is that he does not need to. I think its fair to generalise that 90% of both religious and non religious people are morally, good people in the main. This is just a fact, and an observation over time for anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention. He is right therefore, that the question posed to him is obsolete. Hitchens was never one to dumb down an argument to the nth degree - as he hasnt done here. But i got his point immediately. Truth be told in my view (again, not an Oxford graduate) your gripe at his answer here really is disappointing.
I agree the morality question is a silly one. There is no "grounding" of morality, no source of morality, just as there's no source of knowledge. Humans create knowledge by seeking good explanations. Morality is just another type of knowledge.
I only discovered Hitchens a few days ago. I've since watched maybe a dozen or more hours of his debates. I also felt like he struggled around these areas, and I appreciate you looking at them more closely. That said... I have some issues with the Tu Quoque charge and the discussion around Hitchens' burden of proof. In the interest of symmetry, I'll expand on them in reverse order. The important thing in the latter case is that the existence of morality or free will is not at issue between Hitchens and his opponents. They mutually accept these claims, so there is no burden of proof in the debate. In the infinite vacuum of general logical discourse (or the opportunity afforded in authorship of a book or UA-cam video), of course supporting as many claims as you can is wise. Especially ones we might find as opaque as the existence of free will. In the context of a timed debate, however, it is by no means fallacious to use your five minute time block to support a claim your opponent cedes to you. Regarding Tu Quoque, I'd like to point out that these debates often feature the opposition putting forth supposition like, "Christianity explains the world better than atheism, therefore God exists (probably)." With supporting statements like, "Atheism cannot explain the meaning of life/justify morality/explain free will." In which case, the statement, "Neither can you," is a relevant rebuttal. In these arguments where a claim of superior understanding is supporting the opponent's conclusion, contesting that superior position is legit. (He could have done it better, though!)
Thank you. I was just about to begrudgingly write a similar comment so I'm glad someone else already did. Saying that religion also fails to ground morality is a perfectly valid argument if their position presupposes that morality needs to be grounded in something objective and yours does not.
If one is afforded little time to formulate a response to a question they themself are passionate about, they should find a way to answer IT. Playing the opponent not the ball is childish. Debate topics & question, after all, are known in advance. That Hitchens repeatedly went to this fallacious arguments is sufficient to ridicule him. On the question of morality, the contention isn't whether morals exist or even that our species exhibit them, it's that we make prescriptive claims about morals ie how we ought to treat each other. Therefore it's is pertinent to ask why anyone should not only care but in what capacity they pronounce judgement on those who don't if morals can't be accounted for. Hitchens' own razor is relevant here: *"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."* Merely saying both party agree on a descriptive claim isn't an argument. Finally, the superiority of any claim is the preponderance of evidence and not cheers one can elicit from partizan crowds. That's why cosmologists don't merely sit idly by and shout back at creationists that their claims aren't substantiated for. They propose hypotheses & look for supporting data about how the cosmos came about (or that it even did in the first place). You want to win an argument without making one. Sorry hombre.
@@a.a9021 Well said! My response to "our morality is grounded in god, so you have no ground for yours" has long been "you'd first have to prove the existence of this 'god'. Until you do, this is a circular argument."
@@kundakaps If fallacious arguments are sufficient to ridicule someone, and "playing the opponent not the ball" is childish, then you've just played yourself, champ. You're attacking Hitchens - playing the opponent, not the ball - so your "argument" is purely an _ad hominem,_ and you're ridiculous. Try again. And do better this time.
to be fair on the moral argument, I don't really think he is engaging in sophistry but rather establishing the moral intuition as an axiom of morality. In other words it doesn't NEED justification. Which is a position that some hold, I don't think it's a wholly untenable position, even if I'm not an adherent and even if I think it is easy to poke holes which he himself doesn't seem the best or even interested in plugging.
jhon jacson But isn’t it self-evident that people make moral choices _and take moral actions_ (whether objectively or subjectively “good”, such as donating blood, to use an example given by Hitchens) without reference or appeal to the supernatural? It’s hardly a dodge or an exercise in sophistry to point out that the question itself is patently absurd.
@@valhalla7408 the question is why do that rather than not do that. The argument made by cosmic skeptic is that without proper foundation Hitchens just engages in circular reasoning. The christian says that giving blood is good because God laid out the rules, whether you are religious or not, that is the foundation, you look at morality based on what the boss has to say. Sure that's a dumb metaethic but hitchens just doesn't provide one on his side and doesn't even seem to understand the question when it is given to him.
jhon jacson You’re correct, it’s a “dumb” metaethic because ... in part it presupposes the existence of a “God” that “laid down the rules” instead of a recognition that all social species have evolved behaviors that favor actions considered beneficial to that species’ well-being and survival (hence why Hitch made comparisons with animal species that also exhibit “moral” behavior in the absence of any cosmic “boss”). I don’t disagree with your analysis - it just seems to me that Hitchens may have gotten exasperated that the religionist view of “objective moral foundation” never met its own burden of proof before it could be (often smugly) used to challenge a world-view not tethered to a deity.
@@valhalla7408 maybe, but then that's the polemicist in Hitchens rather than the philosopher. It's the religion is dumb position, rather than the actual comming up of ideas and refuting of objections the other side has. I can only suppose that the frustration you speak of is the origin of his very many tu quoques but they are still tu quoques and it is a fallacious bit of reasoning that does better at winning a debate than winning an argument.
jhon jacson Hitch _was_ more of a polemicist (“God Is Not Great”) and a debater than a philosopher, I grant you that 😄 However, even philosophically, wouldn’t you agree that the religious view suffers from an innate flaw (the presupposition of an unproven and unfalsifiable premise) that _deserves_ to be pointed out from the inception before indulging in its contentions regarding “objective moral foundation”?
Thanks for this. I found it balanced, respectful and useful. We are sometimes so enamoured by Hitchens’ love of language and skill in live debate that we overlook through our own confirmation bias where it lacks the depth it ought to have.
@Borko Borko he says more than just it's degrading..... He goes into a explanation that starts with its insulting and degrading and then explains why.... "It attacks us in our deepest integrity....." so on so forth
It isn't though. Cosmic very clearly refers to the question "How can you tell right or wrong without God?" and to the answer Hitchens gave in writing. He doesn't refer to the answer Hitchens gives in the interview. Admittedly, the video wasn't cut well and the interviewer's question "Why do you find it insulting?" isn't as interesting as the original one (imo). But I think it's very clear that Cosmic does not refer to the question why it's insulting to ask that.
No one is safe from criticism, it should stay like that forever
@@thomasgiannetti4032 Interesting how it seems paradoxical that statement in of itself: All claims are not safe from scrutiny.
Hitchens would most likely agree.
Yes, not even God. Or Voldemort. Or even Sauron, *and even IF any of these three DO exist!*
@ I dont think u understand alex's take on free will
@ "Consciousness itself is a mystery that can only really be understood in the context of a creator"
Consciousness itself is only mysterious in the context of mind-body dualism.
In the materialistic view, consciousness is merely the electrochemical state of our material brains, which gradually evolved into reasoning systems due to selection pressure. There is nothing mysterious about it.
Man I can't wait to see Hitchen's response video
It would be a linguistic warhead straight from heaven - oh, wait, there isn't one.
:(
Åh i hope a liguistic warhead from hell; the devil always seemed the better bloke and one with far superior taste in interior decor.
Too soon Soo soon 😂
Sometimes I watch Peter Hitchens do debates because of their familial charm
TIMESTAMPS:
Part One: The Moral Argument -- 4:10
Part Two: Free Will -- 16:30
Part Three: The Cosmological Argument -- 21:20
Thank you!
Great video and as a side ... Would people be willing to share where you stand on these issues .... Ie morality free will and validity of the cosmological argument...
I think I have an original argument against contingency. Which is contingency being a formal argument is coherent, but coherence is not enough to show something as evident. And this can be further proved by rival coherent philosophical arguments, which physicalism/naturalism/materialism is not a rival to so is not similarly thrown into doubt because its not making contention to rival arguments with its argument. Like how science doesn't make a claim as to what caused the big bang (and the big bang even is still up for contention). Meanwhile gravity and other theories do not have coherent rival theories, and are further evidenced by technology and other real world exploits. Because of this, contingency being in contention that is, while the physical/material/natural does not have thorough coherent rivals, proves there are different degrees of evidence and also proves that philosophical arguments may not be enough evidence. For example contingency doesn't require a god, it could be a fundamental law. Which means for each rival possibility the stance is weaker, and theres no true rival theories to the physical explanations we observe. So we cannot conclude god is real. Also considering theres no rival theory for physicalism or the like, this proves omniscience cannot exist because no simple objects can both store and read information, especially a near infinite amount, and that object for example would need to understand itself thoroughly as well to meet the criteria for omniscience. Which means it needs to hold more information than itself, which is impossible. And will be the case until theres a competent rival theory for the more evident understanding of the world.
@@mimszanadunstedt441 I don't get the thing about omnipresent .. something could be omnipresent if say it is timeless ...
Christopher Hitchens did not enter his battles of words with the ambition of conducting a logically consistent philosophical debate. As a world leader of the atheist movement, he had every legitimacy to resort to the same rhetorical bag of tricks as his opponents. But if you are captious enough, the criticism is of course justified. ;-)
Thanks for your great work, Alex, keep on mopping the floor!
I loved the way he used to take his pause before the sentence was finished, in order to run right through to the next without interruption. I now do the same. Genius.
Smoking and drinking oneself to an early end is far from genius.
So is denying your creator, whom he knows exists now.
@@auntiesemite9295 You have no place in and should be excluded from all serious conversation. Geniuses tend to smoke and drink themselves into oblivion explicitly because of the stupidity of humans such you and your arguments.
@@auntiesemite9295 I'm glad to see Hitchens still gets on your nerves even after his passing. A brilliant man doing amazing work even when he is no longer with us. But please do keep carrying on and speaking ill of the dead and showing the world the true nature of religious people like you. For it is through the acts of people like yourself that most turn away from religions. Thank you.
If sophistry is genius.
@@shantilus did I mention content?
Nothing says you respect someone's ideas more than being comfortable criticizing their failings.
Wujeeta try telling your girlfriend that
@@hugster2000 Get a smarter girlfriend
@@theveganwujeetaThat´s what she said. D:
Don't forget, logic and reason alone never convinced anybody. That's the secret of Hitchens's success.
@@carrstone01 Obviously given the state of religiosity, but it'd be hypocritical to criticize only those who disagree with you for faulty logic
If he was alive, he would have probably loved this, considering the whole thing is based on his own principles.
I actually don't think so. He was very proud, as fun as he was to listen to. I think he would have bombarded us with more sophistry
@@davidanderson6055 No he wouldn’t. He was more gutsy than proud.
I tend to agree with David, don't think he would've appreciated it that much.
no way. i’ve been watching and listening to christopher for a while now and i never knew he even died. so sad, i’m shocked rn
@@meaninglessjunk9594 Yeah, he's been dead for years now. He got some sort of throat cancer. If the smoking didn't get him, the blasphemy probably did.
Very curious to see how Hitchens would have responded to such valid and thorough criticisms if he were still around today to see this video.
valid and thorough? The first clip is already Alex lying that Hitch did evade the question where the question shown was exactly what Hitch answers to. The critique does not fit the material used to critique! Look again at the Interview, at 4:40 ff Alex shows himself that Hitch was asked "why do you find it insulting". THEN he chides Hitch for not answering where he gets his morals from, when that was NOT the question!!!! Claiming he does not answer the question which was asked when it is exactly the other way around.
@Is Math related to science? Very rationale wow
@Is Math related to science? you either clearly haven't seen his body of work or have such awe in Hitch that you see him as infallible. Hitch was brilliant, but he wasn't perfect. His public debates were part performance art, and he used that to deflect once in a while. It doesn't make him less enjoyable or less brilliant.
Ugly German Truths I think he was referring to the question that the interviewer was referencing when he asked the follow up question “why is it insulting?”. I agree it was confusing and I thought exactly what you did until I listened again to the response that the interviewer was reading. I don’t think he was being intellectually dishonest but could’ve cleared up which question he was addressing for clarity’s sake
Probably that Alex should listen better to what is said. Hitchens is not asked by the interviewer how he gets right from wrong without a god, but rather he is asked why he thinks the question is insulting. Listen again, its not strange that Hitchens doesnt answer to something he wasnt asked.
Thank you so much for this video, I really appreciate it. Christopher Hitchins content is some of my favorite on all of the World Wide Web. I appreciate your take on his lack of an answer in these cases. I believe I was so infatuated with his charisma that I looked right past it.
I am a Muslim and I have to commend you for an exemplary level of integrity and dare I say sincerity. The fact that you take the effort to criticize someone who could be considered representing the same camp as you, at least in some parts, is a great testimony to this. Kudos to you sir.
Awesome comment. That is why free speach and open criticism withotu malicious intentions and ulterior agenda should become the norm... when that happens, we could be able to make massive progress. That is one of the main contentions against religion. While changes to religious moral imperative happen (in Christianity especially, but I assume that many are made in Islam as well) it is always a struggle. Its not enough to establish "hey, this is better, we all agree and it makes sense". Aftewards there will still be the question of "but how can we explain in it in the context of our sacred text". And whats worse, the immediate expectation of a life-long religious scholar would be to dismiss it in the first round, because the second question is just too dangerous to deal with. Which naturaly, introduces exactly that agenda and ulterior motive, that the open discussion should avoid. I would be interested about what you, as a Muslim, think of this?
@@psychepeteschannel5500 Islam differs quite a lot from christianity in this regard. We have an extensive and old history in these fields. You can look up the concept of Double truth for instance which will give you the answer. We do not consider scholars infallible either. Neither do we believe that religion and reality are *ultimately* in odds with each other. Science as we know it has its limitations and is also ever evolving. That is the nature of science. We aknowledge the significance of it as well as it's limitations never dismissing it but rather challenging it as it should be in order for it to evolve. This is the reason why Islamic civilization grew and developed at such a rapid phase soon after 9th century and specifically in the field of sciences.
@@G00dwILLHuNt1n9 Thank you. I also dont think religion and reality are ultimately in odds. On the contrary, I think that it should converge at some point (thats why I would actually disagree with the Double truth kind of thinking, as far as I understand it (minimally)). But specifically in the questions of morality, it still seems to me that what I described in the previous comments stands. An open debate with no ulterior motives is magnitudes more difficult within a religious context, than a secular one. There are truths that need to be adhered to, ideally without question.
@@psychepeteschannel5500 @Psyche Pete's Channel English isn't my first language so excuse me for any possible errors in grammar.
In regards to the double truth theory, as I've understood it, it aknowledges that the scientific (agnostic) and theological approaches differ in their fundamentals. Agnostic being silent without the presumption of a Creator yet both can and will come in to the same conclusion about the reality, natural world etc.
That kind of leads to your unanswered question. I beg to differ and I believe the new atheist movement is a proof of this. They seem to be fundamentally atheistic, to me appearing to stand their ground on almost on an emotional level. Specifically Dawkins, Krauss and I do think also Hitchens displayed this to some extent. It is given that when you confront someone religious they are coming from a place where certain believes are a fundamental basis in their thinking but this applies likewise to the afore mentioned personalities.
Ultimately we can not proove or disapprove the existence of an ultimate Creator. We can make logical arguments against and for it but at the end of the day that's all what we are able to say about this subject. Therefore ultimately all we have is a belief or the lack there of.
@@G00dwILLHuNt1n9 i do not intend to enter the discussion, but If i'm not mistaken, the three atheists you pointed to shares the view of your last sentence. They're not staunch about there being no god. Dawkins especially is quite upset when people claim there is no god. Any honest (atheist) person genuinely curious about the subject would come to the same conclusion.
All fair points. Much like you, Hitchens is my favorite writer but he was, at heart, a bar fighter with a thick coat of academics and a wicked sense of humor.
Love the description of Hitchens as a 'bar fighter'.
@@alanalan9242 But only prepared to fight in bars that served a decent single malt ;-)
@1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV But only if the "Puppy" was a god bothering loon, which meant it was all to the good of humanity.
@1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV Let me help you with English, when the word puppy is expressed in "" the entity is not an actual Puppy. in this case it is clearly referring to something with the critical thinking skills of a puppy or to be precise a Theist like yourself. So the only thing I am excusing is dishing out abuse to Theists. Something which clearly can only benefit humanity.
@1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV lol, spoken exactly like a dimwitted Literalist! (maybe a kick in the head would help?)
Watching Alex correct his hero while physically and visibly frustrated by how C.H conducted himself at times in the intellectual arena is why this channel is in my top 5. Mate, you are going to be a heavyweight I cant wait to see whats to come in your future.
What would come of his future 🤔
iDeas _ your mom
@@deeharris_4350 Potential is endless. Alexs mind can take whatever frontier or cause he wants to further and advance it further than most could in multiple lifetimes. I for one, think politics and any public position of power, should be held by those with the ability to discover and implement solutions to societies issues based on science and not ideology and beliefs. We should be so lucky. But can u imagine CS in parliament running circles around every smooth talking 2 buck used car salesman that passes for a leader these days. I'd pay to watch that shit lmao
@@HappinessOrDeath easily impressed
@@Microplastics2 sure am. Wish there were more examples of this then I could easily be impressed all the time
23:42 O'CONNOR: [N]otice, anyway, how this is nothing more than a distraction.
24:12 O'CONNOR: He doesn't even _attempt_ to answer the question.
In watching _this_ stuff from Christopher Hitchens, I never take it as sophistry and distraction to cover up his ignorance. Even though the format is supposed to be an intelligent debate, this stuff strikes me as much like the way in which I would respond if, for example, a stranger came up to me and said "Geez Louise! What is wrong with you?! Why would you wear those sandals?! You know they look super gross; don't you? What a fashion-fool!" I wouldn't think it my job suddenly to hop to it and generate real answers to the questions "What is wrong with you?" and "Why would you wear those sandals?" and "[Don't you] know they look super gross [ * * * ]?" In real life, I probably would say nothing; in uncharitable fantasy, I might imagine saying something like "I dono-why would you be such a dumb meanie?"
I think it likely that Hitchens's view was "Oh, goodness. I'm here to respond to whatever somewhat reasonable points you make to support your contention that the God that you discern in the Bible exists. When you start bringing up silly stuff like the rhetorical question 'How do you get something from nothing?' as the supposed proof of Mary's parthenogenesis; Jesus's divinity and resurrection; and God's simultaneous omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, I, too, will take a break from serious argument and get my kicks by joining you in your dumb game of tossing around irrelevancies."
16:34 I think you missed one of Hitchens' arguments for human morality. He always said societies don't survive or last for very long if they allowed rape, murder, theft, etc. So it stands to reason that he believed morality was an emergent phenomenon from evolution, and since he was a dialectical materialist he almost certainly believed morality didn't have a permanent, objective basis but rather one that changed depending on the existing material conditions. Subsequent generations developed better senses of it. "The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living".
I think that's a good answer, but I'm not sure if Hitchens ever articulated it clearly enough to stick.
How do you explain the religion of peace was built on those principles and is the world's fastest growing religion.
www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Well, obviously, but that's not explaining a grounds for morality, it's giving an explanation of its origins. You might even say "but the race wouldn't survive if we didn't follow these precepts". Alright, maybe it won't, but why should I care about that for myself, except in so far as I care about the existence of the human race beyond myself? "Because you ought to care about the continued existence of the human race.." you say. "Ought I? Why?"I reply....You see the problem?
@@stu1002 What does "a grounds for morality" even mean?
Very well put @lavabug
troweltheory You’re asking the right questions. How does one ground morality? How does one ground any concept? How does one even certainly ground their own body on the ground?! Many paradoxes form at the ‘ought.’
Please do a whole series on this concept of clarifying points that went under our radar truth is ultimately what many of us seek I would be very grateful for the help!:)
10:02 "If he was making a point that was somehow dishonest..." I have noticed Hitchens be evasive in his answers on quite a few occasions.
It reminds me of a moment when Christopher and his brother Peter Hitchens were on a show together and the host of the show said to Christopher "can you get to your point" and Peter then says " he likes to give at least a weather forecast before answering the question."
Ah, I see you are fan of CH.
@1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV If Christopher Hitchens was a senseless drunkard then where are you on this scale?
Mad respect for this video, not just tackling the topic but doing so in such a methodical, convincing way. I think you did what I previously thought nigh impossible: proved a Hitch argument to be fallacious. Well done, you've earned a new subscriber. Looking forward to watching some more of your channel's past and future content.
Perhaps that’s because of your own pre-existing biases? Christians have been pointing to Christopher’s false arguments and underhanded misrepresentations of the God of the Bible for a very long time, but it took another atheist to get you to acknowledge them yourself.
@@simoncordingley3122 please don't speak for me, you clearly have no idea what I'm acknowledging.
@@dougdaniels7848 Yes, I do; you think it was impossible for Christopher Hitchens to be proven fallacious. You just said it.
@@simoncordingley3122 Christopher Hitchens proved himself fallacious by weaseling out from the questions he could not answer without unwillingly giving credit to God. So he chose "running away" by changing subject.
@@jounisuninen Yes, I’ve listened Christopher Hitchens quite a lot, and besides being eloquent and a great rhetorician with an Oxford accent, I don’t think I’ve heard him say anything about Christianity, in particular, that was very interesting. Nearly all his polemical arguments are based on arrogant straw man misunderstandings/misrepresentations of Christianity. He was so tiresome to listen to, but I can see how he could sound authoritative to a cynic’s ear.
I actually like Alex though. He’s an agnostic, which is at least an honest position to take. He also tries to steel man apologetic arguments, whilst being polite and respectful. It’s a totally different approach and one even Christians should learn from.
That's Real Skeptic.. Criticism of even the person on the same side
Yeah, just because someone agrees with some or even most of the things someone else says doesn't mean that they agree with everything that the person says
@Vayne Carudas Solidor He is not unbiased. Alex knows that himself. I think you should watch talk he gave about why smart people believe stupid things. I paraphrase him: to say that you are not biased, that demonstrates that you are in fact biased.
Hitch was never on the dark side, that is why Cosmic Philospher does no longer like his arguments, the Philosophy studies have ruined him, taken him from the light into the endless navel gazing of the ivory tower.
@Vayne Carudas Solidor "no bias" , every single person on this planet has bias dude. Just because Cosmic Skeptic fairly critisces Hitchens doesnt mean he's a "true free thinker" and has "no bias". I disagree with almost everything Cosmic Skeptic says or believes in but I admire the fact he is honest enough to admit Hitchens was no way any sort of philosopher and and the same can be said about people like Dawkins or Tyson who meddle into philosophy while being clueless about it.
Problems start when you criticize the person and not the issue. It's a tactic oft chosen by those who appear to be unable to make a cogent , on-topic case and are then reduced to taking advice from the Bill Ayers playbook.
At 5:20, I think you misheard the question. The interviewer clearly asked at 4:58 "Why do you find it insulting?"
I noticed that too. I'm inclined to give Hitch a pass on that one because two questions were asked. However, there are enough examples to sustain the point.
@@JohnDavidDunlap Agreed. I do remember watching the Turek debate years ago, and realising that sometimes Hitchens can actually be a rubbish debater sometimes.
I thought the same thing, but the interviewer reads the question "where do you get your sense of right and wrong" then reads Hitchens response "the question is insulting" and then asks Hitchens "why do you find it insulting". I don't think it was the best clip to use to make the point seeing as the interviewer didn't actually ask him about morality, but instead asks him about his response.
Absolutely. Good point
I disagree
Not gonna lie, but I love Hitchens. As a philosoph myself, I recognize he made some abysmal philosophical errors. However, as an orator and speaker, he was beyond impressive.
That's exactly what's said about U.S. televangelists...whom include the constant intoxication and florid bad health of Hitchens. Vile, bombastic, charlatan. NOTHING he ever said
will continue on as substantial. Which Harris, Shermer, Silverman's contributions will.
@@WayneLynch69 Whoops babbbam........now who do we have here......
he makes quite decent points on the spot though for example he said he didnt believe in a god and wouldnt want a god and he analogises god to north korea loved that speech
@@WayneLynch69 Unlike you, he lived and died with his boots on.
@@WayneLynch69 and why tf not
The glint in your eye and little smile you give when you say "Christopher Hitchens turned on his maker... then so can I" because you knew you just said something clever made me smile.
Yeah that was nice
I absolutely love when people healthily criticize the same people they otherwise adore. Love Hitchens and this video ❤️
To True 💙
What an odd thing to love
@1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV how about lambasting those who think genital mutilation is fine? Pretty damn good message to hammer home
1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV female genital mutilation is most often performed by women living in communities where that is a common social norm, predominantly in Africa with additional large groups in the Middle East and Southeast Asia (Indonesia most commonly).
While this is most often done in Muslim societies the practice predates Mohammed by at least half a millennia, being attested to by the ancient Greeks as an Egyptian practice of the time. The scope of FGM ranges from a ceremonial pinprick of the labia as a form of blood oath of sexual morality through pseudo-surgical removal of the clitoris, internal and external labia, and the permanent sewing of the vaginal canal to prevent sexual intercourse until it is ripped open when the woman’s marriage is consummated.
Make genital mutilation is far more common, of course, but is more often described euphemistically with the term “Circumcision.”
1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV correct, the communities with female genital mutilation are not (by and large) Christian.
Circumcision, or make genital mutilation, is predominantly Jewish, though given the total population of Christians vs Jews there are probably more circumcised Christians than there are Jews.
The first one on moral argument, the interviewer actually did ask “why is it insulting?”
Justin Willhoit right, but his previous question was not answered, which I think Alex is trying to get at.
It is true that hitchens didnt answer the question but there definitely is a secular and naturalistic answer for that question
Justin Willhoit I should have been more clear: Hitchens was asked where to get morality without God, he responds by saying it’s insulting, then the interviewer asks why he has responded in this way. My point was that he didn’t respond to the original question, and that asked why it’s insulting he just restated the question and asserted that it’s insulting.
CosmicSkeptic gotcha. Your point still stands and I agree. Thanks for the clarification
Christopher Combs what is it?
You're looking for trouble kiddo! In all seriousness, I'm sure he would have loved to be held accountable for what he said by people who respect him. I'm glad you made this video.
How do you know this. You say your sure? OK then, Did you know him? Nine like wtf.
Eddie Austin I’m not sure. He was smart enough to know that he could make mistakes. So why wouldn’t he want to have those pointed out to him?
@Auto Math
*"I'm sure he would have loved to be held accountable for what he said by people who respect him"*
All you need to do is read the comments here to see that many people here would rather Alex had kept his thoughts to himself. But they would by definition be propagandists, wouldn't they?
I am an old man. It is bracing to see someone in your generation doing so much better than many in mine -- we would laugh with Hitch and not bother to peek behind the curtain of his quick wit and erudition, something that Americans can be especially guilty of when deftly expressed in the King's. Very well done.
Three cheers for intellect.
Nonsense
@@ztrinx1 Go on, use your words. If you are able to.
@@YowzoeI am responding to a blanket statement without specific examples, that is the problem.
@@ztrinx1 not really -- there's a place for blanket exclamations of gratitude, isn't there? Relax the left brain and say something from the heart: it helps everyone
I think that this is one of your best videos so far. Hitchens was the person that made me comfortable with my loss of religion, listening to him convinced me to call myself an antithiest, as opposed to being an atheist that was sad that god doesn't exist. I have only noticed a few of the issues you pointed out here, and near the end of the video i found myself thinking that if a christian was making this video and raising identical points, I would think that he misunderstood Christopher and I wouldn't be convinced at all. Thank you for making this controversial video and not only showing his mistakes, that flew right over my head, but also showing me how biased I was.
@Barthelemy What? Did you have a point? Sorry, I've been playing Food Chain Magnate in a world of Marble Chess.
@Him Next Door Your objections were addressed in the video. And Hitchens already stated that he expected no leniency.
Matt Dillahunty constantly states that 'he doesn't know' in his debates. He argues quite well that his opponents should admit the same. He seems to be doing alright as far a ticket sales go (as if that's the only reason we would've ever heard of him or The Hitch). And if the question is an insult...ok. Hitchens never had a qualm about insulting back, but, answer the question.
I don't doubt you watched the video, but I have my doubts that you paid attention.
@Barthelemy Alright. My question to you is what is conciousness? And if not the same...what are thoughts?
That has some wisdom to it. Still needs to be backed up....
And what is the source? Not another whispered voice of a being that will not stick around...?
Also, what are 'demons'? Schizoid impulses of god?
I love Hitchens (one of my kids middle names). I love what you are doing, Hitchens was freestyling and being a journalist, you are taking the arguments and advancing them by criticising them. This is how we get closer to the truth. Nobody should be above criticism. I hope in 20 years or so there is a cosmic sketic gen 40s that does the same, Standing on the shoulders of giants is how we progress.
😂😂😂
But he offered no answer only critiqued his
The meaning of identify morality with scientific knowledge is actually a way to create a caste immune from critics, especially about moral choiches.
@@mavrospanayiotis not really wrong there. They just make it up to us, given that we change our mind, morality has no objective meaning
@@matthewhinchliffe2334 i lean myself towards a subjective morality wich is very contextualized, although not completely arbitrary.
You know what I love about Alex? He doesn't believe his own role models are not subject to being wrong.
Everyone is wrong on some topics, we can only do our best not to.
I find this a rather delightful listen, and I'm just at the prologue, but so wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your obviously sincere admiration of Christopher Hitchens, and your desire to honor him with appropriate and articulate challenges. While I might not be your expected demographic, as a former tax lawyer, artist, and mother to men and women your age, I shared your talk with "Beautiful Education Boy" with my youngest son. I've been an atheist down to my toes since I was small, because I have a brain, and can't help myself, but I live in a world where this isn't by far the norm. Therefore, I long for conversations with like-minded thinkers and this is a lovely substitute you offer me here. How very kind of you!
Some of these inconsistencies are hard to spot in real time given his mastery of the English language and oration. Good job Alex. You’re the most dedicated to consistency philosopher I have encountered in all of my exploration.
Yes, he was very witty, and people often mistake wittiness for a sound argument (especially if they already agree with it).
I would have loved to see a Peterson v, Hitchens debate on something. They would both cause each other to short circuit. It would be high drama though.
Great video Alex. I always found Christopher Hitchens much better at raising criticisms of religion than he was at rebutting criticisms of atheism. I certainly think he deserves the praise given to him for being a passionate and eloquent antitheist, but a lot of his arguments were not airtight, and much better resources exist when it comes to actually getting down in the weeds of refuting religious arguments.
I don't know if these things are necessarily criticisms of atheism. But I suppose in this case we could make the positive claim of where morals come from.
@@thomasgiannetti4032 I think we mostly agree; I'm only talking about a few specific religious arguments when I say Hitch didn't provide the best responses. And yes, I think that failing to justify objective morality is only really a problem if someone in fact claims that secular morality is objective, which I don't think is generally necessary. In the cases Alex brought up here, Hitch would have been perfectly justified in saying "I don't have an answer for that question, but that doesn't make your answer any less wrong."
How do you rebut a criticism of atheism? Sorry I don't believe in monsters???
@Eddie Austin who says complexity and sophistication are indications of intelligence?
The statement:
I always found Christopher Hitchens much better at raising criticisms of religion than he was at rebutting criticisms of atheism
Yeah, in a way Hitchens reminds me a bit of Karl Marx. Marx had a superb criticism of capitalism (particularly the economic argument in Das Kapital), but the solution, "the dictatorship of the proletariat" and " the classless communist society" was almost as idealistic as the religions he criticized …
I guess criticism is easier than solutions, no matter who you are :)
There's no best way to honor a man like Hitchens, than by exercising intelligent criticism on him. He would have been flattered and would have appreciated the clarity.
By naming this video “Sophistry of Christopher Hitchens”, a definite clickbait? I don’t think so! CH would not have gone this low to placate theists.
@@FitratAbdulla yes youre right because he wasnt capable of trying to understand the other side
Could be why he substituted funny one liners for actual responses to the hard questions
@@joedwyer3297 Yes, he did have an amazing talent to rebut your multiple line non sequitur BS with one liner quips 👍😁
@@FitratAbdulla yes he was genuinely brilliant at quips
If only he had anything else at all in his arsenal he'd have been pretty unstoppable!
@@joedwyer3297unstoppable in what regard?
Great video, Alex. One thing I would add to contextualise - and maybe relativise - the “tu quoque” fallacy point: I believe the fact that this occurs pretty much lies in the nature of the argument. What I mean by that is that the main point of the religious side is basically “We’ve got all the answers (-> god)” and it’s just logical to at some point go “No you don’t!” and thus commit the tu quoque fallacy. If the main premise is that one side has all the answers and the other doesn’t then claiming that both sides in fact don’t have answers is actually a valid point for once.
I think he briefly touched on this in the video - the tu quoque fallacies he mentioned were in relation to Hitchens claiming that morality exists, and that free will exists, without providing any solid reasoning - I see what you mean when you say that neither side has a complete answer but Hitchens did go out and claim that these things exist and when asked 'how can you ground such beliefs without a creator' he basically said 'well a creator doesn't explain it'
Im actually going back on myself while writing this because that actually makes a fairly valid point - of course we can moreorless observe morality and free will in action, that means that they exist, not that they were put in place by a deity
I suppose his point is that we want to operate on evidence, and we have observed evidence of free will/morality so we can argue that they exist, but we haven't observed good evidence for a creator, or good evidence that said creator instilled moral value and free will into us, so the argument that morality stems from God is no better than the argument that free will is inate - I can't explain it and neither can you so why postulate a God as an explanation when that doesn't make things any easier, and it gives you something more difficult to explain/prove (similar to the point I hear Dawkins make on the idea of the universe requiring a creator)
I think there's some merit to the idea that existence and apparent morality require an explaination beyond natural science -> i.e. some eternal supernatural force or deity which doesn't 'have' or 'need' a scientific explaination - (although as Hitchens said, this leaves the theist with all his work ahead of him i.e. proving that he know this Gods will and that he cares about the universe and the human race) but his response (the idea that postulating a God doesn't help your case) holds a lot more water than Alex made it out to
@@joelmacinnes2391 One of the critics in the video had a point -- where did morality come from? Carbon atoms? Benzene molecules? I'm sure the atheist is going to say . . . evolution. But here's the problem . . . evolution is a dynamic, not a constant process. Objective morality is timeless. It doesn't not change. What is right/wrong today is the same as it was yesterday. Objective morality does not evolve. It is constant and never changes. Even if some kind of "morality" can come from evolution, it's not an "objective" one. This opens the door to the question -- whose "morality" is the right one?
My personal view on "morality" is that even from a religious perspective, there is no "objective morality." There is no objective morality whether you are religious or atheistic. Why do I say that? I say that because if you go back to the story about the Garden of Eden (ok, talking about specific religions here, particularly Judaism and Christianity), there were two trees: the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Why is it called "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?" Why is it not called "Law of Good and Evil?" I think the author of this story chose his/her terminology well. Good and evil were never absolute, they were always subjective, always dependent on the circumstances.
The belief in "objective morality" comes predominantly from Protestant Christians who believe in the Five Solas of the Reformation, who see things in black-and-white terms and believe in "the one true religion."
Huh. Alex, you misunderstood the first one: the interviewer quoted Hitchens, then asked him *why he felt insulted,* not *why he disagreed with the argument.* Hitchens actually DID answer the question that was asked there: Hitchens was asked why he felt insulted by the statement, so he answered that he felt it was a serious insult to humanity in general.
A follow-up explaining why he disagreed would have been nice, but there may have been a behind-the-scenes reason he didn’t go there, or maybe he just thought he didn’t need to.
Perhaps because morality is an issue Alex seems to misunderstand himself.
@@skyeangelofdeath7363 Hang on, what do you mean?
@@camolotthe42 He is a subjective morality guy.
@@skyeangelofdeath7363 What do you mean exactly? I would say morality is subjective, but what I mean by that is morality does not exist outside of human experience. Within human society, morality is much less subjective because it is based on socially agreed upon/inferred rules, and for the most part individuals don't get to decide what those rules are. If there is an objectivity to morality, it comes from the power of group consensus. Kind of like how the value of money works.
@@skyeangelofdeath7363 Because that's how morality works? If morality were objective, than it would be a science and every society would have the exact same values. Give me one example of a morality that is objective.
I miss Hitch. He wasn’t a philosopher by any means, but he was damn good at bulldozing through deep philosophical debate points. He wasn’t perfect, but he was important to the changing landscape of median public discourse.
Hitch was near about the text book definition of a bully and a purveyor of strawman fallacies .. i don't miss such a person, he hurt the cause of atheism more than theism!
@@averagestudent5223 Given the number of atheists who admire Hitchens - I doubt if your claim is true.
@@aerodrome4427 argument ad populum is a fallacy
@Dennis Sullivan They knew he had influence. Not because his arguments were all that persuasive; but rather his quick witted delivery as the root of his responses that swayed people. Not saying he wasn't a smart man in other aspects. He was a great orator,journalist,author(sometimes competent in debate),etc. But he was a terrible in terms of philosophy,imo. And could be overbearing in debates/discussions.
@@aerodrome4427 I think that’s the point. What I like to call “New Age” Atheists will admire a pseudointellectual celebrity like Hitchens or Dawkins et al, content with his surface-level witticisms on atheism as opposed to diving into any of the meat of the philosophy behind it. This is how atheism has just turned into yet another close-minded dogmatic religion over the past few decades.
5:20 The interviewer specifically asks him *why* he finds the question insulting. Maybe Hitchens should have ignored it and answered the underlying viewer question anyway, but he does respond to what the interviewer literally asks
+Nate Exactly.
I actually am on Hitchens side - for the most part he is not making sense - but the question presupposes he NEEDS to answer - H is right. To even ask the question supposes a radical ontology he need not assume. Wittgenstein made a similar argument for God. Theologians arguing for God insult the thing they worship. If God truly created the world its very existence is enough. To even argue the point is to assume a different ontology but why should a Christian do that? Questioning a premise is wholly legit on THIS point H is right. The other points are weak I admit.
@@darkthorpocomicknight7891 I think the point is that he's being completely dismissive of a common argument made by theists. If the goal of much of Hitchens' writing and public speaking was to debate theists and show why they are wrong, perhaps even convert them through "militant atheism," then he should have given a more thorough answer. In some sense by dodging the question he comes off as no different than the theists who often do the same.
I do get that what you're saying is that the question doesn't really deserve to be answered but not doing so seems counterproductive to me. It just makes those who already agree with you like you more and those who don't like you less.
@@user-ko7lz3kr1d No I mean LITERALLY he is not LOGICALLY obligated to answer
But you are right. Just because an opponent gives a badly worded question yes you can refuse but it looks poorly
for your side
But intellectual honesty means facing the best argument and struggling with it.
Hitch when he near death just became dogmatic and stopped listening. A great man but very flawed
In respect to the moral argument chapter you state that Hitchens misunderstands the argument, but he wasn't asked about the argument, he was asked "Why do you find it insulting?" (see around the 4:57 mark). Feels a little on the nose to use this as example of him not answering the question when he quite obviously is.
I noticed that immediately too. He was asked why was it is insulting. Not why right or wrong can exist without god
I haven't even watched the video yet but just the introduction has earned a Like and my subscription. To be willing to identify weaknesses in the arguments used by one's own side and the the willingness to identify the flaws in a hero one admires overall is the height of intellectual honesty and genuine enquiry. My hat is off, sir!
Haha That close up on Dawkins aggressively agreeing with Hitchens had me breath hard out of my nose.
hahaha me too!!
It’s Dunning Kruger my man. That’s all...
Natturner 100 bucks if you can tell me what I meant by that comment......seems you have no idea. It’s more than an appropriate response to this young kids misapprehensions on this topic, but alas another ignorant fool caught in the Vail of DK (there’s 1 hahaha) Sigh.... you just can’t go anywhere on the internet without getting into a fight. What a benign comment for someone to pick a fight over....lol. Clearly another misunderstanding individual. Good luck with that attitude bud. Take care.
Natturner cool. Well, you came out swinging! Truce? Haha!
Been out since 99....that term based on the research done then. I’ve used it thousands of times since then I’d imagine. What I meant was....Chris was too brilliant and as a consequence sometimes leaves his answers steeped in implication and a knowledge base most do not posses....but he...many times fails to stop there and further or better reiterate the point. He just moves on.
He’s the prime example of the high end of that terminology. For many years I was yelling at him on screen that....No they “don’t get it” and please DO NOT “leave it to the good graces of my audience”......because Chris, they don’t get it. That’s what I meant.
Natturner I hear ya there my friend!!!! Relationships are hard, let alone during unprecedented times. Everything’s amplified. All understandable....this whole thing has been very hard on everyone. I appreciate that though, and absolutely no harm done. My very best to you and yours. I keep telling myself “deep breaths!”...lol! Easier said than done though. Crazy times.
This just shows how intelligent Alex actually is. The fact that he is willing to point out flawed arguments of one of his biggest idols, just shows his honesty and his desire to encurage debates about anything to advance the knowledge of humanity. Thank you so much Alex for beeing yourself.
You make me cringe.
It doesn't take much intelligence to be intellectually honest
This guy is a psychopath.
@@keithtorres5743 he was ..read the description box
Alex is just nit-picking. Hitchens wasn't to waste his time giving lengthy answers to silly, insulting questions.
5:23 No, sir, that was NOT the question. The question was (at 4:58) "Why do you find it insulting?" and Hitchens answered succinctly. We're off to a bad start.
The whole critique by Alex is basically "CH didn't answer this question in the way I liked so it's wrong"
@@piccolopiccolo2513 retardado
The hardest thing to do. Brilliant, honest and couragous critique of a hero ! Well done Alex ! More of this please.
This is a really important critique - even as a fan of Hitchens I really appreciate this honest (and accurate) analysis
How can you say that when none of what Hitchens remarked concerning world affairs was ever shown to be correct ?
I completely reject it. Literally every word. I see no merit in it whatsoever.
In the great scheme of things, it has very little, if any, importance.
@@user-xh6rm8fd3w Thanks for the reply. I could name a psychic medium who predicted more accurately concerning Iran that Hitchens. Hitchens was a person set up as if whatever opinions he had would be 1000 times more valuable than average.
They were AVERAGE PERIOD.
@@user-xh6rm8fd3w? It’s like baseball now 1/3 is actually really good 😂
As a theist, I love your content and your intellectual honesty. Would that others in the debate (believers included) were as committed to truth!
as a radar mechanic, part time referee, and husky dog owner, i whole heartedly agree. more truth is better. although my wife tells me there are exceptions to this rule
@@lesterroberts1628 - yes, never tell your wife there are any other women that you find more attractive than her! That's a truth best kept to yourself.
@@5FateEditss If lying means a way better BJ, the truth be damned.
i've gotta say, it's refreshing to see a believer who has the intellectual honesty to recognize it in others (especially atheists, but not just us). i've been spending a lot of time online lately around a lot of believers of various faiths who don't, and it's nice to be reminded that there are some who do
Maybe when you reach your 13th birthday you’ll appreciate what Hitchens is saying. The question of where we get our moral knowledge if not from the supposition of a “God” is valid and does not prove the existence of God. Hitchens is saying it is built in to the human existence.
Objective morality is an evolutionary trait, benevolence, altruism and empathy is exhibited to some extent by other mammalian species without a divine arbitor, the benefits of reciprocity releases dopamine and is essential for procreation
To be fair, _"what grounds your (sense of) morality?"_ is sophistry in the first place when asked by a theist. If objective morality works the way apologists claim, then there is no way to evaluate the underlying standard and no way to know whether it is actually good or just presumed to be so. So, rather than provide validation, "objective" morality actually pushes knowledge of goodness further out of reach.
ua-cam.com/video/BM8xz4m8qpQ/v-deo.html
Check this out
It’s like theists try to stick religious claims wherever there is a gap in scientific knowledge. If there is anything that might look inexplicable, they label it as ‘God stuff’ and gladly mock atheists because they don’t have a theory to explain it.
Oswlek So, we have to be top of the meaning food chain? Even though we are the flotsam of a random process for avoiding predators and attracting mates, on a nondescript planet on a mediocre star with a rural address? I don’t see that as reasonable, rather ‘well let’s assume it cause it’s all we have’ whistling in the dark.
@@davidhawley1132 Right, how about this: there's no meaning: YOU PRODUCE MEANING. So, screw God, now everything is up to you. Sounds good, doesn't it? Anguish? Sense of vacuum? Get used to it, it's life, artists deal with that shit every day, why should you have a safe conduct?
Rolando G No, meaning is by definition from outside. How has a century of existentialism worked out for society? More nihilism. That idea is dead dead dead.
We all suffer, and how do you know I am not an artist? While on the subject, you ever heard of Rembrandt, JS Bach, etc.?
Alex has to be the most unbiased person on UA-cam, well done. I’d like to hear his criticisms on the other Horsemen.
Yes, i think Hitchens would have liked the young lad.
And more Hitch’s blunders ,please 😎😇
Yes I would love to hear some more criticisms as well! I often listen to Sam Harris's podcasts and would love to have an well meaning critic have a look at his thoughts and arguments.
He's not unbiased. He has status quo bias. He falls for capitalist realism.
Romanski how does nitpicking at his political views further this conversation?
This video is so important. We need people like this calling out members of their own persuasions. It’s a like from me! 👍
It's utter magical thinking being used to justify magical thinking. He says Morality comes from God so how can you have Morality without God. Logic 101 kills that circular logic one day one. It wouldn't get anywhere. And yet Alex proposes he can judge Hitchens on philosphy. Alex is a mental midget.
Your boss gives you a free hour because it’s the law . Not because he likes. The boss never gave a weekend until we forced him to do so. Bad example.
Interesting that nevertheless, he secured respect from his opponents as well as his fans. I predicted some of your objections when I heard the topics. It is true that a lot of us were so captivated with his charm and wit as to overlook certain rhetorical shortcuts. We saw them too. In the end, many of us who grew up watching various religious windbags get a free hand, get taken down a few pegs. It may have been incorrect, but ah it was glorious to watch.
Amen to THAT!
They weren’t shortcuts, those get you to the destination faster although perhaps unconventionally. They were non sequiturs and straw-men ending nowhere relevant. Antics like that did no service to those who care about the ideas being discussed and are looking for real answers. Then the echo chamber of his fans that responded with, “If you didn’t think he answered the question you’re just not smart enough to get it.” made it all the worse.
While I agree that the question of how to morality is grounded is an important philosophical question that deserves a good deal of discussion, the way that the religious normally use this question is to imply or state outright that the moral instinct we have is evidence of God. Because this is an assertion without justification, I don't think any justification was necessary for Hitchens to dismiss it.
Hitchens agreed that people have morality, so it's fair to ask him how he thinks it is grounded if not in religion.
@@jrd33 I'm not saying it's unfair to ask him, I'm saying it's fair for him to address the insulting and unfounded implication of the question. The question only becomes more worthwhile if your remove this implication by striking the phrase "if not in religion." But this only highlights the absurdity of placing this burden of explanation on Hitchens, who is not a moral philosopher. Hitchens and Christians both agree that people have morality, but Christians are the ones who claim to know where this morality comes from, and Hitchens does not. This puts the burden of proof on the Christians, and I see know problem with Hitchens leaving it there.
@@dylanjones9061 Yes you're criticism is warranted, because Christians like myself don't know that God exists with absolute certainty, and nobody ever will. However, the very reason Christoper needed to expound on his position in relation to morality is that he had no means of being able to justify it in the first place, such that he doesn't know where our intrinsic sense of rightfulness and wrongfulness comes from. We believe that our moral worth, our sense of rightfulness and wrongfulness, comes from God particularly. "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will right them on their minds." Hebrews 10:16
As atheists, We don’t claim to know about the something from nothing argument, but religions do by stating the existence of God, but if we ask ‘how did that God come from nothing’, they can respond that he is all powerful and beyond our comprehension, the same that atheistic arguments state that the workings of the universe are intangible
@@replacekebab7669 Yes I see. Nobody can claim to know with absolute certainty the 'something from nothing argument,' however, at the very least, theists attribute their reasoning to God. Atheists can't give any explanation whatsoever, and that's fair enough.
I have loved hitch for a long time and when I saw/clicked on this video I was ready to lose respect for CosmicSkeptic, but then he quite directly and correctly showed that even someone like hitch is capable of fallacy, and did it without mocking him or degrading his character. Very well done sir. I couldn’t take issue with any of the things you pointed out 💪
"I was ready to lose respect for CosmicSkeptic" - How is it different from religious people, who doesn't like anyone who questions their religion?.
@@hamzapatel03 because “I was ready” is different from “I decided”. As a human being it’s impossible to enter a discussion or in this case a video without preconceptions or expectations, religious or otherwise.
I love Hitchens too but unfortunately nobody is 100% accurate or correct
Love Your Enemy - JESUS
I've got to say that I took issue with the first point, about the moral argument. Just insisting that he has got to somehow justify morality is not necessary, I think hitch clearly just sidesteps the question to show it as a distraction. The question of how to base morality is forever quarreled over and never answered satisfactorily, introducing a god into the picture doesn't help either. I'd bet Hitchins knew this and knew if he were to go into some ultimately flawed framework then that would just take credit away from him and his speaking against religion. I can almost guarantee Hitchins would have found the insistence for some metaphysical justification for morality absurd, he was a naturalist at heart and knew the only real answer to what morality is grounded in, is exactly what he explains in the clips: our instinctive sense of right and wrong. Alex and many people insist here that the validity of our moral instincts must be backed up by something more than that, I think it's relatively clear that on purpose or not, Hitchins simply didn't recognise the need for a higher validity or 'true moral code' as it wasn't needed, at least not so far as discussing the abolishment of religion.
Love your channel Alex. While not always right, I think what was most attractive to me about Hitch was the shear depth of his knowledge. Every time I listened to him, I found myself subsequently researching some literary or philosophical point that he made.
He did answer the question the first time. The question asked was "why do you find it insulting?" not "how do you determine right and wrong without God?"
And he answers, it is insulting!
The question indeed was "why do you find it insulting?" and the reply "because it is degrading humans". Not only that, then he explained why it is degrading to humans as he seems to see it. To me this means that he sees human evolved morality as good, specially towards its keen.
His answer was insulting to the questioner who asked.
Might as well have asked "How can morality exist without fairies communicating at a subconscious level with our brains?"
Tyler Ward
And yet you believe we were magicked into being from nothing?
The first question asked was "why is it insulting?" and Hitchen's answers that question.
In other clips of the same question, he still didn’t answer it. He answered it by saying we know right and wrong because we have an inner thought of right and wrong and that’s objective. That doesn’t explain how that’s objective and not subjective, particularly when he, himself, also stated sociopaths and psychopaths have different moralities. This means more than 1 standard exists, and objective morality also exists, so why is one correct and the other wrong? This was not answered by Chris.
Actually, he did not. Alex was referring to the quote, not the answer from the video.
Seems to me that Hitchens is stating that we have an innate awareness of morality without religious indoctrination.
@@TheASG2010 Riiiight but that isn't answering the question of why we have it and why we should trust it. That is the question he avoids dealing with.
@Kurapika Giovanna So it's only wrong because it might happen to you and you wouldn't like it. I'll pass on the probability that it happens to toy and you don't like it as a basis for morality.
My absolute favorite Hitch quote: "Salvation is offered at the low cost of the surrender of your critical faculties."
Salvation is offered at the high cost of your personal sovereignty
Sometimes critical thinking can get in the way of living.
@@peteratkinson922also sometimes those who copy the framework of another’s critical thinking skills never truly think for themselves and in turn sacrifice their individual sovereignty
The notion of salvation exists because materialism is great with material problems, and terrible with problems of the soul.
@@Azoria4 Being a human is too complicated. Imma just be a dog 🐕
On the first point, how many atheists have I heard handle that query in more or less the same fashion...it's a matter of rejecting the premise. Such questions are self serving once uttered. Rejecting the premise could be for many the first and last step. Perhaps the second step would be to say that 'no, we can't be certain of the grounding of morality via the man-made creation of god nor can we claim its perfection via evolution. It is a developed trait, not an absolute.' Still and all, I prepose that if your question contains in it the assumption of faith, then it must be eschewed until such time as you can prove faith's promise as fact.
You really did a fine job with this. As a fan of Christopher Hitchens, I am glad to see these blatant weaknesses in some of his arguments acknowledged.
At 14:33, CS says Hitchins commits a fallacy, saying that theists can't answer a question either. In general, this isn't always a fallacy if the wider question is "Atheists can't explain X, therefore a god exists" --- if theists can't explain X, then the theist argument is undermined. If that is the context, then "theists can't explain X either" is not a fallacy because it validly implies the conclusion that hitchins is aiming for --- that the theist argument does not work.
I know that CS does point out that H is actually making a positive claim in which this is a genuine fallacy, but I think that there is still a lingering context, which makes me uncomfortable about saying that he misses his target --- especially since there are multiple interpretations of "objective morality", and it might be that Hitchins is dropping this in to tackle a specific one without developing that argument fully.
"Atheists can't explain X, therefore a god exists" yes this is fallacious it is the argument from ignorance fallacy
Amazing video. I would normally run a mile at something like this presented by one so young. But this guy NAILS IT.
You make unusually clear explanations that are excellent. I hope you continue your work so we can all benefit further.
Being fair with Hitchens, "how do you ground your morality?" is a question that assumes you can do that. His way of answering doesn't answer it but it does make you think about that.
Guille Muñoz
I think he has answered that, but not in the example provided. Perhaps he considered that people had digested his works to know he spoke of the golden rule and empathy. I believe he mansions human flourishing in one of his works if I am not confusing sources.
Morality exists because it confers an evolutionary advantage
If asked, I would say that my morality is the result of finding, through trial and error, by being told and by asking questions, the behaviors that work best, for me personally, in society.
As Laplace said, no need for a god in that hypothesis.
@Excalibur Yup. Complex Morality is a very subjective human construct. It doesn't really exist in nature.
That is a stupid question
In fact I think atheists are at a better place to ground their morality.
I don't have to refer to a book to written thousands of years ago to base my morality. Of course I will be more moral then those who follow a book written by a man who was a mugger (no seriously the man who wrote the Ramayana was a mugger)
--- Regarding the point about why Hitchens found the first question insulting ---
5:00 I think you're beating around the bush here. The question posed was "where does he (Hitchens) get his sense of right and wrong [if he doesn't believe in God]". Hitchens responded in print that this question was "in itself insulting'. The reason the question is insulting, he says, is because it suggests that humans literally CAN NOT have their own moral compass, and that they NEED a divine dictator to teach them that.
So Hitchens answers the question of "where does he get his sense of right and wrong from without God" by saying that God is NOT necessary for morality, and that it would be illogical to suggest he is since Hitchens is an example -right there - of a person who knows right from wrong, despite being an atheist.
At 5:35 You claim Hitchens is wrongly responding to the question "How do you determine right from wrong without God" by answering "this is insulting because it suggests we can't tell right and wrong without God" and then you (Alex) say "well yes" as if he hasn't answered the question. The thing is, Hitchens HAS answered the question here: his answer is that he does not need a God to tell him right and wrong. So the question of "how do you tell right from wrong without God" when Hitchens can clearly do so, is like asking someone how they can be so good at a videogame without using a particular guide, even after they've just explained how they don't need the guide to tell them how to play.
Guy 1: "Hey how are you so good if you've never read the guide"
Guy 2: "I don't need the guide. I have my own intuition"
Guy 1: "So how are you playing so well if you don't have a guide. Everyone needs the guide"
Guy 2: "I just told you I don't NEED the guide. You're either suggesting I'm lying about having used the guide (which is false. I HAVE NOT used the guide) or that I really haven't used the guide and am therefore playing the game bad (which is more obviously false as you've acknowledged already that I'm good). That's a false dichotomy designed to make the only reasonable option for a 3rd party viewer to say that I must be *secretly* using the guide"
Translating this into the Hitchens debate: Guy 1 is the person asking the question, Guy 2 is Hitchens, the "Guide" is God and the "game" is morality.
Moreover, as Hitchens continues to state why the question is insulting, he lists examples. The point made is that it is degrading to say humans wouldn't be moral without God (i.e donating blood) because you are effectively saying humans are innately selfish and wouldn't do moral things unless they feared a punishment.
Also for your point at 7:00 When someone asks "if not from God, WHERE does Hitchens get his sense of right and wrong from" the implication is that Hitchens doesn't have a sense of right and wrong, because he explicitly doesn't believe in God. So Hitchens is forced to answer the implied question which is "Are you actually moral, given that you are Godless?" Hitchens counters this by saying "I'm a Godless man, and I DO have morals, which is proof that you can have morals without God, so I must get these morals from *somewhere* other than God." He doesn't bring it up, but the answer is human conscience.
The question of *exactly where* Hitchens morality comes from is irrelevant. This is because the subtext of the original question ("Where does Hitchens get his morality from?") was "is there actually a way to have morality if there isn't God in the equation?". The answer is yes, because Hitchens doesn't have God in the equation; and yet he can distinguish right from wrong via human conscience. That's not conflating two separate questions, it's reading the subtext of what the question was really asking which was is it possible to have moral grounding without God. The answer is yes.
When someone asks you "How do you know right from wrong if you don't believe in God", what they're saying is "How can you come to a decision on whether something is right or wrong without a divine dictator TELLING you the answer?". The answer to this question is obvious, human conscience. The original question therefore, implies that human conscience is insufficient for moral grounding. Thats what makes it insulting.
you spot on with the way you explain the topic,its down to a particula question and the wording of the question.well done.
I’m probably a lukewarm Christian at best, but Alex is undoubtedly among the most, if not the most intelligent and mature atheist thinker I’ve seen on UA-cam. Always humble and willing to take on the most difficult subjects and giving credit where credit is due. Huge props for being a true individual.
Def check out genetically modified skeptic. He is also very respectful.
Lukewarm Christians don't exist
I'd give Sam Harris a try if you haven't already
@@NotlongOfficial they're referred to in the Bible.
@@randominternetguy3537 ehh
I LOVE you for doing this man. I 100% agree with you about a lot of things and Christopher Hitchens is one of my heros as well. I have had my quirks with many of these responses of his. But this is why I love honest skepticism and this side of the theological argument. This side is always willing to look for the truth, no matter where it may lie, and to seek out and remind ourselves that even our heros and brightest minds of our cause are not always right. This gives us credence to our stance as we are always willing to listen to criticism because that's how the truth is found and progress is made. You're brilliant for doing this. 👏
I think Hitchens would be proud. Nothing is sacred, not even him.
I do believe that the question was "Why do you find it insulting?", and this is the question that Hitchens answered. The question was NOT "From what do you derive your sense of morality."
Yeah, I agree with you. He also did answered the question of where he derived his sense of morality in other conversations/deabtes. I feel like the selection of this specific interview was a little misguided :/
@@azerack955 Maybe, but the problem is on this ones, it would not make sense to talk about other ones except, maybe, in a remark.
@@xadielplasencia3674 the comment I replied to already answered that. I was simply mentioning that when he is asked the question "from what do you derive your sense of morality" he has given an appropriate response.
That's just one clip on the subject, he also shows a bunch of other clips with the question being more clearly as stated.
I was just explaining this to my mate, the question this lad is trying to frame can hardly be answered because its almost a purely philosophical question.
Cosmic Cynic. As an atheist he does not need to answer unanswerable questions. He just needs to point out that the question is unanswerable and that religion lying that the question is answerable: One, automatically discredits religion from being true. Two, discredits religion as being harmful because lying does not lead to maximising harmony and freedom.
9:10 "How to justify the moral action," I think I remember from somewhere Christopher Hitchens mentioning that the human species wouldn't survive without a moral instinct to work together as a group. Again I'm not too sure where he said this, but I remember him using selection pressures from situations where humans need to work together as a way to explain morality.
I believe you're right.
Although I firmly believe that Hitchens did have a well thought out explanation for this, the problem is that within these debates he did not do them justice and resorted to other tactics to win. I don't think he did this to "win" so to speak, I think he just got swept away in his answer and missed the point of the question because - in his head - he already knows that he has it right
@@cheminem Yes. Good observation. On this occasion he "doesn't bother." Hard to find the energy all the time. Downside of EtOH drug.
So if we rape a woman for the sake of reproduction its a moral action?
@@jaimebrathwaite8806 No, because... no.
I think "of course you have free will, you have no choice" is his way of answering you have no free will
That's sort of what I was thinking. Whether or not we have free will is irrelevant. You live and act as if you have free will, because what the hell else you gonna do?
It was no doubt a witticism.
It exposes the lack of free will in the Christian worldview.
@@unicyclist97 wrong, God is 4th dimensional so to Him he could see all of time and space at the same time and know what happens. Infinity means nothing in the higher dimensions.
So He gonna prove it?
And when he couldn't see who was with Balaam, even? Or that 1/3 of angels were suicidal or ignorant?
5:20 [1] For me, Hitch was many things. Sometimes, I got the sense in some his debates he was tired of the same old clap trap and his flippant sophistry was a sign of contempt. I put this forward as a thought because in other debates, on the same argument he really goes to town.
He was also a bit of a poet; and I get the idea he was trying to use transcendental notions to elevate people rather than drag them down to base, gross, and crass tit-fot-tat stuff.
Yes, the question “how do you know right from wrong”; to express this as an insult is to make people stop and think it out for themselves. If people have to be TOLD this (what and where morals come from), then we have lost the argument already. So, for me, this response avoided the lazy and convenient path of having someone provide us the answer. If we have to be TOLD the answer, then in actually TELLING people the answer, it is morally tainted… in this, I think Hitch was being not only clever but demonstrating, leading and holding people to a higher standard...which is MUCH harder than just giving the answer to a silly question.
6:47 Yeah, Hitch also answers the IMPLIED question too; he heads that off at the pass. He says to the interviewer “I would choose not to believe [you would be immoral]” And in there is a hidden gem of what BEING moral is. He has answered the question by giving the other person scope and opportunity to act in an autonomous way → this is surely one of those actions that INCREASES human well being. TELLING people what morality is constrains them. And if he responded by telling people what morality is, he falls into the same trap as theists are; that Hitch places himself as an authority that dictates morality - that he becomes that God from which morals comes from. To stack up his argument, he can not position himself as such…
gepisar myeah... his weary contempt of the assumed need to refute the colour of the drapes down some abrahamic rabbit hole to satisfy the questioner’s intent was pretty evident to the never-religious.
It’s insane really.
No one should be expected to have the tolerance to answer stupid self-referencing questions in the language of the deluded else they’ll believe its context represents an aspect of one’s point of view.
Boiled down, it’s a god-said-so assertion, and I for one have only contempt for it from start to finish. Hitchens was far more patient with it than me.
@@mstandenberg1421 i concur! And i think in that, Hitchens was expressing a certain decorum and exemplifying a humanist approach. It is a subtle response and what made him sublime.
Returned for another viewing and it is still wonderful. Nice one, Alex!
Please watch and share with others my five brief videos in which I present examples of scientific facts contained in the Bible, facts that the writers thousands of years ago could not have been aware of without divine knowledge given to them by Jesus Christ / The God of the Bible. And today's scientists agree with those facts!
Hi Alex,
As clever, witty and charming as he was, never heard Hitchens claiming he was a philosopher.
Not to argue too much, but; just because you can make a hard questions, Doesn’t mean it requires a proper philosophical answer.
Many time I heard him saying: taking refuge on irony. He was not trying to elevate his shady answer but to reveal how “unanswerable” the questions was and misleading if not stupid is to appeal to god.
Kudos to you for this video 🍻
There was always this little bad feeling when watching some of Hitchens' debates but I couldn't quite put a finger on it until now. Thanks :)
same
I finally understand why it's hard for me as a non english speaker to follow some of the things he said. Some of the things he said just didn't make sense!
@1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV He was brilliant at raising arguments against religion and having mic drop moments as he was extremely historically knowleadgable, and that's what constituted a Hitch Slap, with a possible insult on the end. What he wasn't so good at is answering for the criticisms of atheism. If you just think he was a BS artist then you're butthurt and probably deserve a hitch slap.
@1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV Lmao
The first question actually WAS "Why do you find it insulting?", and Hitchens replied to that. Now I'm gonna watch the rest of the video 😄
Thank you! Although you missed the part that Hitchens said there’s no evidence that any gods exist, so why would I think morality comes from some thing that has no evidence. But I’m glad you hit on the other point. I honestly don’t know whether I should watch the rest of the video, if the first point was so poorly done by the video creator. It honestly reminds me of Christians that act like atheists in order to persuade atheists to become Christian. I was actually really excited to watch this video and listen to the arguments as his opening about Christopher Hitchens sums up my feelings, exactly. I even have a large custom playlist folder on my UA-cam channel devoted just to Christopher Hitchens. But since the first point was so bad, it’s hard for me to have faith so to speak in the rest of the points. I guess I’ll try watching more.
@@ttrestle This video is from 3 years ago. I'm sure CosmicSkeptic has developed further. But in this video and some others I've noticed him to sometimes twist the questions and rely on unproven premises. But maybe I don't understand them correctly. Hitchens' reply to the question "Why do you find it insulting?" was perfectly fine in my opinion. The question WASN'T "Where does objective morality come from?". First of all we could discuss about whether there IS objective morality. But if you ask how humans know about objective morality, you already accept the premise that there IS one. Besides the fact that this wasn't the question in the video clip. I don't remember the rest of the video, tbh. It's been quite a while ago.
I wonder how did he not realize his mistake? I mean, he must've watched the clip at least 5 or 6 times when creating his video, and it's really clear that Hitches answered the question he was asked.
@@Fru244 Also Hitchins has spoken more on this issue explaining that evolution provides an explanation for morality. Dawkins has spoken more extensively on this issue and Hitchens and Dawkins often spoke together so I'm sure Hitchens well understood the issue. The narrator here also seemed to switch his criticism between Hitchens not having a justification for his morality and Hitchens not knowing where morality comes from. Two separate issues.
@@thenephilim9819
Wrong!
The interviewer was asking Hitchens why his answer to the question "where do you get your sense of right and wrong" is "that's an insulting question"
So already Hitchens avoided answering the question.
The follow up question is a push to make him answer the original one.
Very crisp and clear thinking by Alex. I often listened to Christopher and enjoyed it, but was not aware of the fact that he sometimes answered evasively.
He did of course, because he was trying to win debates. not something Alex knows much about.
@@scottymeffz5025being consistent and honest is better than winning debates.
@@tranium67 I agree... unless of course, you're trying to win a debate.
Oh dear, you’ve done it again. At 10:47 you state that Hitchens was asked “of those moral instincts that he has, how does he know they are objectively correct?” Again this was NOT Tureks question. Turek asked “when you do something wrong whose standard are you breaking?” Hitchens replies that you are breaking the standard of Socrates’ inner daemon or what Adam Smith called “the internal witness” Hitchens was usually very careful not to dodge questions. I applaud your willingness to always question even those who you look up to but unfortunately your arguments have not been rooted in facts but rather questions you seem to THINK he’s being asked and in doing so you may be do a great disservice to a writer and thinker you actually admire. I therefore think that if you truly want to be seen as making intellectually honest critiques, you may have the MORAL obligation to re-think the grounding of your arguments and state that they are ill formed and that you’ve mischaracterized the actual questions being asked. I think Hitchens would have held himself and you or me to that same standard.
Other than the moral argument, the rest of the video was correct
Yeah lol, for some reason you think that him making one mistake results in all the other arguments in the video being "ill-formed". How??
@@mishadoomen8372 Good question, and please forgive the length of my response but I want to make sure I don't dodge it. I’m glad to see that you agree with me on the mistake that Alex made here and I can further clarify my comments. When I said that the arguments (plural) that Alex is making are “ill formed” I was referring to an earlier comment I had made in which I called out the same offense. In his critique at 4:40 regarding, as quoted by Peter Robinson, the “insinuation that [Hitchens] would not know right from wrong if [Hitchens] was not spiritually guided”, Alex states that “the question was asked ‘How do you determine right and wrong without God?’” However, again, if you review the video you’ll find the actual question that was asked by Robinson was “Why do find this so insulting?” Hitchens simply responds with why he finds it insulting which was exactly what was asked of him. Robinson did not ask the question that Alex says he does.
I think there are a few important things to note here. Firstly, I’ll restate that if you are going to publish a video refuting someone else’s position (especially a person who is no longer alive to defend themselves) for as large an audience as Alex has, you are under an immense moral and ethical obligation to make sure you get it right because if you do not (as we are all in agreement is the case here) you are under an even bigger obligation to make a retraction for the reasons stated above. Alex is obviously an articulate, great thinker himself and I would hope he agrees. We would all want and be rightfully due such a retraction if our positions were presented under false pretenses in as large a forum as this one. Secondly, it should serve as caution to us all that when we set out to make a video or maybe even shape a position in our head, it is important to not let the desired outcome of the video/statement cloud some or all of our arguments. This can happen to any of us, as demonstrated here, even if we have good intentions. And lastly, if the arguments I’ve made above are still not persuasive enough, one should WANT to know when they have committed such offenses because it calls into question one’s capability of analyzing complex positions in a way that can be damaging to their own reputation. This is one of the first few videos I’ve seen of Alex’s and I am a fan of his channel and very interested in the topics he explores but because of his “ill formed” arguments here, I have been given the initial impression, or perhaps a new insight, that he has possible blind spots that he may not be aware of which, again is understandable as we ALL have them but is nevertheless something that I think we should all be on the lookout for as opposed to just blindly accepting false claims regardless of how well they are articulated or presented. In other words, I found myself asking “Is this a channel that has a tendency to intellectually misrepresent viewpoints in order to justify a claim?” which I’m sure is the last way Alex wants to present himself or his channel.
I made no claim that ALL of his arguments are ill formed or that the rest of the video is in some way invalidated because of his initial mis-steps, although I do think some interesting insights could be uncovered if we were to juxtapose Alex’s presentation here with the full context of the debates in which Hitchens participated (but I fear I might be getting a bit longwinded). I simply mean to say that Alex should make the corrections where noted and that these were two very big red flags that jumped out at me right off the bat that should rightfully be called to his and our attention as I fear they may not have been obvious. Just as when Alex concludes about Hitchens to “not let the man’s aura blind you to his mistakes and faulty reasoning” we should similarly hold Alex’s presentation to the same standard. And so I will conclude by sharing in Alex’s sentiment in the hope that I have given you enough examples to help you spot these transgressions for yourself going forward. Cheers friends.
@@concreterobot3446 I think you are a very reasonable person and I agree with your intentions. I had the idea you were saying all of his arguments were ill-formed, but as it turns out that you did not, I can only say that I agree with you.
Good point. I'm surprised so many people here have missed the straw man. Hitchens never claimed that morality is objective. Nor was he so simple minded as to say there are moral people and then there are psychopaths. He refers to psychopathy merely as an example. Does Cosmic Skeptic really think Hitchens was unaware of the vast grey area? And Hitchens would have appreciated the irony; a sophistic argument that aims to reveal an opponent's alleged sophistry.
5:20 or so. No, the question from the interviewer was "Why do you find it insulting?" That is what Hitchens was answering. Not the question the interviewer read out.
This has been written many time here.
Youre right for that interview question only. NOT the others so the argument still holds.
He was referring to the original question I think, the one that inspired the second one. And Hitchens did fail to answer that one.
I think I heard Hitch simply answer (paraphrasing)
"I don't know how something comes from nothing, that is the point. I can say I don't know, that does not mean your answer is correct. I do not accept your "evidence" for that question."
To which I have to say I agree. I mean, that process of "I don't know something. then It must be God's work" is the way every religion ever was created and developed. It is our first attempt of medicine, astronomy, etc. As Hitch says.
Mariano Manto to be fair, I didn’t hear him say that- it’s easy to presume he thought that way about it, but I’m not sure where in his answer here you got that
Sorry, I am late to the game. I just started getting your videos in my feed. I appreciate this critique. Like you, I have watched endless hours of Hitchens debates. He was a great debater, and as Harris said, he had more wit and class than some entire civilizations. Yet, he often leaned into appeals to the stone or strawman arguments. He also relied on quippy jabs and appeals to indignation. He could make the audience laugh away some arguments. He once even said, "I think we can laugh them out of that idea." While I deeply respect him, I respect the pursuit of truth more. I think this was largely the work and aim of his life. Criticism of anything inaccurate or incomplete is of the greatest importance in that pursuit. Ironically, he was the one to which I most attribute my pursuit of it.
Like many others, I also love Hitchens and love your critique. Well done.
It's nonsense. Pick up a college Logic textbook and throw Alex's very first argument about God and morality against the list of logical falllacies.
While I applaud the skepticism, O’Connor gets something glaringly wrong right out of the gate.The first question addressed to Hitchens at 4:59 was specifically "Why do you find it insulting?" (in reference to why he feels insulted at the suggestion that human morality is shaped by God). Hitchens answered the question! He stated that he finds it insulting because it devalues human choice, and thus devalues human beings in general. The question was NOT "Why do you feel that morality can exist with divine guidance?" So, Hitchens did not dodge the question as claimed.
I was about to comment the same thing before seeing this. Now, onward with the rest of the video! Hopefully, this is the last of these mistakes as the guy is haemorrhaging credibility!
I can only agree with that comment, and furthermore if the questioner don't explain how morality have anything to do with divinity then there isn't really anything sensible to respond to. Like if someone asked how can you be moral without the teachings of Genghis Khan then they first had to explain why on earth they think Genghis Khan is moral. Otherwise it can be dismissed as the insulting nonsence it is, just like C.H. did.
His not wrong either for not going along with the absurdety implyed (maybe acording to the unwritten british courtesy laws, but not anywhere else).
No, because Alex was referring to what Hitchens had replied in the print, not what the other person said.
This has been written many time here.
Youre right for that interview question only. NOT the others so the argument still holds.
Honestly, a fantastic Video, When you can call out the sophistry of your most prized persons, it really shows a lot . As a former Christian fundamentalist, now residing in unknown territory between agnosticism and Theism, you have actually given me the confidence motivation and inspiration to jump out of my comfort zone and begin to write and make videos on the topic of Religion and Philosophy. Seeing someone my age do the things you do is incredibly inspiring- I started a channel a couple days ago and would love some support and feedback, subscriptions would really be appreciated. I'm only getting started, but 7 years as a Christian fundamentalist and now Theology student has thought me a thing or two.
What Christian denomination?
@@Chris-gz2gm Protestant Evangelical!
How did u handle the possibility and historical credibility of Jesus' ressurection? im struggling with that myself currently.
@@bluelagoon228 For me The historical credibility of the resurrection was never enough to influence whether or not I stayed within Christianity. Now I will grant that a case can be made for the resurrection, but it's not entirely convincing, your dealing with historical data that cannot be verified, you can only say this "probably happened" like for example the apostles dying for the faith, or the 500 eyewitnesses, we don't really know that ANY of that happened, all we can do is say it is more likely or less likely. Christianity requires A LOT from you, and A LOT of sacrifices, if you're going to take it seriously. If it requires you to surrender your whole life to it then the evidence and reasons as to why you're believing it better be damn good.
The Humanities Project ah okay thank you!
Excellent top their work on this Alex.
"The only way to trust a person's admiration for someone is if they recognize their faults."
Very well said...
Thanks for modeling responsible and constructive criticism of those you admire most. If we could figure out how to get more of us doing this.
@ 5:20 - Yes he is answering the question!
Back at 4:58, the actual question was "Why do you find it insulting?"
I take your general point - but that was a very bad example to base it on
No, cosmic is referring to the written question 4:40 and Hitchens written response 4:46
He didn’t answer that exact question- why is he insulted by it? Why does he take offense? If there is no such thing as objective morality- why would being accused of not having such be offensive ? It’s just an appeal to emotions- how dare you suggest I have no objective morals!! That’s mean! Then going on to answer the question of whether objective morals exist- without even answering why that would be a good thing to have in the first place
The Hitch was a journalist and a debater, not a philosopher.
That's true. I was going to point that out.
I only recently discovered Hitchens (how I regret not hearing him during his lifetime!), and have been watching his old debates. Your points are well-founded and well-argued-something about those responses of his struck me as off, but you’ve articulated your criticisms masterfully. I daresay Hitchens would feel the same.
Nah, he wouldn't. He'd have explained why Alex had missed the point of a debate entirely. And likely reminded him of his losing record.
I think because the first question, about grounding morality, is so silly he would go on tangents to keep the thing entertaining.
He may have been under the impression saying it was innate was good enough, as in "it's natural". Grounded on our very nature.
The question of why it is natural is presumably evolution, and of course you could keep prodding and asking "yeah but why, from where?", but so could you of god. The only difference is that then they'd say, presumably "god needs no grounding" or something like that.
And as to the observation of "with proper moral equipment", I believe it's pretty much just his way of saying "normal person".
I think it unfair to take this question as more serious then it should be taken, namely, trying to answer it in a more thorough way than it would be answered by a christian theist.
This just popped up in my feed, rather inexplicably. I'm glad it did. Precisely how I feel about Hitch. I miss him a great deal. I have a similarly complex relationship with Dawkins, though he consistently fails to show the same deep well of self-awareness I feel was present in everything Hitchens did. You're a bright light young fella, more of you in the world and we might just make it.
If you think magical thinking is the way forward for civilization, try the conspiracy theories of the alt_Right. They employ the EXACT same logically fallacious style of statements.
I LIKE the fact that Dawkins sticks to his own areas of expertise and doesn't try to speculate about stuff outside of his wheelhouse. I wish more people would.
@@LolaLaRue-sq6jmHe steps overconfidently outside his wheelhouse all the time, what do you mean lol. An evolutionary biologist who hasn't followed the science for decades isn't going to have a particularly good and well-studied take on """wokeism""" or the many sociological and cultural factors at play with belief development, for example. And yet...
Alex, thank you for your intellectual honesty. A willingness to criticize “our own” when they err keeps us from sliding into petty tribal loyalties and demonstrates that our real goal is truth itself.
You made an excellent point early in the video by observing that Hitchens, while a brilliant journalist, was not a philosopher. His points often were not exhaustively thought through, and he lacked the resources to defend himself in detail against seasoned debaters.
Another example of this would be Hitchens’ fellow Horseman, Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is a brilliant scientist with many easily defensible positions against religion and the existence of God, but his lack of philosophical training often shows when he’s challenged.
Fortunately the third Horseman, Sam Harris, makes up for both of their shortcomings in this regard.
Bob Smith Sam Harris is a hack and a low effort thinker. All the celebrity pseudo-intellectuals like Sam Harris, Dawkins, Jordan Peterson are hacks, as very frequently they speak to topics outside their field of expertise. They use their influence and authority to misinform their audience with biased opinions in the guise of demonstrable objective fact. Many positions I have heard from these types of actors often aren’t logically sound or consistent when held up to scrutiny and critical thinking.
Logic and reason alludes these actors when it comes to their own intuitions and political agenda. Especially when they (with gross negligence) discuss issues beyond their qualifications that would allow them to engage with the topic with any real authority. They (more often than not) demonstrate a profound lack of integrity by failing to inform their position by the general consensus of experts in relation to the topic being discussed.
Unless they are appropriately speaking about a topic in relation to their field of expertise of which they have authority, then I would recommend you seek knowledge elsewhere.
@@Necrophadez Well gosh, you sound like an incredibly reasonable and thoughtful person. I'm sure glad you don't bother giving examples of any of these 'low effort' thoughts whilst calling Harris, Dawkins and Peterson 'hacks,' despite the latter having very different beliefs to the former two.
They also have 'many positions' that aren't logically sound, and 'demonstrate a profound lack of integrity' because they fail to base their arguments and philosophies on 'the general consensus of experts,' despite naming neither the experts nor the positions upon which they fail to inform themselves. Or why a position should be based on consensus. Or anything, really.
You actually don't seem to specifically say anything except that you don't like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins or Jordan Peterson, and you can't really be precise about why that is either, even though you're so far talking exclusively about your own, pretty asinine and petty sounding, sad feelings.
What is your area of expertise, I wonder?
I AM JURELL Nothing of which you have said in your response has even approached something representing an accurate or good faith engagement with what I actually said.
You seem rather low effort intellectually yourself to be quite frank. You made hilariously unfounded assumptions.
Firstly, of what relevance does Jordan Peterson having a different philosophical outlook than Dawkins and Harris have to do with whether they all engage in motivated reasoning and bad faith or negligent behaviour? Quite the asinine and pointless statement to make in response to the names I happened to pick.
Then you went on to say you don’t understand why a position (that is in regards to scientific data) for example immigration and it’s effects on an economy. Why you wouldn’t base said position on the empirical studies and data and the conclusions of the general consensus of what the economists whom are qualified to read the data say. Then you finished it with “Or anything, really”... So base a position on nothing I guess. Real intellectual heavy weight.
Edit: Also amusing that such a smooth brain would end a rebuttal with a question that presupposes a fallacious assumption.
That being that I personally require qualification in any given field to necessarily be informed on the said general consensus on a particular topic in a field and thus brand certain positions that aren’t empirically or epistemologically true as misinformed or dishonest but overall negligent.
Keep fuelling the comedy! 🤡👍
I also think Dawkins has been at a disadvantage, because his opponents, more frequently than not, did not have much knowledge of the sciences. It seemed Dawkins had to pull teeth at every turn just to explain how various organs within organisms have evolved to theologians and gurus.
@@Necrophadez Whoa guys, we got a badass over here.
at the beginning of the vlog, the interviewer asks hitchens why he feels it is insulting to ask where does he get his morality from absent a god. He answered the question. I dont see the controversy.
@@blitzwing1 Did you even watch the video? You just said exactly what Skeptic criticized Hitchens for saying.
Alex provides *multiple* examples of Hitchens dodging the question.
Taking down one example is meaningless.
I'm 5:43 into this video, and there's a problem: the interviewer asks Hitchens "why do you find it insulting?". Hitchens then proceeds to answer why he finds it insulting. It then cuts to you, Alex, and you say "he's not answering the question about Morality", when he hasn't infact been asked this yet.
I see your point, but already there's a huge flaw in your first critique.
The question "How does something come from nothing?" can either be answered with "I don't know" or less boringly by questioning the question. Hitchens, a literary giant with a reputation for entertaining his audience is not going to say anything boring. Besides he tended to be a bit wobbly with his science and this question is a scientific one.
definitely not a scientific question. science can never dream of answering it. its a metaphysical question.
Exactly! So annoying when I see people trying to actually answer that question. No, you don't know anything about that, stop trying to make up an answer. It's okay not to have one. And maybe discuss how the question itself is faulty from the start since it assumes there ever was such a thing as "nothing".
Hitchens did answer "I don't know" in the debate with Frank Turek. He used a suitcase analogy he said he'd got from Hawking, then said "I don't have to know, you (Turek) do."
@@Jaime-vs4eo The question is posed as a scientific question, as it's an attempt to refute Big Bang theory -- which doesn't even posit "something from nothing." It's so easy to answer, and Hitch does indeed fumble in this example. My answer: "I don't know how you get something from nothing. Why do you ask? In any case, if your hypothetical god is the originator, where did it come from?"
*The question, "How does something come from nothing" in itself a loaded question. It assumes that something comes from nothing. If something came from nothing, then "nothing" wouldn't be nothing, because something came from it. Nothing cannot come from, nor can it lead to anything. It is nothing.*
You can admire Hitchens without being taken in by his razzle dazzle. He was a great orator & wit but he practiced all his material, especially the jokes, over & over on various audiences, just like a stand-up comedian. He was sometimes more eager to gain applause than to make a solid point cuz the boy had an ego on him like Mt. Everest. But first and above all, he was a champion of the worker, the poor, the oppressed and the marginalized wherever they were. And damn, do I MISS him!
He was rinse and repeat because that is religion, religion cannot grow , it has to remain imbedded in the past bye it own admission.
For tv sit down interviews you are supposed to answer like he did, reframe and not actuallyadress the point, Bruce lee did this. For some reason humans are more entertained by this and view those answers as correct and smarter.
But yeah it’s well documented and study and what your so supposed to do for interviews and debates on tv.
He didn't stand with the oppressed and marginalized of they happened to live in Iraq, however. Don't forget how in his later years he turned into just another neocon talking head.
@@jake8855Quite.
What he and his brother Peter has and had in spades is arrogance. Maybe why they disliked each other so much.
On “free will” you actually missed Hitchens point when he responded essentially “if we need a God to have free will , we don’t have free will”. He is correct. Free will wouldn’t need an authority to exist. If it did.... it isn’t free will. Free is free. It exists without any need to be authorised or given by, or received from, an external entity. We can’t claim to have free will if we have it only as a beneficiary. It simply is.
Im a massive admirer of CH, as are you.
I started watching this clip though, and got disenchanted after your analysis of the very first queston which CH as you say, didn't answer (re: morality).
My humble opinion, comparatively to yourself admittedly is a somewhat uneducated one, is that he does not need to. I think its fair to generalise that 90% of both religious and non religious people are morally, good people in the main. This is just a fact, and an observation over time for anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention. He is right therefore, that the question posed to him is obsolete.
Hitchens was never one to dumb down an argument to the nth degree - as he hasnt done here. But i got his point immediately.
Truth be told in my view (again, not an Oxford graduate) your gripe at his answer here really is disappointing.
I agree the morality question is a silly one. There is no "grounding" of morality, no source of morality, just as there's no source of knowledge. Humans create knowledge by seeking good explanations. Morality is just another type of knowledge.
I only discovered Hitchens a few days ago. I've since watched maybe a dozen or more hours of his debates. I also felt like he struggled around these areas, and I appreciate you looking at them more closely. That said...
I have some issues with the Tu Quoque charge and the discussion around Hitchens' burden of proof. In the interest of symmetry, I'll expand on them in reverse order.
The important thing in the latter case is that the existence of morality or free will is not at issue between Hitchens and his opponents. They mutually accept these claims, so there is no burden of proof in the debate. In the infinite vacuum of general logical discourse (or the opportunity afforded in authorship of a book or UA-cam video), of course supporting as many claims as you can is wise. Especially ones we might find as opaque as the existence of free will. In the context of a timed debate, however, it is by no means fallacious to use your five minute time block to support a claim your opponent cedes to you.
Regarding Tu Quoque, I'd like to point out that these debates often feature the opposition putting forth supposition like, "Christianity explains the world better than atheism, therefore God exists (probably)." With supporting statements like, "Atheism cannot explain the meaning of life/justify morality/explain free will." In which case, the statement, "Neither can you," is a relevant rebuttal. In these arguments where a claim of superior understanding is supporting the opponent's conclusion, contesting that superior position is legit. (He could have done it better, though!)
Thank you. I was just about to begrudgingly write a similar comment so I'm glad someone else already did. Saying that religion also fails to ground morality is a perfectly valid argument if their position presupposes that morality needs to be grounded in something objective and yours does not.
If one is afforded little time to formulate a response to a question they themself are passionate about, they should find a way to answer IT.
Playing the opponent not the ball is childish.
Debate topics & question, after all, are known in advance.
That Hitchens repeatedly went to this fallacious arguments is sufficient to ridicule him.
On the question of morality, the contention isn't whether morals exist or even that our species exhibit them, it's that we make prescriptive claims about morals ie how we ought to treat each other.
Therefore it's is pertinent to ask why anyone should not only care but in what capacity they pronounce judgement on those who don't if morals can't be accounted for.
Hitchens' own razor is relevant here:
*"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."*
Merely saying both party agree on a descriptive claim isn't an argument.
Finally, the superiority of any claim is the preponderance of evidence and not cheers one can elicit from partizan crowds.
That's why cosmologists don't merely sit idly by and shout back at creationists that their claims aren't substantiated for.
They propose hypotheses & look for supporting data about how the cosmos came about (or that it even did in the first place).
You want to win an argument without making one.
Sorry hombre.
@@a.a9021 Well said! My response to "our morality is grounded in god, so you have no ground for yours" has long been "you'd first have to prove the existence of this 'god'. Until you do, this is a circular argument."
@@kundakaps If fallacious arguments are sufficient to ridicule someone, and "playing the opponent not the ball" is childish, then you've just played yourself, champ. You're attacking Hitchens - playing the opponent, not the ball - so your "argument" is purely an _ad hominem,_ and you're ridiculous.
Try again. And do better this time.
@@okopnikwhy didn’t you react to his other point?
to be fair on the moral argument, I don't really think he is engaging in sophistry but rather establishing the moral intuition as an axiom of morality. In other words it doesn't NEED justification. Which is a position that some hold, I don't think it's a wholly untenable position, even if I'm not an adherent and even if I think it is easy to poke holes which he himself doesn't seem the best or even interested in plugging.
jhon jacson But isn’t it self-evident that people make moral choices _and take moral actions_ (whether objectively or subjectively “good”, such as donating blood, to use an example given by Hitchens) without reference or appeal to the supernatural? It’s hardly a dodge or an exercise in sophistry to point out that the question itself is patently absurd.
@@valhalla7408 the question is why do that rather than not do that. The argument made by cosmic skeptic is that without proper foundation Hitchens just engages in circular reasoning. The christian says that giving blood is good because God laid out the rules, whether you are religious or not, that is the foundation, you look at morality based on what the boss has to say. Sure that's a dumb metaethic but hitchens just doesn't provide one on his side and doesn't even seem to understand the question when it is given to him.
jhon jacson You’re correct, it’s a “dumb” metaethic because ... in part it presupposes the existence of a “God” that “laid down the rules” instead of a recognition that all social species have evolved behaviors that favor actions considered beneficial to that species’ well-being and survival (hence why Hitch made comparisons with animal species that also exhibit “moral” behavior in the absence of any cosmic “boss”). I don’t disagree with your analysis - it just seems to me that Hitchens may have gotten exasperated that the religionist view of “objective moral foundation” never met its own burden of proof before it could be (often smugly) used to challenge a world-view not tethered to a deity.
@@valhalla7408 maybe, but then that's the polemicist in Hitchens rather than the philosopher. It's the religion is dumb position, rather than the actual comming up of ideas and refuting of objections the other side has. I can only suppose that the frustration you speak of is the origin of his very many tu quoques but they are still tu quoques and it is a fallacious bit of reasoning that does better at winning a debate than winning an argument.
jhon jacson Hitch _was_ more of a polemicist (“God Is Not Great”) and a debater than a philosopher, I grant you that 😄 However, even philosophically, wouldn’t you agree that the religious view suffers from an innate flaw (the presupposition of an unproven and unfalsifiable premise) that _deserves_ to be pointed out from the inception before indulging in its contentions regarding “objective moral foundation”?
Thanks for this. I found it balanced, respectful and useful. We are sometimes so enamoured by Hitchens’ love of language and skill in live debate that we overlook through our own confirmation bias where it lacks the depth it ought to have.
Carl Sagan gave excellent answers to such questions. Hitchens was more of an entertainer than a serious thinker.
At the start the question was "Why is it insulting?" and he answered it, yet you said he didn't answer the question. Wth.
exactly... how did he not see how Hitchens chose to answer it?
I thought the exact same thing.
@Borko Borko he says more than just it's degrading..... He goes into a explanation that starts with its insulting and degrading and then explains why.... "It attacks us in our deepest integrity....." so on so forth
I sense a bit of jealousy from sceptic. This feels like a hit job.
It isn't though. Cosmic very clearly refers to the question "How can you tell right or wrong without God?" and to the answer Hitchens gave in writing. He doesn't refer to the answer Hitchens gives in the interview. Admittedly, the video wasn't cut well and the interviewer's question "Why do you find it insulting?" isn't as interesting as the original one (imo). But I think it's very clear that Cosmic does not refer to the question why it's insulting to ask that.