Debate: Religion's Impact on Society - Christopher Hitchens vs Nigel Spivey | Intelligence Squared

Astonishingly blinkered opening from Dr Spivey, who makes no point other than "45,000 years ago we started to fill in the blanks in our understanding by imagining solutions", as evidenced by archeology. Compared to Hitchens succinct and deadly assessment of the reality of religions and their effect on society, this was not a 'thought-provoking debate'. Let's just vote now, and go to the bar for a drink.

Well the basis of the big world religions is the belief in the existence of a god. So Dr Spivey's introductory sentences already remove the rug from under the feet of said religions.

I admired Christopher Hitchens. I don't think he laid down methods of atheistic philosophy and simply reduced to careful examination of existing sectarian practices. Regardless he was an intellectual who will be reviewed perhaps centuries later when humans would know more about their universe.

Hitchens: Religions harm society by being used as a justification for violence and dehumanizing those who don't subscribe to your particular brand of worship. Spivey: I assume that burials and art were caused by religion, therefore religion is beneficial. I ascribe all art to religious fervor. I claim that the entire argument that religion is a mistake is based on ancestors making scientific errors and explaining things using religious beliefs, not on any modern observed effects of religion on society. I say: there's a big difference between faith and organized religions.

The modern B or not to B equivalent of a Hamlet's speech :)

👌

Both did a Very Good on the Subject. Intelligently Brief and to the Point ! !

Hitchens died a couple years ago. So why is it being posted as a new discussion?

Wow! Loved the second speaker!