The Staggers

The New Statesman rolling blog

Christopher Hitchens v Tony Blair: the video

Posted by George Eaton - 29 November 2010 10:52

Watch the atheist writer and the former prime minister clash over religion in Toronto.

The full debate between Christopher Hitchens (whom I interviewed iin summer this year) and Tony Blair is now available to watch online. The pair debated whether religion was a force for good in the world.

In a vote after the debate, 68 per cent of the audience sided with Hitchens and 32 per cent with Blair. Now you've got a chance to make your own mind up.

Christopher Hitchens: opening statement

Tony Blair: opening statement

Tags: Tony Blair Religion Christopher Hitchens

Get the full magazine for just £1 a week with a trial subscription. PLUS get a free copy of Penny Red: Notes from the New Age of Dissent by Laurie Penny

Post this article to

27 comments from readers

skiptonman
29 November 2010 at 12:13

Blair 0 Hitchens 1

Spencer J Follows
29 November 2010 at 12:23

I've watched over 50 of Hitchens's debates and read much of his work.

The debate with Blair was particularly anaemic but that comes from the weakness of the proposition of "is religion a force for good or evil" itself. It's conducive to a lot of rhetoric and subjective views, whereas the debates on the truth of religion are far more engaging and worthwhile.

This was still worth a watch if only to see Blair call Hitler an atheist and that Einstein was not - which shows Blair's failure to grasp the facts.

James
29 November 2010 at 12:33

"who I interviewed" ?

Nathaniel Myers
29 November 2010 at 14:42

Spencer, it's ironic that you claim that Blair fails to grasp the facts. Could you direct me to the part where he calls Hitler an atheist? I remember him referring the the Nazi regime as wanting to annihilate religion, but nothing of Hitler's personal beliefs. Also, Einstein was not an atheist. He was a pantheist, or possibly even a deist.

I did enjoy this debate immensely, being a huge fan of both Christopher and Tony. There is little doubt that Christopher walked this debate, though. Tony had some good things to say, but they were few and few between against a consistent and powerful wall of attack from Christopher. In almost absolute alignment with Mr Hitchens, and left in much the same place.

Dwight
29 November 2010 at 20:08

This was a transformative event. Tony Blair simply stated that people of good faith do good work in the world who are not extremists or oligarchs. Compassion, humility and service to those in need are what they are about. Recognize these are the real faithful.

bob
29 November 2010 at 21:50

hitler was very much a catholic turned athiest...the athiests need to get over it.

Michael
29 November 2010 at 22:17

Hitchens said there is room in one state for Arabs and Jews .

a) Is there no room in the whole Arab world for more Arabs? Is there room for Jews in Arab states ?(NO!)

B(B) What would happen if the majority of Arabs lived in Israel?

Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley
30 November 2010 at 00:47

Hitchens talks about the empowerment of women in the usual terms eg productive and reproductive rights but I think he's being short sighted if he sees this as the be all and end all of charity at it's best.Of course women and reproduction are particularly important but people of true faith understand the power of charity to be generally quite extraordinary - the power of charity is that extra bit in anyone's capacity which enables us even in our weakest most vulnerable moment yet still to show everyone else how to be kind and merciful and generous. It is this most gentle aspect of charity which already empowers most women quite naturally and in my view this is what wonts to be copied or emulated by men..just imagine how much bigger society could be then.. But what about eg Esthers' new deal in the bible - she already sorted a good deal out for herself and her (women?)kind ie half, please.

But anyway these two men strike me as both very clever and jolly nice people too. If there is a grain of common sense between them I reckon this whole event could be very much appreciated all round.

rm 30 November 2010 at 04:25

Two morons strutting on stage flaunting their ignorance. There are probably not two more vile humans now alive. The world will be much better when Hitechens and Blair continue this debate in the depths of hell.

Thurston
30 November 2010 at 05:32

To me Hitchens comes off sounding just like any ignorant person arguing that his beliefs are right and the other fellow's are wrong. "Your beliefs are wrong because I can easily identify people sharing your beliefs who I judge to have done bad things". Replace "beliefs" in that assertion with "politics", "nationality", "race", "gender", "intelligence", "education", or any other method of classifying people and you do a fair job of summarizing the excuses for human conflict throughout history. Human beings have a nasty habit of doing the us-and-them thing. Hitchens is no different and his arguments are just as useless in depending on such nonsense. Let him demonstrate that a greater proportion of atheists are "good people" than is the case for people of faith, without resorting to "faith equals bad". If he cannot, then how can he claim that religion is a bad thing for the world? All Hitchens is accomplishing is to give credence to the assertion that the natural state of man is a propensity for evil and that it takes something external to ourselves to help us rise above that. Some folks find this external influence in devising and imposing upon themselves a detailed set of rules, or subjugating themselves to those devised by others. Some folks find this in religious principles and beliefs. Some in a combination of the two.

Hitchens is a fanatic. Every religious/political/national/racial group has them and atheists are no different. Fanatical atheists angrily protest atheism being categorized as just another belief system, a religion. If it looks like a duck, ... well, you know how the saying goes. Hitchens sounds exactly like an extremely intolerant duck to me.

I will say that Blair made a rather mediocre showing in making his case, but I give him full points for not coming off as an intolerant fanatic. Hitchens could learn a lot from that.

Jet
30 November 2010 at 07:26

Didn't Blair.. send his troupes into Iraq and murder allot of the week human beings he talks about. They were all Gods children or were they just fodder?

Iden
30 November 2010 at 10:55

@Thurston

How is Hitchens a fanatic? Please explain. He uses reason and humour to express a strong opinion. That is not the behaviour of a fanatic.

He is supposed to be making a case for why religion is a force for evil in the world, according to the rules of the debate. I think you believe that proposition to be fanatical and intolerant and you'd say the same of anyone who supported that claim.

Personally I find your assertion that the natural state of man is evil to be somewhat fanatical. I also think it shows an underlying intolerance towards anyone who doesn't follow whatever belief structure which you think raises you above that evil natural state.

Btw: atheism isn't a belief system, it is defined by the absence of a belief system...do you really think all atheists believe the same things? I disagree with Hitchens on a LOT of things. There's only one thing all atheists have in common: we don't believe in god/gods/supernatural-beings.

Springmount
30 November 2010 at 16:10

The problem with the debate is that both debaters have the wrong picture of God. I do not blame them because both Catholics and Protestants along with Islamists present God to be retributive, angry, and inhumane. (e.g. ideas of eternal hellfire are totally unbiblical) The only true evidence we have of God is what we find in Jesus Christ. He was God in the flesh and he corrected the false ideas of God that were held in ancient times. Of Christ at trial, Pilate said: "I find no fault in Him." Jesus showed no characteristics like Hitchens ignorantly attributes to God. He is right in pointing out how badly Christians and Moslems have behaved toward humanity, but that is because they misunderstand God. Blair did very poorly at speaking on behalf of God whom he claims to follow. If he is a Christian, he should have been able to talk freely of Christ who established "true" Christianity that, if practiced, would exceed the criteria that Hitchens claims for the atheists.

Paul Sayer
30 November 2010 at 17:40

AS noted by bob, and in Skiptonman's parlance, Blair scored a late equaliser ; 1-1.

dragon010
30 November 2010 at 18:25

The new atheists tell us that religion is the cause of many human ills and they are right in saying so.If it were possible to erase all memory of religion from the human mind and completely remove all of its books,buildings etc.would the human condition change for the better??.Would we see an end to child abuse,violence and murder associated with the drug trade.an end to wars over land, etc.I don't think so. The new atheists have to deny human evil and say it is just the result of nature and evolution. So the horrendous war crimes committed in the last century are the result of nature?.If I had lost most of my family in a dread full nazi concentration camp I don,t think I would agree with the new atheists.Such horror is the product of men cultivating evil in their minds,a far cry from nature in all of its innocence.Christopher Hitchins do,s not seem to see that many people find great hope and comfort in faith based teaching,s and answers that science alone cannot tell us.Many people blame the Christian Faith for wars as if Christ is some kind of warmonger.This is the man who said, blessed are the peacemakers,love your,e enemy,s, pray for those who oppose you,.The world really would be a better place if we began to take His words seriously.

Telurian
01 December 2010 at 21:52

Do we all believe in Love? The use of the word Love instead of the word God would make many arguments moot. Let's just stop using the word God and get on with understanding the true reason we are all here together - to learn to Love one another as we love ourselves. It is that simple and that complex.

Spencer J Follows
02 December 2010 at 19:53

Certainly Nathaniel, Blair states that; "And then realise that such an imagined vision of a world without religion is not in fact new. The 20th century was a century scarred by visions that had precisely that imagining in their vision, and at their heart, and gave us Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot. In this vision, obedience to the will of God was for the weak, it was the will of man that should dominate." - but feel free to quibble over semantics if that's what you enjoy.

As for Einstein, he is on the record very clearly; "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." - you clearly haven't understood that to be pantheistic is to use the word "God" as a euphemism for the controlling forces of nature that hold sway over the universe. In fact one could argue that if one is a pantheist they are necessarily an atheist.

All of this though is in response to your rather fatuous remarks rather than having any bearing on whether religion is a force for good, which was the subject of the debate.

Frederick
03 December 2010 at 04:49

For me, the main issue is faith vs. reason. Faith is the acceptance of a proposition without any evidence. You follow the commandments, for example as a dogma without understanding, ie without coming to a conclusion through a logical process. It comes from a desire to avoid the logical process or you may believe that man is incapable of understanding reality on his own. This then negates the logical process, you just believe. That to me is the reason that religion is a destructive force, it disconnects a person from reality, ultimately leaving him in a state of doubt, fear and uncertainty. You wind up relying on an outside authority rather than your own mind to direct your life. This to me is what makes religion a negative force in the world.

ArmaGidioon
04 December 2010 at 17:32

Blair lost this debate hands down. You really cannot justify the unjustifiable can you? He seemed to be saying, "at least give religion a chance..." Pathetic. Hitchens was fully engaged with the subject and simply stormed the debate.

Mark
07 December 2010 at 05:23

re dragon010.

Atheists do not "deny evil".

We all have evil in us, as, I hope some of us have "Good".

Do not say things which are "untrue".

The fact that I do not agree with you, does not give me the right to "think or presume" anything about you.

So, in the interests of good, I will not say anything.

As to who is right or wrong, is irrelevant.

Mike
08 December 2010 at 11:39

Hitchens has lost touch with reality, bragging about his (and Blair's) support for the disastrous Iraq war.

Ang
09 December 2010 at 11:06

Am I being overly suspicious that the Munk Organisation appears (at least, as of midday on 9th December) to have insisted that Christopher Hitchens' statement be taken offline "due to copyright" whereas Tony Blair's statement has not been so challenged, leaving only Blair's statement viewable above? Is not the practical effect of that to censor one side of the debate?

murmur55
05 January 2011 at 17:58

We must allow the malignant memeplexes of religion to die off in order to have any chance for peace in the world. Religion links back to a time of darkness, abuse and superstition. The time for a more naturalistic and humanistic world view is now.

Pi**sed off
10 January 2011 at 20:46

Religion is irrational and as a great man once said.

This would be the best of all possible Worlds if there were no religion in it.

It is a vile cult regardless of the name it goes under.

Murder, kill, maim, control, dominate, obey and reign through terror are words that are synonomous with religion.

That is NOT good however it is explained to the contrary.

Tybourne
16 January 2011 at 23:15

Blair increased his share of the vote by 10%, Hitchens by 11%. There was no clear winner. Both are fine debaters and both made good points. It is encouraging to see Hitchens becoming marginally more respectful and less fundamentalist in his rhetoric since the Papal visit to the U.K., where he failed to 'arrest' Pope Benedict.

Freeman
06 June 2011 at 19:00

bob writes, 'hitler was very much a catholic turned athiest...the athiests need to get over it.'

What, you mean he was 'very much' a Nazi because he was an atheist or because he was very much' brought up as a Catholic?

JJ 22 September 2011 at 00:10

I find it hard to understand how in this day and age people still believe in god.

I have tried to be open minded about religion and its many faiths. Reading everything and anything I could about religion but have found not one piece of evidence that Jesus existed, but a lot of evidence that Jesus didn't exist.

I also found this the same for Mohammed.

I think some people will always believe in some kind of god, because of their fear of their own mortality.