Religion versus reason. Faith as a means of peace versus faith as a means of destruction. These are the dichotomies that have been drawn for the Munk Debate on Religion between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens. Two men who have such complex personalities resist easy categorization. Tony Blair, on the pro-religion side of the debate, only recently converted to Catholicism after leaving the UK premiership in 2007. His father is a militant atheist. Hitchens, on the con side of the debate, is the author of the anti-religious polemic God is not Great yet he observes Passover and his brother Peter has written extensively about his own transition from atheism to faith.
Outside Roy Thompson Hall, freezing in my brown cotton blazer, I watch as a large crowd is excitedly gathering to pick up their tickets for the evening’s event. The one thing distracting me from the cold is a small coterie of protestors who have a large banner unfurled saying: “Bliar!” and yelling “Bliar! Bliar! Pants on fire!”
After getting through extensive security, we’re finally let in to the auditorium. There are three video screens that hang above the stage, and the right and left screens flash the night’s debate question — “Be it resolved religion is a force for good in the world” — followed by different quotes from Blair and Hitchens praising or condemning religion. Blair: “Faith can be a civilizing force in globalization.” Hitchens: “Everything about Christianity is contained in the pathetic image of ‘the flock.’”
At 7:15 p.m., the lights dim and Peter Munk walks onto the stage to begin what I’ve determined to be the philosophical equivalent of a rock concert.
“There seems to be a degree of excitement,” says Peter Munk, “and the excitement seems to be also noticeable beyond the hall, and beyond the city. I heard rumours — I hope they’re false — that people pay stupid, crazy prices for tickets. I wouldn’t want to quote them, because I may be charged by the S.E.C. for insider trading, so I’m not going to quote them [audience laughter]. But it just indicates that the level of excitement is growing.”
Munk hands over the debate to the evening’s moderator, Rudyard Griffiths, one of the main organizers behind the Munk debates.
Griffiths explains the format of the debate, which will consist of a seven minute opening statement given by each debater, two formal rebuttals, and then questions from audience members through audience cards, online discussion, and some from those on stage. With the rules outlined, Tony Blair and Christoper Hitchens make their appearance. Blair looks as parliamentary as ever, as if he were about to deliver a speech to the House of Commons. Hitchens, though clearly ravaged by his esophageal cancer, has a defiant resiliency in his expression. Hitchens delivers the opening statement.
“I have a text.… It is from Cardinal Newman — recently, by Mr. Blair’s urging, beatified and on his way to canonization. His apologia made many Anglicans reconsider their fealty and made many people join the Roman Catholic Church. He is considered, quite rightly, a great Christian thinker. My text, from the apologia: ‘The Catholic Church,’ said Newman ‘believes it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for the many millions on it to die in extremest agony then that one soul, I shall not say be lost, not commit one venial sin, tell one wilful untruth or steal one farthing without excuse.’ […] What we face here, taken from no mean source, is a distillation of all that is troubled and immoral in the faith mentality. […] Its essential fanaticism, its characterization of the human being as raw material, and its fantasy of purity,” Hitchens tells the audience.
According to Hitchens, religion presupposes that we are “created sick and ordered to be well” and furthermore: “[Standing] over us to supervise all of this is installed a celestial dictatorship — a kind of divine North Korea.” This comment elicits a hearty laugh from the audience. Hitchens asks: “Is it good for the world to appeal to our credulity and not to our skepticism? Is it good for the world to worship a deity that takes sides in wars and human affairs?”
Tony Blair attempts to extinguish Hitchens’ assault by admitting to some of religion’s mistakes in the past, but emphasizing all of the good that has come from those inspired by their faith.
“It is undoubtedly true that there have been people [committing] horrific acts of evil in the name of religion. It is also undoubtedly true that people do acts of extraordinary common good inspired by religion. About half of healthcare in Africa is delivered by faith-based organizations, saving millions of lives. […] There is the fantastic work of Muslim and Jewish organizations. There are, in Canada, thousands of religious organizations for the mentally ill or disabled or disadvantaged or destitute.” Blair emphasized that despite the “perversion of faith” wrought by some, religion “creates a deep well of compassion,” and the common ground of all faiths is that “serving and loving God is best expressed by serving and loving our fellow human beings.”
These are the two main positions Blair and Hitchens argue throughout the evening. Blair maintains that some people have committed evil in the name of religion, but this has been completely outweighed by its goods. Hitchens continually denounces religion as fostering a mentality that makes “good people do unkind things.”
Hitchens is unconvinced that charity is enough to make religion out to be good, arguing that secular organizations do much more good work. He contends that the work of UNICEF to eliminate polio in the Third World would have succeeded if not for religious groups telling children that taking the vaccine was against God’s design. Hitchens also disputes religion’s monopoly on the Golden Rule:
“The injunction not to do to others what you find repulsive unto yourself is found in the Analects of Confucius. […] That’s found in the heart of every person in this room, everybody knows that much. We don’t need divine permission to know right from wrong.”
Blair attempts to strike a more conciliatory tone on behalf of religion.
“First of all, I don’t think we should think that because you can point to examples of prejudice in the name of religion that bigotry and prejudice are wholly owned subsidiaries of religion. There are plenty of examples of prejudice […] that come from outside the world of religion.” Blair later adds: “I am claiming one very simple thing: if we can’t drive religion out of the world — it’s influence is growing and not diminishing — let’s at least see how we can use religion as a force for good.”
Hitchens disputes this narrative of religion as being anything that is capable of good by arguing that if this were true he and Blair and others would not struggle so long on the behalf of political and social endeavours to make the world a better place.
“We could rely on people being innately good, which we know we can’t rely upon, and I never suggested that we could,” Hitchens says.
The analytical side of my brain is piqued. Let’s discuss what they’ve both said so far.
On the one hand, Hitchens has stated that we don’t need divine permission to know what good action is, but he has also stated that we can’t rely on people to be innately good. So then what standard do we rely on? We never find out. Blair, on the other hand, has argued that we shouldn’t blame religion solely for the world’s problems. So then, what is it about human nature that causes some people, in the name of religious and political systems, to do bad acts? This question is also never answered.
During the latter portion of the debate, the elephant in the room is the support both Blair and Hitchens gave to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Blair is asked about the invasion and its relation to his statement: “What faith can do is not tell you what is right, but give you the strength to do it.” Blair contends that the invasion of Iraq was a matter of policy and not of faith.
“As I used to say to people, you don’t go into church and look heavenward and say to God: ‘Right, next year the minimum wage — is it £6.50 or £7?’ […] The major decisions that are to do with war and peace that I’ve taken, they were decisions based on policy,” he says.
Hitchens is asked whether he believes that George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq had anything to do with faith. He disputes this and then criticizes religious organizations for opposing the Iraq War: “It’s those who would have kept a cannibal and a Caligula and a professional sadist in power who have the explaining to do.”
One of the most interesting parts of the debate comes when instead of making a closing statement, Blair and Hitchens decide to take one last question: ‘Which of your opponent’s arguments do you find most convincing?’ Blair answers first.
“I think that the most convincing argument is — and the argument that people of faith have got to deal with is actually the argument Christopher has just made — which is that the bad that is done in the name of religion is intrinsically grounded in the scripture of religion. That is the single most difficult argument.” Blair concludes that we should look at the essence of faith and use that as key to understanding religion.
Hitchens says: “The remark Tony made that I most agreed with this evening, I’ll just hope that doesn’t sound too minimal, was when he said that if religion was to disappear, things would by no means, as it were, automatically be okay.” Hitchens feels that there is a sense of transcendence that we can obtain by other means such as art and architecture that are unlike “superstition and the supernatural, which are designed to make us fearful and afraid and servile.”
We have come to the end. The two philosophical warriors receive a standing ovation from the audience. Overall, I found the debate to be both intriguing and enlightening but I still can’t help wondering if it missed an opportunity to explore a fundamental question: what really makes humans good or bad in the first place?
