Hitchens vs. D’Souza: The Clash of the Titans (pardon the cliche). October 24, 2007
Posted by azandi in The Daily Intrigue.trackback
This is the debate I alluded to last week. I will say, just as I had surmised Hitchens proved victorious. D’Souza had a lot of very silly, crowd-pleasing attempts at comical relief such as “like Henry VIII and his wives I won’t keep you long” and “like a mosquito in a nudist colony I don’t know where to begin” he’s used these silly quips at seemingly every debate and speaking engagement he’s ever been involved in, come up with some new material man. Or, better yet, be a real thinker and actually pose substantive arguments, Hitchens has pontificated 20-minute long profane sex jokes in the past, you didn’t see him compensating for a lack of true wit with really cheap and stupid appeals to fat-minded Christian chibi morons humor faculties, did you?
Then again, it was the fat-minded you were appealing to in this debate, was it not Dinesh? Easier and makes more money than being an actual intellectual, doesn’t it?
To his credit, in the many entanglements I’ve observed between my scholarly hero Hitchens and his various victims, D’Souza hs been one of the few to not have been utterly demolished. He put up a good fight, but to any objective, free-inquiring mind of veracity, I think its undeniable that his arguments dissolved to Hitchens’ piercing scrutinizations, and D’Souza came out looking like a theocratic apologist fool who happened to get lucky that the debate was hosted in a Christian college environment in which he was granted the final word advantage. As Richard Dawkins has correctly observe, only a decibel meter could adjudicate D’Souza as the winner of the debate.
In any case, here it is, quite an entertaining and thought-provoking spectacle, that cannot be argued.
Has Hitchens ever debated any seriously intellectual theists? If D’souza is the best then I’m not impressed. He needs to stop feeding on these moronic protestant pastors/intellectual wannabes and he needs to land a debate with A Ralph McInerny or an Alasdair McIntyre type if he is ever going to be remembered after he drinks himself to death one of these days. He’s a smart man (and filthy rich), just not impressive by any stretch of the imagination.
Well, “Christian theist” and “serious intellectual” seem to be patently polarizing, oxymoronic formulations.
In any case, Hitchens has gone up against Andrew Sullivan, Allister McGrath, Marvin Olasky, and Mark Roberts, to name a few of the more prominent ones. These aren’t creampuffs or bargain-bin philosophers, they’re at the upper echelon of the Christian theologian ranks.
The reason they all come out looking like fools is because they’re finally being called out on for espousing these fatuous propositions. That doesn’t testify to Hitchens rooting out the dumbest in the religious ranks, its a mark of his ability to find the BRIGHTEST and topple their puny arguments into the dust.
You obviously are not familiar with the upper echelon of Christian theologians. The thing is, I don’t want to see Hitchens debate any protestant theologians because protestant theologians tend to be ignorant of philosophy. Its not surprising that Hitchens runs all over these guys.
Also, this debate is unwinnable if Hitchens and his entourage of fanatics (including you) pre-suppose that his opponents are idiots (Don’t deny it). The good news for people like me is that in 20 years Hitchens will be long forgotten and you’ll find another fad to idolize.
Oh, and I’d rather be stupid and happy then angry and drunk.
Oh, this is precious. You whine about HItchens going up against light-weights, and demand that he face the “true defenders of Christianity”. Who might those be? He’s gone up against the biggest names in Christian propagandizing, who else can he face? You talk a lot but you’re not giving me any names, these sorts of things don’t do much to help your credibility kiddo.
One name I’ll grant you, I would like him to debate Charles Taylor, that should be interesting. But I suspect you have no idea who that is in any case.
Hitchens has been one of the most prolific journalists, writers, and intellectuals of the last several decades. His writings have been exalted by both the left and the right, which testifies to his magnitutde and endearing nature. He won’t be easily forgotten, even his critics will attest to that.
And I’m not angry nor drunk. I can’t speak for Mr. Hitchens drinking habits, but I would imagine a best-selling and greatly admired author such as him would be pretty satisifed with himself.
Well, kiddo, you just hurt your credibility when you said I didn’t give you any names. I mentioned two above in number 1: Alasdair McIntyre and Ralph McInerny both at the University of Notre Dame. Do you know who they are? Charles Taylor is one I left out, and yes, I have heard of him and I agree this would be fun to see (although I suspect that you wouldn’t be laughing when it was over). A lesser known is Peter Kreeft of Boston College. Those are the philosphers.
As for a “believing” scientist, how about Francis Collins who recently converted to Christianity and recently published a book called “The Language of God” (I’ve heard its great although I haven’t read it).
As for the cream of the crop theologians, if you have not heard of Avery Dulles, you don’t know who is who in theology and you wouldn’t be labeling any of the above as prominent. (he is actually a Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church and teaches at Fordham). However, Avery Dulles is very old and is probably not in prime form. Edward Oakes, a Jesuit Priest, is however and has a sharp wit and would not allow Hitchens to pull his usual tactics of avoiding questions and changing the subject. An Eastern Orthodox priest named David Bentley Hart would be similar to Oakes.
As for Hitchens, consider comparing him to other athiest philosophers who have stood the test of time. Nietzsche David Hume, AJ Ayer (my favorite, because of his run in with Mike Tyson), Bertrand Russel, Karl Marx. It is because of their thought that has made them famous. The only thing to make Hitchens famous is his outrageous personality and offensive style of debate (because he makes fun of his opponents). Once the next guy comes around who is more outrageous and more offensive, Hitchens will be forgotten and you will have a new guy to rally around. I doubt Hitchens will mind… he’s just in it for the money.
I’m glad you find whole thing precious. And for what its worth I was NOT talking about you as being drunk and angry. I was talking about Hitchens. I’ve never seen a picture of the guy smiling. Do a quick image search on google. I looked around today and couldn’t find anything close. Guy looks angry, but I admit, I don’t know. (although I don’t think being “greatly admired” is a litmus test for happiness… there are a lot of greatly admired people who have commited suicide over the years)
I’ll check back to see if you respond… but I’m out of stuff to say on this.
Peace
Oh, and I’ve been browsing your archives and came across your critique of the daily show, written almost a year ago to the day. SPOT ON! One of the best critiques I’ve seen. (actually, its one of the only ones I’ve seen… people just don’t seem to get that it sucks.)I can’t watch it any more.
And yes, at least South Park still kicks ass.
Couple of things.
I apologize when I made those insinuativeremarks about you, its just that its very rare for me to tangle with someone who actually knows something about theology. The usuals just quote Bible and Qur’anic verses, which I have no patience for.
That being said, let me clarify something. I’m not an atheist, just an anti-religious deist. Also, I don’t “worship” Christopher Hitchens. I’m a big fan, yes, but I have some pretty big disagreements with him; mainly his very liberal views on Vietnam and global warming.
Further, I do recognize some of the names on your list (McIntyre, Dulles, Collins. The rest I’ll openly admit I’m unfamiliar with, but then again, I’m a philosophy major, not a theology one. I reject your assertion that Hitchens is deliberately going up against creampuffs, his opponents have huge name-recognition and highly-advanced degrees. Just because he hasn’t been challenged by obscure theology professors doesn’t mean he’s shying away from fights. I’ll repeat that I think Hitchens is a truly formidable intellectual that could easily lock horns with anyone, especially some Christian science professors no one has ever heard of.
Anyway, lemme just cool the tension by saying I’m delighted by your review of my Daily Show critique. Most of my friends are actually liberal, so they love the show and hated my critique. Really its not that TDS is liberal, its that its not funny. At all.
This is best exemplified by the fact that the Colbert Report is actually pretty damn funny half the time, even though I don’t agree with the politics. Stewart is just washed-up, and he’s taking the Emmys Colbert should be winning.
Oh, and yes, South Park will always kick ass. The latest one about Guitar Hero was simply lucidly brilliant.
Hope we can have some more conversations.
Cheers.
Well, maybe I could add a couple of things.
“The usuals just quote Bible and Qur’anic verses, which I have no patience for.”
Yes, those who hold the reformation doctrine ’sola scriptura’ (the belief that scripture alone contains revelation) tend to make fools of themselves in discussions like this. I don’t blame you for having no patience. I’m just tired of looking stupid by being associated with these people.
As for the names you don’t recognize, don’t worry about it. I don’t expect you to and I don’t think you’re stupid for not knowing them (you’re writing proves to me that you are intelligent… I wish I could write that well). The thing is, most theologians write for other theologians, not for a general audience. Thus most of them never become ‘famous’ and if they do become famous, it is after they die.
Also, I should admit that I’m not trained in philosophy and there are a whole host of names you could drop on me that I should know that I don’t.
Other than that, consider the ‘tension’ to be over. We’ll have to disagree on certain aspects of Hitchens for now I guess. But at least we can agree on the things that truly matter: South Park is better than TDS and Colbert deserves an emmy.
Absolutely, deist and Christian, united hand in hand against the forces of political satire mediocrity!
Keep it prog man. Greatly appreciate the compliments, check back on my site if you feel inclined.
“He put up a good fight, but to any objective, free-inquiring mind of veracity, I think its undeniable that his arguments dissolved to Hitchens’ piercing scrutinizations”
?? Examples? Were you watching the same debate as me?
You are correct sir, if we draw who the victor is based upon who delivered the most crowd-pleasing remarks, who spoke the most and was able to respond to the most amount of points, and who got in the most “witty” one-liners, yeah, D’Souza won.
However, I’ll stick by my point, if we simply observe by comparative analysis the arguments put forth by both debaters, I thought HItchens definitely held the higher ground. I’m not even an atheist and I came to the conclusion that Dinesh was making some rather silly utterances.
Keep in mind that this event was being conducted at an incredibly traditionalist Christian college which already defaulted towards D’Souza. Also I’ll admit, Hitchens seemed to be going a bit….soft-ball against D’Souza, he wasn’t brutally shredding him to pieces like he usually does to opponents, take a look at his debates against McGrath and Olasky, both highly formidable opponents in their own respects. Maybe he had a cold? I have no idea, but he is rematching against D’Souza in July at FreedomFest, so I have high hopes that D’Souza will get some deserved serious punishment.