Hitchens and Blair debate--an analysis of Blair's position

The debate is still on youtube for now. I've linked to it at the bottom of the post.

The theme was on the merits of religion. Hitchens, of course, argued that religion causes more harm than good, while Blair defended religion, or rather, "faith" as being worthwhile in spite of the harm it causes, and in spite of the admitted fact that humanists do just as much good. 

In defending the Catholic church, Blair talks about the them forgiving African debt which allowed girls to receive an education. This is a terrible choice of examples because the education of girls is not a tenet of the church. If they allowed for girls' education that was in spite of their beliefs, not because of them.

What Blair doesn't seem to get is that religion is rife with institutional bigotry. When scripture says things like, "I forbid a woman to speak," that's not some bad apple reading it out of context. He thinks the bigots and misogonysts are the ones perverting religion--but to those people, Blair is the one perverting it.

Blair contradicts himself by saying that religious people are not motivated by promise of reward or threat of punishment in the afterlife, but they are motivated by their faith. Well you can't have it both ways. The only difference between faith and humanism when it comes to charity is the idea that a sky fairy is watching and keeping tabs.

He admits that some religious people would be charitable even without their faith. Charity is learned, by the religious and secular both. If a person is generous, that is because they have had generosity modeled for them at some point and have taken that lesson to heart. The supernatural aspect is incidental, and in fact, is more likely to impede charity  because of institutional bigotry and authoritarianism.

Blair says that in some cases, people of different religions have "reached across the faith divide" to make peace. Hitchens points out the problem in that statement. The very phrase becomes a condemnation of that which Blair seeks to praise. It is faith--religious faith, that is--that divides. It is humans who sometimes manage to be peaceable in spite of the division caused by religion.

Blair points out that after the death of Mohammad, Islam was at the forefront of science and women's rights. So was Christianity in the first century. But the humanist message of reason and respect for marginalized people becomes overshadowed by authoritarian traditions and rules, causing religions like Islam and Christianity to remain mired in the past. What was once progressive is now woefully arrested and it is the belief in an unchanging, supernatural authority that is to blame for that. Ditch the skyfairy, and people can continue to adapt and evolve, improving on existing systems and allowing compassion to hold sway.

Blair thinks that most people want people of faith to be able to "speak in the public sphere, but not dictate." This weird claim completely overlooks the many religious (of various faiths and locales) who very much want to dictate what others do, both in and out of government.

This debate did not remotely touch on the kind of religiosity that prevents gays from marrying, or science from using stem cells. The pro-religion side of the debate was inclined to ignore their existence (or at least, disavow them as genuine religion). If Blair is to be believed, the minority of liberal faithful are the only group to be considered when discussing the merits of religion.

Blair wants the religious to pick and choose when it comes to scripture. "What is the essence of that faith?" he asks. "What is the essence of scripture?" He is asking people to change their views, soften their beliefs, ignore dogma if it contradicts human compassion. How is that different than what humanists are asking people to do? We wouldn't care if people believed in sky fairies, Santa Claus, or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles if they would abandon the harmful practice of forcing their dogma upon others and claiming an unwarranted monopoly on universal truths.

When asked about the Pope's new ruling on condoms (they're allowed, but only to prevent AIDS), Blair totally dodges the question by professing to be just a lay Catholic, then changes the subject. How can he expect people to examine their faith, to change it for the better, distill it to its "essence," when he is unwilling to question, let alone challenge, the authority of the church to create and enforce doctrine?

Blair was good enough to agree that secularists can moral just as religious people can. In the end, Blair and Hitchens were almost entirely in agreement.

• Humanism is good.
• Religion contains elements of humanism.
• Religion can incite people to be bad.
• People can be bad with no religion.

As debates go, there was not much disputed. The one place Blair was unwilling to go with Hitchens is that it's worth encouraging humanism for those religious who may be willing to make the switch.

Hitchens and Blair agree that we won't flat out rid the world of religion. So what is the benefit of touting humanism? The more people turn to humanism, the more religion's credibility will be reduced. As people take it less and less seriously as a whole, it will have less influence oer policy.

As humanism gains acceptance, it will be able to dictate policy. That is in everyone's interest, both religious and secular (unless you're aiming for a theocracy). We can reduce or be rid of policies based on superstitious bigotry and fear.

I think a lot of people left this debate realizing that the differences between the kind of faith that Blair espouces (as opposed to what most religions actually teach and practice) is so minimally different from humansim, that they will be more supportive of, and cooperative with humanism. Hitchens handled it eloquently, and Blair politely floundered in his increasingly weakening position. Conversations like this, while doing nothing to enlighten fundamentalists, are good for raising the consciousness of those who are open to it. I think that's entirely worthwhile.