Thoughts On Hitchens vs Hitchens

I just read more of the Hitchens vs Hitchens debate. Not a transcript but more clips and summary. Sounded good.

The section in the debate about God was most interesting to me. They took "God" to be the one of Christianity, and most of the arguments were on christianity rather than religion in general, but as Peter is a Christian and most of Christopher's background (abandoned) is Christian, this makes sense.

Christopher's best point was about the slavery/submission aspect of Christianity and how this is used, how injustice is promoted in "the name of God." I agree with him. But then I also agree with Peter, whose best point, I thought, is that the existence of "something" indicates a creator. Things have a beginning, and while I can understand mutations and dynamics of aspects of evolution, I do not believe the intellect and our spirits, or conscience, are some kind of cosmic accident. It takes more faith to believe in something coming from nothing. Of course, then, where did God or the creator come from? That's where I have to say, our knowledge is limited and may always be limited, but the smart thing is to admit humans make mistakes and are constantly growing. We're building on our foundation of knowledge all the time.

What has been twisted, in religion, is interpretation, and people in power have used it to control the masses, and society in general, and prevent a revolt from the status quo. I don't think that's what christianity is about, personally, but different people take things out of context to suit their own political and personal agendas. And, I do believe certain texts, at least in christianity, may have been omitted or added, and even destroyed, to serve the interests of a party. I know too much from personal experience to believe "the truth" has been preserved honestly, and accurately, but I also think it isn't lost forever.

I wouldn't be surprised to find one of these brothers agreeing in the end, later in life. It's not a bad thing to appreciate them for their differences now, and gives a lot of food for thought. What is impressive is not only their schooling, but the fact that both of these men came from a foundation that usually has more to do with development than education--their mother, father, and family environment had, probably, the most to do with their ability to hold firm convictions. They are different, but there is a commonality too, of freedom and the desire for justice. Neither one is a moral coward.