Berlinski and Hitchens: amazing debate

The late Christopher Hitchens is everywhere on YouTube, ferociously debating those who espouse religions of all types, and in my previous post I said that I avoided watching. This is true, but more because of the sterility of argument rather than a criticism of Hitchens. My having covered in depth the Oxford Union God Debate, it seemed to me that it always seemed to culminate in a Monty Python argument, with each side automatically gainsaying the other. And again this is not necessarily a reflection on the antagonists, but on the matter in hand. There is no proof, only faith. Therefore these debates are merely confrontations between the fundamentalist followers of two beliefs. Atheists might deny theirs is a belief, asserting that it is an absence of belief, but this is wrong. They believe fundamentally that there is no God.

I have little patience with fundamentalism of any sort. Peter Ustinov observed that “Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.” It is in the exploration of doubt that I believe the search for truth lies. For that reason, I am afraid my knee-jerk instinct when meeting someone’s conviction is to challenge it.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.  W.B.Yeats

Having long given up wasting time watching these debates, I came across David Berlinski being interviewed on Uncommon Knowledge. As a professor of mathematics seeking after truth, he likewise was challenging universally-held convictions wherever he found them. From Darwinism to global warming, he was delightfully dismissive of the paucity of scientific rigour applied; and what I found particularly appealing was that his standpoint was never that of one harbouring opposing beliefs but one with the humility to admit that he did not know the truth but was uneasy with the reasoning of those who claimed they did.

You may imagine therefore the excitement with which I came across this debate.

Hitchens was a very powerful debater, extraordinarily well-read with the instinctive elegance of phrasing thereby osmotically caused, articulate to a fault, more coherent than most, and apparently rock-solid in his atheistic conviction. Berlinski is every bit as well-read with the instinctive elegance of phrasing thereby osmotically caused, articulate to a fault, and more coherent than most. I have seen less evidence of his having done much debating, but his most potent weapon is his doubt: he offers no conviction for Hitchens to attack. Let battle commence…

Almost immediately Berlinski reveals his strength. With the proposition’s being Atheism Poisons Everything, there is no need for Berlinski to defend religion. We all know that huge amounts of evil have been done in the name of religion, but that fact leaves not a scratch on the proposition.

Hard on those heels he brings a smile to my face with an offering from Dr Johnson. The quotation can be paraphrased as, “the science is settled: the debate is over”.  Look back to my third paragraph to see how puckish this is.

Set-piece routines are paradoxically the bits of speeches that most often seem to fail. Berlinski’s button schtick at the end of his opening speech was doing fine till the final bit direct to Hitchens which was lame. Significantly that last was omitted from the transcript of this debate to be found here.

Hitchens knows full well that Berlinski has shown that attacking religion is pointless against this proposition, but what else is he to do? Without that, he is left with trying to prove a negative – a notoriously impossible task. He duly attacks religion and the evils done in its name; he rehashes arguments as to the impossibility of a God; he goes down all the familiar routes; but he is not addressing the unaddressable proposition.

Why did Hitchens agree to this debate without insisting on editing the wording of the proposition? Was his proselytising zeal so great that he could not resist the challenge?  The answer may possibly be found in his closing argument which is very good indeed and goes quite a long way to solving the insoluble problem in the previous paragraph.

Among other arguments he asserts at around 43:45 that the ‘little faction” of atheists with whom he is identified “is adamant for doubt”. Names that he has bandied elsewhere, and therefore presumably also belonging to this little faction, include people like Dawkins and Dennett. He maintains that they all explore uncertainty. In short he is seeking to exculpate them from fundamentalism. It’s a nice try, and it can be seen to be the only argument open to him, but I think he is misguided. People who plaster buses with posters containing puerile atheistic slogans are beyond doubt.

It’s time for me to shut up, and for you to enjoy the debate. I commend it.

Vivienne Westwood: oh dear!

When some weeks ago I posted a critique of a speech by Stephen Emmott I quoted someone as having declared him to be the worst public speaker in the world. I was nevertheless careful – though I wasn’t desperately kind about his speaking ability – to avoid adding my voice to that claim.  Here is the reason. I’ve been sitting on this for more than a year, not knowing whether I dared expose it to the light of day.

We have previously looked at speeches made at an EU innovation convention in Brussels in 2011. One was from Michael O’Leary, another from Richard Dawkins. At that same convention was this offering from Vivienne Westwood.

It is tempting, rather than being constructive, merely to award points for every minute anyone can stand to watch this. I win!  Being built of stern stuff I’ve watched it all, several times. Perhaps its most significant moment comes at 4:30, when she says “where am I?”.

The fashion business is tough. Vivienne Westwood made it to the top of the industry forty years ago, and has stayed there. Westwood is tough. She displays remarkable chutzpah, wandering out onto that stage and embarking on this stream of aimlessly meandering consciousness.

Readers of this blog will have gathered that I favour ‘shooting from the hip’, speaking without script or notes, but the practice does require some underpinning. I teach trainees about structures, how to create them and how to use them, so that shooting from the hip becomes at least as secure as reading from a script and a hell of a lot more interesting for the audience. The only thing that Westwood essentially lacks is that knowledge and skill. When I train people, I also have to work on their confidence. Westwood already has all the confidence she needs.

She could use some help on what to do with her hands.

Let us not be too hard on her message. In promoting her views on global warming she enthusiastically cites James Lovelock, rating him alongside Einstein. Remember that this speech – in 2011 – was made before Lovelock retracted a great deal of what he had previously been preaching. It was before the UK Met Office admitted that there had been no global warming in more than fifteen years. She was being one of the helpful innocents that supported the scare. A lot of people were taken in at the time. Also, making the speech as badly as this, her helpfulness to that baseless cause was somewhat limited.

That brings me back to my main theme. She sorely needs help, which actually would not be at all difficult to provide. She could very easily be taught to speak better than most of those who have been featured on this blog. Her main ally is her chutzpah!