Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared

The host opens the evening's debate, expressing pleasure at the large attendance, which is three times larger than any previous Intelligent Square debate. He thanks the distinguished panel of speakers, moderator Joan Bakewell, and the Times newspaper for their sponsorship. The host also mentions upcoming events, including a free event on climate change and the next debate on the prison system. The Autumn season's debates are previewed, with tickets going on sale in late April. The host then introduces the motion for the debate: whether society would be better off without religion, and the speaker who will propose this motion, Christopher Hitchens.

Christopher Hitchens is introduced as the author, journalist, and critic who will propose the motion that society would be better off without religion. His ideological journey from left-wing to neoconservative is mentioned, along with his upcoming book 'God Is Not Great,' which is relevant to the debate's subject. Hitchens begins his speech by recalling an encounter with an Evangelical broadcaster, highlighting the absurdity of using a yes-or-no question to challenge atheism.

Hitchens discusses the role of religion in exacerbating conflicts and societal issues in various cities around the world, such as Belfast, Baghdad, Beirut, and Belgrade. He argues that religious faith has deepened divisions and led to violence and destruction. Hitchens emphasizes that religion is a human-made construct and criticizes its negative impact on society, suggesting that secularism could offer a more peaceful alternative.

The speaker elaborates on how religion has influenced societal structures and political systems, leading to discrimination and violence. He criticizes the intertwining of faith with citizenship and identity, as seen in countries with sectarian constitutions. The speaker condemns the destruction caused by religious extremism and argues that secularism is a more rational and humane approach to governance and social harmony.

The debate continues with a counter-argument that religion is not the sole cause of societal ills but an exacerbating factor. The speaker, Dr. Nigel Spivey, challenges the notion that religion is the root of all evil, suggesting that it is a part of human nature and has been present throughout history. He emphasizes the need to understand religion's role in the context of human culture and evolution.

Spivey discusses the archaeological and anthropological evidence of religion's deep roots in human history, dating back to the Upper Paleolithic period. He argues that the 'creative explosion' that led to art, music, and symbolic thinking also gave rise to religious practices. Spivey suggests that the desire for transcendence and the performance of rituals are integral to human expression and survival.

Rabbi Julia Neuberger emphasizes the social and cultural aspects of religion, rather than theological beliefs. She discusses how religion provides a framework for life's milestones and a sense of community. Neuberger argues that religion is not about certainty but about doubt, uncertainty, and the expression of moral and ethical values. She calls for unity among moderates, both religious and secular, to promote tolerance and respect for diverse beliefs.

Neuberger highlights the positive impact of religious sensibility on social reform, citing examples such as the abolition of slavery and the Make Poverty History campaign. She argues that religious motivation has led to significant advancements in healthcare, social justice, and humanitarian efforts. Neuberger contends that religion can inspire people to make the world a better place.

Professor Anthony Grayling presents a philosophical argument against religion, critiquing its inconsistencies with modern ethical values. He points out the disparity between religious teachings and the aspirations of parents for their children. Grayling suggests that secular humanism and rationalism can provide a more coherent and humane basis for morality and the good life.

Grayling contrasts the grandeur of the Parthenon, a symbol of human achievement, with the destructive aspects of religious faith. He argues that culture, not religion, is the source of human progress and that we can appreciate and cherish our cultural heritage without the superstitions and dogma associated with religious belief.

In the closing moments of the debate, the speakers summarize their positions. Hitchens emphasizes the potential for a more humane and rational society without religion, while the opponents argue that religion, despite its flaws, is an integral part of human nature and culture. The audience is encouraged to reflect on the contributions and make an informed decision on the motion.

The debate concludes with a vote on the motion that society would be better off without religion. The results show a majority in favor of the motion, with 1205 votes for and 778 against, indicating that the audience was persuaded by the arguments presented by the speakers.