The Subtle Knife: Peter Hitchens on His Faith, His Brother, and Our Cultural Trajectory
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 02. 2023
- If you enjoyed this interview and would like to help keep our project on the road, please consider donating at www.newhumanum.org/donations
We rely exclusively on your generosity to keep our show on the road, so please do help out if you feel able! God bless.
www.newhumanum.org/donations
I love the quote, "Society needs pessimists; it probably needs optimists too, but I can't for the life of me think why?" 🙂
Peter knows precisely why... He is just playing a role - and just will not admit it! I do not mean he isn't genuine - but he's exaggerating! (One wouldn't have him any other way!) ... I am so glad - as we do need our Eeyores, like him! How would we fare in a world full of Eeyores though? It would be almost as abysmal as a world full of Tiggers... One needs the full cast - and thanks God for His and our full menagerie.
🙂
Peter Hitchens is the intellectual version of Puddleglum. But he's dead on.
That's one of those superb jokes that almost no one in a room will pick up on, let alone applaud.
Matthew Stokes……he’s not playing a role. What you see is what you get. He’s genuine. I followed him for years.
Aitken has a lovely voice: plummy, deep, rich. I think he would make an excellent audiobook narrator.
When Peter says “I realized the jig is up”, his tone and reflection sounded just like Christopher, when Christopher would utter the same phrase.
Like so many of us I wish Chris was still here to carry on the brothers debate. Two of my favorite people in my life.
Happy New Year all.
"We live in an afterglow --- the period after sunset when you've still got a lot of light"
yikes, beautiful and brutal metaphor
I love listening to Peter Hitchens and I've read a number of his books - but oh! I do so wish he would not mumble.
I don't mumble. Have you considered the exciting hearing services now offered by Specsavers?
I wouldn't say Peter mumbles but has a somewhat dryness to it which can come of monotone but I relish that.
Ha ha, you got a response from yer man himself. Think I know what you mean, however, and don't consider it mumbling. It's hesitation, continuous hesitation and self-correction, because yer man's always looking for the right word/expression, because not being an ideologue (with pat answers for every subject), he makes up his answers on the spot.
@@castelodeossos3947 Hesitation and self-correction is the hallmark of a thinking person a.k.a intellectual. No, his sentences are often mumbled toward the end, unless, of course, I am becoming hard of hearing, which could be the case.
@@peterhitchens4240 I have actually 🙂Also, my headphones only run on one speaker. My last excuse: I am a German.🤣
We don´t have a lot of journalists like Peter Hitchens in the west anymore. And that´s a shame!
Mr Hitchens is an extraordinary intelligent and wise man whom I can't stop listening to. He really makes sense of the world in a way few others can.
Thank God for Peter Hitchens... And Eeyore.
The intelligence of Owl, the charisma of Eeyore, and the wild lust for honey of Pooh
Haha!!!😂 Excellent!!!😂
When i was 18 i simply could not get enough Christopher Hitchens. I had simply filed away Peter as Christophers mad, rather diminutive older brother, and paid almost no attention.
Now, a decade later, through drips and drabs i have found myself much further into Peter’s camp than in his late brother’s.
What a remarkable pair of brothers. Both near equal in their oratory skill but with wildly different worldviews.
Its almost unfair Christopher is still not hear to offer repost to Peter’s positions which only seem to grow more sound with time
Christopher had way more charisma but in no way does Peter stand in his shadow. It's a great sadness that Christopher left this earth so young. I wonder what he would make of 2023.
Peter is the younger brother of Christopher.
Indeed. I've had a similar trajectory and I often wonder what I'd make of Hitch now if he was alive and speaking on current issues. I'm fairly certain he'd still be an Atheist, but I'm more certain he'd find what became of the Atheist movement rather troublesome and embarrassing.
@djfoord Embarrassed is not what Hitchens would feel. If anything he'd take great pride in where it is today and probably grow more galvanized. He'd rage against Trumpism and denounce what the Zionists are doing in Israel. He was always more than just an atheist.
As a fellow ex-Trot trying to find my way to faith and praying for forgiveness from God, I loved this interview.
What convinced you that the God of Israel is the correct one?
@@joshkardos1673 Faith and trust
Free Palestine.
@@joshkardos1673 What convinces you he is not?
@@joshkardos1673 Grace and forgiveness flows from Jesus Christ who made a way for man to draw close to God in the sweetness of his love
I appreciate this sort of quite, sensible, honest conversation.
I notice that Peter Hitchens has a tendency to appear to finish a point, but as soon as the interviewer begins to ask another question, Hitchens then interrupts him with an afterthought. This may or may not be a deliberate technique but it certainly establishes the pecking order in the interview, leaving the interviewer wondering whether to ask the next question as planned or to focus on what was said in the afterthought.
He does it all the time. I've often wondered if it's deliberate. Seems rude to jump back in when someone is asking the questions politely.
This is not an interview 'technique' - it was much more evident with his brother, Christopher - an answer is rarely 'finished'; an intelligent response keeps developing. The weakness with this interviewer was that he rarely picked up on, continued, and developed, Peter's answers.
@@michaelpatterson5811 I felt like he did follow up on a lot of the afterthoughts.
Not as disliked as he thinks. Most people with an ability to think and rationalise like and respect Peter. Nothing beats watching Peter rip into the woke media.
Thank you, Mssrs Aitken and Hitchens, for this fascinating and very entertaining interview. I came through a similar process up to my teens and because a Christian after being expressly an atheist (as my father was). Having read your columns for many years, Mr Hitchens, it was good to hear from you live here. Also I had never put you and your brother Christopher together. I so agree with so much you say! Yes I think the desire of justice is very deep and yes we long for it (I certainly do) but we will never see it in this life. Yes atheism is a choice and how clearly you explain that we live in a post-Christian society now in the UK. I find myself on the same page here (for what it is worth) with just about everything you say and the experiences of nice people (siblings in my case, sadly) becoming very nasty when circumstances change. Thank you.
I like Peter Hitchens, but he does remind me of one of these ex-smokers who later in life take great delight in telling people how bad smoking is for you.
He, however, takes great delight in telling people how utterly abominable the "left" is, yet he was quite happy telling people the opposite back in the day when he was a Marxist.
That being said, I do like listening to what he has to say on issues.
Thank you , great interview.
Thank you. A well-conducted and interesting interview.
Peter Hitchens Is A Man Who Speaks Good Sense Amidst A Whole Heap Of Drivel.
Tragic That King Charles Is So Approving And United With Klaus Schwab And His Obvious Agenda.
The interviewer is so likable and charming.
I thought that. A very calm and measured English gentleman.
"At least you have a target rich environment" .. and even Peter laughed.
Ooh. Those final two words of Mr Hitchens!
Subtle knife!
Indeed.
Very interesting.
Thank you.
He even disagrees with being called a contrarian!
Why wouldn't he ? A contrarian is someone who holds a contrary opinion merely for the sake of it.
Peter holds is opinions based on research, facts and because he truly believes them. The complete opposite of a contrarian
@@kil93
To call someone a contrarian is just about the most mean-minded thing one can call anyone, for it not only means one can read their mind, but also means one knows (as other less exalted beings don't) that they speak not out of conviction but out of mischief. And the so-called contrarian can never refute it, for whatever he says will be dismissed for the same reason. And it is, of course, merely an ad hominem argument, which means one has, in fact, merely revealed one's own inadequacy in arguing.
AJ proving our decline and ignorance
😅
@@tobetrayafriend some finally gets it ;)
Wonderful. Thanks for this.
Reminiscent of those late stage Malcolm Muggeridge interviews.
I really enjoyed listening. Thank you.
Wonderful.
Having met my share of modern day prophets and gurus, cut from the same cloth as the prophets of old, I find it impossible to believe in religion as anything more than a cultural construct - it has merit in that domain and that domain alone. It is not an insight into anything higher, as those whose testimony it is based upon are deeply unreliable.
Never forget the power of God,God can change the minds of man🇮🇪🕊✝️🙏☘️
A fascinating conversation, gentlemen - thank you.
What a wonderful video
Excellent interview! Very well done.
Very interesing interview, many thanks. It is a brave interviewer who tries to put words into Peter's mouth or tries to sumarise what they think he is saying though. One day I hope that Peter will respond by saying "well you have summarised me using all the right words, but not necessarily in the right order".
"This little turd..."I never thought I'd hear those words coming out of Peter Hitchens' mouth.
I thought I mis-heard.
:-)
I could
And do
Assume
The turd is all yours
Considering you came through onto my page
The page of the dim wit of their century
Never me ever but you
Whoever you are under a false sudenom
I suppose a Mr p could not have answered you any better
thanks!
Excellent interview with the great Peter Hitchens 🎉
Wonderful interview, lovely setting.
Biblical morality is for humanity not just for believers in God. One can be saddened by the destruction of that morality in any era.
"Think I missed the point of wat was going on. But then, I often do that." Can relate 💯✔️
It would be helpful if you would put the time stamp down in your comment, otherwise you're just quoting something randomly.
If I chose to believe in God I would be fooling myself as there is no evidence for it and there are so very many indications that the idea is a human invention. I do not choose to be an atheist. I just see no reason to change my position, having spent many years reading and thinking about this, and open as I am to changing my mind (about this or anything else) should I find any reason to. Love the interview.
“Fooling myself”
Interesting point because I feel exactly the same way if I ever tried to become an atheist, that is I would clearly be fooling myself if tried to become a fatalist and epistemological nihilist as it is clearly ultimately purposeless, and meaningless word games!!
“language would automatically become religious”
“We actually have a domain of deep language. When we fall into the domain of the deep language we are in the domain of the sacred”
“We have this notion of literary depth. Some stories are shallow, some stories are deep, and everyone feels that!! And everyone pretty much accepts that. The same with music. The same with beauty. Any art form there’s shallow aspects and there’s deep aspects!! And deep aspects move you and they move you deeply so they have emotional resonance!! And they call to you as well! They call you to a better version of your self”
The fact is that Jesus of Nazareth the power of language, without money, weapons, armies or political power, conquered more millions than Alexander the Great, Caesar, Mohammed, and Napoleon; without modern biology, chemistry, physics or cosmology, Jesus Christ using deeply beautiful language called to more people, shed more light on things more human, more poignant, more divine and more beautiful than all philosophers and scholars combined!! Jesus Christ using the art of language produced effects which lie beyond the reach of orator or poet; he called to more people and set more pens in motion, and furnished themes for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned volumes, works of art, and songs of praise than the whole army of great men of ancient and modern times!! This is an historical fact!!
All the best to you.
@George Doyle: Conflating atheism with fatalism or epistemological nihilism is just about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
@@georgedoyle2487 A man reportedly saying some things which became extremely popular isn't evidence for the existence of God, or even for the truth of his own statements. If it were, all the claims of the major religions would be simultaneously true, but that obviously is impossible.
I’m reborn Christian and I see no controversy in being interested in science and logical thinking. What comes to proving the existence of God, it is easy while using the abductive method.
When the evolution theory (which, as an atheist religion, must rest on abiogenesis) and creation are set against each other, we can successfully use the abductive method called Occam’s razor. Occam’s razor is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements. The most simple explanation is most probably the best explanation. For example, if in the forest there is a burn-out tree, it can be the consequence of a landing flying saucer or perhaps a lightning. According to Occam’s razor, lightning is the better explanation because it requires less assumptions.
Using this method, existence of the Intelligent Designer is easy to prove against the abiogenesis. Abiogenesis means independent emergence of life from lifeless matter. It has been tried to prove empirically since 1953, always in vain. The impossibility of abiogenesis is known to anyone who has dug in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics i.e. the Law of Entropy. Because abiogenesis as a theory breaks the laws of physics, Occam’s razor cuts off abiogenesis as a possible reason for the birth of life - but it does not cut off the possibility of Intelligent Design.
This is how we argue logically. We use the so called abductive argumentation which means a logic based on the best explanation available. That is a kind of “reductio ad absurdium” -argumentation where a counter argument is shown poorly justified and thus implausible.
It's funny how atheists always prefer even the logically lousiest option as long as it is materialistic. One must understand that atheism is a religion which is based on the conviction that God must not be. This means that whatever scientific evidence is presented for God's existence, it doesn't change the basic atheist worldview. "Life can only come from life and intelligence can only come from intelligence" are compelling, proved and logical facts. It doesn't mean they'd have any effect on the atheistic mindset.
@@jounisuninen: Oh dear, what a load of complete and utter drivel.
Positing the existence of a supernatural entity (and invoking a view that boils down to a god of the gaps) with attributes such as omnibenevolence for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence and trying to pass this off as logically sound or an example of Occam's razor is just about the worst argument you could possibly have made. There is zero evidence for an intelligent designer in the universe - particularly when it comes to the question of the variety of living creatures of earth as a result of evolution by natural selection. To give just one example, the human body, if created by this bizarre deity you are so keen to impress upon us, is incredibly poorly designed. There are a whole host of things that no engineer would ever include as part of the system if they were to build a person from scratch. Applying the same kind of thinking to abiogenesis is equally nonsensical. In order for your view to be true, you would have to believe in miracles and, as I've already mentioned, the supernatural. This is of course wholly irrational and not concomitant with our best means of interpreting the world: a naturalist ontology based on scientific understanding.
I had the same journey 60s Grammar school bot and Trot who has now become a Christian..we must change ourselves and love one another
A very thoroughgoing exchange to remind us of religion, tradition which still contribute mainstream in this fast paced, constantly evolving, multicultural and chiliastic environment.
The desire for justice is a desire for poetic justice, where the virtuous are rewarded and the villainous are punished. In a working society the best we can hope for is legal (constitutional) justice, where the guilty are imprisoned and the innocent are set free. Guilt and innocence being judged not by what is fair, but by rules and regulations established by the social contract (constitutions) in the form of laws agreed to by representative legislatures.
Good interview, shame about the audio quality.
Super!
Great video.
When people through suffering come to realise there are absolutes then hopefully a change back to the light will take place..it's the swing of the pendulum throughout history.
A most enjoyable interview. Thank you. Despite the serious topics, I quite often found myself smiling or chuckling. On a separate note, thank you for introducing me to RV498!
You have enlightened me as to the the reason for the trajectory that my life has taken.
As always, informative. Thank you, Peter, and the interviewer handled it all perfectly.
Peter Hitchens - excellent as always!
Finally, a worthwhile use has been found for a conservatory.
We need a "Peter Hitchens Conservatory Tour".
He is a smart fellow.
Trotskyism is "muscular do-gooding". Peter has many good lines.
Jesus is the Light of the World and the darkness will not overcome it. We live in His Light but we don’t fear God enough to not fear other people.
Peter almost never agrees to the premise in a question.
Good and evil are easy enough to define - good would be that which minimizes total conscious suffering and maximizes total conscious satisfaction, and vice versa for evil. The debate is always around *how* to do that - and the truth is that the best we can do in that regard is to make educated guesses, informed by past outcomes. Sitting around debating it all day is often quite asinine, as it's often nothing but pure speculation, and often by the sort of folks with no experience of what it takes to put things into successful practice.
This is basically a utilitarian definition of good and evil and is not at all self-evidently true
@@jimcampbell7675 You're right about that. Unfortunately we can't really derive anything as self-evidently true beyond our own existence, so I reckon it's about as good as it gets.
I think this sort of morality is a quirk of our time --- the desire to have these empirical measurements add up properly and work out on a spreadsheet, then we have the "objective truth" everyone ought to agree upon (and therein lies the problem, why ought we agree upon this moral system? it is empirically as arbitrary as the next).
When you think about it, it doesn't work out. There'd be _way_ more painless euthanasia happening if we really believed this. If an ideal satisfaction/suffering ratio is, say, the average human at age 30, then a ton of (read: most) people need to be painlessly offed.
Plus zero suffering is not actually an ideal, nor is 100% satisfaction. Imagine every time you're the least bit hungry you instantly have a bite of your favorite food. This would be nice for an afternoon maybe, but certainly not days on end, let alone a lifetime. The same goes for being pampered like a celebrity. There is not only a requirement but a desire for suffering. No one wants to suffer too much obviously, but everyone wants some suffering. Other goods like love, spirituality, wisdom, and so on do not exactly fit under "satisfaction". Other "bads" (evil is a bit loaded) like atomisation/loneliness, ugliness (not just physical appearance), failure, and so on don't exactly fit under "suffering".
Peter is referring to Fulton Street Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
It was a wonderful event.
If all discussion and conversation were like this, perhaps we might approach Utopia, with humility, still acknowledging that it is unattainable on Earth. I was once reprimanded by a Bishop in the C of E "why do strive for perfection knowing you can't attain it?" I said that in aiming for 100% I might manage to attain 70% or 80% but was fully aware that I could not attain 100%. He on the other hand with his managed decline and pessimistic outlook (and frankly lack of Christian belief) having his objective lower than 100% was already admitting defeat.
Be ye perfect
A lighthouse flashing through the mist..
No one can maintain their life is so valuable yet deny life to others.
I’ve never been convinced by PH’s argument that the major reason for Christianity’s decline in this country is the church’s response to the First World War. Surely, there were other forces at work that would have led to its decline in any case.
Yes it’s a shallow take. The Reformation is when the decline began but the catalyst was the 1930 Lambeth Conference which permitted contraception.
I'd have thought that the contradiction in the CofE's position was pretty obvious. An institution which, if nothing else, endeavours to raise the moral conscience of humanity is simultaneously supportive of Britain joining in the biggest conflict that the world had ever seen - is this not an open advocation of the opposite of its own foundational goals?
@@MrXaphus
I doubt the CofE would have spoken out against any other wars Britain took part in prior to that. Agreed, it’s not their finest hour, but to argue that their support for WW1 explains the death of Christianity in this country is way over the top. The tide was always flowing in one direction for a multitude of reasons.
@@stephenphillips6888 Exactly, the CofE was as much an established church back then as it is today, and so it took its cues from the government of the day. The major departure here is that the church went out of its way to back the war when it didn't need to, and in so doing, it seems to me, inadvertently sacrificed it's moral authority in society. It's a slow death, for sure, but it was put in motion by this undermining of position nonetheless.
@@MrXaphus It would have been hard to stay neutral though, wouldn’t it? And having chosen a side not to embrace it wholeheartedly, even as the bodies piled up
Very nice conservatory.
Really good points about the innate desire for justice, and conscience, not to mention aspects like the enjoyment music and art which point towards the Creator rather than mere Darwinism.
I hope that the realisation for this man and many others is that true religion is more than an assent to certain truths by faith. True religion is the walking with God, which is only achieved by the Holy Spirit of God. As the Lord Jesus said “you must be born again”.
Just to clarify - I’m not claiming that Peter is not a genuine child of God. I just hope and pray he and many others are, and that we do not deceive ourselves into thinking that that a mere recognition of certain truths brings salvation in Christ, lest we be like the Jewish religious leaders at the time of Jesus.
"Initilligent leftists realised long ago that the Soviet Union was not the arsenal of revolution, and they looked around for another one. And after September 11 2001, they decided that it was the United States." This is something I always felt but hearing it said by Peter is still vchilling. Ukraine is a sign of things to come...
In 1987, when Christopher Hitchens discovered at age 38 that he was Jewish, he was, as he later wrote “pleased to find that I was pleased.” The discovery moved the atheist to contact the only rabbi he knew personally to explore what he might be missing.
It was while working for the Statesman that he experienced a "howling, lacerating moment in my life": the death of his adored mother in Athens, apparently in a suicide pact with her lover, a lapsed priest.
Only years later did he learn what she never told him or perhaps anyone else: that she came from a family of east European Jews. Though his brother - who first discovered their mother's origins - said this made them only one-32nd Jewish, Hitchens declared himself a Jew according to the custom of matrilineal descent.
Probably influenced his conversion to neoconservative outlook towards the Middle East. Sad as it led him to condone great evil that he would have opposed before.
Why do you care who cares? Don't worry about it.
Excellent discussion, I’ve only read a few articles by Peter but this video has enticed me to purchase some of his books.
I feel the same way!
I've read a few of his books. All meticulously researched and well argued. But my favourite was actually Short Breaks In Mordor. I love the style he uses in that one, which is a mix of descriptive prose, political commentary and cultural insights.
@@goodyeoman4534 I’ve read only good reviews for that book, thanks for sharing.
So, on the one hand Hitchens has a high propensity for justice, but on the other, he has openly advocates for discriminating against children born out of wedlock, who themselves are victims of choices not made by them. They’d be condemned different than their half-siblings born inside of marriage, just for being born. Really a sign of moral superiority mister Hitchens.
I didn't hear him say that at all. He merely stated the loosening of shame attached to it historically became a leading cause of breakdown of the institution of marriage, which historically again has practically always been sacred too. What's wrong with that judgement?
In every interview I wish Peter's mic was turned up a bit
Spot on about Eeyore, and I wonder if Mr Hitchens has read or watched Marvin the Paranoid Android from Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, whom Eeyore surely influenced?
Whenever I listen to Peter I have to turn the volume up to full blast he mumbles and talks in a low tone that is nearly impossible for me to hear. But, I love him anyway.
he goes from talking super loud to whispering which is tough on laptop speakers
at least he's not Noam Chomsky, whose voice is not recordable on current microphone technology
Let’s hear it for Mr H
What a wonderful interview. I just love interviews where its more of a conversation, you certainly get a lot more this way
Her body, her choice...but if she chooses to become pregnant shes made a choice and should live with it.
This ex-evangelical and gay man enjoyed listening to Peter in this. Why do I mention these things about me? Because I have experienced first hand the culture wars on both sides of the argument: both internally in my soul, and externally in the public sphere. The atmosphere of debate is now largely toxic, but thankyou to Robin for this Channel. New subscriber here. X
I am a heterosexual man and I struggle against the flesh. Your struggles are no different to mine. God have mercy on me, a miserable sinner. I hope you are walking with the Lord still?
@@dulls8475 I've stated above that I'm an ex-evangelical. Your struggles as a heterosexual are nothing like what a gay person experiences. You can be in a relationship with a woman in church, get married and enjoy an intimate relationship. Your church would not allow a gay person to be a member if they were in a special relationship. I don't struggle anymore as I accept myself as I am.
@@DIBBY40 I understand why you rejected the Truth. The desires of the flesh are strong and it's easy to give in to them without submitting to God.
@@Dante-vf4sd I wouldn't say I've rejected the Truth. How could I? Truth is what is. I still have a spiritual life, and God is amazing. Christianity on the other hand is a disappointment.
@@DIBBY40 The Truth is God's revealed Words, they speak about our condition, the issues of sin and their consequences, why we do them and why some give in to them completely and reject Jesus Christ and his commands to repent of them and follow Him which leads to the forgiveness of sins and eternal life with God
Romans1
16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
God's Wrath against Sin
(Jeremiah 6:10-21; Jeremiah 25:15-33; Jonah 1:4-10; Acts 27:13-26)
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
A very interesting and enjoyable interview. Although what Peter said about attending a Roman Catholic Mass isn't true. Anyone can attend, but what a non Catholic can't/shouldn't do is partake in the sacrament of Holy Communion.
This was not about 'attendance'.
He did not say Tony Blair could not attend but the argument was that he did not leave the C.E. before for tactical reasons.
@@peterhitchens4240 I listened to that bit again. You said that one isn't supposed to go to Mass in a Catholic church here in the UK while still being a member of the Church of England. I can tell you as a practicing Catholic that that isn't true.
Just to add that yes, there are some major differences between Catholicism and the Church of England, but nothing to stop anyone from going to a Catholic Mass. They may choose not to partake in the prayers, Communion or believe in everything that is going on during the Mass, but no rules about not being able to be there.
@@mariaobeirne514 Do you *really* think I do not know this? If by 'go to mass' you mean, going into a church while Mass is taking place, and sitting and watching, then you are right. But that is not what I meant, and not what anyone else means by the expression. It is not much of a spectacle, as I can aver.
@@mariaobeirne514
Very sorry, had my own sister attend a retreat at a Catholic something-or-other, and when on the Sunday morning they all gathered for Mass, they were told only Catholics were allowed to take communion.
It must be hard trying to live up to a brother like Christopher...
Fortunately Peter is not trying to because it's not really a competition.
cringe
The decline in churchmanship in the US and the authority of the churches in the US have not been discredited because of the support for the Iraq war. They have declined because the mainline churches have all but decided to stop teaching the traditional doctrines and morals which they used to hold to, and so the people have seen it as not a necessary part of life. It's mostly apathy. This all started long before the Iraq war (the 1960s). I enjoy Peter's commentary, but he's wrong on this. Nobody here in the US who doesn't attend church talks about the Iraq war and the churches supporting it.
Isn't it because Americans now encounter far more secular ideas via the Internet? A similar effect can be seen in Ireland.
@@johnkeane1419 Certainly nowadays maybe. But truthfully it's mainly apathy. If I asked people of my generation (millennials) who don't attend church, why they don't, most would probably say because "they weren't raised in a religious home." Or they'll just say that they "aren't very religious." Not because they have a lot of intellectual qualms with Christianity (they certainly don't cite the Iraq war).
After those excuses, they typically start raising social issues for the reason they don't attend (sex, gay marriage, abortion, etc.), despite the fact that many mainline churches (Episcopal, Methodist, some Presbyterian, some Catholic parishes) are perfectly fine with all these issues (yet empty on the average Sunday).
This is generally because our parents generation stopped attending church (which was long before the internet), mostly due to the church's limp wristed response to the sexual revolution. Once people realized that the churches didn't care how they behaved, or even gave tacit approval, they decided it wasn't all that serious of an endeavor to be bothered with anyway. They didn't have some intellectual dilemma due to evolutionary theory or something.
We don't have a lot of hardline intellectual atheists/agnostics. It's pure apathy. Our culture is very superficial (you don't need me to tell you that). But the internet probably does affect the younger generation more. But I'd say the secular views they find online are just bolstering an already faithless culture, not changing peoples minds.
@@benson0509 You're probably right about apathy. That said, massive threads now follow the publication of religious books on Amazon, with many Americans being forced to confront the arguments of British atheists like Hawking, Dawkins and Russell. Prior to the Internet, that simply wouldn't have happened. Also, issues like Catholic child abuse can no longer be hidden, which has greatly weakened its hold in Ireland and elsewhere.
@@johnkeane1419 Certainly. I was exposed to those arguments when I was in college and flirted with atheism because of that (ultimately they did not fully convince me though). The abuse scandal is definitely a factor amongst the lapsed Catholic crowd here. But being from the southeast US, I don't confront that as much. I imagine in Ireland it's been devastating though.
@@benson0509 It sure has. Many UK Catholics have moved to other churches as a result.
10:50 choosing a particular religion is no different from choosing a particular diet, or car or anything. If one is being intelligently discriminative. They are all egoic choices. All coming from the same place, which is a personal preference. Only the Enlightened Ones need no religion. They are, without a ‘personal preference’, ALREADY religious. They are THE religion. 😊 Religion for the usual man is simply a means to be held up, to give one a sense of belonging somewhere, just more scaffolding!
The debate with Christopher was where I discovered and started reading Peter. There still isn’t a god but I still like some of his ideas
I think Peter has his microhpone slightly lower down his jacket making it just a touch difficult to catch all that he is saying. I always enjoy listening to Peter. A very realistic intellect.
His volume is almost always too low
Does Peter Hitchens HAVE TO mumble? Would it kill him if he enunciated just a little?
God is leader and hero, sovereign central authority
Is it me or is Peter sounding more like his brother ?
It's you.
@@peterhitchens4240 Stop it Peter. You know very well that there are times when you sound very much like Christopher. Embrace it!
Probably because he's his brother.
There are quite a few mannerisms they share which I've noticed over so many hours of watching interviews.
@@adambritain5774 I agree but Peter seems to be more bitter these days which is making him edgier. 😀
Ignorance of Christianity is not just a recent generational thing. I attended a Jesuit university, where the liberal arts were taught largely by priests. I was not a Catholic and had few expectations of what Catholic dogma might be revealed. However, most of my classmates were Catholic. Several (mostly female) students were brought to tears when they learned that the simple Catholicism taught to their parents by the parish priest was not what the learned religious scholars understood and were teaching at university.
Oh dear. I might be wrongly interpreting your comment, but it seems the cradle Catholics were distraught at the Jesuit teachings?
@@hazchemel Your interpretation is correct. Some were distraught.
I don't understand what you wrote. Trying to convey something that is in your mind from your own experience but you haven't really flushed it out enough to make any sense to those who don't have access to your experience.
At some point it would be very useful if the subject of political ponerology was discussed. It is via this mechanism that those with evil intention climb to positions of power, in all sorts of organisations, and it appears to include The Church.
One of my favourite public intellectuals, so eloquent and smart! Love his brother too ❤️
Peter is the one with the truth.
There are many bishops vicars etc are so far into themselves they can't even begin to alter the oak into a living forest
Imho
Regrettable how so many intelligent, thoughtful, and knowledgeable people like Mr Hitchens (and his brother) genuinely think the choice is either chaos or creation, which is bilge (to use Mr Hitchens's happy phrase).
How so?
Please elaborate.
@@burtingtune
Since there is a request for elaboration, I shall respond. If one studies the ancient Pali Texts that comprise the teachings of the Buddha (not later corruptions such as Zen and other so-called schools of 'Buddhism', a term He adamantly denied), one will find an alternative that decries as delusions both a creator God and meaningless chaos devoid of moral values. One will find a description of the universe that is vast/detailed and profoundly scientific, which describes 'divine' (for lack of a better word) justice as a law of Nature (the law of karma, not to be confused with human notions of justice), which affects the individual according to her/his deserts and external conditions, over countless lives, with the notion of a soul explicitly/repeatedly denied too, although no denial of other realms of existence (naked to the physical eye). Modern Western interpretations of the Buddha's Teachings, however, cherry pick what suits their scepticism and idea that His teachings are no more than the teachings of modern Science: which it does in many aspects, such as quantum physics and modern astronomy/cosmology, although not in many other aspects (see above).
If only they were as intelligent and well read as you are. Shame.
Please do say why .
13:15 Justice (apparently Hitchens's strong personal feeling!) is not possible in temporal civilization? If he'd said love, I could have understood his point.
I wonder why he chose the word "temporal"
I'd agree justice is not possible in a materialist civilization, but I'm not sure why he'd focus on its temporal nature.
Atheist here - i do make the choice to not believe in something w/o evidence - but i do not think everything is meaningless, we also get to choose what is meaningful to each of us
I'll always appreciate Peter Hitchens. He's profoundly changed my life since his first TV appearance which I was aware of (Sky, 2011, London Riots).
I've moved more to the right these days but I'll always look to him for his social, historical and political commentary as it's second to none.
Can you explain in more detail how you are a better person than you were since Peter Hitchens changed your life? Thanks.
We as a family could rage against God
Hall ways
Until maturity which we became as our parent's children became older taught us not a lot in some cases but a hell of a difference in me
Christ
They drop me on my head with their evil and caused fractures so bad it was a miracle I survived
For what
The satan is still there
Operated by their devil
That was why I was not a Jesus any longer
Until I was
IAN
Peter says at 12.00, onwards.. that he doesn't believe you can prove God exists, but then he goes on to immediately come up with a moral argument for the existence of God, ie he has a desire for justice which can't be fully achieved in human society therefore it's logical to believe in some transcendent purpose, ie God. That isn't choosing to believe in the existence of God, that is a logical deduction that only God can explain his desire for justice. I would say it's his desire for justice that's a choice and his belief in God's existence that's the logical explanation ie a proof of God's existence from desire/morality.
Thank you for the gentle condemnation of the modern take on abortion.
A couple children have been praised for turning in their parents for relatively minor offenses which they committed during the 6 Jan. 2021 incident, such as trying to take the cell phone of a private security officer. In this scenario, the mother had already got punched in the face by the said security officer, but upon her own daughter informing on her over a year later, the government pressed charges.
Good. No succor to seditionists
An insurrection attempt isn't a minor offense. People need to stop making excuses for January 6
@@jessepalmer1957 The person in my example attempted to take away someone's cell phone. That is hardly evidence of participating in a coup. Of the thousands present, only a small handful were up to no good. It was a mostly peaceful protest, in that sense, much like the dozens if not hundreds of riots during the previous summer, which for some reason don't get the label "insurrection". As for 6 January, the dangerous people were eccentric (dressing up as a water buffalo) and unorganized. It wasn't going to go anywhere.
@@jessepalmer1957 @sirarthurfiggis are y'all seriously taking this propaganda clown show at face value
@@chrisc7265 The insurrection failed but so what? It seems like some will do anything to make January 6th seem like no big deal. It revealed the face of the average Trump supporter
As prickly as his brother! LOL
Randomly came across this. Enjoyed the conversation. But good lord the audio was awful
P Hitchens notes familiarity w Bible is good.
Finally interviewed by someone with as full a voice as himself - anyone know who the interviewer is?
Cecil Posh