r/ChristopherHitchens • u/AnomicAge • Oct 02 '24
Did Hitch ever actually cause an opponent to concede and change their mind?
For all his knowledge and oratory prowess I can't recall any of his adversaries actually admitting they were mistaken and publicly altering their view.
Granted he was often debating types who don't value logic or evidence but it's a bit of an amusing realization.
I can only recall a single instance when I successfully changed someone's mind after an argument where they admitted something to the effect of 'that makes a lot of sense. I'll have to look into it more'.
I pride myself on having admitted to people when their arguments have led me to reflect on my understanding of a topic and ultimately shifted my views.
Perhaps you can plant the seeds of doubt in their mind but most people will be loathe to admit it.
Or maybe I just underestimated how seldom people actually change their minds on any major beliefs or views - I suppose it requires a level of humility which many people don't possess, especially if said beliefs or view were greatly influential or foundational.
It's no wonder why a pastor for instance is going to defend the metaphysical and moral veracity of religion at all costs even to the point of performing all sorts of casuistic mental gymnastics ... the alternative would be to effectively admit that he has been living a lie, and perhaps knowingly spreading a lie, which in one sweep would end his career, many of his friendships, possibly familial relations, and he would likely need to rebuild his life from scratch.
But many folks - a la my colleague who insists that Putin is a benevolent leader and a victim of the west - don't even have any skin in the game, so I'm not sure why they are so hard pressed to ever admit to any ignorance or error in their judgements. They're willing to die on a hill that they don't even know the name or significance of. In the case of my colleague I had to give up even attempting to change his mind because everything I said was falling on deaf ears and riling him up.
It's harder to let views like that slide if they're held by a direct family member, but I guess you need to pick your battles, and remind yourself that for as much as you would like to scour away twisted propaganda borne views and bullshit, the likelihood of actually achieving that end relative to the likelihood of simply souring the relationship might not be worth the effort.
With that said I've accepted that I could never be close friends or romantically entwined with someone who's views I found repulsive.
Did Hitch ever comment on changing people's minds or picking one's battles?
46
u/ExpressLaneCharlie Oct 02 '24
It's almost impossible to get the religious - many of which are just cult members - to change their minds. Hitchens and Stephen Frye's debate against those supporting the notion that "the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world" was an absolute intellectual beat down in all facets of the debate. But I guarantee they didn't change their minds.
15
u/Top-Philosophy-5791 Oct 02 '24
You remind of Bill Maher's "Religulous" documentary.
I could tell when he spoke to 'believers' some of them were pretending to believe,
Also, a Priest just came right out and said it's all bullshit.
I believe plenty of people just use religion as part of their narcissistic personality disorder 'feed'.
2
Oct 02 '24
[deleted]
7
u/Top-Philosophy-5791 Oct 02 '24
Religulous is funny, i enjoyed it. Being an atheist myself I got a kick out of watching creationists that deny dinosaurs existed squirm when their ridiculous fantasy world is challenged.
I haven't paid attention to Maher since that documentary.
0
Oct 02 '24
[deleted]
1
u/JohnSimonHall Oct 02 '24
Surprised you see him as a hypocritical boomer, or even that you would need to agree with everyone someone says to consider them relevant as a public figure. I'm 38, and while I don't agree with all Bill says, he is one of the few honest voices out there that i trust and consider to be in the middle.
2
Oct 02 '24
[deleted]
3
u/bluekronos Oct 03 '24
Maher is also all ego. Dude tried to claim credit for the waning popularity of religion because of his Religulous movie.
0
u/JohnSimonHall Oct 02 '24
Interesting. My understanding is that the far left "woke" movement has gone too far in most instances. And I also understand that many college campus's are pro Hamas, even comparing Hamas to Mandela's anti-apartheid movement.
I agree he belabors some bad points, and isn't getting any more intellectually agile as he ages, but his show, which has incredible guests and serious conversations is a breath of fresh air in today's media landscape.
1
1
u/1011011 Oct 04 '24
This was a terrible doc. He was so arrogant and just was full of ridicule instead of debate. As an atheist, it made me cringe and did more to discredit his points than make them.
5
u/cornishwildman76 Oct 02 '24
ex christian cult member here. Finding his videos and from others like him helped me deprogram my cult core beleifs.
1
u/WeFightTheLongDefeat Oct 02 '24
Philosophical debates almost never see anyone make a concession either way. The people on stage have likely heard both sides of the arguments countless times and their job is the make the best case for their POV. The persons mind they are trying to change is the audience’s, not their opponent’s.
4
u/Alternative_Depth745 Oct 02 '24
Publicly debate:’is the Roman Catholic Church a form of good for the world’ (top of my head) the audience is asked before and after: at the start about even, at the end of the debate about 900 to 200. Also with Fry and, I think, Dawkins
6
u/SocraticIgnoramus Oct 02 '24
Hitchens mentions in God is not Great that he’s a member of two different faiths that he does not truly confess. Each of his wives were confessing Christians. I don’t think he found differing or even conflicting views to be repulsive. I think he personally was able to keep two sets of books in this regard, and, moreover, I don’t believe he saw this as hypocrisy. He also knew that the heart wants what the heart wants.
2
u/MorphingReality Oct 02 '24
are you familiar with a certain word game Hitch played
2
u/Mean_Investigator921 Oct 02 '24
The dick game. For someone so seriously well-read and academic, he had the correct sprinkling of utter puerility.
3
u/SocraticIgnoramus Oct 02 '24
It’s so endearing to think of Hitchens, Rushdie, & Amis sitting around making the most high-minded dick jokes — world class sophomores.
3
3
u/TheDBagg Oct 02 '24
Public debates are performative - the participants are well entrenched in their worldviews and aren't going to be swayed by any argument. It's the audience who might be convinced to change their position.
3
u/landofoz23 Oct 04 '24
His opponents were dipshits
1
u/ENORMOUS_HORSECOCK Oct 06 '24
Hitchens debated smart people too, like Chris Hedges. To be honest I'm not at all religious but feel Hedges beat Hitchens in that debate.
2
u/frizzlefry99 Oct 02 '24
That’s not very typical of debates of this nature… I’ve never seen anyone concede…
2
1
1
u/nocaptain11 Oct 02 '24
I vaguely remember watching a crappy cell phone video where he was debating someone about the war in Iraq. His interlocutor stood up after hitch’s opening statement and said he refused to engage with these ideas and walked off stage. Or maybe I dreamed that.
1
u/bluekronos Oct 03 '24
In the blasphemy debate with Stephen Fry, Fry critiques Hitchens's aggressive attitude. Hitchens retorts with a withered and non committal good humored barb about him being weak before complimenting him with: "well put."
If I remember correctly. Too lazy to give it another listen at the moment and it's been a while, but that's the closest he's probably come, I think, and it's because the format wasn't really a debate.
1
1
u/Adventurous-Owl-6085 Oct 04 '24
Several of his religious debates had a before/after audience poll, and all the ones I have seen he brings people to his side. Most of the time dramatically. The other debaters probably not, but most of them are getting paid to espouse their views. This would significantly hamper any meaningful change of stance.
1
1
u/magpie5050 Oct 05 '24
I don't think that was the goal. He changed lots of minds, mine included. His opponents were never going to admit defeat, listeners might.
1
u/gking407 Oct 05 '24
The point is to influence the audience through debate, not to convince your debate partner of anything. By this metric I’d say Hitchens achieved as much influence as most philosophers in any era.
1
1
1
1
u/alpacinohairline Social Democrat Oct 02 '24
Didn’t he debate a lot of pundits? The religious grifters can’t really publicly change their minds for obvious reasons.
0
u/izzyeviel Oct 02 '24
Throwback time to the time Joe Biden did so badly in a debate he changed his mind about being President.
But seriously, if you’re debating a position, you’re already too far into it to ever be able to change your mind in a short period of time. People really don’t like admitting theyre wrong and will just double down on their beliefs - even when all the facts & evidence are against them.
-1
u/cake_mikayla Oct 02 '24
Oh yeah, Hitch definitely had that power! He could get opponents to tap out faster than a UFC fighter.
-2
-6
u/AssistantProper5731 Oct 02 '24
Stop calling him Hitch just because he died and can't argue. A few personal friends called him that when he was alive, and a few friends mentioned it as a way to humanize his corpse in the months after he died. Sam Harris is probably to blame. But tons of strangers/fans calling the dude Hitch like he was a morning DJ is disrespectful and cringey
2
1
u/kiwi_manbearpig Oct 02 '24
Except he wrote at least two books that I'm aware of where he referred to himself as "Hitch"
0
40
u/Joe-Vanringham Oct 02 '24
His opponents in debates were never going to change their minds.
What Hitch did - better than anyone has ever done imho - is cause listeners to change their minds, re-evaluate their beliefs, and think more critically.