There's an interesting irony about these two brothers' names. Christopher rejected Christ but his name means "carrier of Christ"; Peter, meanwhile, accepted Christ but in the Gospels Peter denied Christ.
Sounds nice but is a flawed comparison. Peter in the Bible denied Christ on a occasion where he was afraid to die not overall but Christopher rejected him completely. Peter is in Heaven today. Christopher in Hell. Uhhh uuhh so hateful i know, it's just a biblical fact.
What he is not is a great conversationalist. Absolutely not. Much better with monologues. I felt sorry for Eric, it must be really hard to interview such a subject, always being disagreeable. That said, Peter is a really intelligent, well-read, free-thinking and eloquent speaker. He made a lot of very good points and I'm interested in reading his book. I take issue only on a couple of things: We should not fear Islam, because Islam will fall on itself - it will not last much longer. And it's a great opportunity for real Christianity to make a case for itself, now that we're no longer plagued by being the dominant state-religion of sorts. May he actually agrees on the last part...
Peter Hitchens' words on the first world war hit me every time; a whole generation of the best people wasted on an unnecessary war. One can only imagine what impact they could have made on the world. Upsetting.
I started watching it for no reason. Turned out it was a very good video. Hardly you see two very articulated intellectuals talking like this. Brilliant.
Jack Avalone really? Is your two cents on the occasion supposed to valid these two men. There are literally thousands of hours of intellectuals debating thousands of issues all over the web.
"I have never understood why people are so down on pessimists. Pessimism has been an enormous stay and comfort to me throughout my life." -Peter Hitchens
So many of Peter's interviews end up going this way... I suppose I understand him because I'm Christian and can related to what he's saying.. He ends up wasting time in these interviews with interviewers that are substandard, that want to argue with him, and place nonsense labels on him without any understanding. Peter at one point was not just talking about twitter, but about the man sitting in front of him, and he quickly stated it. Peter ends up having to explain why he doesn't have to apologize for the things he says.. It's too bad. I wish these egocentric small minded interviewers would open their eyes and realize we come to the interview to hear from the guest, not their own brilliant ideas, or their arguments.
Actually Lucifer was the one who commited the original sin before the world began. He was the brightest and the most beautiful and intelligent of all God's creations in Heaven and was exalted above all others save God the Father Himself. He was called The Light Bringer a Son of the Morning and thus he was until he became self-absorbed in his own beauty thus he was full of self-pride in his own beauty and attributes.. and evil was found in him. The true Original Sin was when Lucifer began to openly rebel against God and took 1/3 of the heavenly hosts against those who were with God. And there was War in Heaven the very same war that continues even to this day here on Earth. And Lucifer and his associates fought against God and lost and fell from Heaven never to return and forever denied a physical body. And he became Satan the Adversary the devil the father of lies..to blind a tempt and to lead into captivity whoever will not heed the Lord's voice. Which explains why God allows Satan to oppose the good.
oldgordo61, actually I wasn't referring to Lucifer's fall, I was writing about Humanity's original sin & their fall. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Lucifer was the most intelligent archangel, he was the most beautiful & his pride & vanity made him lose wisdom & want the worship to go to himself & not to God.
What he says about siblings is so true. It is very common not to get on with one sibling. I have a fractious relationship with my brother. I get on very well with my sister and with my other brother.
Sigmund Freud I was merely stating that you do not have to be British to see the genius. Peter can speak for me on many things, Meanwhile, a random youyube dweeb like yourself, mmm, I don't think I would let you order a spot of tea for me. Americans are self-absorbed? Actually, we see English as being terribly selfabsorbed, but that is another story I will not get int to right now. If you want to be seen as intelligent, do not wait more than two months to exhibit what you wrongly believe is great wit. It is not, and people can see that.
Jeremy Morton lol... well maybe if you actually watched it then you would know the part i'm talking about has nothing to do with GOd. And no evidence? I disagree, I felt the evidence was overwhelming, so much so that it moved me from atheism to theism. I believe God is the best explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. God is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe. God is the best explanation for the teleological properties of our universe (fine tuning). God is the best explanation for complex biological systems. God is the best explanation for the applicability of mathematics to our universe. God is the best explanation for mind / consciousness. God is the best explanation for objective moral values. God is the best explanation for just about every question I have
AllHeadsDownTV I can't imagine going through life and not answering these questions. The question of Gods existence is directly tied to the most important things people can ask: Who am I, why am I hear, what is my purpose.
First time I listen to Peter Hitchens, it would've been nicer if the host went through interview 101 "don't interrupt or talk over your guest all the time". It is him who I'm interested in listening to, thank you very much. Besides, yes most any American that'd care to listen to Hitchens knows about the '56 Suez Canal conflict.
A breath of fresh air, teaching me more about history than I knew. Love the point about 'changing your mind' how wonderful. I know how liberating this can be, pity a few more don't do it. Thank you for posting.
SepticSceptic I like them both. They are both passionate and have that way of putting things where you could disagree with them but you could respect them
I disagree with some people's assessment of Peter Hitchen's character as being arrogant. I think correctness in the english language and the pursuit of truths are all of vital importance to him. If one is incorrect about certain facts he cannot let it go because he sees truth as a fundamental principle that must be upheld. I don't see arrogance in him. Only his assurance of things he knows to be true, his power of reason and his intolerance to lazy thinking. It's not a sin to know things and express ones views. His opinions aren't driven by self importance (an impulse too juvenile and shallow for him) but by the pursuit of religious, political and social truths. That's not to say he doesn't take any pleasure in correcting people but I don't believe it's a prime motivation. He admits he knows his own self worth when it comes to engaging in any debate but again it doesn't come over as arrogance. He is too self depreciating and unpretentious to be accused of that. I would say of his character, that despite his frankness he shows real humilty in the way he conducts himself, without apologising for what he thinks. I admire how unabashed his responses are, to see and say it as it is. He doesn't feel the need to be liked. It's both an advantage and a pain at times to know so much when conversing with one who isn't in the same league. I feel for both in this interview particularly at a certain point where the difference in their intellect and knowledge is so uncomfortably evident.
I admire a man telling the truth, because truth today are not welcome nowhere anymore sadly. There is freedom in the truth, always remember that............................................
This is my second time watching this, and I must say that it is just an astounding interview - one of the best Mr. Hitchens has ever done. In particular, I notice that present in it is a partnership history has played host to before vis a vis conservatism - that of the wise, old British sage, and the more innocent, proactive American.
Very American in format and style, which bothers me a lot, but the quality of the sound and video is marvellous. And Peter is smart as always. All in all, it's a good watch.
+modestMouseism I had the same feeling as regards the "American" format. Americans struggle with in depth topics, probably due to decades long dumbing down of the American public, which has also affected its intellectual class.
+krileayn I got a reply in my email from the following person DFAULTPOSITION +krileayn That's a much repeated myth. "The world's only superpower was built and maintained by a nation of idiots" If we are the top of the pile and blindingly ignorant, how stupid must you be then. More innovation has been delivered to the world in our short history than anywhere else on earth. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obviously this person didn't have the strength of his convictions and seems to have deleted their comment immediately. :) America was a great country, but the Americans of today are like the spoiled rich kids of rich parents. They live in a delusion , they think reality does not apply to them, how else could a man like Donald Trump do so well? There is a large minority of Americans living in a fantasy land which is apparent by the appalling state of their political system where morons rise to the top, be it Bush, Obama or Trump.
+DFAULTPOSITION Aah something odd happening, I now see your original reply, but not your latest reply. Anyway no need to get upset. The truth is America is sliding to the right, Trump is proof of that, and yet people like yourself are happy to bury your head in the sand, only getting upset when others criticize the actions of your government.
Peter Hitchens is reflecting on Revelation 22 : 10 Then he told me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, because the time is near. 11 Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the vile person continue to be vile; let the one who does right continue to do right; and let the holy person continue to be holy.” The world (the great majority of people who do not believe that Jesus is exclusively the Way) will continue to become more evil and ungodly, and the body of believers (the Church) will become more holy. There will be a simultaneous falling into depravity the society at large and a resurgence of the Church. Hitchens’ view is focused on England.
Peter must be a very awkward person to interview, but Eric makes a valiant effort. Having said that, he is well worth listening to, being one of the most sensible and perceptive Christian commentators around. Sadly, his analysis of the current situation and his conclusions, appear to be right “on the button”.
JBP has a good answer to why people in their 60's still still hold left wing view's - our culture currently promotes the assumption of rights without responsibility
Oh to have been a bug on a wall during one of Peter and Christopher's private, philosophical duels. I'm sure they had many and I sorely wish there were more recordings of the two of them in candid conversation with one another.
James Tour is worth watching as he talks in a great video about "The Mystery of the Origin of Life." James Tour is a true scientist and is entertaining as well as knowledgeable. He approaches it all from a scientific, biological, chemical perspective and it all becomes quite a simple matter of Evidence as Christopher Hitchens him self emphasizes. Evidence that people can understand instead of just saying life is such an amazing "miracle" - James Tour explains just how miraculous everything is in this universe. Worth watching if you truly believe in life being an amazing thing. Regards.
I imagine many people in Peter's position would have been pretty annoyed when the first question was about Christopher (not even about his relationship with Christopher, but Christopher himself!), but I don't think Peter minded at all. Shows what a top guy he actually is. Peter isn't "angry", he just knows what he thinks. It is intriguing how the fact that his views are "right-wing" somehow makes him *seem* angry or stubborn. He's also less overbearing than Christopher was. He actually comes across as quite shy at 13:26 when asked to read from his book, whereas you might imagine Christopher would have revelled in a similar opportunity.
There are auditory people, often deeply involved with music. There are visual people, tend to be artististic and there are language people who have a command of language. Peter Hitchens and his brother Cristopher are (were) so similar with their compelling command of language. Would of loved to hear a debate between the two.
My greatest joy is the obey the Lord. That is way it is and the way it will always be. It's worked for me and billions of other Christians for thousands of years.
+Sajeersayed Ali l'm glad you liked him, Peter is brilliant, however his brother Christopher was equally brilliant. The two brothers were simply on different sides of the fence and stood firmly and for that l admire/d them both. Look for the debate that the two brother had, Peter for religion and Christopher against it, its on here, one of the best debates l have ever seen. l am a Christian, l only have one critique with Peter, he is a pessimist, he is of the belief that civilization and how it will be played out, his view is almost like a contract, signed, sealed and delivered. l am a realist which in my view is quite different from a pessimist, l have hope, yes civilizations may clash in a way in our lifetime or our children's lifetime we have never seen, but clashes of this kind do end eventually. The only way it will end as Peter has described but didn't say, if the clash of civilizations include nukes! Hope may fade, but the belief in God will not, it's eternal.
I don't know but I feel like Hitchins is slightly wrong about teenagers just wanting to rebel. There's more to it in my view, in that they don't connect with the religion they've been brought up in because they never heard discussions on the deeper meanings of religion.
Michael, from my personal experience with Catholicism (being raised in church, becoming atheist, and currently transitioning back to catholicism) you are absolutely correct. Never once did I have a truly meaningful conversation with any member of the church about the deeper meanings while I was being brought up. This opened the door for the vast number of atheist arguments that rely mostly on straw men to attack religion and belittle it. Excellent observation, good on you! :)
The notion that God is an extraordinary claim needs to consider that it's only extraordinary to a Post-enlightenment Western perspective, for the majority of humanity and throughout history the prospect of no divinity is the extraordinary claim. History and anthropology shows that belief in divinity or a sense of the sacred is a natural response. The lack of any sense of the sacred is a cultivated assumption of our culture. Reason proceeds by first principles, the notion of human knowledge as a blank canvas to which propositions must be proved was a 20th century Viennese innovation which most philosophers now don't accept (it's merely touted by new atheists). Knowledge is not a series of verifiable propositions, knowledge is an experiential process (as philosophers like Wittgenstein, Collingwood, Heidegger have shown). The scientific method shows that actually results are conditioned by intention because like any other human experience, articulations emerge from experience of being to which no human intellect has complete access. In philosophy the centrality of consciousness has a long lineage and it continues to be the heart of current debate, and this leads us to a greater understanding of the human experience.
Ravi Zacharias says that atheism is a fairy tale for those people who are afraid of the Light. E Michael Jones says that people reject God and reject the universal objective moral law because they feel the need to rationalize their sexual misbehavior. Read his book "Libido Dominandi" if you're curious about his argument.
"What is it that they have against the Christian God? He is their chief rival. Christian belief, by subjecting all men to divine authority and by asserting in the words ‘My Kingdom is not of this world’ that the ideal society does not exist in this life, is the most coherent and potent obstacle to secular utopianism. Christ’s reproof of Judas - ‘the poor always ye have with you’ - when Judas complains that precious ointment could have been sold to feed the poor rather than applied to Jesus’ feet, is also a stumbling-block and an annoyance to world reformers. By putting such socialistic thoughts in the mouth of the despised traitor-to-be Judas, and by stating so baldly the truth known to all conservatives that poverty cannot be eradicated, the Bible angers and frustrates those who believe that the pursuit of a perfect society justifies the quest for absolute power." -Peter Hitchens, The Rage Against God
killbotone I'm glad you said " [it] sounds like" rather than make a definitive assertion. But he was in fact arguing against the socialist ideal, as he mentioned.
Peter is very logical and uses a good deal of true critical thinking. You may not agree with him on the issues, but his use of logic and critical thinking are missing elements in today's world where every issue turns into an emotional Oprah episode.
Just because people die for a cause and endure incredible brutality doesn't make the cause true, it is only proof of their faith in the idea. The idea itself can still be false. Thanks for uploading this, I always enjoy Peter Hitchens, for even though I disagree with him on a great many things, I like his articulation of a need for some restraint on human desires and freedoms. Only in Britain do you have people of this caliber running across the whole political spectrum giving thought provoking analysis of our society and the challenges that we face. Intellectualism of this kind in America is severally suppressed.
+krileayn I don't see the replies so I will paste it here. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BirdyLegs +krileayn "Intellectualism of this kind in America is severally suppressed." You have got to be joking. Ever heard of Jared Taylor? Richard Spencer? David Duke? David Irving? These are just some examples off the top of my head that are banned in Britain simply for their political opinions. Britain does not allow freespeech as much as America provides - get over your shitty intellectually dead nation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You list a bunch of racists to prove your point, and in doing so you have proved mine. :)
krileayn How exactly is David Irving a racist? He's just a historian that has trouble getting his points across in Britain. And no, even if they are racists - that doesn't prove your point, because your claim was that the intellectual community in Britain is not suppressed, and yet I give you examples of intellectuals who are banned in Britain. Read your comment, or maybe get a better grasp on the language you're using. You said: "Intellectualism of this kind in America is severally suppressed." Yet Peter has been able to speak in America, and we have a whole host of "Racist" intellectuals that are allowed to speak without fear of government intervention. Face it, Britain is long dead, and you're dragging America down with you.
