The Origins Podcast with Lawrence Krauss - A Hitchmas Gift For All -Audio Version

Episode Date: December 25, 2024

A year ago, John Richards the head of the Atheist UK approached me about the idea of celebrating Christopher Hitchens with a Hitchmas event, near Christmas, and on or about the anniversary of Christopher’s death, on Dec 15, 2011. I realized that to do it right would require time and organization, and the proper panelists. I was thrilled that Christopher’s friends and mine, Stephen Fry, Richard Dawkins, and Douglas Murray agreed to be part of the event, and that the HowTo Academy, which organizes wonderful events in London, several of which I had done before, agreed to coordinate the logistics with The Origins Project Foundation. A year later, the sold-out event happened, and we decided in advance to record it appropriately, with 5 cameras, and to have Gus and Luke Holwerda, who directed and filmed The Unbelievers, and with whom I began The Origins Podcast, edit the final product.As a special Holiday gift, we are making the advert free video version available to both paid and free subscribers here on Critical Mass. This post has the audio version for those who prefer that. If you want to watch the video, open the other Critical Mass post we are releasing this morning. Our YouTube channel will also host the video, and I encourage you to subscribe to that channel as well if you wish. No matter how you watch it, or listen to it (we will make the audio available on iTunes etc), we hope you find this set of reminiscences and the ensuing discussion a wonderful reminder of a remarkable man, and that it inspires you as much as Christopher inspired us. Happy Holidays to you all. Lawrence M. Krauss Get full access to Critical Mass at lawrencekrauss.substack.com/subscribe

Hello, and welcome to a special holiday edition of the Origins Podcast. I'm your host, Lawrence Krause. This episode contains the video of a very special event that happened December 14th at the Royal Geographical Society in London. There, we celebrated the life of the remarkable Christopher Hitchens, and I did it with three remarkable people on stage with me, Stephen Fry, Richard Dawkins, and Douglas Murray. At that event, we celebrated Christopher's life through a series of reminiscences,

and then an open dialogue between all of us about modern topics, trying to reflect on the thoughts Christopher would have about what's going on in the world today, and after that we took questions from the audience. It was a remarkable evening celebrating a remarkable man. Christopher was a beacon of light in a world that was dark even then, and maybe haven't gotten darker since then. And in fact, it was appropriate to celebrate what we call, and by we, I mean the Origins Podcast,

the Origins Project Foundation, in partnership with Atheist UK and also the How-To Academy in London, we celebrated Hitchmiss. After all, Christmas really adopts the celebration of the solstice, the pagan celebration of the solstice, bringing back light to the world as the darkest night passed and each day got longer again. And it seemed particularly appropriate to celebrate it for someone who brought such light to the world.

I know many, many of you have been anticipating this video since I first announced the event and I'm incredibly excited to be able to provide it here for you as a special holiday treat. So with no further ado, please watch Hitchmyss. Thank you all for being here. It's a wonderful evening. And I want to wish everyone a Merry Hitchmiss. The winter solstice provides nature's promise to bring back the light. And like everything else, it was hijacked by Christianity. But tonight we're going to celebrate another light, the light of reason.

And that's exemplified by honoring and celebrating the light of the late Christopher Hitchens, who is a friend to each of us on stage. I'm really honored and happy to have my friends and colleagues here. Richard Dawkins, you can applaud. A national treasure, Stephen Frye. And Douglas Murray, last but on this. So each of them has agreed to, you know, graciously to appear here.

We're going to do some reminiscences about Christopher and then I'm going to lead a roundtable discussion. It was 13 years ago, and even then the world had become a pretty dark place, but 13 years ago tomorrow, on December 15th, 2011, Christopher died. And his legacy lives on, and that's why we're here to celebrate his life. And this new holiday that we have created,

along with my foundation, the Origins Project Foundation, and Atheists United Kingdom, and also the how-to academy celebrating together. And I wanted to let you know what the program's going to be. Each of us on stage is going to give a reminiscence, followed by the roundtable discussion, raise some questions for people. And then there's going to be a brief intermission, and you are

invited before that to submit questions, and I will go over them and choose some. And then we're going to have an end with an auction for this lovely hand-done painting of Christopher that we will sign on the back. It'll be signed by all of us. And the proceeds are going to benefit Atheist United Kingdom. So I'm going to go first with reminiscence, and there'll probably be time for the others. So I first got to know Christopher, actually, because of this book here, God is not great. I think I wrote to him and told him it was like a Mozart symphony, and if any word was removed, it would be worse. And what surprised me is that he wrote me back and said some nice things about my books, which amazed me, and we became fast friends. But shortly after his death, I was interviewed by CNN, in fact, the day after he died, by a really clawing interviewer, who I don't know if she's still on, I won't mention her name.

She called him Chris, which made it quite clear that she didn't know he was. She said, on the one hand, he inspired the ideals of skepticism, free inquiry, and rational thought in many. But at the same time, he's been called a bullying, lying, opportunistic, cynical contrarian. And she said that as if it was a bad thing. And I'm not being facetious. He spoke his mind and did so forcefully. And unfortunately, as we'll discuss later, too many people today take forceful and eloquently stated opinions as bullying. And of course, nothing is further than from the truth.

Speaking your mind is an invitation for discussion, not silence or offense. In any case, be that as may, it also misses a central feature that I never hear talked about with Christopher. He was on a personal level, perhaps the most tolerant person I've ever known. He could be and was close friends with individuals with whom he disagreed on virtually everything. And I've often reflected how hard it would be for me to be so intellectually generous and gracious. He loved debate and discussion as much as he loved language, literature, history, and science. He was a beacon of knowledge and light in a world that constantly threatens to extinguish both. He had the courage to accept the world for just what it is and not what he would like it to be.

And for me, that's the highest praise I can give anyone. He understood that the universe doesn't care about our existence, our welfare, and epitomized the realization that our lives have meaning only to the extent that we give them meaning. And for him, this credo came through that it guided his life, the courageous defense of the simple proposition that skepticism, rather than credulity, is the highest principle that human intellect can use to ennoble our existence.

He was always willing to speak out against injustice and ignorance wherever he saw it, no matter whose sensibilities he might ruffle in the process. He was a true contrarian and even wrote a guidebook for the rest of us how to follow his example. The moment one entered his domain, if you ever at his place, you were overwhelmed by a single obsession, books. Books were everywhere, on every available wall, on the floor, on tables, on couches and bathroom counters. But it becomes clear during the course of any evening with him, unlike many of us who have a lot of books, the books on Christopher's wall were far more than window dressing. They were arranged according to subjects and ideas in a way that made it more than clear the books were regularly read and consulted,

and that the knowledge contained within them was used in a sense that a few of us really adequately exploit. It was humbling to witness when I was there, and close up as an intellectual, is so capable to surround a subject, relish it, explore it for its own sake, and critically soak up everything that's worth knowing about it. He was ever ready to incorporate that wisdom to shed light on old ideas or critically examine new ones with the full weight of a lifetime of intellectual exploration

combined with the playful and curious excitement of a child in a candy store. Christopher embodied the delicious possibilities of existence the profound satisfaction that intellectual exploration and integrity can bring, especially when confronting power with knowledge, even as he bravely recognized that stupidity, prejudice, superstition, hatred, power, and money will generally win. But beyond this, it was his unadulterated joy of ideas on the human experience,

the need for irony and humor, along with the full banquet of human knowledge and culture, that set hitch apart from so many of the rest of us. I'll always remain guided by his example, and before acting, I almost always ask that simple question that guides so many people in other contexts. I change one word, and I ask myself, what would Christopher do? Indeed, that will form the basis

for much of the discussion that follows after this. The last time I saw him, our discussions ranged over subjects that included the nature of nothingness, quantum mechanics, the obscenity that is capital punishment, the madness that governs the religious fanaticism, infecting both sides of the Middle East conflict, the embarrassment that is Catholicism, and the intellectual laziness and pretentious nonsense that encompasses so much of religious faith

and the theological noise in our popular culture. He was not a scientist, but he was fascinated by science. Not merely because of its possible impact on human affairs, but more importantly for him and for me because of the remarkable ideas that it generates. He was wise enough to recognize that the universe is far more imaginative than we are, and he was eager to learn from the universe, as he was from the works of the world's great writers, philosophers, and historians. And through his questions and reflections,

he actually extended my own understanding of my own work. I described him the dismal future of a cold, dark, and largely empty universe, which is implied by the remarkable discovery that our universe is exponentially, and the expansion is accelerating. In return, he pointed out on an argument that I adopted in that book. He actually was writing the forward for the book. Richard wrote the afterward, before he became too ill. And he pointed out that nothingness is heading straight towards us as fast as can be.

Thus, if someone asks that annoying religious question, meant to stymie those of us who see no need for God, wise or something rather than nothing, we can respond simply by saying, just wait, there won't be for long. That idea didn't terrify him. He realized that knowledge is not to be gained for accompanying our soul, but for enhancing the awareness and the act of being alive.

And he continued to recognize that even as he bravely face his own death, with dignity, fortitude, and passion, in spite of what some a religious apologists had hoped for and what some made false claims about to the contrary. Before leaving his company the very last time, I saw him in one of those poetic accidents that makes life so unexpectedly enjoyable. I was reading a newspaper piece, the New York Times, at his kitchen table, about an emerging effort to ensure that young people

at elite institutions like Yale preserve their Catholic upbringing while in college. When describing the temptations to depart from piety, the author wrote, exposed to Nietzsche, Hitchens, co-ed dorms, and beer pong, some students are expected to stray. I reflected on what a remarkable tribute

that simple sentence really represented. No, it's to be so ubiquitous and cultural impact that you can be mentioned without explanation in such a piece as one thing, but to be sandwiched between Nietzsche and beer pong is really an honor that few of us can so hope to achieve and perhaps the most appropriate way that Christopher would want to be remembered.

But I'll add my own personal memory to conclude. There was not a single time that I would leave Christopher's apartment, usually late at night, always drunk, when I wouldn't walk out the door and say, what had I possibly done to deserve the friendship of that remarkable human being? I miss him almost every day. Thank you.

Richard, I'll turn to you next. I once wrote, can you hear me? Yes. I once wrote, if you are invited to debate against Christopher Hitchens, decline. We've lost not only a dear friend 13 years ago, but the most powerful heavy artillery piece in our retirement. historical armory, perhaps the finest orator I ever heard. Not a ranting, shrieking demagogue, not a tremolo-voiced preacher, not a foxy fireside chat merchant.

Hitch was an orator of the rational thinking sort, appealing to the mind, beguiling the audience with literate wit, erudition, worldly knowledge, and that incomparable voice. I didn't know him especially well. I was not one of that inner literary brotherhood, Martin Amis, James Fenton, Salman Rushdie and others. Nor did I know him in his young manhood at Oxford, when he somehow managed to combine unshaven Trotskyist rebellion as Chris with Lush Society dinners at all souls, whereas Christopher, his youthful beauty doubtless appealed to the warden, the notorious John Sparrow. he was proud of his membership of bailiol college home of radical firebrands and future prime ministers

for at least a century and he publicly alluded to the fact that bailiol was something he and I shared with his literary accomplishments he would probably have loved Hiller Bellox poem to the bailiol men still in Africa which begins years ago when I was at bailiol

baili men and I was one swam together in winter rivers wrestled together under the sun. Belok's poem was about the Boer War, but who today could read the subsequent lines without irresistibly thinking of Hitch, the intrepid war correspondent, the fearless traveler to every trouble spot in the world.

Here is a house that armors a man with the eyes of a boy and the heart of a ranger and a laughing way in the teeth of the world and a holy hunger and thirst for danger. That gets Christopher to a tea, whatever a tea might be. Far from shunning foxholes, as atheists are proverbially supposed to do, hitch sort them out, danger spots all around the world. His laughing way in the teeth of the world was not foolhardy or wantom like that of the young Winston Churchill in the Boer War or the Northwest Frontier.

His holy hunger and thirst for danger was not jingoistic like Churchill's, but was born of selfless solidarity with the victims of tyranny. That was why he journeyed year after year to some of the world's most dangerous places, as he himself said, without leaving the letter B, Belfast, Bombay, Belgrade, Beirut, Baghdad. That was why he put himself through ordeal by water, waterboarding, to verify that the word torture was indeed justified.

That was why he went to North Korea, real-life embodiment, as he regarded it, of his hero George Orwell's 1984 dystopia. And hereabouts we find the deep motivation for his anti-theism. Whereas my motivation is primarily scientific, Christopher's was political. He passionately hated dictators and tyrants, and the most tyrannical of all dictatorial tyrants

was the God of Abraham. Mao or Stalin or Saddam Hussein or Kim Il-sung could make your life a misery, but at least you could escape by dying. God, the ultimate dictator, would, according to the beliefs of his followers, never let you escape. For me, an especially memorable encounter with Christopher

was the recording of the Four Horseman DVD, together with Dan Dennett and Sam Harris, for which he kindly made his Washington apartment available, and he and his wife gave us all, including the camera crew, a lovely dinner afterwards. A final memory, I was invited to guest edit the Christmas issue of New Statesman in 2011,

and my centrepiece was my interview of him. It was in Houston, Texas, where he was undergoing experimental treatment of his cancer, and living in a magnificent lone mansion. Afterwards, he hosted dinner with his family. Christopher himself was too ill to eat, but he nevertheless managed to entertain us all with his unabated, sparkling conversation.

I believe that interview turned out to be the last one of his life. I began by asking him to reminisce about his own early days as a journalist when he was employed by new statesman, but he characteristically said he would rather talk about topics of current interest, especially our shared fight against religion. I was pleased about this. It was a long interview, more a conversation. We didn't touch on areas of disagreement,

for example, the Iraq war and abortion. The fact that some of us are labelled strident came up in conversation, and Christopher said to me, you must never be afraid of that charge. You see your discipline being attacked and defamed and attempts made to drive it out. Stridentcy is the least you should muster.

It is the shame of your colleagues that they don't form up ranks and say, listen, we're going to defend our colleagues. Christopher himself had a robust pugnacity of delivery which rose above any accusation of stridency. Ha! What an incredibly stupid question! Anyone else, that would have sounded arrogant,

but he got away with it. The day after that new statesman interview, we attended the Conference of the Atheist Alliance International in Houston. They had chosen to present him with what I'm embarrassed to say they called the Richard Dawkins Award. I had to make a speech after which he graciously but with sadly fading voice

and some coughing gave a long and wonderfully moving extemporary address I want to end by quoting the final words of my speech in his honour every day he belies the claim that there are no atheists in foxholes hitch is in a foxhole

and he's dealing with it with a courage and honesty and a dignity that any of us would be and should be proud to be able to muster. And in the process, he's showing himself to be even more deserving of our admiration, respect, and love. Thank you.

I think next I'll turn to someone who's been in Foxholes recently or close to them. And I often think of, I have to admit, I often think of Christopher when I listen to you lately, Douglas. So, Douglas. Well, thank you, Lauren.

Actually, one of the pieces of advice of Christas, which I have always kept in my life was he had a piece of advice for journalists which is you should always try to go to a dangerous country every year. I've sometimes overdone it but yeah. I remember the first moment I actually heard the name

Christopher Hitchens. I was a Calo undergraduate at Oxford at Mordling College and I just published my first book, a biography of Lord Alfred Douglas and I was 20 I suppose and the president of my college, wonderful man called Anthony Smith, who's

known Christopher since Oxford days, came running out of the president's lodgings, waving a copy of a paper that turned out to be the New York Review of Books. And he was shouting something, and I couldn't discern what it was. He was shouting. And as he got closer, he said to me, Christopher Hitchens has been nice about you in the New York Review of Books. Now, I was an undergraduate in those days, so, of course, I didn't read anything. and let alone the NYRB and I gave something a little too close to a shrug

and Tony said Christopher Hitchens has been nice about your book in the New York Review of Books you don't understand Christopher's never nice about anyone and then I thought oh I'll look into this chat and self-scrutiny I heard from Tony a version of what Richard just said, Tony said to me sometime later,

he said there's only really one rule in public speaking. Never speak before, with, or after Christopher Hitchens. And I remembered it years later in a very small event at the university when I was about to start talking on stage with Christopher, I thought, why do we not learn? But anyway, yes, I did look into him, and I fell in love with his writing,

and then we became, again, fast friends. I think our first lunch was a... not far around the corner from here. And it was one of those true proper Hitchens' lunches where he informed me that my suggestion that I should have the scotch and soda before lunch was nonsense

because you had to specify the scotch. And if you didn't, they'd just pour it from a bucket behind the bar. So that was a life lesson already. And I can't remember. All I remember is that we talked about everything that we both loved. We talked about poetry. We talked

about Woodhouse, about war. We were quoting Shakespeare sonnets of each other by the time they were trying to kick us out and I do remember that I went home under a fairly heavy head cloud and went to bed and I knew that Christopher was going off to his hotel room to write his column

which he did and I read it the next day and it was a superb column as ever but what grated with me more was that I turned on the television as I was starting to come to in the evening. And there was Christopher on Newsnight being just as excellent as he'd been at lunch. So I've never drunk at lunch since, actually, in the knowledge that you just can't keep up with that.

I was enormously fond of him, and the fact that he took a great interest in young writers, and he took interest in so many. I can't tell you, it was very uncommon in... in my profession. People very often turn to people they know can turn in copy and all that sort of thing. Not many people are actually encouraging. And Christopher was one of the most encouraging people

in my early career, and I'll always be grateful to him for that among many, many other things. We might get on later to disagreements one could occasionally have with him, which still sometimes can cause one to wake up in the night in a sweat. But one of the things I always found interesting

in him was that a lot of writers, including some of his contemporaries, wanted very much to impress their readers. And the longer I knew Christopher, the more I realized there was something particularly unusual about him as a writer, which was his readers wanted to impress him, which is a very special quality. Not only did, he brought out the best in his reader, and that's a very unusual quality. He made them want to be more curious. He wanted us, his readers, to know more,

and to care about more, to think more. And I suppose I'd just say, finally, that there's much else we'll have to discuss this evening, but I was, as everyone knows, Christ's great friend Martin Amos died recently. And there was a passage in Martin Amos's memoir, which always stuck with me. I think it's one of Marathon Amos,

one of Martin's greatest books, a stunning, stunning book, experience. There's an extraordinary bit in that where Martin Amos talks about the funeral of a cousin of his who died under very terrible circumstances. And there's a beautiful phrase which Amos says about the funeral. He says, this is where we go when we die into the hearts of all that love us, and all our hearts were bursting with her.

And I think it's an enormous tribute. to Christopher many years after his death now and a whole new generation has discovered him via YouTube and much more to say that he's one of those people who are hearts I think still burst with. Thank you. Hi there, it's Lawrence Krauss and giving you a brief break from our wonderful hitchmess celebration video to talk about an application that I've talked about before that I really love. Brilliant. Brilliant is an that allows you to basically have self-learning and progress in a wide variety of areas. I do language every day, but also with brilliant, one can look at topics from programming to

data, to math, and a whole slew of other tech topics, and learn them in a way that you probably wouldn't be able to motivate yourself to do them on your own. For example, in programming, there are a whole number of programming courses that are great that I like to learn to improve my Python. You can get familiar with Python. You can do creative coding, all sorts of things like that. They've also added a whole bunch of new data science content, which is really neat because it uses real world data

to train you to see trends and to make better informed decisions. You gain insight by working with real data sets from sources like Airbnb and Spotify and Starbucks and more, giving you a peak. underneath how complicated systems work. And speaking of complicated systems, you can also get a peek under the hood of large language modules like ChatGPT to understand how those things work

as they begin to affect the world. And one of the purposes of the Origins podcast is to give you new insights into reality to better deal with the challenges of the 21st century. And Brilliant is a wonderful way to tune up your own skills. To try everything Brilliant has to offer for free, for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org slash origins podcast, all one word,

or scan the QR code on screen, or you can click on the link in the description. You'll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription if you go to that site. I think when you go to it, you'll find it's a wonderful compliment to our podcast and a really fun way every day to learn something new. Now, after that brief break,

back to Hitchmyss in London. Thank you. After Christopher died, there was a memorial service held in New York, and there were a lot of famous people there, and for some reason I was there. And I gave a memorial, and I was amazed at how I won't mention, but all these people that were really well-known, how poor their conversations were. But there was only one person that I thought gave a wonderful discussion, and that's a person that I would listen to read the phone book, and that's Stephen Fry.

I shall now let you down and disappoint you all. I feel a little bit of a fraud in the sense that you all probably knew Christopher better than I did. Like doctors, didn't really know who I was when I was young. I wish I'd read him when I was a boy, and when I was growing up, I caught up eventually, and we should remember that, Perhaps it's right to say that he was first and foremost a writer, even though we all remember his debates and his astonishing oratory, his books still do sparkle with brilliance.

And a writer like his hero Orwell to some extent, and maybe Graham Green, and there are others whom you always forget how they do it. You think, I don't know what his style is exactly. pick it up and you read it and go, yes, it's there. It just carries you through, through arguments with such energy and yet without any apparent sort of ego. But within the force field of his personality, which I first encountered at the Hay-on-Wi literary festival, when I was introduced to him by Peter Florence, who ran the festival, I kind

of almost stepped back, and I could just feel this extraordinary charisma coming off him and his amiability. He had the gift that many great people that we most love and value have of having a very special language or relationship with each person he knew. So he had his own nicknames for his friends and with me it was always Old Horse,

which is a Woodhousian reference. Stanley Fanchor Eucridge, one of the lesser-known of the Woodhousean canon called people Old Horse and for some reason he called me Old Horse and he did it straight away Ah! Frye Old Horse! Yes!

And he started talking about things that he knew I was interested in it was extraordinarily generous because we were going to debate together with Tina Brown and I was very nervous because I didn't know what I was going to say it was about religion

and I didn't know that he was going to become one of the four horsemen of the atheistic apocalypse with Sam and Dan and Richard. So I didn't even know which side he was on, to be honest. He was in a seersucker suit with a large glass of what I thought was flat beer.

It turned out to be whiskey. And of course the cigarette, as I had at the time, because I was still a smoker then. And he put an arm on my shoulder and said, we'll absolutely slay them. And I said, well, are we on the same side? And whatever it was, the difference between him and me, which is enormous in all kinds of ways, but my pusillanimity, if I can call it that, I'm soft left, centre, hand-wringing, E.M. Forster sort of a person. There's not much real drive and ferocity in my politics.

I'm always, oh, I don't really know. and I'm sort of wearing carpet slippers somehow. And he was very other. And so I said, I want to preface my remarks by saying that I have nothing but the deepest respect and understanding and nothing to say against the individually pious and devout religious person. And he immediately on my side said,

that's nonsense, why? but we had a fabulous time at that and then afterwards we had a fabulous time as well and he I discovered this amazing range of knowledge I was staggered by how much he knew not just a politics by that time I was clear that his political knowledge was wide-ranging in all directions

both ideological knowledge the fabulous he laughed so much at the intricacies of the left and the language of the left someone once when we were I can't remember

we were doing a signing or something somewhere and someone said I was a Trotsky I'd like you I was never a Trotsky, I was a Trotskyist do you not even know the difference

and I told him a story about my friend Tony Robinson of all people who played Baldrick in the Black Edda series, you might know who I mean, who was on the

executive of the Labour Party for a time and was very left-wing, indeed, when he was young, and was part of equity. And Tony had the story which I thought Christopher would enjoy, about going up, making a speech to a fringe equity meeting of hard left people. And as

Tony sat down in his seat again, someone hissed in his ear, Pabloite. And as Tony said, I had no idea. what heresy I had committed. And so I explained this to Christopher, and Chris said, well, if he was indeed a Pablo White, then he should be burned. And I think he was always aware of the extraordinary parallels between that world of the left

that he was involved in to some extent when he was a Trotskyist and then an international socialist and then sort of moved away into being the Christopher Hitchens we most recognized, but never sort of left the idea of what he believed him when younger and how the world was divided when he was younger. And the parallels between that and Catholicism, I think, amused him as well. We did a debate together in which we opposed the mighty canons of Anne Widdickham and African bishop who were not really the best. that the Catholic Church could provide, I assume,

but he was on such magnificent form, and he said afterwards, he said, he said, I know exactly why and how the Catholic Church fails, because it is the negative reflection or the positive reflection, whichever way you look at it, of communism. They are so similar in their doctrines and their hereses and their attitudes.

and I was brought up understanding how that works. And I think that's true. The other thing you have to remember, I suppose, about Christopher, as is alive in his books and in his YouTube presence, and young people, as Doug has said, love to go on a whole sort of afternoon following hitch slaps, as they're known, when he puts people down in debate, and it is wonderful. Usually in that slightly American way of calling them sir first if they're a man.

Well, sir, I would say. He was and he valued humor. He was very funny. He was one of the funniest people you could ever meet, extraordinarily witty. And he loved humor in others. And his friendship group that Richard alluded to Clive James and James Fenton, the poet, and Martin Amos, the novelist, they as much as anything met and continued to meet as regularly as they could

because they made each other laugh so much and I suppose one of the most extraordinary experiences I've had in my life not just in relation to Christopher was I was asked to host a most bizarre and potentially embarrassing and difficult evening at the Royal Festival Hall in which I stood at Electon and talked about Christopher and Richard came along because he was in England at the time, but live on screen in his hospital bed in Washington

was Christopher not really able to speak to the microphone and Martin Amos was with him and James Fenton was with him and the audience was asking questions and we were using Twitter and I think it was to get messages in real time instantly back and forth and actually it was a very charming and extraordinary experience I don't know if you remember it well, Richard. It was sort of ghoulish in a way. I was thinking, should we be doing this?

But he wanted to do it. He was very, very keen to do it. He was a magnificent cancer patient. Having been one myself in a smaller way, I know it isn't always easy to be a good cancer patient. He wrote that article, was it for Vanity Fair or the Atlantic? I never remember which of those he wrote for. Maybe he wrote for them both.

The topic of cancer, it was called. Obviously, I'm not typical. But, yeah, to the end, like Martin, famously, he was at war with the cliche. He would unpack every cliche possible. And so as he was dying, he was saying, I am not battling this fucking disease. I'm not battling it. I am lying back and submitting to doctors who are telling me what to do. How do I battle it?

Do I shake my fist? Do I say, do I talk to it? It's nonsense, my mind. fight with it's not a fight it's something else think about what it is and in that sense everything about Christopher was this don't trust what you hear examine it find out what the thing itself is that is being talked about whether it's a war whether it's an opinion whether it's a faith whatever it might be that he did have one big hole one huge hole I thought in which I was quite pleased, which was

that he didn't really seem to value or understand that much, and maybe you'll put me right here, about music. And I, when he, you know, we were sort of emailing when he was first diagnosed and I was saying, can I suggest some music you should listen

to maybe while you're having these things, these poisons dripped into you. And he said, no, you're going to say Wagner or Beethoven or something, I'm not interested in, or you're going to talk about blues and jazz and And he didn't, and that's not a failing necessarily. It's just clearly one of the greatest heroes I have in the world.

Samuel Johnson also was completely deaf to music in every sense. He didn't know, didn't value it. I think what it was was that so much of his brain and his processing power went into language, the understanding of language, and the unpacking of concepts in empirical and rational ways. And his gift for that is what... what remains. I'll leave it there. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Well, that was wonderful, and you're another person one shouldn't speak after, but in any case, we're going to have a little discussion. I've sort of assembled some questions for each of my friends, and each one involves a quote from Christopher. And I'll begin with you, Richard. One of my favorite quotes from his pitch, which was related to wisdom,

It's a religion, not wisdom. The opposite. And he borrowed a quote from a poem, which I was good to read, and I thought, I'm on stage with these three gentlemen who all read poetry better than me, but anyway, I'll read it. It's a wearisome condition of humanity, born under one law to another bound, vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,

created sick, commanded to be sound. And the quote from Christopher about religion was, it makes us objects in a cruel experiment whereby we are created sick and commanded to be well. I'll repeat that. Created sick and then ordered to be well. All over us to supervise this as installed, as Richard was talking about,

a celestial dictatorship, a kind of divine North Korea. Greedy, exigent. Exigent, I would say more than exigent, greedy for the uncritical praise from dawn until dusk, and swift to punish the original sins with which it is so tenderly gifted us in the first place. However, let no one say there's no cure.

Salvation is offered. Redemption. Indeed, is promised at the low price of the surrender of your critical faculties. Now, Richard, you have bravely, in my opinion, and correctly spoken about the nonsense lately regarding sex and gender. and Hitch wrote that piece in the context of organized religion. Yet to me, these words bring out a more modern kind of secular religion, which I've called woke fundamentalism.

And it's of the type you've been fighting. I've argued it has the same characteristics, heresy, excommunication, surrender of critical faculties. The one thing it doesn't have is salvation. But I wanted to ask you, in terms of the nonsense that's going on now, which is more pernicious at the present time, do you think in the United Kingdom, vis-a-vis free speech and reason?

Religious fundamentalism or woke fundamentalism? There is an interesting parallel, actually, with specifically Roman Catholicism, transubstantiation, using the Aristotelian distinction between the substance, the true substance, and the accident.

and the thing about transsexualism is that it's exactly the same Aristotelian distinction. The true substance of the trans person is what they really feel. And the fact that they've got a penis, although they're a woman, is the accidental. So it's a very, very similar thing to the Roman Catholic... Transubstantiation. What he was saying about the, what he was saying about the original sin,

I think that that is one of the nastier, if not the nastiest aspect of Christianity, the idea that every baby is born in sin. Every baby inherits the sin of Adam, who of course never existed, but never mind about that.

But nevertheless, all born in sin, and the only way where you can escape sin is by redemption. There's something truly horrible, I think, about that idea. I think... But let me ask you, I'm not going to be provocative here, but I see those original sins too. I see people being, for example,

in many places being white or male as an original sin as being seen by certain groups. And I see that... It's a close parallel. Yes. And any comments for, you know, I'm going to make up provocative subjects, so feel free to comment. Normally with the provocative subject. I think we're jumping ahead a little here because I suppose one of the questions that certainly hangs over the splendid lecture hall or whatever the RGS calls it, this marvelous room, is what would Christopher be thinking about the current, you know.

Exactly. That was my next one. Yeah, exactly. No, go, what would, I mean, I've often thought, what, I often think how lucky Christopher is not to have to deal with what's happening. Well, exactly. I don't know, I mean, he would be pulled as terrible centrists like I am pulled, like me, I'm pulled, pulled between a, a wish for people not to be bullied and harassed and, discriminated against and a desire for the group that's supposedly representing the discriminated,

not to shriek in such unmanly ways and to destroy their own argument. I mean, I am really nothing more than an empiricist. I just want people not to be righteous, but to be effective. And so often the problem with the left, the left that Christopher was so long associated with, it would rather be right than effective. and it's a mess that that should be the case. But where he would sit, his resistance to belonging to any actual group of people

that represent a particular area of thought, I think would stop him from being an anti-woke warrior in the way that some people are seen to be now, in all good faith and conscience, and they do it well. On the other hand, he couldn't see what was going on in the campuses around the world of our universities and elsewhere without exclaiming. I mean, one of his great phrases was his definition of what an educated mind was, which was one that understood the limits of its own knowledge. And that's the very best that a university can do to you is to teach you the limits of what you know.

And I think he would be, of course, absolutely. horrified by the certainty and the animosity and the ferocity of the language and the certain it's the certainty I think because although he came across as certain he was very able to to establish doubt in the areas and indeed he could be certain about doubt but he would always call out nonsense yeah but when I ask all of you I mean we are living in interesting times and and and and there's religious fundamentalism, and there is these other kind of fundamentalism. And in the UK, I know at universities, well, actually, I see both kinds of intolerance of late,

and I wonder what your perspectives were. Douglas, do you? Well, I'll just say briefly that Christopher's brother, Peter, and his very moving reminiscence of his brother just after his death, a complicated relationship, I think we can agree. said that he remembered as boys once they were clambering over roofs of houses together and the young Christopher at seven or eight

leapt from one roof to the next and turned round and said to Peter jump and for Peter this was he said after his brother's death this was the image he had most of him and I think there's something so true about that that actually the fundamental when you go deep down it was about courage it was about courage and that means the courage to say what you think the courage to defend your views the courage to stand up for your friends it

wasn't easy when Salman Rushdie you know would stay at his apartment in DC and so on but it was not a question for Christopher And all of that, but also the courage to say that what I think is true is true and my own voice is enough in defending that. So, yes, I think that whatever he would have thought about any of the things that have gone on since that would have been the main abiding thing, which would have been not just courage, but also a contempt for the utter horseshit that most of us have to spend our lives wading through. Richard? In his book, H-22, he... It's a questionnaire that he answered about himself.

And one of the questions was something like, what quality do you most value in a person? Courage was the number one thing. And he was asked, what do you most like doing? And he said, going to dangerous places. Exactly. And as I say, that's one of the, in fact, I think that's a good segue, because I want to go to Douglas, who's been going to Douglas dangerous places. And I want to go to dangerous places here.

I want to talk about religion and politics and all the things you're not supposed to. So, Douglas, you've bravely defended Israel and Jews against anti-Semitism and so prevalent now in the streets of the UK and in universities. And you've defended Israel's right to self-defense and respond October 7th, Hamas attacks by attacking back. So I want to read you some quotes from Hitch and ask you to respond. So here's one quote. Actually, and this was where I began to seriously be uncomfortable, some such divine claim underway, not just the occupation, but the whole idea of a separate state for Jews in Palestine.

Take away the divine warrant for the holy land, and where are you? And what were you? Just another land thief like the Turks or the British, except that in this case you wanted the land without people. And the original Zionist slogan, A land without a people for a people without a land, disclosed its own negation when I saw the densely populated Arab towns

dwelling sullenly under Jewish tutelage. You want irony? How about Jews becoming colonizers at just the moment when Europeans had given up on the idea? If that's not bad enough, I'm going to read another one. I'm an anti-Zionist. I'm one of those people of Jewish descent who believes that Zionism would be a mistake,

even if there were no Palestinian. I think Zionism is a stupid idea to begin with. It's a bad idea, a messianic idea, a superstitious idea, and it's a waste of Judaism. Many states are founded on stupid ideas. It doesn't mean that anyone can come in and evict or destroy them. It guaranteed a quarrel with the Arabs because it meant we're going to take away land from what is most precious, your land. It guarantees an injustice to the Arabs, which now anyone can see and is now entering its fourth generation

of Palestinians brought up either in exile or dispossession or under occupations. or under occupation and humiliation, and now we know something it has to be done to address what is part of the original sin or conception. Last sentence. I've been writing in favor of a Palestinian homeland all my life, and I'm now no less or more in favor of it than I was before. It should be a matter of principle. If Jews born in Brooklyn have a right to a state in Palestine, then Palestinians born in

Jerusalem have a right to a state in Palestine. Anyone who doesn't agree with that principle is suspect. Comment. Well, one of the funny things about your friends dying, if they're well known, is that a type of person emerges in the years afterwards and tries to hold your late friend's words against you. I have no special love for that.

It will amaze you to hear that Christopher and I disagreed when he was alive and disagree when he's dead. And that's part of the nature of friendship. Somebody said to me in an interview, how can you be friends with X, a certain person? And I said, because I'm not a child. No. And I was always very moved by Christopher's attitude towards friendship.

My late friend Roger Scruton was very, very far to the other side of politics. It's Christopher Hitchens. But I remember saying once, when I told Christopher when we were in D.C. once, I said, you know, Rogers just moved to Virginia with his wife. And he said, oh, could you give me their number? I'd love to see them. Yeah. It's an important life lesson, that sort of thing. And when you're starting out, as I was then, it's also the sort of thing you want to pick up on. Yes, we did talk about this sometimes. Christopher noticed even then

that I was a Zionist somewhat preternaturally in his view and I do remember when his own politics were shifting in the 2000s and they definitely did shift to some extent everybody always says I didn't leave the left, the left left me and then maybe Bill Maher

and about two other people that's true of but most of the time it's the people also move a bit and Christopher moved a bit but he didn't find he once said to me about Israel he said, that seems to come to you naturally in a way it doesn't to me. He was complicated on that subject

and things have changed a lot since he was writing about it. He was, of course, very close to Edward Said and then rather cruelly waited till Saeed was dying to then attack him on his deathbed in a magazine. But, you know, I think of those... I think of what he would think about this, of course,

and I would say that he would have the courage and intelligence to realize, among other things, there was a reason why Christopher Hitchens didn't need Zionism. But he had the good fortune to be born in England in the latter part of the 20th century. Not every other Jew did, let alone somebody who discovered later in life there of Jewish heritage. his friend Salman Rushdie said something recently that I can't help thinking is something that Christopher might have come up with as well Salman Rushdie said I've spent my entire life supporting the statehood for the Palestinian people but he said I can't deny the fact that if there is another Palestinian state given to them

it'll be another Hamas state or an Iranian satellite state in the Middle East and I don't think that's a good thing I think that's a perfect reasonable But to get onto a slightly lighter note Since you've decided at this Christmas table We will address all of the things you're not meant to talk about We will do religion, politics We should talk about sex probably

And I just say one other thing Because I was thinking about this on the way in here this evening It's an example of the way one can have disagreements With dear friends This was the site of a very very John Gordon will remember this. This is a side of a wonderful occasion years ago where my friend Benadoggi Levy and Christopher

were both doing it two-hand here. There were very many wonderful things that happened that day. One was that Christopher had a great crack when they came on stage because Bernard was standing a flowing, open shirt as ever, at some point sort of rolled up his sleeves and threw his jacket into the front row.

I can't remember. And I remember when they came out on stage, Christopher looked at the audience and he said, so wonderful to see so many women who've turned up to see me and the audience laughed a lot

and then Christopher said ladies and gentlemen laugh but not that much leave me with some self-esteem but anyway but I remember the day also because as it happened I had had breakfast that morning in London with Henry Kissinger

who many of people No, it was not a friend of Christensen. But I always found Dr. Kissinger fascinating and learned a lot of wisdom from speaking with him. Anyway, it happened that I was in small group of people who had Dr. Kissinger for breakfast that morning, and he had said something, this was about 2004,

he'd said something that I thought, thought Christopher might agree with. And it was about Iraq. And one of the problems about Henry Kissinger was that quite often one would look through one's note, afterwards and they weren't as profound as they'd sounded from the man. Dr. Kirstenger was amazing at saying things like, the thing is that we live in a very complicated world.

And you go, God, that's great! And you'd scrably that. And then you'd look at your notes afterwards and think, eh, it's all right. Anyway, this was the only occasion that Christopher launched at me was in this building because drinks afterwards, I said to him, look, there's something I wanted to tell you. I saw Dr. Kissinger this morning for breakfast, and the moment I said it, I just knew I was in trouble.

And I wanted to be helpful. I thought I could share this insight. And as I was telling the story of what he had said, the insight of Dr. Kissinger just fell apart in front of me. It became less and less interesting. It went from quite useful and profound to utterly banal, and I could see it, and Christopher's eyes were lowering and lowering.

And there was this terrible portal that was opening up, and eventually he just snapped, we didn't need Dr. Kissinger to tell us that. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned anything, but yes. Okay, well, you know, it's funny that I always admired one thing Kisner said, and I discovered it wasn't his, which he said, you know, academics just disputes are so vicious because the stakes are so small.

but it wasn't even his. I learned that he borrowed that from someone else. But I have to say, I mean, I presented you with a hardball quote. There were later quotes from... That's not a hardball. Well, there were later quotes from Richard where he talked about his concerns about the direction that Palestinians were going in

and why it had nothing to do with their... What they were concerned about was had nothing to do with their mistreatment. It was more, you know, this vicious... I think... If he had lived long... enough to see what happened in October 23. I mean, that changed everything as far as I was concerned.

It would have been interesting to see. You know, I keep thinking what would he be doing then? And in all deference to you, Douglas, I do mean this with great series. When I see you on TV talking about this, I do think of Christopher. I think your bravery and your courage and directness. And now to the last question before we take a break and you come up with your own questions, to Stephen. This is another quote from Christopher, which is, you know, anyway,

one of my other favorite quotes where he says, my own opinion is enough for me. And I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with me can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass. Now, as you have said numerous times, with me and publicly and privately correctly,

being offended confers no special privileges. And yet today, thanks to onerous hate speech laws here in the United Kingdom, where condemning fundamentalist Islam, for example, can apparently get you arrested. I was really hoping we'd get arrested tonight, but we'll still see this time. There's still time. What do you think Hitch would have said or done about these ridiculous laws under where they're being enforced here in this country? Yes, I mean, it is an extraordinary thing to hear that our current government

thinking about bringing back certain blasphemy laws when we've only just got over having to get rid of them. It is deeply worrying, and I think he'd be extremely angry and passionist and funny and engaged about them. Of course, everyone can get in line to kiss my ass is a great phrase, but actually he got up three, you know, night after night after night to go to debates

to talk on small channels like C-SPAN in America and things like that, or MSBC, S, C, C, 2B, B, S-E-N, or whatever they're called. He actually wanted to talk. He wanted to raise things. He wanted people to understand. He wasn't, you know, he wasn't afraid to go out and speak. It wasn't just that this is what I think kiss my ass.

He actually said, here is my ass. Do you want to kiss him if you want to beat him? This is what it is. But he's, yeah, I mean, he, and I, it would be impertinent for me to try and second guess what he would think. Well, I've asked you to do something. Yeah, so I will try and do it, but I do it in all, you know, in all sense that it's just, you know, putting out an idea that many people would want perhaps to disagree with and say, no, he would never think that. But I think he would be, yes, he would be very, very, very strong against the kind of talk in academia and in closing down hate speech in the ways that it has been on, in social media.

So we haven't even discussed what he would have thought of social media. He was not great technically. He didn't even understand it when I mocked him for having an AOL.com email address. He didn't see why that that was a mockable offense. He took him a long time to get used to email, as you know. So what he would have thought, how he would have negotiated this idea of Twitter, which was five years old when he died, five or six years old, die, but it hadn't really acquired

the critical mass that it... The Arab Spring was happening, actually, around the time that Christopher was ill, and all the way from Tunisia to Yemen and Syria, the public squares were being filled with voices

and things seemed hopeful, and free speech seemed to be very alive in a way that suited us. It was free speech that suited people who talked for a living and claim to think for a living and so on. I hesitate to use the I word intellectuals, certainly not of me,

but of intellectuals generally. It all seemed to be going in the right direction. The free speech was actually working. It was very, very quick that it closed down, and it was very soon after Christopher's death. Was it suspiciously soon after his death? But almost you could argue, Christopher died, the Brexit campaign started,

Trump came to power, Elon Musk rose and rose. and rose. On that side, on the left, the trumpeting of gender peculiarities and everything else that have perplexed, confused, embarrassed and caused us all to wonder, and for some people to be angry and offensive

and rude about it and others just like me to want to crawl into a hole and die. Because, you know, I'm just not the kind of person who likes to offend anybody, despite what I've said about offender. I don't like offending people, and it upsets me to see offence in people's eyes. But on the other hand, we are living in a world where people are talking such horseshit, as Douglas rightly put, that people you feel almost need to be offended.

And that those of us who do believe in free speech, but not for a political reason, for the reason of itself, have to be louder. and I think it would have been great to have had Christopher around as a champion waving that flag and encouraging us all on because certainly Douglas is brave and Richard is brave and there are figures you can point to and say these people speak up and don't mind being screamed down, don't mind being threatened physically,

don't mind having to have security because of what they're saying. And that is unbelievably that. and he needs to be rewarded. And I think Christopher would have been happy to stand by your side when you were threatened, even if he disagreed with you still on Israel. I think he would have been outraged by the kind of things that had been said against you.

Would he have been willing to speak out and go to jail and if he'd be in defense of free speech in this country? I think so. I mean, even I mean, when I did it. Yeah, I spoke. I gave it what was a very lame and well-traveled. argument, Theodicy, in Italy, in Ireland.

You can see how my mind works. I see the letter I, and then I just read off my mind, and it came out wrong. And someone suggested I'd go to prison because I'd broken Ireland's blasphemy laws by saying what I would say to God if it turned out that I woke up. I remember that. And I thought of myself pale and resolute in the dark. gripping the dock and standing saying, yes, send me to prison for my views.

Send me now. And I was picturing myself as this kind of hero. But whether I would have been or not, but Christopher, for sure. I mean, I think he would have loved being in prison. Yes. Yeah, I think you're right. Well, we also have, what I regard is perhaps against very strong competition,

his best speech, which is one he gave in Canada in about 2008 to universes. where he said, you have blasphemy laws in this country now effectively, and watch me break them. Just watch me. And I remember it was a pretty hair-raising speech because friends of Christopher's and mine were in some serious trouble at the time. The Danish cartoonists, the French cartoonists.

Ayan. A lot of Christopher and my friends were in really bad position. And I remember what you... that speech immediately it was out. And it's where he really, he says, you know, I mean, of course, you know, all religions can be bad at certain times. We've got a particular problem with Islam at the moment and let me tell you what I think about Islam.

And you can hear the whole hall go, and then he explains that it was an illiterate tradesman who badly, you know, borrowed from the Old and New Testament and, you know, what's more likely than an archangel came and gave a badly plagiarized version of other scriptures. to an illiterate tradesman or that he made it all up. And I remember watching this. And I wrote, I remember, I was thinking in preparation for tonight

to go back and read my emails with Christopher and I just thought it would make me to feel too sad, so I didn't. But I do remember writing an email to him, a media after watching that saying, I love you, I adore you. That was superb. But please be careful.

because I knew exactly the cliff that he was on and indeed had jumped over but that was what he was like again it goes back to him as a boy always willing to take the leap yeah absolutely and he would have loved yes he would have if he was willing to go to Canada

and insult them for their poxy little laws then yeah he would have done it here I think he would have I would have loved it well I there's so much I wanted to touch a bunch of delicate subjects and we did.

And when I was, when we were thinking about running this, I thought, well, how can one appropriately celebrate Christopher and I thought of the three people that I would most admire to do that? And I was so happy that they agreed to be on stage. So we'll take a break now

and we'll thank all of you. And we're now, you're going to have to come up with some good questions. Thank you very much. Well, much to my dismay, there were many good questions. It's hard to know where to begin with But I kind of like this one

This is for everyone There's some that I'm going to direct to specific people Free sex Free speech, free association are the three godic principles of Young Hitch Can any of the panel recommend An appropriate fourth to this trifecta? I thought it's a great question

It's a hard answer Does anyone have to begin with free? No, it's interesting Because free speech is of course And it's a subject we're talking about and we all believe in. But I keep wondering, especially when comparing myself to Americans and our culture in Europe and Britain compared to America,

where free speech is the end point. It's what you have to achieve. And for us, free speech is an end point because it leads to something which is even more desirable, and that is equity, fairness, justice, decency, peace, all those things are the most important. And free speech is an absolutely. vital step towards them.

But it isn't the end point. The end point is justice. And of course you can't say justice now because people think of justice warriors and and it's become a dirty word almost. But whatever we mean by fairness in Australia a fair shake, they call it and it's

a simple phrase but it covers an enormous amount in treating people equally with equal dignity according to their character and so on. And you can't read it without free speech but free speech is not as I say the final step and so I suppose

I would put I don't know what word it is to cover it but the thing you aim for the actual peak of the mountain is something else that's excellent okay anyone else have any so what is it free speech free love free sex free speech free association association doesn't have to be free as we've now you know that covers I was you know okay why don't you go and then I am I was thinking, I'm not sure it would have been the young hitch. And it's certainly ridiculous coming out of my mouth, but I would have said humility.

Because, you know, I think that, in a sense, also, Christopher embodied that in spite of it he didn't appear to, but the willingness to be wrong and the willingness to recognize that you didn't know. Yeah, knowing the limits of his knowledge. Yeah, to know the limits of knowledge. Anyone else? They're not endless humility.

Not endless humility. No, no, no, not. And not free humility either. I mean, humility about something you don't know about, but not about something you do. Yeah. If you're debating with an ignoramus, you should not be humble.

But I think he would, he also had the view that a lot of people do, that the free sex is only possible when it's nearly free, which is when you pay for it. But if you're not paying for it, the price of it is enormous. Absolutely.

No, I'm biting my tongue. Okay. There's a question. I'm going to answer and I'm going to ask you too, Richard, because you just did something with him. And I've spent some time. It's an interesting question. Do you think Christopher could possibly become friends with Jordan Peterson?

Arguably, they'd have some things to agree on despite their apparent differences. And I want to answer that first. I've spent time with Jordan and done two podcasts with him. and first of all, I think the answer is yes. Christopher was deep friends with Justice Scalia, and if you could be friends with Antonin Scalia, Jordan Peterson would be easy. But I think he would have enjoyed, as I do,

making fun of Jordan when I'm with him, especially in publicly. Jordan, as I said to him, so I'm free to say it here, when I was younger, I used to watch a lot of TV, and I watched the Dick Van Dyke show, which to me was a source of all wisdom. And there's a famous line that Carl Reiner said in it, which is what on the surface seems vague is in reality meaningless.

And I've said that to Jordan many, many times. In any case, Richard, you had some, you just had a little discussion with Jordan. Yes, I've done two discussions with him. The most recent one was in Arizona. And this time I did manage to get a word in Edgeways. The first time I hardly did, that was in Oxford, and it was just private room but recorded. And I think the only word I got in was to chide him

for his ridiculous idea that DNA is a Jungian archetype, which which is which wait it gets better primitive peoples have had knowledge of DNA as you can tell from their art where they have serpents

oh my God oh fuck just swirling round each of in a spiral and he thought that they had some kind of inner eye

that looked inside their own cells and could see their own DNA wow no I wonder I didn't None of which would matter, and I think Christopher would immediately leap to that point, if Peterson, with whom I've also, I debated with him once in Toronto, on the same side, oddly enough. And I've done podcasts and things with him.

And all the things he says, however nonsensical they might be, fine, but he's actually an influence on young people and tells them how to live. It's like watching someone with no teeth giving advice on dentistry. but hang on physician heal themselves hang on hang on hang on

hang on I think it's easy to criticize I will say the one thing that's always impressed me about well the one thing that's always impressed me about Jordan is when I is that he

he has been curious and you know when we talk about things and also when I think I point out he's wrong he's willing to at least for the moment say that and those are two characters that I think are very important. Yes, and also if I can say so,

Jordan's a very good friend of mine, I love him. He is a very disagreeable person in a way that quite a lot of our friends are. And there's nothing wrong with that, and sometimes disagreeability recognizes disagreeability and has a whale of a time. And I think,

I think Chief Christopher would have enormously enjoyed the new type of challenges in ideas that Jordan would have brought in front of him. Yeah. There's not much fun in debating the same dolls night after night. You know, actually, when somebody comes forward with a different set of views, a new way of approaching it, something that's been forgotten for a while. Young was sort of disappeared from the world of ideas as far as I can remember for 70 years or so,

pretty much. Jordan has helped bring Young back in a rather large way. I think that Christopher would at least benefited from it. that and enjoyed it. He'd have enjoyed the tussle, that's for sure. And he'd have enjoyed the fact that here was somebody willing to defend their opinions robustly as well. So I don't agree that his man without teeth. I hugely admire his courageous stand against the Canadian laws mandating the use of stupid pronouns. That's how we've got well known in Canada. Yeah, I mean, that's courageous. And also, by the way, the life advice.

thing, if I can just say so quickly, the life advice thing is actually, it's a very interesting thing in our time that a lot of people who read Jordan's first book, for instance, friends of mine who read it, said things like, well, it's obvious what he's saying. And I always said the same thing, no.

It might be obvious to you. There's many people who have been brought up in an utter vacuum. In an utter vacuum. And they need to be told basic truths about how to organise their lives. And I, for one, think that what Jordan has done on that has brought visible improvement to the lives of many, many people and anyone

who's interested in ideas should care about that. Excellent. Okay, good. There's some questions that I think can get quick answers. This one, I'm going to go a quick answer, but other people can jump in. It's from a 17-year-old. How does one make philosophy a career? And the answer is, please don't.

Anyone else want to comment on that? Well, it used to be a path to an elegant tweedy poverty. But then, starting about five years ago, particularly ethicists and bioethicists, were getting six-figure salaries as entry salaries in biotech and silicon valley. But what was interesting is that philosophy is a subject that asks awkward questions and continues.

always to ask questions and Silicon Valley has now decided that it's had enough of paid philosophers and Google fired its ethicists and chat GPT has done similar things so the idea that you could be a practical philosopher and also Pete Singer's particular you know all the the what's it called his altruism the the the effective altruism movement got very tied up with rather peculiar Sam Bankman and Friedman, whatever his name was. So, yeah, it seems to have shrunk and retreated a little back to academia and platform speeches from the idea that it was going suddenly to become a practical, applied study that you could

bring to industry and particularly to the technical sector. That seems to have changed. But I don't know what the question is driving at exactly. Well, I think he's a young man interested in philosophy. I mean, I study it, I think. It's a great subject. It's a great subject. And then you can do physics after that.

And have substance. No, the 17-year-old has been encouraged to pursue philosophy if it's their passion, and if they're good at it, and know that you're dealing with a substance that's fire. And that's a good substance to be dealing with. And I slightly disagree with Stephen's analysis about the free speech and the purpose of it.

I don't think the free speech is, and I hope I'm not Mr. representing the way you said it, but I don't think it is about arriving at justice and fairness, I think it's simply about arriving at truth. And the truth is the single thing that you should orient yourself towards in your life, whether you're a scientist, a philosopher, a mathematician,

whatever else, and that if you see that and you're lucky enough at the age of 17 to see a way through to do that in your discipline, you should run all the way with it. Well, I agree, but... Well, applause. But I think, to be less facetious, I think it's really important for a young person

to study philosophy and philosophers because it's the beginning. It's the questions. Philosophy is for asking questions. And then one can move beyond that, but asking critical questions, I think, is incredibly important. But I think that, but as a scientist, I sort of worry about this thing for truth.

You're trying to avoid falsehood, but science can never reveal the absolute truth about the world. There's no absolutes in science. There really aren't. There's always the possibility of going beyond that. So you just try not to be wrong and not to be false and find out, and it's like Sherlock Holmes, who we were talking about, we sort of get rid of the things that are known false

and you get closer to truth, I think. Some of the cleverest people I know have been philosophers, and my feeling is, what a shame they didn't turn their cleverness to science. Yeah, exactly. No, exactly. I've always asked, why weren't you a scientist? There's some other quick questions, and I think maybe I'll have to ask, begin, out of deference to you, Stephen. The question is, who is your favorite Greek god and why? It's not to you, but I think everyone can answer, but I think once you answer, the rest of us won't have anything to say. Oh, no, I'm no definitive solution to the question. It's one I'm often asked,

because I've been writing about the subject lately. and I tend to answer Hermes because he's the god of storytellers and liars and thieves and rascals and change and spreading stories, spreading news and he was impertinence and cheeky and rather attractive if you are to believe Donatello

and various other artists who've given versions of him so I would certainly say Hermes stroke mercury if you want the Roman version Hermeses... Aphrodite. Aphrodite. You have to say why. That's enough.

That was okay. Well, from there, I don't know why this, I couldn't resist. What's your favorite dinosaur? Does anyone have an answer to that? The last question came from somebody who was 17. Did this one,

someone who's five? Okay, well then let's move to something. Parasauruophus. I think the Ransaurus Rex is my favorite, but I don't know whether... Parasauruophis is my grandson's favorite dinosaurs. In honor of him, I like that. Oh, okay, absolutely. Okay.

Anyone else? There's that one that's hunted in packs, so I like that one. Yeah. They aren't... Someone said to me that the earliest allosaurs were further in time from the T-Rex than the T-O-Rex. is from the iPhone. So there is a lot to choose from,

I suppose what I'm saying, but in the Cretaceous T-Rex, because as a child, that's the one you played with. Okay, well, I couldn't resist that one. But let's move to... Apparently Hitchens' favorite writers were Orwell and Woodhouse. What does the panel think of these two writers? You start.

Well, where to begin? Well, Orwell was obviously the presiding journalistic genius of his era and that was because he was willing to always follow things through to the next stage of inquiry and thought and had a burrowing mind and curiosity which is uncommon among journalists and of course he gave us at least two of the great parables of the 20th century which is that's something on its own Christopher was interested in all well and the same way every journalist is interested in all well you just have to be Woodhouse is just as Stephen has often written eloquently about

it is simply like a bath in the middle of a horrible work I think Evelyn War said that it's a sort of prelapsarian world where even even carnal embrace is not there. None of the characters are sexual in any way. They're sort of delightfully joyously free of certain of the human constraints. He loved it. I'd just throw one other in there though. Christopher like me was a huge admirer of Evelyn War and just adored and we would sometimes do over lunch or something, compete

with reciting passages from some of war's novels because of the sheer ability of war to say things that were incredibly true but which pierced through every imaginable human folly

and also every human decency. I remember there's one passage and I think it's in Black Mischief or a handful of dust where there's a reference to the fact that the natives in a particular area have been moderately civilized by the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church has had to make an agreement because the area in question has been indulging in eating each other for a long time. And so it's explained

that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with them, whereby the consumption of human flesh is not to occur, except on occasional feast days, and only then with special dispensation from the bishop. And I remember Christopher saying, you have to be a couple of have to really know your Catholic theology and human beings and much more to come up with something like that. Anyone else? No, I agree. I mean Woodhouse, yes, exactly.

And he valued the prose genius of Woodhouse. The innocence, the sunniness, even before the fall is absolutely right, but also just simply his ability to put one word in front of another in a way that is balanced and joyous and makes you kind of gasp with pleasure. Makes you want to rush out and show somebody. It does. Yeah, exactly. Things like he was so fat that tailors would measure him just for the exercise.

Or there was another one who is as if nature had poured him into his clothes and forgotten to say when. That's right. But one of the golf novels, as I was only introduced to recent, recently by a friend because I said I don't like golf. I'm totally uninterested in golf. And she said, not about golf at all. Woodhouse makes it wonderful. And one of the golf novels, somebody is on the green, or whatever they call it.

And a man says, accuses another of the men from the club of having tried to run off with his girlfriend. And he says that if you knew the lady in question, it's like accusing somebody of running off with the Albert Hall. We can go on all night. There was a great golf one as well where one of those golfs who blamed any side distraction for the fact that they played a rotten shot and he plays a shot

and blames it on the uproar of butterflies in an adjoining meadow. Well, anyway, we could go on. Okay, I'm going to ask some questions. We only have a few more minutes, so I'm going to try and run around. Let's see. Richard, it says,

Richard, if the God of the Old and New Testament was described as a seemingly nice guy, would that change your opinions on religion and the idea of God as a whole? Well, I mean, I don't really care so much whether he's a nice guy or a terrible one, which he is, was. But does he exist? That's the thing I constantly come up against when arguing with so many religious people. they don't seem to even care about the question of truth. It's all a question of morality.

Is it good? Is it consoling? Is it comforting? Is God good? Is God bad? Whereas what I want to know is, is it true? Yeah, the two scientists of the panel, I think that's our thing,

is the religion, the tenets of organized religion are manifestly in contradiction to the evidence of science. And so it's whether it's true or not, well, not whether it's good or bad, or whether one should use it. Although it is, you know, there are other reasons, and Christopher, as much as anyone else, describe the moral reasons why organized religion is repugnant.

But I think the point is, is it true, I think. There are people who will say that they're religious. I'm thinking of one person in particular favorite of Christopher. I would mention her name. And it's because of moral considerations or comforting considerations, and I cannot get her to answer the question, do you actually believe it's true? And she says, well, I choose to believe.

Well, you can't choose to believe something. You do or you don't. Okay, I would pass to the whole panel, but I want to give everyone a chance to ask one more question. So I'm going to give this one to you because this will give you a chance to blaspheme like you did, I think, in Ireland. And it would give, I think, a wonderful answer that you gave.

It said if you had a numinous, well, it's not for you, but in any case, the question is, if you had a numinous experience, what would you say to God? Repentance or rejection? And I think you, I remember you saying something absolutely spectacular about this. Well, yeah, I was asked by Gayburn, the Irish chat show host, who then did a sort of Sunday religious program and to go on his program, where, in fact, it was in number one, Marion Square, where we did the interview, which is where Oscar grew up, and it was rather pleased.

But anyway, he said at the end, he said, no, you've said, Cyrill expressed your atheism quite strongly, he said. But suppose you die, and then when you open your eyes, there's God, what do you say to him? And I said, how fucking dare you? Exactly. Bone cancer and children. What were you thinking of or whatever? I mean, this isn't the argument from evil or the problem with pain.

It's been written about since time immemorial, but it caused a bit of a fuss. But, you know, I think Richard's point is. is absolutely right. Empirically, you can say, well, obviously, the idea of a wholly beneficent God is nonsense in a world full of such unjustified pain and misery, and

he should have organized things better, and why would he make burrowing parasitic creatures whose whole life cycle is to dig into the eye of a child and make them blind and lay eggs inside them. That wasn't necessary. So, you know, you could rewrite all

things bright and beautiful. There's all things foul and hideous. Monty Python did. Oh, there you are, exactly. Yeah, my Lord God made them all. But the question is, yeah, it's simply. And there we should pay homage to Hitchens' razor, as I believe. It's called in philosophy classes to this day.

The Hitchens razor, which, unlike Occam's razor, it basically says, I think, anything that can be attested or claimed without evidence can be dismissed and repeated. Without evidence, exactly. Yeah.

Okay. I would love to go on, but I want to give Douglas a chance. You can choose between these two questions for a short answer. One, the two questions are, how do you think Hitch would have voted in the 2024 U.S. election? And the other

one is, what do you think of Christian nationalism or just religious in coinciding with the political world. You choose which one you answer that. The what ifs are impossible. Somebody referred to that earlier. The one thing I could, it would be audacious to say anything

about how he would have voted or quite hard sometimes to work out at the time how he voted. I know he wouldn't have gone for the easy laughs. One of the striking things about his response to George W. Bush is that he used to say, you know,

I can do all that stuff. I can do the stuff about how close his eyes are together. You practically use a monocle as a pair of glasses. I can do all that. I can do all that, but that's the easy stuff. There's no point. One of my other great heroes, Norm MacDonald, always said this,

is don't do the easy stuff. Anyone can do that. Any stand-up two-bit comic can do a Donald Trump riff or George W. were raised. Find the more interesting, more difficult, the thing that other people aren't doing. and as for the other bit, what was it again? Well, the election and Christian nationalism.

Well, he wouldn't have liked Christian nationalism at all. Nobody will be surprised to hear that. I mean, the interesting thing about the post-9-11 atheism was, of course, is that it really went into the mainstream in such a big way because really violent religion was back. in a way that Europe had not had for a long time. And some people said, well, why do you, why do I, why do Christopher, why do Richard, why do others,

object to this? And I think I can safely say, we all said the same thing, which was if another form of religious nationalism or religious extremism was on our streets trying to behead people, I can absolutely guarantee you we wouldn't be on board with that either. If the Mormon suddenly descended on London and threatened to decapitate everyone

who didn't agree with the Book of Mormon, we wouldn't give them a free pass either. It's a general standard. Okay, excellent. Well, there's one for me, which, it says to Dr. Grouse, could you elaborate on the idea of nothing having particles popping in out of existence

when matter cannot be created or destroy? The answer is I could, but we really don't have time. But the last question I want to... It's right in front of you. Well, I guess I'm going to answer it, because we're going to get to this auction, which closes in eight minutes. Do you miss him more as an ally or a friend?

I think speak on behalf of all of us. I admired Christopher not because of an ally, just like I admire the gentleman on his stage, not because they're allies, because I admire them as human beings and for what they do. And I think it's not so much I admire people who aren't my allies.

And I think it's absolutely true of Christopher and I think I would be surprised if any of you would disagree that it was the friendship that we felt so lucky with and the admiration for him as an intellect and human being. Is that with that? Totally, yes. He saw things.

You know, like what T.S. Eliot said about Webster, he saw the skull beneath the skin. Yes. You know, he showed you things. He made you, and his audiences and his readers see things they hadn't seen, see them in ways they hadn't seen. And it's up to them to interpret what they had seen, but he actually made things visible.

And that's the greatest thing that, and so do Richard and so does Douglas. And so do, you know, the best of our public intellectuals, if we're going to use that awful phrase, is that they are serious enough in the French sense of, you know, not in pompous, you know, self-regarding, ways, but in serrier sort of ways, they care enough

about every action of humanity and every move on the board of the game of our life to analyze and to show us how it can be different and how it once was and how it really is. And he could do that. He could show you things.

I just had one tiny thing to that, which is I think in my experience, like everyone in life is not exclusive to any of us. Everyone in life loses everyone they love at some point. And it's a very interesting distinction between people of when people

are summoned up, the remembrance of the things past is summoned up again, the people who you still feel, you feel the warmth of their memory. And sometimes there's certain people, Clive, James is another for me, when somebody, particularly a student, says, did you know,

Did you know, Clive, did you know Christopher? It's never irritating. It's always just, ah, we've got him back for a second. Yeah, exactly. And that's a very special thing with human beings, and I suppose everyone should aspire to be such a person to spread such a warmth even years after they've gone. And that's the reason we're doing this tonight.

This was a celebration in a wonderful time of year about a wonderful human being and it's been a particular pleasure for me to share the stage with these wonderful human beings and also to thank you for your remarkable questions and I hope I enjoyed it as much as I did. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Hi, it's Lawrence again. As the Origins podcast continues to reach millions of people around the world, I just wanted to say thank you. It's because of your support, whether you listen or watch, that we're able to help enrich the perspective of listeners by providing access to the people and ideas that are changing our understanding of ourselves and our world and driving the future of our society in the 21st century.

If you enjoyed today's conversation, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. You can also leave us private feedback on our website if you'd like to see any parts of the podcast improved. Finally, if you'd like to access ad-free and bonus content, become a paid subscriber at Originsproject.org. This podcast is produced by the Origins Project Foundation as a non-profit effort committed to enhancing public literacy and engagement with the world by connecting science and culture.