A live blog. Hitchens is, of course, dead but d’Souza is very much not.

The Bible is not a book of arguments, but of claims. Hitchens employs the Oxford style of sarcastic debate to use reason to trump revelation. Yet both are together the founding stones of Western civilisation. Athens and Jerusalem is where we are based.

Athens – hated trade and business. Loved blood and spectacle. A very alien society from us. We could not bring this back.

Much better to have a real debate entirely on reason alone as Hitchens would want. Which way would a reasoned debate go? Will look at the issue at life after death. Take the typical arguments to show how unreasonable such ideas are.

Virtually all cultures have had this belief and aspiration. If the belief is irrational why do all cultures have it? Where does such a belief come from? Hitchens argued that it was from wish fulfilment. Our wishful thinking drives this belief.

So let’s test it. But after death, there is not just heaven but also hell. There is no wish fulfilment in that? Why come up with something that is worse than life? Hitchens then conceded, after the debate, to say that there was more to it.

What is the evidence for no life after death? What is the basis for asserting there is nothing on the other side? In fact, neither of us know. The difference between them is that a “believer” (which is not a “knower”). The real difference is that a believer is based on faith, but a non-believer is that he thinks the other view is based on reason.

The scepticism of belief must be posed against the reality of the need for action. But for some things, there must be a leap of faith. Must decide in the present. Even though life after death is unknowable, you have to decide. Nothing we know about the nature of existence rules out life after death.

There seems to be some settling of cosmic accounts. Morality is that strange being inside us that makes claims on us. The voice of right and wrong is a part of us. Morality is not some etherial thing, but is within us. Yet nevertheless seems to be a force. Self interest is the opposite of morality. Where does morality come from? Is it protecting genes or reciprocity? Not really – might explain about a third. There is a tribunal called conscience.

One last thought: it seems that both the believer and the non-believer are on a common quest. Hopeful that this is a dialogue that can be engaged with in a cordial manner.

Q: What must an atheist believe?

A: Intelligent design argument occurs where the evidence is weakest. Evolution is not an argument. The watchmaker evidence is even stronger today than in the time of Paley. The universe has to be as old and as big as it is and to have the properties it has for us to have this conversation. Seems to suggest design. Others have to explain such exact precision and their own answer is the multiverse. So ask for the evidence and there is none at all. To get rid of one invisible God you must postulate an infinity of universes.

Q: Atheism is also a faith-based religion.

A: Don’t agree. Religion requires a belief in the supernatural. An atheist goes beyond the evidence. When it comes to law, why can we have a statue of Voltaire but not of Moses, when all we are debating the evidence of history on religion.