Neither Hitchens' nor Blair's arguments are terribly persuasive here. Hitchens argues that religion is not a force for good in the world because of the bad things religion has been responsible for (think Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, etc
.). Blair believes the opposite, citing the good religion has done.
It's a shame, really. This could've been a great debate, but Hitchens is too acerbic and Blair really isn't a great spokesman for religion. As usual, Kurt Godel summed it up best when he said (and I paraphrase) religions are for the most part harmful—but religion is not
. That might sound like a mealy-mouthed proposition, but I think he's absolutely right. Hitchens argues (correctly) that religions
have done much evil, but he misses the fact that religion
is a different beast. Blair argues that religions
are good, when in fact he ought to have argued thusly for religion
; then he would have stood a chance at defending himself.