During my earlier and more vulnerable years, I found myself in a position to substitute for a debate on God and religion in Nantucket. This opportunity arose due to the last-minute cancellation of a more prominent participant. Christopher Hitchens, known for his prosecutorial efforts against faith, was the opposing side. It turned out to be quite a brutal affair in my memory. The audience had gathered to witness Hitchens at the height of his powers, while I felt like the Washington Generals in comparison. I presented carefully rehearsed and logically sound arguments, only to have them effortlessly dismissed by Hitchens with his wit. The crowd cheered for him, leaving me feeling defeated and inadequate.
From that experience, I learned a valuable lesson: attempting to defeat charismatic individuals like Hitchens with facts and logic is an exercise in futility. His claim that “religion poisons everything” was a combination of balderdash, historical caricature, and thinly veiled anti-religious bias. Instead of engaging in a public debate with him, I should have focused on creating a world where institutions refuse to provide a platform for his fundamentalist atheism, regardless of public demand.
No, wait. That’s not the lesson I actually took away. The lesson was that I made a mistake and should strive to do better next time. It didn’t matter whether I personally disagreed with Hitchens’s atheism; he was a significant figure leading an influential movement. In a free society, there is no substitute for engaging in debates with influential figures, despite the risks of defeat or humiliation.
This perspective is relevant to the ongoing debate about whether defenders of mass vaccination and other scientifically supported health policies should engage in public debates with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a Democratic candidate for president. Recently, Peter Hotez, a prominent vaccine advocate, declined an invitation to debate Kennedy on Joe Rogan’s popular podcast. Hotez argued that Kennedy is slippery and unpersuadable, making it unproductive to engage with him. Several intelligent individuals wrote essays supporting Hotez’s decision, highlighting the futility of engaging with fringe theories.
While I understand and respect the choice to opt out of specific debate formats, I believe that Kennedy’s ideas cannot be dismissed or ignored in the year 2023. They have significant influence, as evidenced by the millions of Americans who have chosen not to receive the Covid-19 vaccine. Kennedy himself is a well-known figure with access to numerous prominent platforms, including Joe Rogan’s podcast. Additionally, he is a presidential candidate with measurable support in current polls.
If we believe that Kennedy should not be debated publicly, we must present an alternative theory on how to persuade those who are curious about his ideas. The current approach of fact-checking by the media and relying on authoritative expert statements has proven ineffective. It relies on the very trust in institutions that has eroded, leading to the rise in vaccine skepticism. Heavy-handed appeals to authority only deepen suspicion and alienation, rather than addressing the underlying concerns.
On the other hand, engaging in arguments, while risky, provides an opportunity to acknowledge and address the suspicions of skeptics, thereby rebuilding trust. There are various ways to approach a public argument. For example, if I were to debate Kennedy, I would not represent the authority of science but present my moderate doubts about official knowledge, offering a more cautious version of his outsider thinking.
The goal of such a debate is not necessarily to convince Kennedy himself to renounce the vaccine-autism link or any other unsupported claims. Rather, it aims to persuade parts of the audience and change minds at the margins. I believe that my colleague’s case against Kennedy’s 2004-election theories may have convinced some listeners. Furthermore, I’d like to think that my occasional appearances on Bill Maher’s HBO show have contributed positively to defending theism, compensating for my previous defeat on that Nantucket beach.
Perhaps this is an optimistic delusion, but unless we advocate for a Ministry of Truth-like institution, there is no reasonable alternative to engaging in public debates. It is imperative to find ways to address skepticism, mistrust, and divergent ideas through open dialogue rather than enforcing an intellectual quarantine.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
