Hitchens vs. Blair: Be It Resolved Religion Is a Force for Good in the World

This volume transcribes the 2010 Munk Debate in Toronto between Christopher Hitchens and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair on whether religion constitutes a force for good in the world. The debate format presents Hitchens arguing against the motion while Blair defends it, creating a structured confrontation between new atheist critique and liberal religious defense.

Hitchens deploys his characteristic rhetorical arsenal, cataloguing historical and contemporary instances of religious violence, oppression, and irrationality. He argues that religion inherently corrupts moral reasoning by introducing supernatural sanctions and rewards that distort ethical calculation. His position extends beyond mere criticism of religious extremism to indict the moderate religious mainstream for providing cover and legitimacy to fundamentalist interpretations. Hitchens contends that even benign religious practice participates in perpetuating dangerous delusions about reality, authority, and morality.

Blair counters by distinguishing between religious faith itself and its abuse by extremists. He emphasizes religion's role in inspiring charitable work, social justice movements, and personal transformation. His argument rests on pragmatic grounds, pointing to religious organizations' contributions to education, healthcare, and poverty alleviation globally. Blair acknowledges religious violence but attributes it to political manipulation of faith rather than intrinsic religious teaching. He presents his own Anglican faith as compatible with reason, pluralism, and progressive politics.

The exchange illuminates fundamental disagreements about epistemology and moral foundations. Hitchens treats religious belief as inherently irrational and therefore dangerous, while Blair views it as a legitimate source of meaning that can coexist with secular reason. Their debate exemplifies the post-9/11 intensification of public argument about religion's social role, with Hitchens representing uncompromising secularist critique and Blair embodying religious liberalism's attempt to preserve faith's public relevance.

The work's significance lies in its high-profile crystallization of contemporary positions on religion's value. Unlike academic treatments, this popular format reaches broader audiences while maintaining substantive engagement with philosophical and empirical claims. The debate format also reveals how arguments about religion function rhetorically in public discourse, with both speakers appealing to shared values while interpreting evidence through incompatible frameworks. The text thus serves as both document and performance of early twenty-first century culture wars over secularization.