Debate Between Rabbi Boteach and Christopher Hitchens:
Date: Jan-30, 2008

Found: Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnMYL8sF7bQ)
Runtime: 1:33:55


Interesting, organized discussion to watch all the way through. Outlining the difference in the philosophy of each mind, and what is given value. Of course; there is nothing conclusive about this or any other similar debate ever. However it addresses valid philosophical scopes of importance.

Please do not let this turn into an atheist vs. religion thread.
This is meant to be a "What is the scope of a religious person" vs "What is the scope of an atheist".

For example:
Hitchens finds value in discussing that the human race is in doom anyways, and that we're a fluke to nature. That we're found no other place in the universe, and that our very existence on this earth is teetering on the balance.

While.

R' Boteach finds value in discussing that the human race is a fluke to nature, and our very nature is teetering on existence, which proves to be the miraculous nature of our existence.


Both of which are analyzing the exact same variables, in different scopes of perspective.

=======

I personally value the opinions of Christopher Hitchens. I am also proud of the way Jewish organizations have set up means for discussion with him, this is not the only event. It turns out Mr. Hitchens is himself actually Jewish legitimately.

http://richarddawkins.net/images/hitchens_notable_interviews.jpg
- Note that he was wearing this out of respect, not because he's a practicing Jew. (Not a video clip from the video provided above)

There are good reasons to suspect humans may not last long but chance could have a few survivors from this & that & they could possibly go on & on. If humanity (or Earth humans) dies out, will it matter to anyone?
No human has anything significant to go on in determining whether humans are a fluke.
We're found no other place in the world??? If you meant universe, we have no way of finding whether there are humans any other place.
Someone saw a golf shot involving a tree, a bird & water & called it a miracle. I saw the same thing & called it physics.
My brother calls the internet a miracle.
Primitives call cargo a miracle.

There are good reasons to suspect humans may not last long but chance could have a few survivors from this & that & they could possibly go on & on. If humanity (or Earth humans) dies out, will it matter to anyone?
No human has anything significant to go on in determining whether humans are a fluke.
We're found no other place in the world??? If you meant universe, we have no way of finding whether there are humans any other place.
Someone saw a golf shot involving a tree, a bird & water & called it a miracle. I saw the same thing & called it physics.
My brother calls the internet a miracle.
Primitives call cargo a miracle.

...so you didn't watch the video did you? Pointing out my typos is acceptable. However how about you watch the video if you're going to post...since the thread is about the video, all points not related are worthless.

My computer has problems with many internet videos. I planned to try but decided to 1st post some response to your OP, somehow thinking I was on topic.
My purpose wasn't to point out typos. I suspected what you meant but led with a question on it.
Such rude overemotional kneejerk assumptive reactions are becoming very old & tired.
I suspect I can stay out of this thread if that would please you.

Stranger, you'll quickly find out that Cheski is a snarky little jerk. He sent me a PM calling me stupid recently. Real class.

Stranger, you'll quickly find out that Cheski is a snarky little jerk. He sent me a PM calling me stupid recently. Real class.

You can kiss my ass JDawg.

Rabbi Smelly sure did commit character suicide during that debate.

Rabbi Boteach sure did commit character suicide during that debate.

I agree, towards the end he got far too emotionally involved.

You can kiss my ass JDawg.

Again, class.

As far as the debate, it must be very hard to debate a man like Hitchens, who can envoke art and literature and make the mundane sound so interesting and inspiring. And as I've always said, it's pretty ridiculous that a religious person would attempt to debate an atheist on the legitimacy of faith...after all, faith is an irrational aspect of this life, why would anyone expect it to make for a good debate?

It's like arguing why someone is beautiful...

I agree, towards the end he got far too emotionally involved.

I thought you blocked me?:)

Anyways, I didn't like how the Rabbi fought so hard against Evolution. Some of the stuff he said was silly, like he claimed that Gould didn't believe in Evolution which is a complete contrivance along with several other things he said. Gould believes in Evolution, he just believes in what he calls 'Punctuated Equilibrium' which is simply an extension of the Theory of Evolution.

I watched about 15-20 mins of arguements. Hitchens clearly came out the winner.

I saw this one a while ago. I'm an atheist, so of course I think Hitchens made the better argument. Carl Sagan used to make the case that science revealed more mystery for us to revere, so atheism isn't a hopeless, small view of the universe at all. We are as significant as we are insignificant. Judgements can only be made in relation to something else. If a housefly reproduced at it's maximum possible rate, the mass of it's population would soon exceed all the galaxies in the universe. Big Bang theory states that the entire universe was once the size of a housefly.

They should have gotten the most Jewish guy they could find to argue, not some secular philosopher from an Ivy league school. I'm talking an 80 year old Rabbi from Israel, Hitchens would have had no shot!

The Orthodox point of view isn't any more rational, in fact it's very much less.

The Orthodox point of view isn't any more rational, in fact it's very much less.

Spidergoat you kiddin me? The Rosh Yeshivas in Israel are the most logical people on the planet!

Relative to the assumed truth of the Bible, perhaps. But they all start with faith.

Relative to the assumed truth of the Bible, perhaps. But they all start with faith.

I've gotta ask Spider...how many Rosh Yeshivas have you met? They're very very tricky people...very tricky. The logic they use (In non religious situations) is impeccable.

I watched the debate with Hitchens and Boteach
to summerise
Hitchens
"Everything works without the need for god"
"Humanity guides are our morals"
Boteach
"Where science fails or where it is to complex to be explained by science god steps in"
"Human morals are the cause/creation of god"

I've gotta ask Spider...how many Rosh Yeshivas have you met? They're very very tricky people...very tricky. The logic they use (In non religious situations) is impeccable.

I'm sure they are smart, but it takes more than personal skill to make faith-based religions (especially Judeo-Christian ones) into a logical argument.

Spider, you're asking too much of Cheski. Sheltered, ignorant people don't work in logic.

They have a religious bias, but that doesn't make them ignorant.

Spider, you're asking too much of Cheski. Sheltered, ignorant people don't work in logic.

JDawg is now on my blocked list. This list keeps getting longer and longer...

They have a religious bias, but that doesn't make them ignorant.

He is. Wait and see.

I've gotta ask Spider...how many Rosh Yeshivas have you met? They're very very tricky people...very tricky. The logic they use (In non religious situations) is impeccable.
Then all they have to do is publish their philosophical arguments. As that hasn't happened, I suggest to you that they haven't any more a water tight argument for their beleif than this: God did it.

If not then it would be published and we'd be in awe.

There is nothing "tricky" about logic - that's the point.. geesh.


Lastly, no one group of people are more logical than the next. Mathematicians come from all people, from Navajo native American to German to Mongolian to Japanese to Indian... I don't know about you but I haven't heard of The Rosh Yeshivas school of Mathematics, Physics and Logic ... have you???