Upgrade your browser!

Skip to Content

Hitchens v Wolpe: Is Religion Good for t...

***skip to 11:20*** More than 1,500 people went to Temple Emanu-El, one of the largest synagogues in the world, on Wednesday evening for a wide-ranging debate on that age-old question. On one side: Christopher Hitchens, the writer, wit and author of the polemic “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything,” published last year by Twelve/Warner Books. On the other side: Rabbi David J. Wolpe of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles, whom Newsweek has called the No. 1 rabbi in America and the author of “Why Faith Matters.”

  • Views: 1948
  • All Ages
  • All Ages

Related Media

  • Video:Happy Delusion Day!
  • Happy Delusion Day!
  • Why not indulge yourself, right? Have some humor on the. . .
  • Votes 3.71/5 - Views 88 - Comments 0

View All



Trouble playing the media? Click here to manually download it.

Rate This Video:
Rate it 0.5 Rate it 1.0 Rate it 1.5 Rate it 2.0 Rate it 2.5 Rate it 3.0 Rate it 3.5 Rate it 4.0 Rate it 4.5 Rate it 5.0

4.37 out of 5 based on 270 votes

Rating Results:
Earn XP by sharing this video!
learn more

Video URL:

Embedded Link:

Send This Video To A Cell Phone! Digg

11 Comments

Current View: 15 / Show all Comments

Thorno : LVL 39: VP 4.7: said:

Thorno

10 votes NegativePositive

62 days 22 hours ago...

Fuckin Eh Professor! I haven`t even watched this one yet and I already know its going to be good!
Keep em` coming love your uploads mate! ;)

exploder : LVL 48: VP 5: said:

exploder

11 votes NegativePositive

61 days 23 hours ago...

Thanks psychologyprofessor, another great debate.

Perhaps the most worthy debate opponent to Hitchens I have yet seen. I actually think the guy is right on some counts. Not in a way that proves God or anything, but in a way that underscores the practical reality of what religion can do in positive ways. His point that religion can strengthen our innate moral mandate by crediting it with absolute authority. It`s a usefull shortcut for ignorant peoples, who never the less depend on ethical society for their lives. I still think we are better off to abandon religious attributions to these imperatives, because religion muddies the waters. You may never feel so compelled to compassion as when you realise that the responsibility is entirely and only your own, there is no God to interfere or aid, just your own truly desperate and absolutely necessary commitment for the sake of our very survival. I think we learn more about everything when we see that this is the only thing that makes us weird monkeys viable. A direct understaning of this truth is preferable to a convenient old metaphore. We have this insight within our grasp now, even if we do not have traditions or long established doctrines for its daily application as the deeper foundations of our society, or even our daily personal reasoning. It`s time to move forwards into reality.

I also like the way he suggests that we are spiritual beings, souls, going through a physical experience. I fully agree. This is something our physics will take hundreds more years, if not millenia, to fully ratify, if it is even possible. Meanwhile, religions with their bullshit certainties, are amongst our worst enemies to any true grasp of reality, where the single most productive thing we can do is admit what we don`t know. We have only barely scratched the surface. I think the best tools humanity has are meditation, dreaming, psychedelic drugs, and honest humble science. These mysteries are deep and elusive, but may not be completely impenetrable.

My answer to his wondering about how brain damage could screw things up, if the soul is external, is this: the brain & body are our soul`s interface with a physical reality. If you damage it too badly, you don`t get good info in or out. Just pondering here, but it makes sense. How good would a computer be if half the keys on the board were broken or made random errors 100% of the time, and the screen had 75% of its pixels dead or displaing random junk? You could have perfect data on the drive inside, but do nothing usefull with it.

Tajumera : LVL 36: VP 4.4: said:

Tajumera

7 votes NegativePositive

60 days 22 hours ago...

"His point that religion can strengthen our innate moral mandate by crediting it with absolute authority. It`s a usefull shortcut for ignorant peoples, who never the less depend on ethical society for their lives."

This is true up to a point but only moderate i.e. diluted, or modified religion is actually moral. I mean look at the stuff in the bible that "Christians" no longer read about, its a joke. Look at genital mutilation, like Hitchens said. Religion is only useful when it`s warped around our developed sense of morality. In other words it`s useless. As long as we treat religion as the slightest bit wholesome, there are always going to be people who actually bother to read the source materials and become what we call fundamentalist. That`s all a fundamentalist is, someone who is good at their religion.

The word moderate makes me laugh, because it`s like religious people want us to think that religion is good in moderation. Too much is bad, what is it, alcohol? Moderate amounts will make you happy, too much will warp your mind and kill you, and in the end it`s really just a poison?

exploder : LVL 48: VP 5: said:

exploder

3 votes NegativePositive

60 days 18 hours ago...

^ ya gotta point there. Maybe I should say that it was a valid enough historical function of religion to underscore morality, but for all the reasons we have mentioned, and more, it`s really long past time for us to move on to reality.

necriumforadream : LVL 7: VP 1.6: said:

necriumforadream

2 votes NegativePositive

60 days 8 hours ago...

Oh, just so you all know: Although yes, the Jews portrayed in this video are in fact Jews, they are not Orthodox or Traditional practitioners of Judaism. They are in fact Reform Jews.

Although, you guys probably noticed that in the beginning when none of the Jews were wearing their head coverings... in a synagogue.

Just thought I`d mention it.

The Trunk Monkey : LVL 26: VP 3.5: said:

The Trunk Monkey

2 votes NegativePositive

60 days 4 hours ago...

Superb debate. I like Hitchens, especially for his wit, although I find in some debates he fails to answer the questions of his fellow debater. I don`t think it`s for lack of an answer though, I think it`s because he sometimes misinterprets the question and so answers it in a way that is unsatisfactory to the one who initially proposed the question. I think he managed to do quite well here though.

I think in comparison to Dawkins, he provides more of a philosophical debate than a fact/reason based argument (which makes sense since Dawkins is a scientist, and Hitchens is something of a humorist). I think both forms are necessary though. I would love to see more of both. Keep up the uploads!

exploder : LVL 48: VP 5: said:

exploder

-2 votes NegativePositive

60 days 3 hours ago...

^Sometimes I think Hitchens does answer the question, but about 5 branches back in the philosophical tree. It`s like someone asks him question D, but he knows it was answered by C, which was answered by B, which was answered by A, which is an accepted fact. So he simply rewinds back to A with his answer.

If you know enough history/philosophy then you can follow how his seemingly unrelated answer is actually right at the root of the question, but many of us aren`t well educated enough to follow all the connections, including many of the people he debates. He also isn`t exactly polite about it, so he doesn`t feel obliged to play teacher to us all, and explain all those "obvious" connections we should already have learned ourselves.

Where I take some exception to it is that he takes for granted several steps of implication that may also be reasonably up for debate, or may perhaps be substantially more subjective than is implied by his certainty. So he rests his case on having undermined the entire ground of his opponent, when sometimes his opponent might actually be on a different continent altogether.

I have just enough exposure to often get hints of what is going on in these debates, and then try to puzzle out exactly what all those connections were. It`s very thought provoking, and gives good impetus to get some fucking education.

Stipoo : LVL 18: VP 2.7: said:

Stipoo

2 votes NegativePositive

60 days 2 hours ago...

"Oh Lord, behold these thy swine" - Haha! (not sheep oriented).

think&write : LVL 26: VP 3.5: said:

think&write

1 votes NegativePositive

60 days 2 hours ago...

seems like the most interesting parts of this vid is corrupted, fucked up video, fix it!

psychologyprofessor : LVL 34: VP 4.2: said:

psychologyprofessor

-1 votes NegativePositive

60 days 2 hours ago...

^^Click on the *Google video* icon and click

"Go to google video"

This may help the video run a little smoother,

hope that helped.

scaye : LVL 23: VP 3.2: said:

scaye

0 votes NegativePositive

59 days 1 hour ago...

I think Hitchens answered the question. He was unable to refer back to a divine being to say that is where he got free will.

The very fact that you can "think" allows you free will. The only way you wouldn`t have free will is if you were not able to think at all, which means you wouldn`t exist.

Post a Comment:

Avatar


The Spikedhumor Drawing!Moderators Contest
Prize
Entry Dates: 11/4/2008-12/15/2008