1. Comment #45990 by MichaelJSimpson on May 30, 2007 at 1:20 am

Who knew Hitchens was so spot on? My opinion of him has significantly changed. If only he'd smarten up about Iraq I'd be with him 100%, but nobody's perfect.

Richard: you, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett should consider starting the "posse of reason." You could all tour the cable news channels. It would be great cross-promotion!

Other Comments by MichaelJSimpson

2. Comment #45995 by doodinthemood on May 30, 2007 at 1:40 am

I don't know if Hitchens had been allowed to prepare for this show or something but he came across as a genius. Could pull names and statistics from almost any point that could be raised.

It must get frustrating though how interviewers of this kind just ask questions that the interviewee has already answered in their book.

Other Comments by doodinthemood

3. Comment #46002 by Morro on May 30, 2007 at 2:06 am

Hat's off to Dennis Prager. He's the very best sort of person to argue against: calm, reasonable, intelligent, well spoken, and dead wrong. :)

Best debate on this subject that I've heard in months.

Other Comments by Morro

4. Comment #46003 by mnlandon on May 30, 2007 at 2:07 am

Christopher was adept at dodging Dennis' no win questions.

Other Comments by mnlandon

5. Comment #46006 by Flagellant on May 30, 2007 at 2:20 am

This didn't seem a good performance by Hitchens. He's usually so on top of his material but he is wrong about Berlin and Kennedy and Prager was right: Berlin was partitioned immediately after WWII (1945). The Berlin wall - and perhaps this is what Hitchens was thinking of - was built in 1961.

Agreed, though, that Prager was a good and interesting interviewer.

Other Comments by Flagellant

6. Comment #46008 by steve99 on May 30, 2007 at 2:32 am

Who knew Hitchens was so spot on? My opinion of him has significantly changed. If only he'd smarten up about Iraq I'd be with him 100%, but nobody's perfect.

This seems a bit patronising towards Hitchens. He is very smart about Iraq, and knows about the situation there in great detail. He simply has a different opinion from many, that's all. The fact that someone so knowledgeable about this situation supports military action there makes me regularly question my own views about this.

Other Comments by steve99

7. Comment #46009 by Jesse. on May 30, 2007 at 2:36 am

I don't think this was one of the best performances of Hitchens. Usually he's much better. There were a number of subjects he could have burned down this Prager fellow on. For example

"There is more idiocy in the university than at your local church"

How could Hitchens not challenge him on that one? All the stuff your local stupidity farm / church teaches versus the stuff any real university teaches? Oh, come on. Hitchens let him off the hook far to many times imo.

Other Comments by Jesse.

8. Comment #46013 by Russell Blackford on May 30, 2007 at 2:47 am

I normally like Hitchens a lot, but he disappointed me on this occasion. He makes too many concessions to an irrational moral viewpoint. I wish he'd told Prager bluntly that, yes, the morality you arrive at from a purely naturalistic, rational viewpoint is not the same as religious morality ... and so much the worse for religious morality. That thought might not go down well, but so be it. I realise that he's sincere in his wishy-washy views on abortion, for example, but he evidently hasn't reached the point in his thinking of saying firmly, "Yes, our morality does have to change. Let's start working on it."

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

9. Comment #46015 by Auld on May 30, 2007 at 2:53 am

Sometimes the sound quality can affect your impression of the speaker. Dennis' recorded speech was crisp, clear and LOUD while Chris' recorded speech was muffled and soft. Could this have been intentional?

Other Comments by Auld

10. Comment #46024 by FXR on May 30, 2007 at 3:19 am

If of all the religions and regimes which one would you like most to be overthrown?
(I think that was the question)

Easy answer: The Vatican regime.

Other Comments by FXR

11. Comment #46026 by BMMcArdle on May 30, 2007 at 3:24 am

In reply to Auld;
I could be wrong, but it sounds like Hitchens is on the phone (telly).

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

12. Comment #46035 by jonecc on May 30, 2007 at 4:01 am

Prager asks "If you saw ten men walking towards you late at night, would you be relieved to learn that they were coming from a Bible study meeting?"

On balance yes, but that just proves that I believe Christians are less likely to mug me than muggers. This isn't an especially moral hurdle to clear.

If I saw ten men walking towards me late at night, I would also be relieved to learn that they were coming from a humanist meeting, or for that matter virtually any meeting at all, as muggers rarely do meetings.

"If you saw ten men walking into school to teach your children, would you be relieved to learn that they were coming from a Bible study meeting?" Definitely not.

Other Comments by jonecc

13. Comment #46046 by steve99 on May 30, 2007 at 4:25 am

jonecc: Excellent post.

Other Comments by steve99

14. Comment #46048 by LB on May 30, 2007 at 4:28 am

"Yeah, but I believe in God not Santa Claus"

Yes, why is that exactly?

Other Comments by LB

15. Comment #46051 by Russell Blackford on May 30, 2007 at 4:37 am

Excellent post jonnec, but I wonder what the best way is to answer such a question when you've agreed to answer "yes" or "no". If it were in court, such a question could only be asked in cross-examination, since it's leading. You could then be re-examined and asked to explain why you gave the answer. Maybe with a radio interview you have to say, "I'm prepared to give a yes/no answer but I insist on being able to explain my reasoning because it might not be what you assume."

What do other people think?

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

16. Comment #46052 by LB on May 30, 2007 at 4:46 am

I think its the kind of ridiculous question people like Prager spend hours dreaming up in order to fool an audience in to thinking they are not being well and truly thrashed in a debate.

Other Comments by LB

17. Comment #46053 by Tobbe on May 30, 2007 at 4:49 am

"If you saw ten men walking towards you late at night, would you be relieved to learn that they were coming from a Bible study meeting?"

At first it sounds like a very good argument. The obvious answer seems to be "yes", and why is that? But here's the strange part. Prager knew the answer to that question all along, and so he must have known it was a trivial question and not a profound one, because as he later adds "I would be relieved to learn that they were coming from a physics class".

And as #12 above has shown, the whole argument falls apart. And Prager knew this. But it didn't prevent him from asking the question, and I believe he said he asked all his guests the same question. Intellectual dishonesty.

Other Comments by Tobbe

18. Comment #46054 by Davee1 on May 30, 2007 at 4:50 am

(This seems a bit patronising towards Hitchens. He is very smart about Iraq, and knows about the situation there in great detail. He simply has a different opinion from many, that's all.)

Christopher is NOT smart about Iraq. Though he sounds like he knows what he is talking about because of his authoritative tone, he often misrepresents facts, and repeats outright lies. There are some good articles at Slate and the Nation magazine detailing his inaccuracies.

It is also helpful to note that Christopher is good friends with Paul Wolfowitz. From his comments on the matter, it is obvious that his personal relationship colors his opinion.

Lastly, as pointed out in one article (I think the Nation one), Hitchens seems to view Iraq as the struggle of our lifetime, a great epic battle between good and evil. I am disappointed when I hear him talk about it, because it seems like the same kind of absolutism and dichotomous thinking that religious people are often guilty of.

Other Comments by Davee1

19. Comment #46065 by Peacebeuponme on May 30, 2007 at 5:45 am

14. Comment #46048 by LB on May 30, 2007 at 4:28 am

"Yeah, but I believe in God not Santa Claus"

Yes, why is that exactly?

That's McGrath's approach as well "Believing in god is not the same as believing in Santa Claus" as though that disposes of the argument. He doesn't believe in Santa for the same reason we don't believe in god: because of the evidence. I'm sure he worked that out around the same age we stopped believing in the supernatural.

p.s. Aren't these threads supposed to be about belief rather than The Iraq War?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

20. Comment #46068 by Jonathan Dore on May 30, 2007 at 5:56 am

Russell writes:

Excellent post jonnec, but I wonder what the best way is to answer such a question when you've agreed to answer "yes" or "no".

Surely the best response is not to agree to a "yes or no" answer in the first place. If anyone tries to get you to limit your answer to yes or no before they've even told you the question, it's always because they want to lead you into a semantic trap. This is a familiar trope of TV courtroom dramas, when counsel forces a witness to give a reply that seems to discredit the main thrust of their testimony, but only because the question is phrased in an artificially limited (or artificially open-ended) way. No one should fall for that, or be required to accept those limitations, in the real world.

It's a bit analogous to the story of a reporter asking Richard Feynman if he could summarize on one sheet of paper what he had won his Nobel Prize for. Feynman replied that if he could write it on one sheet of paper it wouldn't have been worth a Nobel Prize.

As soon as you look at it in that light, the unreasonable arbitrariness of the attempted limitation is immediately clear.

Other Comments by Jonathan Dore

21. Comment #46072 by Yorker on May 30, 2007 at 6:24 am

15. Comment #46051 by Russell Blackford

Since you ask.

I think anyone asking such a silly question obviously designed as a trap, doesn't deserve a yes/no answer, they deserve, and would get from me, an arse-kicking; certainly verbally and possibly physically depending upon my assessment of them. People adopting such a dishonourable debating tactic should be chastised.

Other Comments by Yorker

22. Comment #46075 by Rtambree on May 30, 2007 at 6:29 am

RE: Potential muggers

If you narrow it down to Christians in a modern western city, than yes, it would be a relief, but only because Christianity has been (1) through a reformation, and (2) Christians tend to ignore large sections of their Bibles.

In any case, it's the Christian leaders Bush, Blair and Howard that are responsible for many thousands of deaths in Iraq - so how safe does that make the Iraqis feel knowing these leaders go to Bible study?


Prager was talking about idiocracy in secular universities - but he only mentioned sociology classes which would be the lease scientific of all the "-ologies". The further you go up the hierachy from cultural studies to anthropology to biology to chemistry to physics, the more secure you are.

Prager seemed to only read Hitchens subtitle and all his points were directed to that bit of marketing hype.

Other Comments by Rtambree

23. Comment #46082 by eirik on May 30, 2007 at 6:44 am

jonnec,

excellent point. with smartness and wit like that, you should start writing or debating professionally yourself! :)

Other Comments by eirik

24. Comment #46085 by sane1 on May 30, 2007 at 7:01 am

Prager talked over Hitch to an annoying degree. Hitchens is excellent, and spoke on many subjects that I had not heard him expound upon before.

Other Comments by sane1

25. Comment #46086 by iluvsam on May 30, 2007 at 7:03 am

Why is it that the religious apologists are the only ones with the radio/television shows? Everytime these hosts have RD, Hitchens, Harris, etc. on their shows, they cut them off, talk over them, double speak, break to commercial, etc. I wish just ONCE, it was Hitchens ASKING the questions and hence having control over the interviewee.

Other Comments by iluvsam

26. Comment #46091 by 3legcat on May 30, 2007 at 7:19 am

"If you saw ten men walking towards you late at night, would you be relieved to learn that they were coming from a Bible study meeting?"

yes, but not because the bible has made them safer to be around but because they are more likely to see me as part of their tribe, as a person much like them. i am a US citizen and look it.

if i were a woman in a burka, or a brown man in a turban, i would feel less safe surrounded by the bible study gang. i would feel threatened by anyone who devotes that much effort on an old book that he/she thinks gives them authority over others.

this is in group/out group behavior at work.

in a small town near by, an old laotian man was beaten to death for being "charlie". a secular version of the same phenomenon.

prager's question only validates our own built in tribalism and makes hitchen's point about "poison".

Other Comments by 3legcat

27. Comment #46092 by LeeLeeOne on May 30, 2007 at 7:30 am

Mr. Prager put forth a lot of nonsensical "questions", and dammed if you do, dammed if you don't scenarios. I find this line of questioning by xtians to be quite tiresome. This particular debate was really no debate at all... sigh

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

28. Comment #46094 by Kingasaurus on May 30, 2007 at 7:38 am

"If you saw ten men walking towards you late at night, would you be relieved to learn that they were coming from a Bible study meeting?"

Yes (as far as a "yes" goes here), but it's also worth mentioning that immediate, physical danger to your person is not the only type of destructive behavior that we should frown upon or try to avoid.

Maybe these guys are unlikely to mug me, but let's say they are young-Earth creationists. Anybody here who doesn't think those type of beliefs will strongly retard the long-term progress of our culture, even if these guys have little interest in stabbing me or stealing my wallet?

Other Comments by Kingasaurus

29. Comment #46095 by Skeptic Jim on May 30, 2007 at 7:41 am

Lets say i had a lemon and it could talk. Would it believe in god?

Other Comments by Skeptic Jim

30. Comment #46099 by ranjani on May 30, 2007 at 8:07 am

If the ten men walking towards you knew you were gay, I wonder how secure you would feel if you knew that they were coming from bible study class having just pored over Leviticus???

Other Comments by ranjani

31. Comment #46101 by BT Murtagh on May 30, 2007 at 8:22 am

I love the way Prager sets up this completely hypothetical and unrealistic situation, but when Hitchens counters with a suggestion that he'd be even more comfortable if they were coming from a Thomas Paine study group Prager huffs that that isn't realistic, "in the real world" only Bible study groups are likely to be going on in bad neighborhoods.

It doesn't have anything to do with the point he wants to engineer, but if we want to talk about "real world" I'm hardly likely to know the ten strangers are coming from Bible study, am I?

Not unless I've received a supernatural revelation, that is, in which case I'll test it by asking and upon discovering the disembodied voice spoke accurately I'll finally have something approaching evidence for this God hypothesis.

But not in the real world, I'm afraid.

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

32. Comment #46102 by anotherclinton on May 30, 2007 at 8:22 am

What knocks down a lot of Hitchens' opponents is his memory, and he's very proud of it. I've been watching his performances for years prior to the new atheism debate, and I've never seen him read from notes.

Other Comments by anotherclinton

33. Comment #46103 by Max Mullen on May 30, 2007 at 8:24 am

Maybe I didn't understand, but I found the debate between Dennis Prager and Christopher Hitchens too shallow to be interesting. Prager's propositions had no substance and Hitchens gave them too much credence.

For example; the question about the ten men was ridiculous and ought to have been beaten into the ground. Even in a debate with children it would have required context. How about if it were two or three hundred years ago (in the USA as Mr Prager prefers), and you were suspected of being a witch, would you be reassured to know that the men coming towards you had just left bible class? Or would you hope they were just a bunch of drunks?

Similarly; Prager's assertion that it must be better to believe that one is the product of a plan by a sentient creature than to believe that one is just the product of chance, required a better answer.

Can anyone really be comforted by the belief that this world is the result of careful planning by a super being? This world, with all its misery, disease and suffering children. A recent radio programme about what it can be like to be asthmatic brought this atheist to tears. Even the animals suffer.

Surely it must be much more reassuring to know that the world has not been planned, and is just the product of a random process: on the other hand, the belief that one will have to meet a monster responsible for creating this hateful world must be the opposite of reassuring – it must be terrifying. (Thank goodness it isn't going to happen).

I don't believe the 'debate' was genuine. It was too childish, superficial and cosy - simply a conversation between friends in love with themselves, or each other, or maybe it was only about the money and the publicity. The only certainty is - there was no intention of changing minds and no minds were changed.

Other Comments by Max Mullen

34. Comment #46104 by Erik on May 30, 2007 at 8:24 am

It's 1960. You are black and living in rural Alabama. You see 10 white men walking towards you. How secure would you feel, irrespective of the kind of meeting they were coming from?

Other Comments by Erik

35. Comment #46105 by quork on May 30, 2007 at 8:30 am

Prager asks "If you saw ten men walking towards you late at night, would you be relieved to learn that they were coming from a Bible study meeting?"

Not if they were wearing white robes and hoods.

Other Comments by quork

36. Comment #46106 by keith on May 30, 2007 at 8:33 am

I'm with steve99 on this one. Every time I read someone on this site say that Hitchens is great on religion but he should shape up on the question of Iraq I sigh at the sheer arrogance of the person posting. The poster must feel very much like some medieval cleric spouting religion, safe and completely sure that his views will be well received. The fact is that Hitchens almost certainly knows a great deal more about the situation than most of the posters here who dismiss his views out of hand, simply because they find themselves in the majority. I take Sam Harris' view on the subject i.e. that it's impossible to tell if it was right or wrong to invade Iraq. Had things gone better, it would have been the right thing to do. That things were handled badly after the invasion isn't in doubt, and Hitchens is also critical of this bungling. However, to be sure that the invasion itself was wrong, you have to know what the alternative future would have looked like, and none of us will ever have that knowledge. Even so, if the poster imagines that the choice was between invasion on one hand and 'peace' on the other, then he is deluding himself. Ian McEwan, writing about the banners of the peace protesters in London, said that instead of reading 'We want peace', these banners, to have been accurate to any degree, should in fact have read, 'We want Saddam to stay in power and for him to continue to torture and murder the people of Iraq and thus to set an example to other tyrants that they can do the same to their populations with impunity, and we want Saddam to continue to try to acquire the nuclear weapons he has made no secret of wanting to get his hands on. We want sanctions to continue, though it is claimed (by us) that these sanctions have already killed millions of Iraqi children etc. etc.' (I may have embroidered a little on what McEwan actually said but the main thrust is correct). The banner could actually have been longer, filled with further indictments against Saddam's regime, but there are limits to what will fit on a 4' X 3' sheet of paper.
That people have different views on this subject is fine and with the benefit of hindsight, I also veer toward the conclusion that it wasn't a great idea. However, for the poster to imagine that he has some superior insight into this convoluted subject and that Hitchens should get into line with his opinion, I find a touch arrogant.

Other Comments by keith

37. Comment #46110 by Peacebeuponme on May 30, 2007 at 8:49 am

36. Comment #46106 by keith on May 30, 2007 at 8:33 am .

I can echo that. It's easy to walk round with a "Stop the War" poster without knowing enough to have an opinion. It's Hitchen's job to gen up on these things and opine so I would say he knows a lot. I don't know enough to be able to make a judgement, except that, like the oil in Alaska and the rainforests, I'm uneasy with one Country having sole control of important world resources.

But surely this is not the place? I'm enjoying Jonecc and Russell Blackford's comments, which hae the extra benefit of being on topic.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

38. Comment #46114 by keith on May 30, 2007 at 9:10 am

Peacebeuponme,
I agree with you that Hitchens' views on Iraq are irrelevant to this topic. Please tell this to the posters who insist on dragging it up every time Hitchens' name is mentioned.
Hope I didn't spoil your enjoyment too much of Jonecc and Russell Blackford's comments.

Other Comments by keith

39. Comment #46116 by Peacebeuponme on May 30, 2007 at 9:16 am

Keith - Agreed. I wasn't having a pop at you. Your post was well written and received.

btw - was that last sentence sarcastic? Maybe it did sound a little camp, but I was just trying to be nice in response to comments I found interesting. Ah well.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

40. Comment #46120 by keith on May 30, 2007 at 9:28 am

Davee1,
You say, "I am disappointed when I hear him (Hitchens) talk about it (Iraq), because it seems like the same kind of absolutism and dichotomous thinking that religious people are often guilty of".
Would this be the same kind of 'absolutism and dichotomous thinking' that Richard Dawkins is sometimes accused of in relation to religion? He is told by some that he should try to appease the moderately religious. Dawkins might reply that sometimes one side is completely right and the other side completely wrong so why split the difference? Is this your view? In what way should Hitchens be less absolutist? By saying that what happens in Iraq is actually not so important after all? I don't quite get what you're disappointed about.

Other Comments by keith

41. Comment #46121 by keith on May 30, 2007 at 9:32 am

Peacebeuponme,
Perhaps there was a note of sarcasm in my last sentence. However you just made me chuckle with your comment about sounding 'a little camp' so I take back any intended sarcasm.

Other Comments by keith

42. Comment #46122 by arthursanford on May 30, 2007 at 9:33 am

Hitchens views on Iraq are as relevant to the topic as high criticism of the bible because, more than anything, it is religious fanaticism that had gotten us into this debacle in the Middle East.

Though obviously some are bound to phrase in a way that makes their post hopelessly ireevelent.

Other Comments by arthursanford

43. Comment #46124 by Davee1 on May 30, 2007 at 9:36 am

If you are going to say that this is not the place for a discussion on Iraq, then you can't first make your argument for it, and then tell others they can't respond. I will respect the will of the group, even though it seems the discussion on the debate has run it's course.

As for all your assertions about Iraq, I won't respond directly, but if you seek out the Nation or Slate articles, or even do a google search on the subject, you will see some very informed answers to Hitchens' and your own arguments.

Other Comments by Davee1

44. Comment #46125 by Peacebeuponme on May 30, 2007 at 9:39 am

arthursanford - What about Hitchen's views on Benedictine? That was orginally distilled by monks, so should we be disussing whether he should like that or not?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

45. Comment #46127 by keith on May 30, 2007 at 9:49 am

Davee1,
I'm not sure if your post was aimed at me as I certainly didn't tell anyone not to respond. Someone brought up Iraq, I responded and then was told that this was maybe off topic.
I'm willing to believe you about articles in Slate and the Nation putting forward different views to Hitchens and even that he has a tendentious way with facts...So, why are you disappointed with his absolutism?

Other Comments by keith

46. Comment #46128 by Davee1 on May 30, 2007 at 9:49 am

Keith,
The absolutism that I refer to is the idea that there are two sides, good and evil. (Hitchens has said this and implied it). All issues, war, religion, the aforementioned sociology are more complex than that.

Yes, I agree that there is right and wrong in many issues. And as long as someone makes an argument based on facts, and isn't unduly influenced by ideology of any kind, I will respect what they have to say, and consider it. In regards to religion, that is just what the atheists/rationalists or whatever title you prefer have done. In regards to the war, it is not. Ideology breeds dishonesty because people tend to omit any facts which don't "fit." I have seen it many times in religious discussions, and I see it all the time on the pro-war side.

Other Comments by Davee1

47. Comment #46134 by tieInterceptor on May 30, 2007 at 10:14 am

I'm just listening to Hitchens on the iraq war, for those of you that still do not know (like me) why he is pro-iraq war etc...


part1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i060-emAXP4


part2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY6uQbAzGOg


part3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgH16jjUOeY


interesting stuff.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

48. Comment #46135 by keith on May 30, 2007 at 10:19 am

Davee1,
I share your distrust of Hitchens to a certain extent. I sometimes have the impression he will do anything to win an argument, even if this means temporarily taking up a position he really doesn't hold. I never have this feeling with Richard Dawkins. However, Hitchens' sophistry usually gives him the upper hand in interviews, partly because he can always take refuge in a witty comment, or in an extreme position that I'm never sure if we are to take 100% seriously. However, I forgive him for this because he's often just fighting fire with fire, since religious opponents, especially media presenters, know all the tricks on how not to lose an argument.
On the other hand (and to return to Iraq), I don't share your certainty about being able to spot ideologies among suites of opinions. I'm not sure what ideology you attribute to Hitchens, but could it be that he just has a body of opinions that are consistent and cohere?

Other Comments by keith

49. Comment #46136 by Goodwithwood on May 30, 2007 at 10:25 am

Ok so I find out that the 10 men just came from bible study and they find out I just came from my local athiest/freethink club.
I would be afraid.

GWW

Other Comments by Goodwithwood

50. Comment #46137 by Goodwithwood on May 30, 2007 at 10:40 am

Even worse. Suppose they find out I just came from a war protest rally. I'd turn and run.

GWW

Other Comments by Goodwithwood