1. Comment #107318 by debaser71 on January 4, 2008 at 11:46 am

I watched this before. Sam Harris crushes him. Even the crowd at time was laughing with Sam, at the rabbi. And for the record they don't debate the existence of god, it's all about religion.

Other Comments by debaser71

2. Comment #107334 by The Smart Patrol on January 4, 2008 at 12:00 pm

I watched this a few days ago and I become more impressed with Harris every time I listen to him. His ability to consistently and instantly come up with the right way of putting things, the right turn of phrase, is joyful to behold. His calm, eloquent delivery mixed with the elegant simplicity of his ideas, must (surely?) force thoughtful religionists to reconsider their stance. If Harris can't get someone to think that maybe their beliefs are in need of examining, no-one can.

Other Comments by The Smart Patrol

3. Comment #107340 by Galactor on January 4, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Sam Harris, thou art verily a God.

You're beautiful baby, just beautiful!

Other Comments by Galactor

4. Comment #107341 by Copernic on January 4, 2008 at 12:06 pm

I thought Sam did a fine job. This was his most difficult debate todate I think. I found myself really liking Rabbi Wolpe although he did get fuzzy around the issue of religious belief being unscientific and yet still deserving of any objective acceptance.

Wolpe did a fine job of countering Sam's (B. Russell's) teapot analogy in that the orbiting teapot can be verified yet God cannot so the analogy fails. Sam should have retorted that the teapot he is referring to is no-doubt etheral, or that he has an IPU in his garage, or that the FSM is touching him right now.

Very civil discussion between two very smart men. I really enjoyed it.

Other Comments by Copernic

5. Comment #107343 by Matt7895 on January 4, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Ah, superb.

Other Comments by Matt7895

6. Comment #107349 by Janus on January 4, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Wolpe did a fine job of countering Sam's (B. Russell's) teapot analogy in that the orbiting teapot can be verified yet God cannot so the analogy fails. Sam should have retorted that the teapot he is referring to is no-doubt etheral, or that he has an IPU in his garage, or that the FSM is touching him right now.

Yes he could have, but he didn't have to. That a claim can't be verified or falsified doesn't make it any more likely, so the teapot analogy still works.

Other Comments by Janus

7. Comment #107374 by hughlomas on January 4, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Yahweh (or any other supreme being(s)) could be verified by revealing themselves in an undeniably supernatural event, objectively observable by humanity. This has, as of yet, not happened, in the same way that we have not found a teapot around the sun. Yahweh can be verified, the teapot can be verified.

The important part is that any god cannot be falsified, and neither can the teapot.

The analogy holds.

Other Comments by hughlomas

8. Comment #107383 by eXcommunicate on January 4, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Sam's facial expression @2:32 is classic.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

9. Comment #107399 by konquererz on January 4, 2008 at 1:01 pm

This one was one of my favorites, I have seen it before. Sam makes this guy look silly all over the places. But it was fun to watch it again.

Other Comments by konquererz

10. Comment #107412 by BigChiefRainInFace on January 4, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Any chance of a downloadable link please?

Other Comments by BigChiefRainInFace

11. Comment #107428 by kintaro_crab on January 4, 2008 at 1:37 pm

I thought that the debate was excellent. The only thing that i would have changed is that when the rabbi made the statement that societies based on irreligious ideas are failures, i would have automatically countered with the first amendment of the the American constitution and compared it to the ten commandments in particular the first. Then force him into a corner to answering the question as to whether or not America is a failed society.

Other Comments by kintaro_crab

12. Comment #107438 by GoatBoy36 on January 4, 2008 at 2:08 pm

kintaro crab,

Yes I've been thinking lately that this is a good response to that argument - what about America then, that whole separation of church and state idea - never mind Hitler's Germany, how do you (the theist) think that America is doing?

gb.

Other Comments by GoatBoy36

13. Comment #107439 by MorituriMax on January 4, 2008 at 2:09 pm

I laughed when he said the Teapot wasn't valid because it was PHYSICAL! by gosh...

So let me get this straight, as long as you tack the word "intangible" on to your statement, it's valid.. so let's say the teapot is intangible, it just chooses to have an actual teapot there so anyone who wants proof it exists can make the journey and prove their belief in the teapot is the one and only faith.

Hmmm, weird logic, we HAVE to make sure nobody can find evidence in anything we say or we aren't real.

After the questions, I think that they proved his religion wasn't right. If it was the one true path, then everyone would be in the same religion. Since they aren't, it disproves all religions.


Other Comments by MorituriMax

14. Comment #107441 by Matt7895 on January 4, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Yes, his attempt at repudiating the teapot argument was quite funny. Theists don't seem to get it. They think we are talking about an actual real teapot orbiting the sun. If that were the case, of course we'd eventually be able to detect it by scientific means. But we don't say that. We say, try to detect it, and you can't. It's all powerful, it can make itself disappear, there is no way you can possibly see it or get to it without it wanting you to. And that is what the theists say god is.

Other Comments by Matt7895

15. Comment #107445 by eirik on January 4, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Really good debate. I think Sam is our best shot at reasoning faith-heads out of their believes. Hitch is an absolutely brilliant man and debater, but rude to the extent that some people are almost repulsed. Richard is also extremely smart and a great "science popularist", but too dry for a lot of laymen's taste. Sam always remains eloquent and calm, and still gets his messages across perfectly. His leaning towards the spiritual I think is also of advantage insofar as it resonates with a lot of religious people. He makes a good argument for how superstition isn't inherently a requisite part of non-materialistic well-being.

Other Comments by eirik

16. Comment #107446 by scotochromagen on January 4, 2008 at 2:26 pm

I`ve seen a few interviews with sam and i have to say in this he was absolutely sublime. Give the guy some more quality airtime i say.
One thing that is bothering me lately is the idea that familarity with these arguements (and let`s
face it they are all pretty much the same) will breed apathy amongst the atheist contingent. Then again i have got two kids growing up so if that's not enough motivation to keep trying to discourage irrationality and encourage reason and logic i don`t know what is.
OK that`s it - the only way to keep the 'new atheist' movement going is to have kids - Go forth and multiply i say.
Ah well any excuse for a bit of fun eh?

Other Comments by scotochromagen

17. Comment #107448 by MorituriMax on January 4, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Oh I see, God switched everyone from sacrificing people to animals to ...wean... them off all sacrifice..

So not eating pork, is that ...weaning... them off of eating anything?

Other Comments by MorituriMax

18. Comment #107455 by Divineosaur on January 4, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Oy vey! No download.

Other Comments by Divineosaur

19. Comment #107457 by MorituriMax on January 4, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Oh My God.. I opened my freezer and found these wonderful perfect cubes of frozen water... there were 33 of them, I see the light, Jesus is the light.. etc etc...

Other Comments by MorituriMax

20. Comment #107459 by MorituriMax on January 4, 2008 at 2:47 pm

He (Wolpe) certainly has the Argument from Ignorance down pat. He uses it pretty consistently throughout and especially at the end of the debate.. oh we're so much less than God that we can't even conceive of him..

..although they are pretty quick to describe everything that happens due to God's will...

"Uh, I don't know why miracles happen, must be God."

Which is contrary to not knowing why they happen, when you then say you DO know it was God.

Other Comments by MorituriMax

21. Comment #107462 by BlessedCheesemaker on January 4, 2008 at 2:54 pm

I had not seen this before. And yes, Sam is my favorite horseman (so to speak). He's less dry dan RD and very clearheaded and convincing. Dennett is good, but sometimes to difficult/technical for the average moderately religious doubter. And I like Hitchens, but he can be harsh and uninviting, and he sometimes use the kind of debate-trickery I detest so much.

Anyway, I do think Sam missed a couple of oppertunities here. The rabbi kinda got away with claiming God as a non-scientific hypothesis, which is wrong. Sam should have pressed him on stemcell research. If the soul is a non-scientific entity, then how can it influence our real-world scientific view on stemcell research? And if it can, does the soul then not fall within the grasp of science by way of inference?

And with the whole Stalin/Hitler thing, he could have indeed mentioned the US, Sweden, The Netherlands etc. Every succesful prosperous democracy on our planet has embraced the values of the Enlightenment. He did well in that argument regardless, I think.

Other Comments by BlessedCheesemaker

22. Comment #107466 by troyreynolds86 on January 4, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Same old argument. We need to call out some of high points. Why don't the atheist arguers ever point out that claiming god created the universe is a cosmological claim about a physical reality, landing such claims dead in the lap of science to investigate? And god being intangible doesn't cut it because the results and method both were physical. The same holds for the origin of life. And consciousness. There was a time when we couldn't conceive of how it was that a lump of tissue in our heads got a full fledged 3d cinematic experience into them. We are beginning to understand this and many other things about the mind and brain. Also, if the soul represents an imprint of the experiences and personality of the person then there is some method by which the two communicate. That is a testable scientific question. Every claim that religion makes about anything related to reality, to the corporal, are points of scientific inquiry.

Other Comments by troyreynolds86

23. Comment #107473 by atkinson on January 4, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Is this debate available on another server? The referral on that webpage
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1336746820/bctid1329234778
didn't download for me either. :(

Other Comments by atkinson

24. Comment #107474 by BlessedCheesemaker on January 4, 2008 at 3:15 pm

@ 22. Comment #107466 by troyreynolds86

Troy, I think Sam took a whack at it here, but there's only so much you can say in response to obscurantist mumbojumbo. Maybe he should have called the rabbi out on that, but it would have been risky considering how skillfully Wolpe made his BS sound plausible.

Other Comments by BlessedCheesemaker

25. Comment #107479 by Aaron on January 4, 2008 at 3:32 pm

I watch these debates as much as possible and I'm open to the idea that one of them might contain a convincing argument from the theist point of view but I'll damned if I've yet seen one.

Other Comments by Aaron

26. Comment #107480 by 82abhilash on January 4, 2008 at 3:36 pm

I think Judaism is becoming more or less a socio-cultural phenomenon rather than a religion. Sam was getting as much maybe a bit more cheers than the Rabbi in a Jewish university.

The moderator was playing fair and people where asking sensible questions. All in all it was a wonderful intellectual discourse between two gentlemen and enjoyed by all in the spirit of human solidarity.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

27. Comment #107484 by Radesq on January 4, 2008 at 3:48 pm

eXcommunicate at #8 -- That look says to me: in the movie "The Four Horseman" the part of Sam Harris will be played by Ben Stiller.

Other Comments by Radesq

28. Comment #107495 by jaytee_555 on January 4, 2008 at 4:00 pm

The many concessions that theists are now making to science lately seems to indicate that they know they have lost that particular fight. They have reverted to a 'God of the Gaps' approach based on the Argument from Ignorance. Most of the slicker theists (like Wolpe) are now shamelessly denying that logic, evidence and reason have any place in the debate at all, since the whole issue is 'metaphysical', and all about 'feelings' 'intution' and and 'revelation'. This is a clever move, because it panders to the less rational people in the audience - and they make the best religites. Even though they can never win arguments this way, at least they appear not to lose; and under the current onslaught from atheists, they are grateful to settle for what they see as a face-saving 'draw'.

Another old trick being revived by theists more and more often is to muddle things with huge swathes of concentrated vagueness in their arguments, hoping their opponents will simply not be able to unpack it all in the time available. Sam Harris's was not phased by this, and his incisiveness in this debate was very impressive. He effortlessly cut through Wolpe's obscurantism to nail the central flaw in the argument every time.

I also admire Sam's forbearance. Several times in this debate, Wolpe allowed Sam to develop a rational line of reasoning, only to interrupt and deliberately drown out the last few words as he made his final point. Sam's neat response to this was to make the same point again later, when he had the full attention of the audience. Nice work Sam.

Other Comments by jaytee_555

29. Comment #107503 by Adam_K on January 4, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Sam Harris was impressively composed and handled the arguments and questions with elegance. Wolpe also did a good job but arguments became weak as he consistently used his ace; "intangible".

I was so waiting for Harris to add that his teapot also was intangible but oh well, cant have it all! :D

But I'm getting so tired of the Hitler and Stalin arguments. Over and Over and Over again...

But really high quality debate! Really enjoyed it

Other Comments by Adam_K

30. Comment #107505 by PhilG on January 4, 2008 at 4:36 pm

The moderator wrote a short piece about the evening:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-beliefs29dec29,1,4392263,full.story?coll=la-headlines-california

His closing sentiment, that the foremost lesson of the evening is that we can all get along, is I suppose typical for a large circulation media outlet. Whether that sentiment is truly the author's own, or if it was merely the obvious thing to write for a large readership, I don't know. I'd rather our media commentators come down on either side of an argument, whichever they see as right, as the truth, and give their reasons for doing so, rather than forever trotting out feelgood lines like "Well, the main thing is we all get along, and nobody's feelings get hurt."

Other Comments by PhilG

31. Comment #107508 by Rational_G on January 4, 2008 at 4:39 pm

This was a very good debate. Usually the religious guy is a complete buffoon but I must admit the rabbi did a good job. Of course I'm on Sam's side but at least the rabbi was eloquent and intelligent. It's nice to see a well behaved debate for once.

Other Comments by Rational_G

32. Comment #107510 by Star Spangled Eagle on January 4, 2008 at 4:42 pm

Wow. What a great debate that was. Both Mr. Harris and Rabbi Wolpe were polite, listened and responded in the proper manner. We need more events like this to promote awareness. I CANNOT wait until I get to see something of this nature in person; with any or all of the "horsemen." I so very much enjoyed this, thank you for posting!!

Other Comments by Star Spangled Eagle

33. Comment #107522 by notsobad on January 4, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Dennett was right when he said that we have theists on the run when it comes to arguments.

All Wolpe could say and get away with was that god is just one of the conclusions of a metaphysical debate. And even that was countered perfectly by Harris by giving the example of talking about Elvis in the same manner.

Apart from this, the debate was more about sociology and philosophy, for which Wolpe had rather poor knowledge of history, biology and other disciplines.

Other Comments by notsobad

34. Comment #107525 by Steve Zara on January 4, 2008 at 5:05 pm

That was an excellent debate. That is the way such things should be conducted, with constant interaction between opponents. Most impressive.

Something I would have challenged Wolpe about (and I am disappointed Harris didn't) was when he said there were problems when you tried to reduce God to human understanding. I have always had a bit of a problem when people claim to know things they say they can't know. If they say that God is omnipotent and infinite, I would like some good arguments or evidence to back those statements, because if God is beyond understanding, how can they know?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

35. Comment #107527 by Tack on January 4, 2008 at 5:13 pm

Direct link: http://tinyurl.com/3957ud

(Preview the URL at http://preview.tinyurl.com/3957ud , in case you suspect I am directing you to goatse. :))

Rename the resulting mess of a filename as you wish. If you're a Linux user:

wget http://tinyurl.com/3957ud -O Sam_Harris_vs_David_Wolpe.flv

Cheers.

Other Comments by Tack

36. Comment #107532 by The Smart Patrol on January 4, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Steve Zara:

"That was an excellent debate. That is the way such things should be conducted, with constant interaction between opponents. Most impressive."

Yes, at first I was getting annoyed with the moderator's quirks and idiosyncrasies- the way he kept grinning cheesily and making strange facial expressions- and then I realised, well, he can do that as much as he likes as long as he shuts the hell up and lets the speakers have a proper discussion, which he most certainly did. It's rare that you get a moderator who doesn't love the sound of their own voice, but I thought that this guy- once I got over his annoying quirks- did an admirable job.

Other Comments by The Smart Patrol

37. Comment #107536 by Dr Technical on January 4, 2008 at 5:34 pm

What was Bob Carolgees doing as the compère ?

Other Comments by Dr Technical

38. Comment #107537 by Mark Smith on January 4, 2008 at 5:35 pm

Great debate format. Wish more could be like this

Other Comments by Mark Smith

39. Comment #107540 by Ine on January 4, 2008 at 5:38 pm

"Mormonism is just Christianity plus some rather stupid ideas."


Extremely well put by Harris.
In my opinion, he crushed that Jew.

Other Comments by Ine

40. Comment #107541 by Radesq on January 4, 2008 at 5:39 pm

notsobad @33-- On the subject of debates like these: It seems to me the intellectual arguments were probably won long ago. Although the debates are worthwhile; it seemingly takes more than logical arguments to get most people to let go of a thought habit they enjoy and don't want to give up. I don't know but I think it takes visibility and peer pressure. Very difficult to do with something people are so defensive about. I don't know how to say it delicately -- but in the USA the best analog I can think of is smoking. Once wildly popular, it is now discouraged and looked upon by many as a weakness and something the poorer and less educated among us do (is that fair or correct? I don't want to give an opinion on that -- but it has been effective)...as such it has decreased smoking substantially. Of course it also involved many laws and ordinances being passed against smoking in public spaces. I wasn't in favor of that tactic for smoking (though also effective, and pleasant for me as a nonsmoker)and I think it was more a product of the peer pressure than a cause of it. That part could not be done for faith in the USA (nor would I advocate it). I'm sure none of this is news to regulars here but I think it might be worth thinking about again.

Other Comments by Radesq

41. Comment #107543 by Lil' Blasphemer on January 4, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Radesq:
"it seemingly takes more than logical arguments to get most people to let go of a thought habit they enjoy and don't want to give up."

Many religious people I know are "so defensive" of their religion not so much because they enjoy it as much as because they've been taught since early childhood by parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers, ministers, etc. that doubt is very dangerous and that disbelief will result in eternal torment. They are motivated not by joy but fear.

Other Comments by Lil' Blasphemer

42. Comment #107544 by Radesq on January 4, 2008 at 5:52 pm

LB I can believe that, but do they admit that to you or is that just a logical conclusion you come to from thinking through the possible consequences they would face both in this world and the supposed afterlife?

Other Comments by Radesq

43. Comment #107545 by Lil' Blasphemer on January 4, 2008 at 5:56 pm

A few do admit it if you talk to them long enough and ask the right questions. Some don't, but even many of those use "God fearing" as a term of praise. What does that tell you?

Other Comments by Lil' Blasphemer

44. Comment #107548 by Radesq on January 4, 2008 at 6:06 pm

LB Yes I do think you may be right in many cases. I need some instruction on these things from those who have been in the flock previously. I see people in church on tv and I assume they are there because they want to be -- not because they are afraid what people or God will think of them if they aren't. They often appear to be having a good time. I'm just trying to understand -- because I have this conflict of knowing that there are a lot (seemingly a majority) of people who believe what I think are ridiculous fairy stories and not even the best ones I have heard. A least a fair proportion of these people are very smart otherwise well adjusted people. I just can't dismiss all of these people as morons (as much as I might like to). But I just don't get it and I would like to do something about it.

Other Comments by Radesq

45. Comment #107550 by Darkhorse on January 4, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Great debate. Harris did a great job, too. So much so in fact that I think I'm overdue to add his work to my growing atheist library.

Despite how well the debate went there's a certain theist out there, I won't say who but his name rhymes with Ginesh Sha'Shmooza, who just released a tirade proclaiming that atheists are lousy debaters.

Other Comments by Darkhorse

46. Comment #107551 by tomwb on January 4, 2008 at 6:10 pm

I really don't understand the 'god is not a scientific question' argument, or the idea that 'there are things we cannot measure' (usually posed as 'you can't put xxx in a test tube' , or 'under a microscope'). Doesn't this show an incredibly naive view about what it means to measure something.

Of course, if the only measuring tools we had available were a test tube and a microscope we might have problems. But even if this was the case, surely this is a deficiency in the tools available, and it says nothing about the existence of 'things we can't possibly measure'.

Measurement is simply noticing how things interact. If something cannot be measured, then by definition it can have no effect on the physical world. This would mean that god is powerless.

On the other hand, if god has the power to affect the physical world, then we should be able to see the interaction - and this becomes a scientific question.

As Harris points out and Wolpe refuses to accept, religious claims frequently encroach into claims about science.

I liked Harris's point that if we insist on defining an 'intangible' soul, then that soul cannot be given tangible characteristics - like recognising grandma.

Other Comments by tomwb

47. Comment #107552 by Atticus_of_Amber on January 4, 2008 at 6:13 pm

Another suggested quick line to rebut the Communism canard:

Communism wasn't an *opponent* of religion it was a *competitor* of religion.

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

48. Comment #107553 by beders on January 4, 2008 at 6:16 pm

I would not have been able to stay this calm, if I were Sam Harris.

The rabbi kept babbling about how things will go awfully downhill if you take religion out of a society, yet I somehow don't see civil wars breaking out in Sweden, Norway or the Netherlands.

The hitch would have handed Wolpe's ass to him in about half the time.

Still, the clarity of Sam Harris arguments and explanations is superb. I'd really like to get a feeling for the audiences reaction.
Or to put it more bluntly: Who won?

Other Comments by beders

49. Comment #107561 by Quantum Delusion. on January 4, 2008 at 6:37 pm

I'm not a fan of this Rabbi, it was obvious he was loosing the entire time, yet he seemed to be oblivious to it.

I find it unfortunate that people as young as myself, in my community, dont enjoy these types of things, such as thinking and so forth. Makes me feel like a minority.

Other Comments by Quantum Delusion.

50. Comment #107562 by atkinson on January 4, 2008 at 6:45 pm

Tack [35] many thanks -- your Linux line did the trick (I'll have it in a coupla hours :)

Other Comments by atkinson