1. Comment #122512 by eXcommunicate on February 5, 2008 at 11:21 am

I can't understand a word Christopher is saying.

EDIT: Turned my volume way up. Nice. Hitchy is so much better when he's sober.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

2. Comment #122513 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 5, 2008 at 11:25 am

Well, I got "Thank you."

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

3. Comment #122517 by aoratos philos on February 5, 2008 at 11:30 am

alternate source http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/forum.php?lecture_id=3582

Other Comments by aoratos philos

4. Comment #122519 by anotherclinton on February 5, 2008 at 11:36 am

Hey! I was at this debate! Jackson took his lumps like a man, though a lot of time was wasted on the MLK question.

Other Comments by anotherclinton

5. Comment #122526 by liddlefeesh on February 5, 2008 at 11:57 am

Wonderful. And I was supposed to be working tonght! :)

Can't get enough of Hitchens :P

Other Comments by liddlefeesh

6. Comment #122545 by eXcommunicate on February 5, 2008 at 12:32 pm

The last bit at the end with the bottle of Bourbon was hilarious.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

7. Comment #122553 by AnthSynthasome on February 5, 2008 at 12:43 pm

I rather prefer Hitchens when his tongue is a bit anesthetized by the drink! Aside, it is always entertaining to watch him debate.

Other Comments by AnthSynthasome

8. Comment #122555 by HappyPrimate on February 5, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Waiting for the day when schools of theology no longer exist in legitimate colleges and universities. Not an educational subject anymore than schools of astrology. Otherwise I really enjoyed Hitchens in his usual good form.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

9. Comment #122556 by al-rawandi on February 5, 2008 at 12:50 pm

HappyPrimate,


As long as people continue to believe in God, the belief should be studied. Eliminating theology is like eliminating criminology. We have to understand what drives the religious, ignoring their beliefs does not fix the problem.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

10. Comment #122561 by Gymnopedie on February 5, 2008 at 1:06 pm

al-rawandi, studying religion and studying theology are not the same thing. Religion is a real historical and cultural subject, theology is the study of a non-existant being. One is a subject, the other is a non-subject. Confusing the two is quite dangerous.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

11. Comment #122562 by keith on February 5, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Al-Rwandi,

Sorry to follow you around but I couldn't help but notice your rubbish analogy. Eliminating theology is not like eliminating criminology at all. Criminology tries to explain why people commit crimes. Theology doesn't try to explain why people are religious. Or do you think that Dan Dennett was engaging in theology in Breaking The Spell?

Other Comments by keith

12. Comment #122563 by CruciFiction on February 5, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Sorry, part 7 changed to:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y1etBuKbKd4

Other Comments by CruciFiction

13. Comment #122564 by al-rawandi on February 5, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Keith,


Please, don't apologize, you aren't the first. I think religion should be studied in an anthropological setting. For instance why people believe in God. This would encompass psychology, history, etc... So in that sense I think "theology" should perhaps be redefined, maybe "religious studies" or "religious theory". But it should be studied in the same way as criminology (I think the two are similar).

I guess I wasn't clear enough in the post.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

14. Comment #122566 by al-rawandi on February 5, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Keith,


Looking back at my post. Perhaps it would have benefitted you to read it more closely. Like where I said:

the belief should be studied

Or

We have to understand what drives the religious,

Rubbish reading skills more like it. Call the field whatever you like.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

15. Comment #122567 by krisking on February 5, 2008 at 1:24 pm

keith

Theology doesn't try to explain why people are religious

What do you think does?

Other Comments by krisking

16. Comment #122574 by ACJames on February 5, 2008 at 1:48 pm

I think Hitch likes the irony of drinking and out-thinking a guy while (somewhat) intoxicated.

He has had these debates so many times with religious defenders who are so monotonous, and his love of strong drink so ingrained, he must feel a need to "mix it up" as it were, to keep himself entertained.

Hitch rocks, even when i disagree with him, I still like his arguement better, a true artist.

Other Comments by ACJames

17. Comment #122577 by technogogo on February 5, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Sound quality is not great. But if you are using Realplayer (via the linked to site) you may have a graphic equaliser. On Mac its on the Window pulldown menu. Or command-E. Not sure about PC vesion. Lower all the sliders apart from those for the 3 or 4 highest frequency bands.

Other Comments by technogogo

18. Comment #122587 by mmurray on February 5, 2008 at 2:15 pm

I think you are arguing over meanings here.

If by theology you mean the study of God aimed to try and remove the logical contradictions apparent in religious belief then I think this a non subject.

If by theology you mean the study of religion you mean the study of how religions behave, or the history of religious thought or why people are religious etc that is a serious subject.

I'm with Gymnopedie -- we should call the second of these religious studies or similar and the first theology. There is probably some overlap of course. If you study God you will want to read religious books but your aim is different.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

19. Comment #122595 by Corylus on February 5, 2008 at 2:37 pm

CruciFiction you seem to be busy with the videos alot.

I enjoy being able to watch debates on here, so thanks for the hard work :-)

Other Comments by Corylus

20. Comment #122598 by Spinoza on February 5, 2008 at 2:48 pm

I love when Hitchens mentions Spinoza.

His interlocutors don't even know who that is!

Ha~! (and you'll catch Mr. Jackson's explicit ignorance of Spinoza... who THEN SAYS HE WENT TO GRAD SCHOOL FOR PHILOSOPHY. What a moron.)

Other Comments by Spinoza

21. Comment #122604 by urbster1 on February 5, 2008 at 3:31 pm

The ending was my favorite! This may well be the best debate I've seen Hitchens do so far. Nice job!

Other Comments by urbster1

22. Comment #122610 by Lucas on February 5, 2008 at 3:45 pm

al-rawandi -

theology is sort of like the emic study of religion, while most "religion" departments take a more etic view, or at least they are supposed to. my BA department called the program by the name "History of Religion" in reference to the work of Mircea Eliade, and this is fairly commonly understood as the term for the anthro/socio/psycho/historical study of religion. believe me, it has been unendingly annoying to have people confuse what my degree is in with theology. i've actually been asked many times whether i was going to be a priest (to which My Dark Lord Satan thunderously laughed). theology and history of religion should not be confused. i've always said that i'm like a biologist who studies trees: i am not a tree myself, and in fact being a tree would probably hamper my ability to study trees objectively. likewise, i am not a believer, i study them. like trees. or bugs. or viruses.

Other Comments by Lucas

23. Comment #122621 by plastictowel on February 5, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Why does no one EVER put these debates in windows or Microsoft format! I can't ever burn these, and I have too much hubris to watch movies/debates from my pc! Yahweh damnit.

Other Comments by plastictowel

24. Comment #122625 by Zaphod on February 5, 2008 at 5:07 pm

In regards to the third video clip.

A dog being hit by a car made him a Christian? This is what made stupid arguments somehow more credible? An emotional thing happened(to a dog) and it made his rationality, reason and logical thoughts fly out the window. This does happen to people (albeit for more personal traumas like the death of a loved one). However, to let it change your world view 180 degrees is mental. What arguments that you found stupid as a non believer do you know find credible? Seriously. I am an atheist because I care about what is true. I don't believe things because they make me feel good. In fact if they make me feel good I see even more reason to be sceptical of them.

Other Comments by Zaphod

25. Comment #122626 by AfraidToDie on February 5, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Timothy Jackson seemed to be quite apologetic, and never argued "for" religion or claimed any strong personal belief in a god (or Jesus). If he was really Christian, he caved in because he at least knew he had no argument that made sense. He could only try and challenge Hitch on his statements such as MLK wasn't really Christian. I came away thinking Mr Jackson may be coming into the light of rational thinking. If he had a "flock", he's going to have a hard time keeping them together after this debate!

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

26. Comment #122627 by LordSummerisle on February 5, 2008 at 5:20 pm

Lovely. I've been looking for Hitchens's Southern debates for quite some time now.

Other Comments by LordSummerisle

27. Comment #122628 by home8896 on February 5, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Kudos to those who can put up with listening to this stuff repeatedly and argue it repeatedly. I got to Mr. Jackson talking about the Nazis and social darwinism and I just gave up. I just can't listen to this, over and over and over...

Other Comments by home8896

28. Comment #122630 by LeeLeeOne on February 5, 2008 at 5:26 pm

Hitchens' humor... priceless!

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

29. Comment #122634 by LordSummerisle on February 5, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Surprisingly genial, all in all. The bourbon bottle at the end was a nice gesture on Jackson's part.

Other Comments by LordSummerisle

30. Comment #122644 by Zaphod on February 5, 2008 at 6:02 pm

That was awesome he gave him some bourbon at the end. Timothy Jackson your a nice guy.

Other Comments by Zaphod

31. Comment #122680 by flobear on February 5, 2008 at 7:40 pm

I don't know how everyone can make it to the end of these debates. The fallacies Timothy Jackson utters feel like physical blows. The most frustrating part of these debates is that inane arguments come faster than Hitch can refute them. Still, Hitch always does a bang-up job.

Keep on them Hitch!

Other Comments by flobear

32. Comment #122700 by Paine on February 5, 2008 at 8:47 pm

This is just cruel. Someone should have stopped this on humanitarian grounds when Jackson was getting massacred so badly.

Other Comments by Paine

33. Comment #122727 by Styrer- on February 5, 2008 at 10:00 pm

'Brothers under the skin' (Hitch, on receipt of some bourbon at the end).

Wonderful comment, and does anyone agree with me that this is the flavour we taste when any of the Horsemen are in debate with some of the more intelligent faithheads? That the faithheads engaged are but a hair's breadth away from slamming down their religious text of preference, crying out 'Ok, that's it, I agree' and heading off to the bar for a most secular round of drinks?

The crashing wake-up thunder to reality comes, of course, when we realise that this is precisely what the faithheads are thinking of us by return, contemplating the joy they can share in proclaiming to their fellow sheep: 'I got one!'

Careful there, folks. Don't succumb to the charms of a bottle of firewater as easily as the Hitch.

Always insist on two, at the very least.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

34. Comment #122747 by eXcommunicate on February 6, 2008 at 12:02 am

Wasn't Hitchy supposed to debate D'Souza again? Was that ever posted?

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

35. Comment #122749 by Prom_STar on February 6, 2008 at 12:12 am

Best part, I think, is when Jackson explains his conversion experience. "I saw a dog killed and thought--that could be me." He completely proved Hitchens' point (borrowed from Frued) that the religious impulse is born from wish-thinking and fear of death. Jackson also never really answered Hitchens' question: "How do you know that God is love?" And that is the real question religious people have to answer.

Other Comments by Prom_STar

36. Comment #122752 by louis14 on February 6, 2008 at 12:51 am

I've watched several debates between the various Horsemen and religionists now, and I have to say that I found this guy by far the most interesting.

Timothy Jackson seems first of all to be a nice guy - something I haven't felt about any of the other debaters I've seen. He also seems to have a good grasp of the religionist arguments; again, more than can be said of the others. He was capable of arguing the detail of his arguments more consistantly, I felt.

Unfortunately they were in the end, the same old arguments. Full of the same misunderstandings, half-truths and illogicalities.

Hitchens was on great form and was very impressive. Damn, I wish I had a mind like his!

Other Comments by louis14

37. Comment #122755 by LDmiller on February 6, 2008 at 1:06 am

When I first started to look at these videos, I thought. "Oh, lawdy, Hitchens is taking on a Georgia cracker."

But as it went on, I found that this was one of Hitchens' better debates.

Yes, he made his points against Professor Jackson, but Jackson also had some good ones.

One of the best, I thought, was Jackson's argument that atheistic science is also at bottom a dogma that requires a good deal of what we would call "faith" thinking, and that the atheist community treats science as a privileged window in what Jackson called "the givens" (meaning reality), not to be questioned any more than the tenets of theism.

Interestingly enough, the people who place the most "faith" in the sciences are generally the least qualified to judge their veracity. Generally, if I have a problem with an argument put forth by the Big Four (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens) it is along these lines. They take things "as read" in sciences outside their expertise that are not at all settled fact.

Real physicists and cosmologists will certainly be the first to acknowledge that recent evidence has in large extent made tatters of their respective theoretical bases, yet these gentlemen (and many others) preach science as they know it as though it were nearly in the class of holy writ. Yes, they give lip service to the fact that the scientific method allows critical examination and is the only self correcting method of thought that we have (all of which is true), but the specific facts they use as if they are fixed in stone. In fact, much of what they hang their arguments on is on pretty shaky ground and in many cases out of date.

Professor Jackson did a pretty good job of pointing this out. He is clearly no ignoramus in the physical sciences.

This debate was held in a very civil manner, and rose far above the quality of discourse against attack dog/Ann Coulter D'Souza bait-and-switch tactics or McGrath's Great Condescension.

All in all, I thought it one of the better exchanges that Hitchens has had.

Other Comments by LDmiller

38. Comment #122781 by DavidGYoung on February 6, 2008 at 4:25 am

It's bordering on extreme pedantry to complain that theology is called theology. A lot of words in a lot of languages have moved a long way from their original meanings.

Throughout the entirety of my theology degree course, I never once did anything in terms of formally assessed work which required me to believe in a supernatural deity.

Other Comments by DavidGYoung

39. Comment #122790 by mlon on February 6, 2008 at 4:56 am

nice debate but where is part 7?


mlon

Other Comments by mlon

40. Comment #122797 by Matt7895 on February 6, 2008 at 5:16 am

I think Hitchens was at his best during this speech. Very astute and very funny.

Other Comments by Matt7895

41. Comment #122798 by PJG on February 6, 2008 at 5:30 am

Al- rawandi

Studying why people believe in God is not theology, it is psychology, surely?

The study of religion itself may be of historical interest (and so could be part of History). Religion's role in literature could be studied as part of that subject... etc.

Theology is the study of the nature of God and of religious "truths". It is like studying the nature of unicorns.

DavidGYoung
In that case, why call it a Theology course and not "History of Religion"?



Other Comments by PJG

42. Comment #122800 by JesperB on February 6, 2008 at 5:32 am

mlon: Download Real Alternative here:

http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Real_Alternative.htm

And go to the alternate link (at the top of this page) and click "Video".

The quality is somewhat better too that way.

Other Comments by JesperB

43. Comment #122825 by al-rawandi on February 6, 2008 at 7:14 am

PJG,


We can call it what we want. But I think discussing the 'absence' of a god is theology. I have a theological position... there is no god.

Now as for study of religion. It would be psychology, history, literature, anthropology. It is imperative that we study religion and the religious. People here claim it is an enormous threat and then want to expel studies of it from the university. If religion motivates people the way people here claim, I think the least we could do is understand the motives, this may help us counteract or predict some of their actions.

Sweeping it under the rug doesn't really help.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

44. Comment #122838 by Cokane on February 6, 2008 at 7:50 am

I agree that Jackson is by far the most interesting debater to go up against Hitchens. As others have said, he comes across as a genuinely nice guy and I found his argumentation much more palatable because of that. His understanding of the issues at hand, and the english language for that matter, were also on a level that is significantly superior to almost all the other people I've seen Hitchen debate with.

I enjoyed this one and will doubtlessly listen to it again at some point, and perhaps comment further when I have not been falling asleep through it due to fatigue after a long day.

Other Comments by Cokane

45. Comment #122894 by UncleJJ on February 6, 2008 at 9:01 am

Good debate with a worthwhile opponent. The best debate I've seen with Hitchens and a Xtian. I have heard it all before of course but I can't get enough of it.

Here are a couple of other Hitchens interviews which I only recently became aware of. Thanks to PiroNiro

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=M7O64Swypkw

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=J4RFoBJRkOg
(1 of 3 totalling nearly 30 mins)

Other Comments by UncleJJ

46. Comment #122904 by krisking on February 6, 2008 at 9:07 am

LDmiller

Interestingly enough, the people who place the most "faith" in the sciences are generally the least qualified to judge their veracity. Generally, if I have a problem with an argument put forth by the Big Four (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens) it is long these lines. They take things "as read" in sciences outside their expertise that are not at all settled fact.

Nicely made point. I see noone has challenged you on it. I think most of us in society take an awful lot of science and medicine in this way.

How many people take medicine without really knowing what is in them or what they actually do or may do? We just assume the doctors have got it right!

Other Comments by krisking

47. Comment #122916 by nanaj on February 6, 2008 at 9:17 am

Another superb debate: I'm eternally grateful that people like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris are knowledgeable enough, articulate enough and brave enough to put themselves repeatedly in the front line of this anti-theist/religious argument, taking all the flak, animosity (not to mention danger) that ensues from it, while technology allows intellectual minnows like me to participate from the comfort and safety of my armchair: My humble appreciation and thanks to you all

Other Comments by nanaj

48. Comment #122920 by Teratornis on February 6, 2008 at 9:19 am

In reply to comment #122634 by LordSummerisle:

Surprisingly genial, all in all. The bourbon bottle at the end was a nice gesture on Jackson's part.

Helping Hitchens commit slow suicide is "nice"?

Do you also consider it "nice" when some Muslims help a fellow Muslim prepare for martyrdom?

Undoubtedly the martyr appreciates the gesture.

I'm surprised Hitchens' opponents even try to debate with him. They would advance their cause more effectively by plying him with booze and tobacco, encouraging him to poison himself as quickly as he will.

Observing Hitchens' spectacular exception to his otherwise largely consistent rationality should motivate lesser minds like us to self-examine more carefully to see where we, too, make arbitrary and inexcusable exceptions to critical thinking in our own lives.

Selective reason is not reason. It is, in fact, the working manifestation of unreason. Why do I say this? Because even the most unreasonable person is reasonable in many, even most respects. Everyone who lives in a world of unforgiving physical laws must behave reasonably most of the time if he wants to remain alive. The number of ways to get oneself killed is vastly larger than the number of ways to remain alive.

For example, count the number of objects around you that you could potentially eat, then the number which are actually edible. We must all be reasonable enough to limit ourselves to just the right tiny subset of objects appropriate for feeding on. Or take a walk along any street. Count the number of directions you could head that will get you killed, and compare that number to the few possible headings you must maintain to reduce your odds of getting mowed down by a gaswaster to a somewhat acceptable value. The reasonable options are much fewer than the unreasonable options.

Of course in most situations, we need not exert our very limited conscious ability to reason, because we have our emotional brains urging us to do the right thing. We don't poison ourselves by eating feces or rubbing it into our wounds because our ancestors evolved a revulsion for the smell (and, presumably, the taste, although I have not experimentally verified that). Similarly, humans have an instinctive fear of heights, and some ability to learn appropriate fears of novel threats such as stepping in front of speeding motor traffic.

Humans get in trouble when our emotional brains urge us to do unreasonable things. That is the true test of a person's logical capacity: their willingness to behave reasonably when unreason feels better.

As long as we attack religion because it is unreasonable, and in fact contradictory to the basic reasonableness of every sane person, then we should equally attack all forms of unreason which are also departures from the general backdrop of reasonableness. Otherwise we ourselves do not exhibit the logical consistency we ask theists to exhibit. Of course our hypocrisy is no argument in favor of religion. I just think if we are going to tell other people that reason is superior to hedonism, we might try to practice what we preach.

Other Comments by Teratornis

49. Comment #122986 by BathTub on February 6, 2008 at 10:25 am

Once I got the sound sorted and it was listenable this was quite a decent listen, Hitchens was very funny.

Other Comments by BathTub

50. Comment #122995 by Riley on February 6, 2008 at 10:37 am

There is an important distinction being drawn in these debates that too many atheists I think tragically miss: the distinction between "God belief" and "religion".

Atheism is simply the rejection of the "God" claim. But when those such as Hitchens, under the banner of atheism, declare: "religion poisons everything", he and they are now themselves making a claim, and they burden the atheist movement with that claim. This situation, caused for the most part by Hitchens, has already become so bad that the "religion poisons everything" claim has become dogma for many atheists. It certainly at least has become dogma for Hitchens. Timothy Jackson is unfortunately right in at least one regard in this debate; Hitchens is the more dogmatic of the two of them on stage.

If linking brutal deeds (such as 9-11) to religion in general is reasonable, then linking brutal movements promoting a world without religion (like "The Soviet League of the Militant Godless") to all other movements promoting a world without religion (like the "new atheists" movement) should be reasonable too.

Of course, neither comparison is particularly reasonable.

If you can't rid yourself of "religion poisons everything" dogma, please at least stop the hypocrisy of blaming religion (in general) for a particular human massacre and then getting indignant when someone returns the favor by blaming anti-religious movements (in general) for another particular human massacre.

Other Comments by Riley