Wow. I was amazed by how ill-informed and plain silly the Rabbi’s arguments were, even by creationist standards. It feels like a waste of time to let Hitchens debate someone that ignorant and (presumably, from his performance) inexperienced. What’s next, Hitchens vs a five-year-old?

Haha, I’d love to see Hitchens beat the crap out of a 5-year-old evangelist. He has no mercy, it’s great. How were they supposed to know ahead of time that someone who spent their entire life studying religion wouldn’t know how to defend it? The Rabbi spent a lot of time with ad hominem attacks. He even pulled the repressed card multiple times!

I have trouble listening to extremists. It is a much easier assignment to debate for the extremes on any side, to find faults (any fault) with your opponent.
Harder, and more noble, is to synthesis the arguments, and to bring new understanding to the exchange. A fanaticist is a fanaticist no matter what they debate, and it is much harder to accept what they say. Why not debate why man needs religion? Or why man is religious about science? Like it or not, religion is part of our evolution. Or evolution is part of our religious challenge.

Only by working together can we find a middle path, which is where the majority shall always be found.

Replying to the previous comment, I’ll not sure I agree about the Rabbi. In a way, he perhaps had the odds stacked against him, in that due to the nature of the question of the debate, to make a strong impact he would have to provide some evidence of god. Of course, he can’t do that; because that way leads to paradox.

So, he’s reduced to attacking things that don’t agree with is ideas; classically, evolution. But we can show that he is unlikely to succeed in that endeavour, when we realise that it is the very definition of science to attack and criticise scientific theories. Once flaws are found, the theory is then appropriate improved. Through iteration, the “low hanging fruit”, as it were, are found and typically removed, and subsequently only through great study and thought can new flaws be identified.

In other words, because the Rabbi is not a highly specialised scientist, he can not personally provide the insight required, and has to rely on the scientific community to provide those insights. That would seem like a good conclusion, if it weren’t for the fact that he can manipulate comments and ideas, and bend them to his will.

Ultimately, if he can’t prove the ideas of his religion, the next best thing he can do is to try to give evidence that religion is a good force in the world. He seemed unprepared in this regard, though, strangely: it seems that his angle is closer to the scientific, rather than the moral, which perhaps makes him a poor representative for religion. He’s like the centre-forward for his team, perhaps, on the offensive; but it’s a crippled offensive.

I would imagine that the Rabbi might be used gaining more traction with the audience. Judging by the reactions, there might have been few religious types there.

It’s also perhaps telling that the Rabbi relied more on undermining Hitchens’ character, by drawing attention to more controversial comments--but Hitchens certaintly makes himself easy game for the play, with typical flippant remarks on less significant topics. On the other hand, Hitchens has a certain natural arrogant contempt, that also servers to undermine his opponent in a less overt way.

All in all, perhaps not a debate full of the most original ideas, but entertaining, none the less.

To boost his credibility regarding his knowledge of evolutionary biology, Rabbi Boteach implied he was an official Rabbi at Oxford university and claimed to have debated Richard Dawkins 4 times. Both are false and have been refuted by Dawkins himself. Boteach was not an official Rabbi at Oxford but, rather, insinuated himself by setting up an unofficial Jewish student group. Boteach has never debated Dawkins, but rather has chaired debates where Dawkins was present--which is not at all the same thing as debating.

Boteach is, it seems, is a serial liar--something which is unworthy of a Rabbi and something especially ironic for someone who claims to be knowledgeable on matters of morality and know the will of God. For all Boteach’s claims that Hitchens “just makes things up” it would seem that Boteach is either unconsciously projecting or consciously using a Rovian attack where one preemptively accuses one’s opponent of what is actually one’s own greatest fault. I’m disappointed that Boteach would sink so low, and further disappointed that the Jerusalem Post would continue to support someone who seems to be a proven liar.

IMO.

Even though I am somewhat a Hitchens fan (if only when he is debating on religion), I await the day when he meets his match on stage and a proper, intelligent debate ensues. This day hasn’t arrived yet. Boteach brings up the same old fallacies and ignorant claims about evolution (irreducible complexity, Social Darwinism etc) and some outright lies about his past meetings with Richard Dawkins and slanderous accusations against his opponent.

As Hitchens said right at the start, the onus was on Boteach to show God exists. Boteach attempted no such thing. He instead proposed we get our morals from religion, a ridiculous notion that Hitchens quickly tore apart.

Nevertheless it was quite entertaining as a one-man battle… a darker side of me enjoyed watching Boteach fall flat on his feet. But next time, please, try to get someone who has at least a rudimentary grasp of science when debating Christoper Hitchens.

The rabbi seemed to be preaching more than debating. I thought the whole purpose was for a debate with arguments for or against a proposition.

The rabbi was clearly way out of his league. He rumbled , waved his hands quite a bit and offered absolutely nothing to defend his argument.  Not to mention that when he did ramble it was more often than not lies and fabrications and mis-representations. That of course assumes he is in fact intelligent enough to _understand_ the scientific theories he supposedly was trying to argue against.Otherwise i may give him a pass due to lack of intelligence in which case he most definitely does not belong on a podium debating anyone let alone C. Hitchens.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach said:

“The greatest scientist - he passed away a few years ago, but I met him at Oxford, from Harvard - Stephen Jay Gould, he didn’t believe in evolution. He believed in punctuated equilibrium.”

Hitchens refuted this, but I’d like to elaborate. The Rabbi’s claim that Gould did not believe in evolution is absurd. As Hitchens says, a brief glance at any of Gould’s prolific writings establishes this.[1]

Boteach seems to mistake phyletic gradualism for evolutionary theory in general, when in fact it is simply a hypothesis attempting to explain the process by which evolution occurs.

He also seems to believe that the punctuated equilibrium is separate from evolutionary theory; this is not true. It is only an alternative hypothesis to phyletic gradualism. It does not deny evolution; it attempts to explain it.

“I saw him [Hitchens] debate Richard Dawkins - he destroyed him, and he’s an atheist.”

False. Gould was not an atheist, he was a self-described agnostic.[2]

There’s a brief bit where Shmuley goes on about how Christopher Hitchens has a four-word name for the force that propels the universe, while his idea of that same force contains three words.
I was honestly confused for a moment. I thought the rabbi was actually on the brink of landing a joke that’d get the audience (myself included) to laugh for once with something about The Flying Spaghetti Monster (4 words), but alas, it was merely his temper getting the best of his vocabulary, and mixing “word” with “letter.”
Oh well. Keep it classy, Mr. Hitchens.
Mr. Boteach, you should retreat to whatever dimly lit place you come from. Please do not forget to pack up your reams of bogus half-science, your defamations of Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, etc, and your childish histrionics as you go.
Along with your Grossly Obsolete Deity (three words).

Hitchens handled himself rather well, but Shmuley was not up to task. He appeared ignorant and uneducated, making the debate rather embarrassing to watch.

The Rabbi really embarrassed himself. He came off as a wild ranting evangelist. For a MUCH MUCH better debate, check out the debate between Rabbi Wolpe and Sam Harris (see link below). Harris is masterful and Wolpe is OK on some issues.

Rabbi Boteach’s knowledge of evolution is horribly deficient. He spends considerable time saying that random mutation is insufficient to create the diversity we see in the amount of time evident.
However, the theory of natural selection doesn’t claim that mutation is the sole source of variance.

Mutation is the ultimate source of genetic change, but not the proximal one. DNA is a great library of genetic ideas, only a tiny percentage of which is used to build an actual, expressed animal. Therefore, 1) mutations, by activating or deactivating genes in the library, can have large complex effects, such as adding whole body segments to insects. 2) Sexual selection selects and recombines ideas to create new expressions of genes. We can evolve great changes without new mutations merely by recombining older mutations already present in the genome. These mechansisms are sufficient to create large change over eons

So, who was right regarding the bet? Should Rabbi Boteach be ordering 100 of Hitchens’ books or should Christopher be buying 1,000 of the Rabbi’s books?

BTW, the rabbi’s jokes were horrible. I don’t recall the audience hollering at his one-liners (except for a few near-inaudible chuckles), while Hitchens was bringing the house down. Way to go Chris!

I found it very unfortunate that the rabbi is seemingly unable to debate without yelling and using body language.

One of the weakest opponents I have ever seen Hitchens debate. His technique seemed to be to throw as many fallacies as he could at Hitchens, who had no way of correcting them in the time given.

Still though, Rabbi Boteach is orders of magnitude more articulate and intelligent than Al Sharpton.

Does God Exist?

Hitchens says no.  Rabbi Boteach fails to address the claim.  Rather, he makes a series of poorly thought out ad hominem attacks and raised voice incredulity.

He says Hitchens message is depressing and leaves life without meaning.  I heartily disagree.  Hitchens’ message is hopeful to a degree that Rabbi Boteach’s message could not hope to approach.

“I found it very unfortunate that the rabbi is seemingly unable to debate without yelling and using body language.”

Hitchens mannerisms are a classic case of human moral egocentrism displayed. A basic level of understanding classic human interaction would determine this behavior will naturally elicit a negative response in those around the egoist. (ie… immediately making the Rabbi on the defense) His reaction to Hitchens display is pretty predictable. Most of us would react the same if in a debate situation with this type of personality. Granted the Rabbi should’ve left evolution well enough alone and focused on what he’s most knowledgable in which is religion and God...since in this interview I sensed Hitchens may not be as educated in the bible as much as the Rabbi.

I agree with Rebekia but I would argue that Rabbi Boteach’s points about the improbability of consecutive mutations and evolution were not at all touched upon by Hitchens. And I give Rabbi Boteach credit for tackling one of the most debated scientific theories in an intelligent manner, quoting several reputable scientists, whereas Hitchens offers clever and wit, but no arguments to back his case. Rabbi Boteach’s points that Hitchens had an agenda against religion and often distorts facts and borders on anti-semitism were very telling to me.

Keep up the good work, Reverend!

The Hitchens/Boteach debate clearly demonstrated that religious “faith” and belief in any sort of personal God is misguided and dangerous.

Boteach is a completely unconvincing advocate for any sort of faith, particularly the Jewish one. If I was Jewish and still felt the need to believe in a personal God, I would renounce that faith and look elsewhere!

Whatever one’s personal view on the subject, it was obvious that Hitchen’s put forward focused and convincing arguments and knew his subject well. It was equally obvious that Boteach’s arguments were muddled, rambling, often irrelevant and always confusing.

If Boteach is the best that Judaism/belief in God can come up with, he will continue to convert alot of people to Atheism: so keep up the good work, Reverend!

To DJ on Feb 12:
The odds were indeed stacked against Boteach (as Hitchens freely admitted to me after the debate), but Boteach being able to provide proof of God’s existence wouldn’t have created a paradox, it would have ended the debate.

That being said, Boteach put forth a very weak argument and did a disservice to his cause. He came armed only with a sightless rhetoric shotgun and flop sweat, while Hitchens had laser guided smart bombs and a razor sharp wit. A better opponent should be found for a followup.

Rabbi Boteach is a disgrace to Judaism and religion as a whole—his argument was mostly a sermon sprinkled with ad hominem attacks against Hitchens, who was his usual witty self.

From Boteach’s first attempt at humor—“Atheism is a non-prophet organization”, which fell flat on its face, to the end of the discussion, Boteach showed that he arrived at a battle of wits completely unarmed. I feel embarrassed for him.