part of your -- unit, your point of view. she is used to that. everybody on both sides said the old lady is the real brains in the outfit here. whatever john did something that the others i didn't like, they said is because abigail wasn't there to correct him. i think that where she's with him all the way in supporting most of the federalist agenda, but she becomes a federalist wear as he holds to the notion that we will avoid war with france. and that's the split that i was referring to. that's the only time in their entire collaboration, if you will, where she fails him. thank you. [applause] ..

>> now, again, this is the resolution. this is the question being discussed. it is, of course, a play on the title to chris hitchens, best selling book, god is not great, how religion poisens everything arguing the affirmative of the resolution is david berlinski, a scientist, professor of

mathematics and author of books, and it's available in the lobby and afterwards there will be a book signing, and you'll have the opportunity to meet dr. berlinski. are you in the negative? that's chris hitchens, journalist, cultural critic and best-selling author. he is the author of the memoir, hitch # -- 22. this is a best seller, and it's in the lobby with the same opportunity to meet chris hitchens and to have your book signed by him. in just a bit, the format about tonight's debate. first of all, there will be 12 minute opening statements by each of the men. dr. berlinski will be the first to speak, and then, of course, chris hitchens, and then a

rebuttal of 6 minutes each, and then a speaker recap, that is to say some final remarks for that portion of the debate, three minutes each. now, i will be time keeping as we move along rntion and i'm asking these gentlemen not to trample those time limits, and then we'll move into a question and answer time. i have questions here that have been submitted and i will read them at the end and signal them when they received their last question that they should give some sort of closing statement and sense dr. berlinski is going first, he'll have the opportunity to go last, so that being the case, we will now begin our debate, and dr. david berlinski please, open for us. >> thank you all very much for being here.

[applause] i would like to thank larry taunton and the six points foundation for their outstanding hospitality. [laughter] and to chris hitchens, my pleasure being allowed to bask in the radiance of his reputation. the propositions is atheism poisens everything. ladies and gentlemen, i'm perfectly aware, and you should be too that that proposition is fully compatible with the proposition that religion poisens something. where chris hitchens and richard will announce they are prepared to invade hell in order to joust a variety of priests, i would wish them well, although, for

reasons of personal in convenience, i could not join them. [laughter] the proposition that atheism poisens everything hardly requires a defense. the inquiry is not needed, he said. the last date in which atheism was a possibility in social thought was also the last date in which was a plausibility in social thought. cast your mind back to 1790 in front of the cay -- cathedral. there's narrow green eyed rabid as a bat, and a loud boisterous man watching, and they say what should we do with this pile of

gottic junk? the answer is let's rename it. good idea. what do we call it? each manmented to name it -- man wanted to name it after themselves, but that was not the idea. we'll kale it the temple of reason. that works splendidly. it means nothing. we might have called it the temple of evidence. what do we do next was the question? they answered known from historical circumstances, let's go kill a lot of people, and that's exactly what they did. once they redamed it the temple of reason, it was relatively easy to kill 50,000 innocent men, women, and children. that's the nature of the proposition we are discussing. 1851, 60 or 70 years later, an age of remarkable progress,

enlightenment, wonderful sense of possibility, matthew arnold in a poem reflected on the decline of religious faith in europe. the mel -- melancholy didn't see any optimistic in that withdrawal, and could think to say to himself and readers only this, only this, awe, my beloved, let us be true to one another. my beloved, true to one another, for the world which lies about us like a land of dreams, so various, so beautiful, so new, hath really neither joy, nor love, nor peace, nor love, nor

pain. we are in a plain swept by ignorance and armies clash by night. this is a declaration from the heart of the progressive enlightenment of the 19th century. in 1914, the foreign secretary of great britain said, again, the lights are going out all over europe. the lights, what a strange word. we shall not see them lit again in our time. ladies and gentlemen, i submit to you that the 20th century was a record in germany, russia, china, cambodia, and elsewhere not only of remarkable stupidity, brutality, and violence, but unparalleled violence, stupidity, and brutality and violence, and each

of the regimes behind this remarkable decay of civilization had two features, two characteristics in common to bear in mind. the first place, the men guiding these regimes and their entore raj did not believe for a moment there was no power higher than their own, and they acted on that assumption. the second place, in the mass murders they conducted, they were aided and supported by any number of crack pots scientific disciplines. that makes for a characteristic combination. the case of the nazis it was derived from biology. in 1937 having murdered thousands of men, women, and children, the nazis released a film on this and said in

comprehension, my goodness, we've sinned against the law of natural selection. the law of natural selection. what could that mean? we have sinned against the law of natural selection? the communists had a equal crack pot theory they dure rifed from -- derived from economics. as all of you know, atheism today is not simply the private doctrine of a handful of individuals, and as a social movement, it's been advanced by the scientific community in the unite and in europe -- in the united states and europe too. some of this is add adventitious. by writing books indicating that science has shown that god does not exist, well, they could make a fortune. i'm very sorry i wasn't there to

join them. i didn't think of it at the time. i'm quite sure that someone now is writing a book, how margarine science shows that god does not exist, but the inevitable consequences of this degree of atheism within the scientific community has involved a deaf fer mages -- teaser mages of -- defer. after all, if we restrict our attention to the theories of science found in mathematics or physics and no other place, then we must recognize that the serious sciences have nothing to say about the existence of god in the premises or in their conclusion. what a remarkable fact. people write books about god doesn't exist, but physics has nothing to do with the existence of god.

the trouble of the human imagination about which the sciences when seriously considered are resolutely silent, these remain just where they were, and the religious tradition has offered a coherent boyd of belief and doctrine to be explained. do we understand why the universe arose 14 million -- no, we don't. do we understand how life emerged on earth? not a prayer right now. do we understand the complexity of life? we can't begin to describe a living creatures in precise terms. a recent article says cell division requires 4,000 proteins working together. what a wealth of information we possess. what an abundant lack of understanding we have about living systems. do we understand why the laws of nature are true?

no, we have no idea. do you understand the continuation in physics when certain functions can be pushed forward into the future contrary to all experience? do we understand why the universe is stable moment to moment? the medievals pondered this question. they said god is everywhere in the world. what a remarkable creation. can we do without it? do we have an explanation of the continue newty of the universe? how can we propose seriously and solemnly to rule out of court in advance a hypothesis that not only answers to the human heart, but answers to genuine

intellectual needs in other respects. when one sees the scientific community like a herd of wild beasts, it's plausible to ask are they going someplace or fleeing from someplace? i think the answer is they are fleeing from an idea they reject for a variety of reasons. not only is the inquiry about atheism not necessary in terms of the history of social thought, it's not necessary in terms of the outlines of scientific thought, but there is a last question to be addressed, perhaps the most important for you and me. because it was asked, what compels the electron to follow the laws of nature? good question. i don't know. one who presided over the destruction of churches and synagogues throughout europe and was the master mind behind the

extermination of the jewish people asked a similar question in 1944 when confronted with the treaty obligations the germmans adopted. he asked pregnantly, after all, what compels us to keep our promises? more relative is very often derived as unhappy consequence of atheism. i don't think moral relativism is particularly a deep issue, but i do think the issue, i do think the issue of what compels us to keep our promises is very relevant. i have in front of me rather remarkable button. if you should press it, if you should press it, yours would be untold riches and whatever else you desire.

the only consequence to pressing it beyond happiness is the death of an anonymous chinese peasant. who among us would you trust with the button? sit still, christopher. [laughter] thank you. [applause] >> i'll give you 3 minutes. >> thank you. thank you, larry, for the generous introduction. thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for coming. at short notice, i can only hope to match the amity of my rival in knowledge of the architecture and its cosmic implications and in the access to modern 20th

century perjury. let's take instead of notre dame and the deconcentration, the erection of the other most prominent paris, the one you see on your way from the airport, the grand wedding cake of the sacred heart built on top of the standing heights built to honor the massacre that had thrown itself officially and thrashing at the feet of bismarck. many people were killed in that than in the herd of the terror, and it wasn't enough that that was the case, but a whole church had to be concentrated by the french religious establishment and their political allies to

celebrate the massacre. does this prove that religion ruins everything? not so. yes, to a degree it does. this french right wing, collar call right wing goes on to the arraignment and frame of captain, possibly the most serious case of misjustice and justified in advance, but by a political establishment in european history and this and the sides taken in it determining who will be who in the terrible war of 1214 and by others and historians, it is magnificent history, new history in the first 2,000 years of christianity describes as a war. they christened them as we used

to understand them, as our grandfathers understood it. when every country in europe goes to war in the name of its god or church, king george vi is the head of the church of england. others are russia, head of the russia orthodox church. you know the rest of it. it's the first time they are put on the belt buckles, but not the last time. without that terrible war, it's impossible that the toll tore total armies and the regime,ed jews, the massacre in the french colonies, the collaboration with the third right that strikes from the noble words, liberty

and replaces them with the catholic slogan, and on to this france fell to the lowest point of its history. i would beware, sir, of deriving your argument of atheism from the french design, but i'm with you on the larger point that you made, and i'll illustrate it from the work of a great anglo catholic who asked the question where is the knowledge if lost in information? this question has to preoccupy us all. when i am told, and i suppose in one way you can accuse me of taking it on faith because i couldn't prove it for myself and having it demonstrated to me, i probably couldn't repeat the demonstration, imu having been -- but having been told by all the leaders in the field of physics

that we now estimate a total of 400 billion galaxies, that's not universes, but 400 billion galaxies, and after the question with one son every -- one sun, we only call our star the sun in a way that comes from terrorized ancestors, a star that size goes out every second, so that's quite a lot while i'm talking, and has been blowing up and going out ever since the first moment of the big bang. this is more than we can handle. we can want say we know about this. it can be argued that all that was indeed set in motion with the intention of producing on a various small planet in a very small solar system in a tiny

neglected suburb in an unimportant galaxy a race of primates with reason who believe if they make the right decisions, they will live forever. you could say that all that guygan take -- gigantic explosion was designed with that in mind, but i can't take your word for it. [laughter] it seems the burden is not on me. i don't have to prove that thing. i don't make the claim that the religious person has to make. the religious person doesn't just say, of course, god wanted it that way, and that's the way it is because a design of that kind doesn't imply a designer, but imp kates a designer. that shows he's wasteful. 99.8% of all species on this earth have become -- i i can't

prove that's the way he wanted it to be, but there's an implication for the designer, but again, it's not me who is saying that if you believe in it, you have the means of grace and the hope of glory and the possibility of redemption, but vicarious salvation and forgiveness of sin through human sacrifice and internal life. we can't attempt and don't try anything like that, so the -- excuse me, the idea is not arbitrating the treaty who finds uncertainty. those who are certain in the face of uncertainty and no ability of the strongest kind of agreement between me and david are bound to say if arbitrated properly the first people to leave the island are the ones who know enough, and they know why in is happening and they

know the mind of god. those are out of the argument. the argument goes on between atheists, how can we make since of what we know and how can we end it to be true to the great principle of socrates which is this, you have to educate yourself by striving constantly to get to the point to understand your own ignorance, and then can you claim to have acquaintance with knowledge at all. that's the appropriate and due modesty that the founder of our school brought to the question, and there's no proof that socrates existed. i tend to think he did. it would be hard to confect such a person, but it doesn't matter to me whether he existed or not. we have the method. he taught us how to think.

if i were to tell larry and the joint reading of the first passages that the jesus who is so real to him could be proved to be a fictitious person, it would have to ruin comrade taunton today, not just that, but his life. it would distinguish his hope. it's fanatical in placing large claims, remember of the size of the claims i'm talking about on such a slender narrow basis, and now we'll get to the nazis in my rebuttal and that won't take long, and can we be moral without believing fantastic things, and that won't take long either, and we can do a number of other things too that i have so far left unaddressed, but believe me, not forgotten. i just wanted to address just

for once a new element into this argument. you must, when you go to washington, go to the hall of origins in the smithsonian. it's paid for by the former libertarian for president and founder and payer of the tea party movement. i want to say again, this really is a great country. [laughter] giving the proper account of evolution and origins that has been erected in any country. the bit fascinating me and taking me back again and again is this. until 17,000 years ago, only in one case and not many more years than that in others, there were at least three other human species, primates like us with

large brain pans, language capacity, in the case of the neanderthals had decorated graves which suggests a religion, and they have genes within us. they left important traces. they were not understood or known at all, the case of the florence island and not only until recently, but there they always were. they were our brothers and sisters and our kin, and they had these yearnings and hopes and fears, and they are not in genesis, and they've had no one to visit their graves or do them honor until very recently, and as a result of scientific innovation and curiosity, and whatever gods they had abandoned them, and so i just think it's worth bruting since we talk about ourselves as the objects

of a tremendous cosmic and bilogical process set in motion supervised and if it's to be believed, designed, intended, i just think we should take a moment to silence and think about our fellow humans and creatures already extingt to whom we might spare a little thought before we go on. i'm in your debt, and i'll be back. thanks. [applause] >> we now move to rebuttals. 6 minutes, dr. berlinski. >> thank you very much. there's a disturbing area of agreement that i think between mr. hitchens and myself which i'll do my best to minimize. [laughter] please remember, ladies and

gentlemen, that when it comes to the wickedness of religion, i've seeded the point. it's no longer argumentative. i would remind you, however, of a remark dr. johnson made about original sin, and i par phrased him. the inquiry is not necessary for all the laws of heaven and earth are unable to prevent men from their crimes. now, mr. hitchens is very much in the position of someone watching a cripple walking painfully with two crutches moving painfully and saying to himself and you, i got a great idea, kick one of the crutches away, everything will be better. that to me seems a weak argument, a weak argument, not impossible, but i would welcome the defense of the argument, but

it's no rebuttal to my position that atheism poisens everything and religion poisens something. there's plenty of poisens in the world. we don't lack an abundance. second i would like to address the strange enhasn'tment of -- enhancement of steven hawking. i don't know if any of you have yet seen it, but it's a book explaning how everything began and why we shouldn't worry about god and a multito do of other subjects publishing with a friend of mine, and the lines are very deep in the bookstores, and to sum up the claim he now makes having giving up a champion called m theory, he claims now that the universe just blasted itself into

existence following the laws of m theory. the universe just blasted itself into existence. i don't deny what steven hawking has said, i don't endorse it. i haven't read the book, but i read others and i respect him, but i can tell you this. what is lacking is that spirit skepticism that they bring to religious claims and that lapses absurdly with scientific claims, surely we should have the sophistication to wonder if any, any separation of the form that the universe just blasted itself into existence, a theory no one can understand and it's never been completed or tested in any laboratory on the phase of the earth. third, and final point of rebuttal, the fact that the earth, our home, is a small part

of the physical universe does not mean it does not mean it is not the center of the universe. that is a non seq. that. no one would argue that the doctrine of home is where the heart lies is rendered false by distance. we should be very careful about making these claims. i agree that the universe is big, makes things, -- amazing things, and there's point of continue newty and the annals who went before, but for the claim that this particular place is blessed and important, that's quite different. no doctrine about physical size rebuts it. thanks very much. [applause] >> how much? >> [inaudible] >> yeah, i want them all. i swore to talk about two points

on on on his argument. it's based on a moral position or political one of any kind. it is simply the refusal to believe in a supernatural dimension or supervisor or dictator, and it's the view that though that cannot be disproved, no good evidence has been produced for it or good argument put forward for it, but that's where it ends. you can be an atheist, and an anihilist and as said in the famous passage, we are god, anything is possible. anything is doable, thinkable. of course, that's open, i would say immediately to the objection who has god on their side. and it also awards itself the right to commit any crime

however ghastly. there's no escape from the existence of psychopathic human beings or invoking the ideas they are the agents of a devine supervisor will do anything at all, and that gets us no further forward. you can be an atheist and a phackist or an atheist or a come communist. you can be an atheist and perfectly indifferent to your fellow creatures, but there is a humanism within atheism and it starts with lucreasus who suggested people are not using religion as a crutch as you domesticated in a way you put it, but instead on a hot day, they put on a huge heavy overcoat and drag a ball and chain. oh, dear, my crops have failed,

i didn't make any sacrifices. oh, god, i had a filthy thought and now i'm going to hell. i didn't baptize my children. there's ignorance and stupidity p the e mans sigh pages of which is slow, but in which material atheists play a great part. you only have to read galileo's work inspired by the work of lucreasus who possesses the one of the few copies of the work not destroyed in the christian centuries to put an end to such terrible unwise speculations of that as so much of gal's work was destroyed. he changed his name when he was

excommunicated from the church to benedict. he said there's no personal god, prayers are not answered, and divine interventions do not occur. from human people like him, we have the light and thomas payne and thomas jefferson and the founders of this great republic have the philadelphia enlightenment. this is not a a thing anyone on this side need to be ashamed. it becomes more atheist as einstein and others approach us with their mind boggling almost one 9 wants to say mind altering findings. it's a coincidence that einstein is expelled by the third right as well as anyone else who understood physics and the area

of agreement just contracted, sir. for you to say that it was the implementation of charles darwin is an insult to this audience. darwin's thought was not taught in germany. it was in every form of unbelief that all the great atheists think of darwin and einstein were alike by the national socialist regime, and there's a misprint in a german article that evolution requires the survival of the fittist is taken, a statement never made by darwin as anyone knows say thats adaptability is what is likeliest to give us survival or luck or advantage, we better say in the struggle. now, just to take the most

notorious, the example, the most perfected, ruthless and refined one, the one of national socialism, that allowed the escape of the thinkers and others to the united states, country of separation of church and state. if it's an ate -- atheistic regime, how come hitler says he's doing god's work and executing god's will in destroying the jewish people? how come the officer of the party in the army had to take making hitler into a minor god begins i swear in the name of almighty god? how come the first treaty made, the very first is with the vatican exchanging political control for catholic control in

germany and how come the church celebrates the birthday every year on that day until democracy put an end to this reactionary system? again, this is not a difference between us to suggest there's something phackist about me -- fascist about me is something i will not hear said and you shouldn't believe. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> dr. berlinski, your recap. you have three minutes. >> thank you. i've endeavored to a sort of following proposition. first the general proposition that atheism poisens everything, and second, the ancillary

proposition that forsure religions poisens something. these propositions are not in conflict, and at the beginning of the constitution, i said they were -- discussion, i said they were at conflict. introducing this discussion neither interesting evidence nor a valid argument. in terms of the social history of atheism, it seems to me when i began this debate and still seems to be now overwhelmingly clear that while nazis in germany, communism it russia and china even and in cambodia had religious elements, who would deny that? why is governing apparatus of ideology, no matter what hitler had to say about his devotion to a warrier-like christ involved

the proposition among those who ruled these states and their entourage was greater than their on. they acted on that proposition and restrained by nothing. we saw the consequences. you may say truly in their heart of hearts come catholics adopted the rituals after murdering innocent women in the fields of poland could be true. i don't deny it, but what we must ask ourselves is if this a serious discussion is not whether there were infiltrations of religious thought, obviously there was. that goes without saying. whether something fundamental changed in the thought that made these atrocities possible, and i say, yes, there was. >> one minute. >> i've argued as well that atheism is a position with a

deforming influence on science, and i've begin you my reason -- given you my reasons. finally, i've argued that atheism in so far as it removes from the human context a brute sense of obligation based on fear, a brute sense of obligation based on fear, removes from the moral calculus profound and powerful reason not to do evil. i think there's no escaping this. it's unpleasant. i don't particularly like it, and to be honest, i have not lived my life that way, but i recognize it as a fact, and i think we all must. with that said, i thank you for listening. [applause] >> what i think can clear the gap a little, the gap that

berlinski complains of in my closing remarks, there's a comment i came across in a little known essay recently which was said totalitarianism must be thee karattic, and i thought that that's rather stretching it. it's certainly possible to know totalitarianisms cannot explicitly be religious. he went on to clarify and the reason i say it is this is because it must be certain unchallengeable assumptions, some things beyond discussion that are not available, for debate and must be taken on statements of faith, in other words, under fascism, the leader is always right. of course, the culture of the

fiewr ray and the view that stalin could bring crops every year and the element of the access powers of japan, the emperor actually was a god and could have anything more thee -- theocratic than that. if you think of it in that way and think of it as the greatest poisen as i'm accused of introducing enough, than you see the charge that is essentially true and i don't know if anyone wants to name me or whether david will take up the challenge, a statement of atheism, that is, a statement purely of faith independent of evidence, requiring no reasoning, and above all punishable if challenged. i don't believe you can come up with anything of the sort.

to the contrary, a little faction which i'm honored to be identified as a junior member is adamant for dowght is resolved to be skeptical and principle of certainty that says what we have yet to know is greater than what we discovered or known so far, and that and only that is the test of education, of intellectual integrity, of honesty and inquiry, and yes, let's hope for it, the emancipation of humans from manmade, and i stress manmade delusions including hopeful ones, including forced consolelation and thus, again, and i'll close by repeating myself, i've done worse. [laughter] it is only those who claim to know things like the mind of god and the origins and destination

and intention of the universe. it is they and only they who are the explanation and so far this evening haven't cared to finish it. thank you. [applause] >> we now move to the question and answer time of this evening, and we begin with christopher hitchens, and christopher, your first questions. what are the weaknesses of pascal's wager? >> sometimes that's known as pascal's gambit which is a great coy coinage he's a founder of probability and a great mathematician and a great catholic apology gist of the

17th century phrased it like this in addressing the people who are so made that they cannot believe. that's me, for example. he said, well if you can't believe, think of it like this. if you bet that making the right adjustments to your relationships with god will save you in the future, in the future state, and you're right, you win a lot. if you're wrong, what have you lost? what have you got to lose? now, the reason why i say wager and gambit is appropriate for this is because as a claim or offer that's pretty cheap and vulgar, and i would say especially so when offered to people who are dying or illed or frightened, i think it's a nasty practice to try it on them, it's pretty sharp and nasty at any time, and it shows its other weaknesses. two things, one is cynical and

gullible god who if i say to him, i'll give up a convictions of a lifetime and pretending i believe, hope your impressed, would say, yeah, that's good. that's progress. [laughter] in other words, you get no reward for intellectual consistency, courage, laws of naturestty, and of course with all the human made ideas of define tribunals, no lawyer represent you, no appeal, and no opportunity to produce any evidence. i pass over that lightly and say what is the pascal asking to be a credible self-who says what are principles for not to be sold in the hope of a future wound? well, those are the largest, i think, shortcomings of pascal and other religious reasoning about the death, judgment, and

the other last things. thank you. [applause] >> dr. berlinski, what are the stengths of pascal's wager? >> very good. [applause] >> a distinguished mathematician . >> christopher hitchens, would you agree with the following statement made by sam harris, and i quote "some propositions are so dangerous it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." >> you would be idol in dismissing it at the first

reading, and sam put it at its most blunt. i'll give you an example. we've all wondered, at least everyone my age has since they were small, what will happen a really nasty guy gets a hold of a nasty weapon? i now say what happens when the missile regime gets an apock lippic weapon? we're about to find out. the people who have this weapon stole it and broken every international law, every agreement and treaty they signed with the ue and u.k. and so forth and there's the guardianship of the jurists, the supreme leader, notice that again, another supreme leader, another definely inspirely dictated leader whose word

cannot been challenged who wants to bring on the end of days. it's an expressed wish for the end of the world. he doesn't like this world and wants it to finish, people who want the process of acquiring the secular weaponry of which to bring about genocide deserve, i think to have their ideology treated as toxic and its characters as dangerous and as like pirates and terrorists, people who it is lawful to destroy, yes, to that extent i'm with sam, sure. [applause] >> dr. berlinski, you're not a christian, and indeed you're not religious as i understand it. why do you argue for the influence of christianity or a jew --

judao christian society? >> i hope you're not hoping for a personal declaration. i hope for many things and perm involvement in -- personal involvement in debates is variable. this strikes me as more important and more demanding of a personal involvement than most. i think the issue is tremendously significant. i think, if we're honest about the times in which we live, quite right what matthew arnold suggested that the sea of faith has been receding under a variety of forces, and the results have been in a way catastrophic for the human race. i should not say that a secular jew has a remarkable degree of authority when it comes to discussing these events.

after all, i have lived my own life under the impress of the maximum to have a good time all the time, but on the other hand -- [laughter] it doesn't hurt to hear these words from someone such as myself because at least you're hearing these words for someone with no conceivable bias in their favor. i count myself as an objective observer of the circumstances, so perhaps that's the only reasonable answer i can give. these are important questions. they had horrific consequences on intellectual history especially, and in response to why should it be that a suck cue lar jew -- secular jew opens his mouth on religion is it's a big tent. i'm presuming i'll be welcomed. thank you.

[applause] >> christopher hitchens, what specific teachings of jesus do you believe evil or poisennous? >> the concept of vicarious redemption is the most repulsive i think and the most central. i could pick a lot of utter utterances, but the one no one troubled to deny is the idea by throwing your sins on to a scapegoat or somebody else, you can have them polished. that is an immoral doctrine. if i care for you enough, i can pay your debt even if you incurred it out of your own stupid irresponsibility and not

many people will i low the exchange or if you were hostage, i could do that if i loved you enough, and there's examples of people putting themselves forward as the substitute for someone's execution, i suppose sydney cot nonis the best -- cotton is the most well known one, but you cannot release people of their responsibility. the moral rot of christianity is exposed in its central doctrine of vicarious forgiveness and an advocation of moral responsibility. i think the moral of the instructions are abandon your family. if you don't, you are one who hates me. give up investment, thrift, any thought of a future, no children, architecture, anything of the sort, forget all of that and follow me is moral only on one condition, and it's the

condition i referred to before, that the world is about to come to an end, and only those who stick by me, a familiar troupe from prophets throughout the ages will get out of it. i think it's a remarkably wicked thing and offer to be making. we would be so much better off without this cult and think more clearly about the real moral questions that confront. thank you. [applause] given this choice and no other, would you prefer a secular or an islamic europe? [laughter] >> what my idea, sir, makes you think it's a choice right now? large portions of europe are

already islamic. i mean, how would i adjust the european continue innocent? i have no opinion. why should i judge the european continent? as far as i can tell conducting a relationship with the arab community for 11 years, i have no objection. >> david, do you mind if i reach convention to one deeing? >> go ahead. >> i think you can answer that better? >> sure. >> it applied in your view that atheism poisens everything and i think this was the intention of the question is i would be better off as a that than an atheist. do you maintain any such thing? >> you mean, with respect to europe? >> would europe be better religious without god or islamic?

i militarized it for myself. i advise you to take another run at it. [laughter] [applause] you can have it out of my time. >> this is a forced choice. which would you prefer, an islamic europe, or you do live in europe prefer to live in the secular? >> the trouble is the question has no provocative urgency for me. it has none whatsoever. it's like asking which i refer to be dressed in gold or silver. it's not a living issue. >> okay. christopher, do you believe that, this is by the way, your last question, so at the end take an extra minute or so to summarize your arguments and

make a final statement. do you believe that all religions are equally poisennous? >> my beloved younger daughter today became a senior at side well school in washington, so at least i know she's under serious police guard during the day. [laughter] as it's name implies it's a quaker foundation where if she hasn't understand the story of frederick douglass and others by now, it's not for one of trying, and so will i not be deem gougic if i say quakerrism is the same as the shiites theory? of course not.

religion, different ones take their turn at bat, i think, to be and show how dangerous the religious proposition is. quakers, for example, expelled those from the ranks who support the revolution because they thought they had taken an oath, and it transcended all other principles, and there had to be another quaker meeting in philadelphia of people who had been shut out. betsy ross was kicked out for marrying an e missing cayian. they become so by having their fangs drawn by civil society over the years. ..

they will take the only real factor we have that distinguishes us from other primates. the faculty of reason. and the willingness to take any risk that reason has of us and replace that with the idea that

faith is a virtue. if i could change just one thing, it would be disassociate the idea. now and for good. and to expose it for what it is. and willingness to follow, people who are in the highest degree, thank you. [applause] >> your final question. and at the end, you may summarize your arguments. what is wanted to make of the claim, or rather, what do you make of the claim that science and christianity are in opposition to one another? >> what am i to make out of the claim that science and

christianity are in opposition to one another? i would need to hear the claim articulated properly to clean a point of opposition, and shall come it seems on health. to claim point of opposition in particular seems to be rather more reasonable. in its largest aspect, western science is of course an outgrowth of the judeo-christian tradition, especially to the extent, perhaps only to the extent, that is committed to the principle that the universe, manifest universe contained the late structure that can be discovered by the intellectual man. i think that is true. i don't think this is very far drawn that the world is charged with a grand tour guide. they represent rather the same position in the world of thought that the world is charged, therefore it can be rationally

comprehended. please notice, this is very different from a muslim claim. it's very different from the islamic tradition in which not is a sign, rather a capricious role. there is a reason that is so second and cori's two the 10t 10th, 11th and 12th century did come to an end, unceremoniously. and it could be traced back to muslim theological writings. so yes, i would say the judeo-christian tradition revealed religion that is revealed in nature pointing to a supernatural alter. has been a powerful influence on the development of western science. won by the way recognized by virtually every significant scientist at every single one of them. >> what do i have next? >> one minute closing remark. >> i sorely have no objection to repeating myself, but will be equally willing to hear myself repeated, i don't know.

i have offered you three considerations. i've listened respectfully to what mr. hitchens has said, and i found myself, as he expected, and measurably improved. however, i have heard nothing that discourages me, or dissuade me, from affirming the propositions that i have affirmed. the influence of each is him, even though religions have done dreadful things, has been this for at least 300 years. and especially poisonous in the 20 century. second, atheism is a position, a dogmatic position. and as a separation that there is no god, has had a influence on the site is because it leaves open unanswered questions that press on human heart. and third, that atheism inevitably, the moral sphere, leaves unanswered the question, what obliges us, what forces us, not what persuades us, what

forces us to behave as we should? thank you. [applause] >> i want to thank both of these gentlemen for participating in this debate. and it seems appropriate at this time that the debate is over just a word about fixed point foundation. fixed point foundation is a christian organization and we do seek to engage in the realm of ideas. some would wonder why we would sponsor a debate like this. i mean, as a christian organization we have represented on the stage here, neither of these men are christians. well, we think these are questions, these are ideas that are relevant to everyone, whether you're a christian, whether you're an atheist, agnostic or some other religion. now, that said, i want to be

very honest and state that our position, our sympathy certainly lie in the direction that a robust christian influence on society is a good thing. christopher has said and it seems appropriate to me to respond, to him, that it would ruin my life if it were, if i were to learn that jesus christ was just a figment of my imagination, and millions, indeed, billions of other people as well. two that i must confess that he is correct. it would ruin my life. it really would. it would suggest from our perspective that this life is, in fact, meaningless, that it's a hoax, it's a shame. that is our perspective. now, if you're interested -- [inaudible] >> if you're interested --

[applause] >> if you are interested in knowing more about fixed point foundation, and certainly you can find out about us on the web. this particular debate will be aired on c-span. and i'm not sure of the dates or times of that, but i think it will be aired a number of occasions, so you can find it there and you can certainly find it on our website as well. we also want to welcome some believe a 60 minutes he was here and they are doing a piece on christopher hitchens. so please join me in thanking these men for their participation this evening. [applause] >> christopher hitchens is a contributing editor at "vanity fair" magazine david berlinski is a former fellow at the

institute for applied systems analysis, and the current senior fellow at the discovery institute. the fixed point foundation hosted this event. for more information visit fixed-point.org. >> a new book out by those very publishing, "blur: how to know what's true in the age of information overload." the co-author is bill kovach and tom rosenstiel. in your books one of the chapters is we have been here before, what does that mean? >> that means that we have gone through this location created by an expansion of information time and again throughout history. in fact, newspapers were born at such a time when the printing press came into being and distribute information to people i've never had information about the people and the institution,

you know, control their lives. and it took decades for the public and industry of information sharing to develop what we call newsmakers, to create the basis on which people could find information they can trust. and we found this time after time with each new major change in technology, we've got repaired exactly like this. >> mr. rosenstiel, why the name "blur"? >> i think because information is so fast now, and there's so much of it that people feel confused. when information is in greater supply, knowledge is actually harder to create because you have to shift -- said to do more things to make sense of it. so there is a feeling that things are more of a blur, are more confusing, even though we

have more information at our fingertips. >> so how do we cut through that blur and find what we need? >> well, we hope that the way that consumers will do it, and consumers are more in charge now than they've ever been. we were in control of our own media in a way we have never been. so we hope that what people do is develop the skills to know what is reliable and what is not. that's what the book is about. it's the tradecraft that once resided in newsrooms shared with consumers. but it's also true that when things are uncertain and confusing, that a lot of people just gravitate to news that they agree with. as a part of what we're looking at an information culture now is something of a war between people who want to be in. will and provide evidence that shut information gathered, and people who want to just assert what they believe, offer

opinions, and a mass and audience that way. >> bill kovach, you're also the co-authors of the elements of journalism. what's your background? >> my background is going on 60 years at print journalism. again, a little down in tennessee, covered the civil rights movement and appalachian poverty, and then worked for the "new york times" for 20 years. eight years as chief of the washington bureau. and then i was editor of the atlanta journal constitution. spent the last 10 years of my active life as curator of the nieman foundation at harvard journalism program at harvard, and i am now retired but working with tom often on, and running an organization that he and i created called the committee of concerned journalists, trying to preserve the values of a

journalism that we can all trust. >> tom rosenstiel, your background. >> i was a newspaperman also. i spent 12 years at the "l.a. times." 10 of those as a present clinic for the newspaper. i worked briefly for "newsweek," and while i was there i was approached by the pew charitable trust about creating a think tank, a research institute on the press. which we created in 1996 called the project for excellence in journalism. that's part of the pew research center here in washington. we have the largest content analysis operation in the united states, studying what the media actually produced, on the theory the conventional press, where you wag your finger at the press and say you'd couldn't do that, isn't affected anymore. but if you offer and am. a look and say, this is what you're doing, you decide whether it's what you want to do, that

has more leverage. >> mr. kovach, isn't it an advantage though that people in any types of news that they want when they want, rather than wait for the morning paper? >> oh, absolutely. it's marvelous. it's a wonderful system we have now. the only problem is, people are now, as, said, their own editors of what they will bring into the report. and their own reporters, who is producing this that i'm bringing in. so, people have to become much more aware of the information they are bringing in, how it was produced. was it produced to inform, or to propagandize? to help them understand or to recruit them to a colony. this is what this book is designed to do, to help them use the process of methodology of verification, truth seekers use to create theirwn