Here is a clip of a Channel 4 interview with Richard Dawkins after his last lecture beginning his retirement. Richard Dawkins retired from his twelve year post as Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. He talks about his plan to write a children's book on "how to think about the world, the universe, science, critical thinking, contrasted with mythical thinking." The book will look at mythical and scientific accounts of various phenomenon and allow children to "look for the evidence" and decide for themselves.

Dinesh D’Souza has participated in a number of debates in the past year and he did his best to hold his own while butting heads with Hitchens at The King's College. Hitchens, as usual, puts forth a great argument and really covers a lot of ground.

Here is a sample to whet your appetite:

You are told that by applauding a human sacrifice, a particularly cruel and revolting one, that took place before you were born, to fulfill a prophecy in which you had no say, condemns you either punishment and sin if you don't accept it, or, if you do accept it, offers you a chance that your own sins can be forgiven you.

Well, everything is wrong with this picture. First, as with the original proposition of a deity, it requires of you compulsory love as well as compulsory fear. You have to simultaneously love someone, you are commanded to love them, and be frightened of them at the same time. This is no way to teach morals.

Second, you are told not that you might get a second chance, or that your debts can be paid. I can pay your debts, if I care enough for you, I could serve your time in prison if I wished. But I can't forgive you the sin. I can't absolve you of the responsibility for what you've already done. I can't wash you white as snow. And the desire to be washed in that way and to be free of responsibility is itself an immoral one and should be rejected by anyone with any self respect.

The vicarious redemption by human sacrifice is an immoral preachment with very immoral implications. As is compulsory love coupled with compulsory fear.

Is Religion Good for the World?
A debate between Christopher Hitchens and Rabbi David Wolpe.
Moderated by Gary Rosenblatt, editor and publisher of The Jewish Week.

On October 29th, 2008, more than 1,500 people gathered in Temple Emanu-El at 7:30 PM to see Christopher Hitchens and Rabbi David Wolpe debate on the morality of religion. This debate is, in my opinion, one of Hitchens best to date. He really shows his knowledge of the subject and ability to pinpoint the problems with Wolpe's reasoning. In some of his other debates he seemed to simply regurgitate previous points he'd made and make more general statements on the topic of religion rather than focusing on the aspects being debated. Not so when he went up against Rabbi Wolpe. For me, Hitchens was able to get his point across and make sense of all the confusion and terrible metaphors Rabbi Wolpe had to offer (the Rabbi compared a "loving" God knowing our thoughts to that of a mother caring for a crying infant. The infant is not afraid that his mother knows his thoughts but rather this shows "intimacy and love". I'll let you form your own opinions of this argument.)
New York Times article link
Audio download of the debate available:
http://www.vocabsushi.com/JewishWeek.Hitchens.Wolpe.mp3