The debate Richard Dawkins chose to forget

[AllanM6278]

I find it laughable that you have to PAY to see this supposed proof.

Rabbi Boteach has clips on Youtube from a 2007 event with the title "Rabbi Shmuley Debates Richard Dawkins." Funny thing though; Dawkins isn't actually present. The rabbi states so at the 50-second mark of clip one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z88pXeaDcCo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOAdXUf9DG0

Is it really a debate if the other side isn't there?

I wonder if the '96 footage is similarly misleading.

[hadyn]

but the general poorly educated masses?

Wow! Ego much?

The debate I'm dying to see is Richard vs. Rupert Sheldrake.

Rupert Sheldrake thinks that just because he has a Doctorate in Biochemistry from Cambridge, has an undergrad degree from Harvard, and won major prizes in Botany, that he has one up on the REAL scientists.

When is this debate going to happen?

Are the masses well educated then?

How else would I describe 'those people who have not had a sufficient enough education (not necessarily schooling) to understand the difference between what is being said and who is saying it'. Perhaps poorly educated masses is too inflammatory (there's no ego here by the way - just want for a better term...well ok just a 'little' bit of ego heheh).

My point is...and it's entirely an assumption, is that the majority of people do not listen to what people say, rather they look at the personality of the person saying them and reject or accept based more upon this than the actual point. I've known many people who don't want to listen to arguments that Christopher Hitchens has made purely because of the way he comes across.. even if the same points are being made by someone else quoting or referring to him. Hence the only way I can think of that people in general would be able to not do this - is by being educated to do so. I am sure that there are many that do so anyway purely by level of intellect however I do not think this accounts for the majority of people..hence masses.

[Szymanowski]

Is it really a debate if the other side isn't there?

Lol... hmm... I think "no".

[La Fin]

1996 was quite a while ago, and given all the things Richard Dawkins has been involved in since then I wouldn't expect him to remember EVERY debate and detail. Dawkins complimented Rabbi Shmuley when Dawkins said he was impartial, in fact. Where's the malice and the assault? Seems like Shmuley is just getting his beard in a twist.

[Darkhorse]

Didn't Hitchens debate Shumley last year? As I recall Hitch gave him a massive beatdown.

[Gallstones]

Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God
02.10.08
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2 ... d-Street-Y

[Jimbesity]

Boteach needs to realize he's not preaching when he debates. He hurts my ears very badly.

[jonwes]

I agree jimbesity. He was a bit hard to take when he veered away from an actual debate into monologue.

[Elles]

Y'know... there needs to be a way to notify the professor when there's a thread where he needs to personally clear something up... Maybe something like...

The silhouette of the bat symbol a Darwin fish in the clouds of Oxford whenever such a thread pops up.

[Richard Dawkins]

Open Letter to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Dear Shmuley

Somebody posted on RichardDawkins.net an article by you in the Jerusalem Post, entitled ‘The debate Richard Dawkins chose to forget’. The same article is prominently advertised at the top of your own home page, with the additional legend, ‘Watch it exclusively at Shmuley.com’.

Your article begins as follows:-

A friend recently called my attention to the official Web site of Richard Dawkins, the world's most famous atheist, where, as a way of assailing me, he denied having ever debated me. "Boteach organized debates, with himself as chairman, and I sometimes took part in debates with the outside visitors that he imported, for example Robert Winston. Boteach was a surprisingly impartial chairman, but he was always just a chairman, never a debater in any of the debates that I attended."

What an extraordinary thing for you to say. If I had wanted to “assail” you, why would I do it by denying ever having debated you. What is so ‘assailing’ about a lapse of memory? And if I wanted to ‘assail’ you, why would I compliment you on the impartiality of your chairmanship?

That is a particularly bold untruth

.
Bold? Bold? What is bold about that? It is not as though I was accusing you of murder. I was simply saying that, as I thought, you were always the chairman in the many debates in which we both took part. Being a chairman, especially an impartial chairman, is nothing discreditable. Why would you take it as a ‘bold untruth’ and as ‘assailing’?

Our debate, which took place at St. Catherine's College, Oxford on October 23, 1996, attracted hundreds of students and featured, on the atheist side, Prof. Dawkins and chemistry Prof. Peter Atkins, and on the religion side, me and Prof. Keith Ward, Oxford's Regius Professor of Divinity.

It is of course perfectly possible that I have simply misremembered such a trivial detail. I do remember taking part in several debates in the Gulbenkian Theatre in the Law Library at Oxford, at which you were chairman, and one in London. I certainly remember having several debates with Keith Ward, including at least one under your auspices, and I have frequently shared a platform with Peter Atkins. I find it easy to imagine that I could have forgotten your participation. But I would be hugely surprised if I forgot a debate in St Catherine’s College, because the Lecture Hall in St Catherine’s is far smaller than the Gulbenkian and the whole atmosphere would have been memorably different. I suspect that you may be mistaken, and the debate you are talking about may have taken place in the Gulbenkian Theatre like all the others. But as to your participation in the debate – if indeed it really matters – this could easily be settled simply be looking at the tape, which you say is available on your website.

It was with some eagerness that I turned immediately to Shmuley.com, looking forward to the pleasure of listening to your partial opinions rather than the equal pleasure of your impartial chairmanship. Alas, I couldn’t find it. Please post, either here or on your own website, the u.r.l. where we may listen to this debate. Please don’t just vaguely say it is there somewhere. Please give us the exact clickable u.r.l. of the full recording of the debate which you allege took place in St Catherine’s College. I am genuinely interested, genuinely frustrated that I cannot listen to it. Please post the full u.r.l.

Now, I come back to the question of why you seem so steamed up about what is, at worst, a trivial lapse of memory. Why would you bother to use a strong word like ‘deny’? Why insert the phrase ‘chooses to’ before the word ‘forget’? Presumably because of a remark I made on my own website about you:-
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2243, ... d-Street-Y
Somebody else wrote in to the Forum as follows:-

Boteach was terrible. He couldn't even make a good case, let alone a successful joke.
Is there more than meets the eye? How did he get to be a Rabbi at Oxford? Why did Dawkins debate him 4 times?

I responded:

How did he get to be a Rabbi at Oxford? Easy. He moved from America to a house in the city of Oxford and set himself up as a rabbi. He persuaded students at Oxford to set up an unofficial Jewish student group, which he supervised and financed (he had considerable financial resources, which seem to have come from a Jewish organization in New York). He never had any official standing at the University of Oxford at all.

Why did I debate him 4 times? I didn't. He organized debates, with himself as chairman, and I sometimes took part in debates with the outside visitors that he imported, for example Robert Winston. Boteach was a surprisingly impartial chairman, but he was always just a chairman, never a debater in any of the debates that I attended.

Now, Shmuley, what I suspect is this. You resented the first paragraph of my remarks, where I said that you had no official standing at Oxford University. You would have liked to reply to that, but you couldn’t because you know perfectly well that, despite frequent pretensions, you had no official standing at the University of Oxford during any of the 11 years you lived there. You were not “Rabbi of Oxford University” as is stated on Beliefnet.com, of which you are a columnist, and on the publicity for your books. You couldn’t respond to the part of my remarks that really hit home. So instead you latched onto my second paragraph where, in what was at worst a trivial slip of my memory, I said that you had always been chairman in your debates, never a debater. You yourself made an equally trivial error when, in your debate with Christopher Hitchens, you said that you had debated me at Oxford “on several occasions”. Even by your account in the Jerusalem Post you only debated me on one occasion. And I suspect that, if you look back at your own records, you will find that we never had a debate in St Catherine’s. But my point is, WHO CARES? What does it matter? It is no big deal exactly how many times you were chairman and how many times you were a debater. It is no big deal whether a debate took place in St Catherine’s at all.

Dawkins and I were quite friendly at Oxford. He not only participated in approximately five large debates that I organized but even came to my home for Sabbath lunch after I invited him to meet the renowned philanthropist Michael Steinhardt, whom I thought would enjoy meeting a noted zoologist. Dawkins was always amiable and gentlemanly toward me as was his lovely and beautiful wife Lalla. So why has Dawkins suddenly attacked me? And why did he offer me such a cool reception when we shared a stage last summer at the University of Toronto for yet another debate at the IdeaCity Convention, where I responded to his criticisms of religion (the video is available on YouTube)? Whatever the reason, no doubt a man as honorable as Dawkins will correct the error about the debate he alleges never took place and apologize.

All perfectly correct, Shmuley. We were friendly at Oxford, and my feelings towards you remained nothing but amiable when we met in Toronto. I am simply flabbergasted that you should say I offered you “a cool reception”. Contrary to your own account (http://www.shmuley.com/articles.php?id=500), the Toronto event was not a debate between us. We were both lecturing at Idea City, and we happened to be in the same session, me a couple of talks before you. You were sitting in the row in front of me in the audience while we listened to the speaker who was immediately to precede you. I handed you a very cordial note, in which I apologised for the fact that, because I had a plane to catch, I would unfortunately have to miss your talk. You acknowledged the note, and I think we shook hands. I then quietly left the auditorium to catch my airport taxi.

As it happened, my taxi was late. While I was waiting for it, I was able to hear your speech, relayed over a loudspeaker in the foyer. I was astounded by what I heard. Gone was the urbane, humorous, polite Shmuley that I had known at Oxford, and with whom I had had lunch. What I heard over that loudspeaker was a shrieking rant, delivered with an intemperate stridency of which Hitler himself might have been proud. As I listened, I was shocked by your lamentable, but vocally confident ignorance of Darwinian evolution. And even more shocked by your shrill and vicious attack upon me. You were shrieking invective, in the belief that I was on my way to the airport. Had you prepared your ranting attack in advance, or did you extemporise as soon as you read my note? Had you somehow managed to convince yourself that this really was a ‘debate’ between us, even though I was not present? Are you, perhaps, in the habit of fantasizing about debates that never took place? Either way, you were giving me ample reason to be cool towards you – after Toronto. But, when we actually met in Toronto, I had no idea you were going to attack me, and my attitude towards you was the very opposite of cool.

If we really did have a debate in St Catherine’s I am happy to apologise for forgetting it, although I don’t think it is much to apologise for. I hope you will look in your heart and decide whether there is anything you should be apologising for.

With best wishes
Yours sincerely
Richard

[Katherine]

** Gives Richard a standing ovation **



You are more honest than a clergyman could ever be!

EDIT -

[Szymanowski]

As it happened, my taxi was late. While I was waiting for it, I was able to hear your speech, relayed over a loudspeaker in the foyer. I was astounded by what I heard. Gone was the urbane, humorous, polite Shmuley that I had known at Oxford, and with whom I had had lunch. What I heard over that loudspeaker was a shrieking rant, delivered with an intemperate stridency of which Hitler himself might have been proud. As I listened, I was shocked by your lamentable, but vocally confident ignorance of Darwinian evolution. And even more shocked by your shrill and vicious attack upon me. You were shrieking invective, in the belief that I was on my way to the airport, but you also knew that most of the audience probably thought I was in the room because I had only just spoken. Had you prepared your ranting attack in advance, or did you extemporise as soon as you read my note? Had you somehow managed to convince yourself that this really was a ‘debate’ between us, even though I was not present? Are you, perhaps, in the habit of fantasizing about debates that never took place? Either way, you were giving me ample reason to be cool towards you – after Toronto. But, when we actually met in Toronto, I had no idea you were going to attack me, and my attitude towards you was the very opposite of cool.

This speech, which Shmuley prefers to call a debate, is available on YouTube here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z88pXeaDcCo
under the title of "Rabbi Shmuley Debates Richard Dawkins Clip Idea City 07" and posted, it seems, by RabbiShmuley himself.

It's stunningly devoid of reasoned statements - it's 99% shouting - and I'm very surprised that it could have been given at the same event as what were presumably real speeches.

The YouTube comments are amusing: "so where is Dawkins?"...

[Kiwi]

I can't see this link on this thread, so here it is, it's the first of 13 which I THINK is the 1996 Oxford Jewish Society annual debate on science and religion, the moderator says it's the 95th.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCVy_mzN8h0

It certainly has both RD and Shmuley, but actually also two other speakers, so it's quite incorrect to characterise it as a one to one debate. The sound is not good. Be warned someone is coughing ...a lot.

RD is mostly in good form.

One very interesting point, is the reaction of the audience in this clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjfaOKfzB70 which is number 11, at about 1 min 40, he is asked a serious question about the explanation for laughter. Naturally, since he can't, he admits his inability to provide a robust explanation, but does suggest that it has to have some selective value, since it is so widespread in humans and would "summon predators". The audience seems to take this as a joke, even when he says he is in fact, quite serious. This was an eye opener for me, and is an indication of the level of biological expertise in the audience.

[zaardvark]

Shmuley is just another D'Souza. Loud, obnoxious, and willing to do or say anything, to get people on their side. Yet, I'm somehow always surprised at how low they're willing to go -- it must be that vestigial inclination towards "respecting religion", still zipping around somewhere in the circuits of my brain.

[Diocletian]

Shumley is a loon. Raving, idiotic loon.

[Phasic]

So, does "Open Letter" mean that it's going to also be posted where Boteach is likely to read it?

[Richard Dawkins]

So, does "Open Letter" mean that it's going to also be posted where Boteach is likely to read it?

I thought about posting it on his website. Then I discovered that he demands $25 subscription before you can log in. I don't mind spending $25 but it has to benefit a good cause, not a yelling, shrieking rabbi. If I can find his private address, I'll send it to him. But I somehow suspect that somebody will bring this thread to his attention, just as they brought the earlier posting that provoked his article.

Richard

[Phasic]

Fair enough. I'm pretty sure it will get back to him somehow, but I did wonder if it would be though official or unofficial channels.

[adamd164]

I thought about posting it on his website. Then I discovered that he demands $25 subscription before you can log in. I don't mind spending $25 but it has to benefit a good cause, not a yelling, shrieking rabbi. If I can find his private address, I'll send it to him. But I somehow suspect that somebody will bring this thread to his attention, just as they brought the earlier posting that provoked his article.

Richard

I've used the contact form on his website to send him the link anyway, for what that's worth.

[Calilasseia]

I just found this.

First of all, the open letter was just too good a piece of pwnage not to save for posterity.

Second, this Rabbi Botty-Ache character demands a $25 fee to post on his website? Wow. Where can I set up a racket like that and persuade gullible idiots to make me rich?

What's the betting he'll be among the loudest voices complaining about the familiar stereotypes with respect to this? Whilst being completely oblivious to the irony of having set himself up as an Aunt Sally to every wingnut who wishes to abuse that stereotype by his actions?

[matt_shute-07]

I don't mind spending $25 but it has to benefit a good cause, not a yelling, shrieking rabbi.

That's probably the most accurate and concise definition of Boteach I've ever read.

[zaardvark]

The "Vote Tally" from the 1996 debate (youtube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fTnUWWFW54

This is what Mr. Shmuley was frothing about? It's clearly just for fun, and -- even if you take it seriously, which you shouldn't -- the room was divided evenly.

[Elles]

Oh. My. God.

The Darwin fish worked!

Richard Dawkins = As cool as Batman

[jonwes]

Wow, good to hear a reply. I think it's pretty obvious, with the expense of joining his site and the added expense of downloading the "debate" that it's all a transparent attempt to cash in on the controversy that surrounds Dawkins. It's not surprising, since making a buck off of lies, half truths and propaganda seems to be stock and trade for the more media savvy religious "leaders."

The sad thing is that Boteach seems to have convinced himself that he's in the position to be a worthy opposition. If he and Ben Stein are the best that they have to offer then I'm not too worried. Now if only people weren't lapping it up...

[orpheus]

I'll add my applause, too. Richard, your letter was a pleasure to read.

This isn't news, but you know, you write rather well!

Bravo.

-o