Great clip! I sure hope extras like this are included in a bonus feature on the DVD. Cant wait to see it !

Nearly two minutes of music and watching mouths move but no audio of what was being said. Just the music. What's the point of showing this clip?

Throughout the whole clip, the guy sitting between the Wilson and Hitchens has this look on his face that seems to say "ugggg.... I'm not used to being around people who have different beliefs than me.... I'm uncomfortable"

Justasking - you seem to have audio problems, because the clip does have the audio of what they're saying.

Good clip, great ending.

Its funny how theists think that there is no standard for morality if their god is removed. I wonder if they honestly think if that hindus or any other religion were to do something good, or do something bad, that they would be doing it blind and without guidance or foundation. I really hate the pretentious "we are better than you" attitude just because they believe in a god. Of course there is a standard for how non-believers treat each other and condemn wrong. Its called humanity.

artemis01, you call your standard humanity? But what defines good in humanity? My own good? Survival of the fittest? If not, then surely you don't believe in Evolution... The two can't go together.

Artemis01,

What do you mean when you say morality is based on "humanity"? Why should we treat humans with respect and decency?

The audio worked just fine for me.

@justasking: on my system, the dialog was coming out of the left audio channel and music out of the right one. If you're only hearing music, you might not be getting both channels.

Great Clip, hopefully we'll see more but I hope they don't have too many "shaking" camera angles because that was damned annoying.

Too bad this isn't big enough to come to theatres near you....

Ryan,

I think what Artemis01 meant by "humanity" was our innate morality that all of us humans have.

Daniel F,

"The two can't go together"
Why the Hades not? Evolution does not at all imply that individuals become callous amoralists, just because the genes are intent on reproducing themselves. In fact you would expect the contrary as communities develop.

Imagination Land,
Thanks for the clarification. This still seems strange for an atheist to believe. How does innate morality magically appear in humans? What happens if someone doesn't have the same innate morality as you? Why would he be wrong?

Jake,

The man in the middle is Marvin Olasky. He is very well aware of the World he's living in. He's very comfortable with others' ideas.

He probably knows more about what you believe than you do.

JR

Artemis, If I understand Wilson, and we obviously don't have the whole discussion in this clip, he is trying to force Hitchens to reveal his assumptions, the authority he leans on. I have read him elsewhere and he does not say unbelievers are immoral, but he asks how you can argue your morality is better than mine. What is the basis of your morality. let me give you soem examples:
You win a victory over your enemies. Is it permissible to eat their flesh? Historically some humanity has said yes.
Your brother dies, is it right to throw his screaming wife onto the funeral pyre? Humanity has said yes.
Your next door neighbour is an ethnic minority is it permissible to join the riot and take that gold watch you've always admired. humanity has said yes.

Rejecting any absolute authority (a creator etc) does not stop you having your own personal morality, it does stop you from criticising someone elses moral arguments, you have no basis upon which to find one superior to the other. Moral issues come down to "I don't like it".

I don't like theft, the thief says, "I do" Where do we go from there?

All the dialog was on the left ... since I am nearly deaf in my left ear, I initially thought there was no dialog either!

Well said Michael,

The atheists seem to consistently misunderstand this point. Wilson is not saying Atheists are immoral, he is saying that based on their materialistic assumptions they have nothing to base it on. The answer that "humanity" is the basis shows that their morality is infinitely flexible. The best that they can really say about the things they believe are wrong or evil, is that they and the majority of humans they associate with at this particular moment in history, find it unpleasant.

Thanks Jake, I knew he looks familiar! They could have done better with this snippit.
the closeups don't help but I enjoy these comments! Michael, you make sense!

Why do the beleivers insist morality is not inante or an evolutionary trait? Will you please take off the blinkers and look into the research peformed regarding moral choices and the workings of our brains, there is a large amount of study in to this. All you do when you question this, which wilson does relentlessly, is serve to highlight your own ignorance of the readily avaiable science and research. Specific parts of the brain work as "lawyers" and "politicians" to govern these choices. And alot of these traits are found in other mammals, the unchosen of god. Dolphins primates etc perform altruistic acts. The science is there, please look it up instead of dimissing these concepts out of hand. Hitchens has studied the bible intently, if only Wilson would do equally, then he could argue from a stronger footing.

Dave,
Only a fool would suggest Wilson doesn't know his Bible, so I must assume you meant something else. Did you mean Wilson needs to study his science more?

Can the science you allude to be summarised as the ability to make moral decisions is innate in the human being? "Specific parts of the brain work as "lawyers" and "politicians" to govern these choices."

Dave, this says nothing about the basis of those choices. No one is arguing that human beings can't make moral choices, no one is arguing that human beings don't use their brains, you can call them politician and lawyer functions if you want. I am happy to concede everything you have said about the human creature. But you have only talked about decision making ability. You have completely failed to discuss the factors, the values, the foundations that people feed into those decision making processes. This is where Wilson nails Hitchens when he asks, "Why is this value better than that one?"

The New Guinea highlander was making a moral decision, using those parts of his brain when he decided to eat the missionary. But the belief that consuming the missionary would give him the missionary's power of flight and steel influenced that decision. It's the same process, but a result we find unacceptable. (apologies to my PNG friends, I know it's not that simplistic, and I know I won't offend you by referring, quite inaccurately, to events which did regularly happen)

Let me give you an example. I refrained from using this example earlier, because it is too imflammatory, but because it is relevant to most western cultures it may be easier for us to understand.

The abortion debate has coalesced into sides under the slogans pro-choice and pro-life. This is the result of political savvy and PR spin, but it is not conicidental and actually is helpful that the slogans do represent a core value of each side. Liberals do regard perosnal choice as a 'good', conservatives regard respect for life as a 'good'. But when these two different values are fed into the decision making machine of the brain, one side comes out with, "killing babies in the womb is immoral" the other with, "disadvantaging a woman by denying the right to abortion is wrongl." Both are using the same processes, each conclusion is the direct result of the input of a different value. So which assumption is right?

Conservavtives aren't just saying, "You can't make moral decisions", but are more saying "Your foundation assumptions about life are incorrect, giving you bad results from your decision making processes.

Our almost universal western position on cannibalism would force us to conclude that if you put the wrong values into the machine you get the wrong answer. Or that morality is not inate but completely cultural. But consider the growing vampire subculture and you can see where that goes wrong.

If you believe in no ultimate authority, however, how do you decide which values are right?

How do we decide whether life is more important than choice, or does choice trump life?

Please tell me what authority, what foundation you use to base your foundational assumptions on.

God Bless,
Michael Hutton

So apparently humans would descend into cannabilism without god? If this was remotely true we would not be here now talking. And if the basis of your morality is the bible, it is misguided immensely, it warrants murder, genocide, rape to mention jsut a few.If your going to cherry pick your morality from the text, by doing so you are immediately making the teachings invalid as the source and complete basis of morality. If you cannot see the evolutionary benefit for morality, then i cannot help further. By inclination you say religion instills us with a good morality, yet from the dawn of religion to present day this morality has been used for numerous heinous crimes. If your going to bring up the issue of abortion then you should also address the issue of condom use, which at this time due to the *churchs* morality is condemning millions of people to death. So much for the higher morale values. I may also point you towards the reemergence of polio. If you don't beleive that a philosophical rational discussion in society can resolves these issues, that you require a supernaturally, mythological standard, you appeal to the feeblemindness. You want a truly moral standard without a Supernatural being? Then let us following the studies of Epicurus Spinoza Paine Jefferson, borne not out of a religious dogma, but from a rational clear thinking.

Aparently you think society is incapable of creating laws that would be moral without the guidance of your bible, I can only say that you should definately read it more. I am quite capable of making a moral right/wrong choice that you would consider correct, as is a young child without your religion, I think it arrogant of you to postulate otherwise. If the human race had all fallen into immoral acts (eating each other) we would have wiped ourselves off the planet a long long time ago. Does our innate morality ensure we will always pick the right choices? No. Does religion ensure we will? no. Evil people will do wicked things regardless, only in religion can they also claim it to be sanctioned by God.

I have no doubt Wilson has studied the bible ( and somehow glossed over in his own mind the inconsitencies and frequent vile passages), I was pointing out the lack of research by him into the science. He compares moral descisions, the working of the brain to fizzing pop bottles. Anyone that can take that analogy seriously prehaps requires a God, for there is no other hope.

It also scares me, that logically following your argument, the only thing stopping you from eating people is your bible. In which case maybe I should be glad for your delusion.

Christians clearly cherry pick the Bible. How else do you explain all the variety of 'morals' between Christians today and, even more glaringly so, throughout the last two millennia. Regional Christian morals of today are very distinct. And these same morals have changed dramatically through time.

The Bible clearly does not act as an objective, ultimate authority (nor does it's god). Or, it's an appallingly bad one if so many people can 'interpret' it to mean so many different things.

Insert random contradictory pair of Biblical quotes.

So Christians are obviously using something besides the Bible to decide the morality of the Bible itself.

In the end believers use the same tools non-believers use. They use their upbringing and social mores common to their community/family.

Yes, it does come down to my morals vs yours. But that's how all things work in society. And as a society we've grown to figure out what works better for the most. It's not an exact science - it's often a lot of back and forth, a lot of blood.

Thievery, murder, rape have all failed the social test. Groups set the rules - the smallest, most basic of these groups is the family. But as our circle of empathy grows (and it continues to do so throughout history) we start to welcome others into our group and extend to them the benefits (and responsibilities) of being part of our group.

Non-believers and believers alike go through this process. Bible and/or Deity is irrelevant to the process.

Containing stories about behaviors is not the same as sanctioning behaviors. Were that the case, then Bram Stoker would clearly be in favor of biting others' necks for nourishment, romance and pleasure.
To those who believe, the Gospel is the power of God to salvation - to those who do not, it is foolishness. The only thing, then, debatable, is the accuracy with which you portray Christianity. Hitchens et al. clearly misrepresent Christianity repeatedly.
But if, for the sake of argument, it does come down to social mores and cultural context, then the children of Germany 1933-1945 would certainly be justified if they rose up and claimed genetic and cultural superiority and stamped out every other living human. Ditto those growing up in Stalinist Russia and Maoist China.
So, obviously, it is NOT simply about what you are raised believing and what sort of instruction is encoded within one's own family or heritage.
There is clearly an outside morality that man appeals to.
What then is that?

Yay godwins law! you do know the catholic church fully supported the facist movement? Nice pick on bram stoker, it doesn't purpote to be anything other than fiction, so are you saying that the bible is fiction too? And we should purely take an illiteral message from it? (sadly 44% of americans take it very literally, including a talking snake) Have you even read the bible? I'm not refering to parables, I'm refering to how god acted, how he told US to act, how jesus even told people to act.

They clearly do not misrepresent christianity, millions are dying right now, as I write this because of the catholic church and the rest of the abrahamic faiths for that matter.

How is there clearly a supernatural influence to morality? You stated it, but in no way did you justify that statement. I fully accept that evil people are evil. No church's preachings eliminate this, need I really remind you of child abuse? Of the holy wars in the middle east? Of the mistreatment of women and black people? The witch burnings?

By the way, was the geneva convention on human rights drawn up by opening a bible and copy-pasta? How do you think it was made? Prehaps... crazy i know, by people actually discussing and rationlising with each other maybe?

Seeing as you yourself disregard the bible as a source for morality, are you stating god calls you up to tell you what to do? i guess he must have forgot to call the child abusing priests, but then he is supposedly infallible.. hmm. Sadly religious people view closed minds (faith) as a virtue, until you actually question your own irrational beliefs you will never be convinced otherwise. I don't know why you won't think for yourself, does it hurt to?. If you honestly require your crutch of religion, fine, just don't expect people who actually question the world to give you reverance whilst you bow down in servitude to your non-existent celestial dictator.