Christopher Hitchens BREAKS Rabbi Shmuley’s Free Will Argument

Added: 2026-05-30

[00:00:00]This is nonsense. It's for children. Rabbi there.  First of all, it is interest. I mean, Steven Gould, who was, by the way, very sympathetic to  religion and wrote a book called Rocks of Ages, which I also recommend to you, where he said  that uh religion and science don't overlap. Hey, what's going on everybody? Welcome back to the  channel and I hope your day is going great.

[00:00:18]Today we are jumping into one of the most  legendary clashes ever recorded between Christopher Hitchens and Rabbi Schmoolie Boutique  where these two go head-to-head on free will, determinism, and whether you actually need God to  make a real choice in life. And let me tell you, the moment Christopher drops the line that this  whole framework is something written for children, you can feel the entire room shift. Stick with me  all the way to the finish because the back half of this exchange has some of the cleanest rhetorical  moves I've seen in years and I'll be breaking down exactly what makes them land so hard. Also, drop a  quick comment letting me know what city or country you are tuning in from. I genuinely love seeing  how far this channel reaches across the world. All right, let's get into it. First of all, it's just  not true that religions don't actually acknowledge very important things that happened before their  own founding. Just read the beginning of the Bible. Uh, which goes back far beyond the founding  of the Bible. But more important than that, there are actually things that if you are material,  you can't give an accounting of. For example, you might not believe that you have free  will. You might think that everything you do was predetermined from the beginning of the  Big Bang. And just the fact, by the way, that all of the universe, physics tells us, came from  something tinier than the head of a pin is, to me, there is no word other than miraculous for it.  But nonetheless, you might believe that all the everything you did, our words tonight. The fact  that those flowers would be orange on the table, that was all predetermined from the beginning of  time. But if you believe that you actually make a choice that human beings have free will, then  I ask you how you account for that. You didn't pick your birth, your genetics, you didn't pick  your environment. So from the very beginning, all of that was predetermined for you. And  unless there is something immaterial about you that allows you to choose, then everything  human beings do is already set from the beginning of time. I don't understand how you get free  will if [clears throat] you don't have God.

[00:02:27]Christopher, it's pathetic. I'm I'm sorry to  say it's to to say of the the cosmological and the genetic that these are deterministic  processes. They're not at all. They're full of extraordinary randomness and in the  genetic case of mutation. Steven Jay Gould, the great paleontologist, wrote a book, which  I recommend to you, called the Burgess Shale, which is it's the side of a mountain in Canada and  Canadian Rockies that sheared off. So you can read you can see the inside of a mountain. You can see  it as if you're looking at a blackboard and you can see the growth and development of species and  you realize that it's not a tree. It's more like a bush that we the reverse branches that go off  and go nowhere and the others that succeed um and and different kinds of failure and different  kinds of mutation. His most exciting thought, most revolutionary thought is this. If you  could so to speak put all that onto a tape and rewind it and then press play again, there's  no certainty would come out the same way. In fact, there's every reason to believe that it would  not. So, there's nothing predetermined. There's nothing deterministic about this at all. But  thanks to your understanding of our genetics, which are also not predetermined because they're  result of random mutation and natural selection, as everyone now knows, and that's why we can have,  sad to say, for the kosher, but we can have skin transplants and organ transplants from pigs who  are much closer to us than we used to think. Um, we can also sequence the DNA of viruses and  learn how to immunize ourselves from. It works in other words. But yes, it can be tampered  with. It can be engineered for good as well as for ill. There's nothing deterministic about  it at all. It's much more exciting. It's much more interesting. It's much more rewarding. It's  verifiable. And yes, there are elements of I was trying to say the miraculous, the all-inspiring,  the tragic, the majestic in this that there simply are not in the incantations of Genesis where the  the supposed authors claim to know the divinity, the creator on personal terms. Okay, so right  out of the gate, Schmoolie walks into one of the oldest traps in religious apologetics, and you can  almost see Christopher waiting for it. Schmoolie basically says, "Look, if you don't have God, you  don't have free will." He literally puts it like this. I don't understand how you get free will  if you don't have God. And Christopher's response is one word that I think completely captures the  mood of every atheist watching this. He just says pathetic. And honestly, that reaction is earned  because what Schmoolie is doing here is something I see constantly from religious apologists.  They take a genuinely interesting philosophical question, free will versus determinism, and  they smuggle God in through the back door as if he's the only possible answer. As if science  just throws its hands up and goes, "Oh no, we have no idea. Better call the rabbi." But  here's the part that blows my mind. Christopher doesn't just dismiss it. He actually gives a real  answer. He brings up Steven Jay Gould and the Burgess Shale. He explains how if you rewound  the tape of evolution and pressed play again, you would get a completely different result  every single time. And then he says it plainly, there's nothing predetermined. There's nothing  deterministic about this at all. You have to understand why that matters. Schmoolie's entire  setup depends on the audience believing that a materialist worldview means everything is locked  in from the big bang. But that's just not how modern biology works. Random mutation, natural  selection, contingency, environmental pressure, all of it produces outcomes nobody could have  predicted in advance. And here's the kicker.

[00:06:17]Christopher closes this stretch by calling  out the absolute audacity of religious texts.

[00:06:23]He talks about the incantations of Genesis where  the supposed authors claim to know the divinity, the creator on personal terms. That line is doing  a lot of heavy lifting because think about what he's actually pointing out. A handful of ancient  writers sat down and claimed they had insider access to the mind of the being who created  the universe. Not a glimpse, not a feeling, a personal relationship. That's the part nobody  wants to address. The confidence is wild. This is nonsense. It's for children. Rabbi there. First of  all, it is interest I mean Steven Gould who was by the way very sympathetic to religion and wrote a  book called Rocks of Ages which I also recommend to you where he said that uh religion and science  don't overlap. Um they sure do but he one second if you read his book on the Burgess he does say  if you rewind then you assume if you push play again you would get a different result and that's  certainly true unless the result was intended.

[00:07:29]But more important than that, yes, there's  randomness in the system. Nobody would argue that there isn't randomness in the system. But  randomness isn't free will. Randomness is getting a result you don't expect. The question is, how  do you get a directed choice, which isn't random?

[00:07:46]I choose right now to pick this glass up. Now, how  did I make that choice? If I'm purely a product of my DNA and my environment, then it's not a choice.  Then it was programmed in. Then it's instinct. And the whole point that religions always made about  instinct was that human beings can rise above it.

[00:08:04]Unlike animals which are the same at age two  as they are at age 10 as they are at age 15, a human being grows and changes and chooses.  That's the basis of religious. I have to say to me it doesn't seem a matter of religion  that I can choose to pick up this class. That seems to me to be well within what could develop  purely scientific basis. I'm not a scientist but it doesn't seem like a mystery of God to to me  personally. Sure it is. Well, no, but seriously, where where does the element of free choice come  from? I could be purely instinctual and put my head in a in a stream and drink and choose to  do that. When you say choose, wait. When you say choose, where does the where does the choice come  from anymore than my than the choice of this glass to fall down? Where do you get a choice as opposed  to a complex interaction of DNA and environment, neither of which you chose? Again, piling  on completely unnecessary assumptions. Is it also inviting a inviting a question that will  make you uncomfortable? If you say that no, it's because God has given you free will. I  have to ask you how do you know that? Well, are you assuming that we have free will? One one  are you assuming that we have free will. If you answer if you ask if you answer then give me give  me another source. If you answer my question with another question, I'll still answer it. Okay. I  will still answer it. Even though your question is an answer to mine rather not an answer, a  response to mine. Yeah. Um, the view I take about free will is that of course we have free  will because we have no choice but to have it.

[00:09:31]I I'm a I'm a I was so I was to some extent I  was and I still to some extent am a dialectical materialist and I also think there are some there  are some ironies in the universe as well as in history. But to say of course we have free will,  the boss says we've got it is to make a mockery of the whole concept. And this is the moment, this  right here, when Christopher looks at Schmooly and says, "This is nonsense. It's for children."  Rabbi, I want you to sit with that for a second because that line is not just a clapback. That's  a thesis statement. That's Christopher saying the entire framework you're building your argument  on is something a 5-year-old could see through if they weren't trained their whole life  to accept it. And then he does something I genuinely think is one of the most underrated  rhetorical moves in any debate. He doesn't just attack. He cites Steven Gould who was in his  own words very sympathetic to religion. Why does that matter? Because Christopher is taking away  Schmooly's escape route. He's saying you can't dismiss this guy as some angry atheist. This is a  scientist who actually had a soft spot for faith.

[00:10:46]And um even he said the rewind argument proves  randomness not design. That's chess not checkers.

[00:10:55]Then pivots and this is where I think he  genuinely loses the philosophical thread.

[00:11:01]He goes if I'm pure a product of my DNA and my  environment then it's not a choice then it was programmed in. Then it's instinct. and he thinks  he's making a profound point, but he's actually just restating the question and pretending it's an  answer. Here's what people don't realize. The free will problem is hard for everyone. It's hard  for atheists. It's hard for neuroscientists.

[00:11:26]It's hard for philosophers who've spent their  entire lives on it. Nobody has fully solved it.

[00:11:33]But the movey makes, which is to say, well, since  science can't fully explain it, the answer must be God. That's not philosophy. That's what's  called a god of the gaps argument, and it's been getting smaller for centuries. Let me break  this down for you historically. Lightning used to be Zeus. Plagues used to be divine punishment.  Mental illness used to be demonic possession.

[00:12:02]Every single time science finally explained one  of those things, the gap where God lived shrank a little more. So when Schmoolie plants his flag  on free will and says, "Aha, science can't explain this. Therefore, God, all he's really doing  is pointing at the next gap that's eventually going to close." And Christopher just nails the  the closing thought of this stretch. He says to claim we have free will because the boss says  we've got it is to make a mockery of the whole concept. That's surgical. Because if your freedom  only exists because some cosmic authority hands it to you, that's not freedom. That's permission.  And it's also to invite the question, what kind what kind of tyranny is this that you want? You  want an all supervising, alldeciding person. I ask you first, what sources of information do you  have about this person's existence that I don't have that are denied to me? I'd like to know. And  second, why do you want it? Why do you want to arrive at a terminus of unfreedom where there is  a celestial authority upon whom all things depend and from which all things flow? Why do you want  that? And how on earth do you know that there's any case to be made for its existence? Yes,  please. That's a I don't I don't think that's a terminus of unfreedom. I I think you're only  free when you've declared against it. Frankly, that's the beginning of freedom is the  emancipation from the tyranny the tyranny of of uh theocracy. Yes. I actually think that the  whole point that I was making was that a belief in a god who creates you is what gives you free  will and that without it you have to fall into a determinism. And by the way, you may not you  may think that science gives it to you, but every scientist I've asked on this question, including  David Barash, who's an evolutionary biologist, says that it and Steven Pinker had the same  reaction, is that it is more or less a commonplace of modern science, that determinism is the only  worldview that's consistent with an understanding of the way science works. So, you may be able to  find it in science, but I haven't met a scientist yet who's been able to account for it. Not every  scientist is a believer. putting that aside. No, of course not. I'm saying that those who don't  use determinism as their philosophical assumption.

[00:14:12]But let me answer his question too, which is  therefore I assume that as a religious person, you're granted freedom. That's the whole point  is you do make choices. Once you said grant, better choices. Once you said granted, you've made  my point. And he's English. He knows about you're granted. Thank you for Thank you for making me  free. You're granted No, you're granted freedom.

[00:14:32]So you're granted freedom by the evolutionary  process. I'm granted freedom by a creator.

[00:14:39]Either way, what you either way you have you're  not granted all sorts of freedom. I mean the of course scientists are right to that this extent.  There are Einstein says the miraculous thing about the laws of nature is they're never suspended.  That's what's so amazing about them. They they're immutable. Religion claims that on occasions the  laws of nature are suspended in order to prove in order to prove what they wouldn't otherwise. It  depends who you ask. Not my monities. It depends who you ask in religion. Now, this is where  Christopher goes full philosopher mode. And I genuinely think this stretch is one of the most  underrated arguments against theism ever delivered on a debate stage. He looks at Schmoolie and  asks, "What kind of tyranny is this that you want? You want an allsupervising, alldeciding  person?" That question right there should stop every religious viewer in their tracks because  it inverts the entire pitch of religion. The pitch is always God loves you. God watches over  you. God has a plan. But Christopher is asking, why do you want that? Why do you want to live in  a universe where there's a celestial authority who knows your thoughts, monitors your behavior, and  decides your eternal fate? That's not love. In any other context, we would call that surveillance.  And then he delivers the line that should be on a poster somewhere. He says, "The beginning of  freedom is the emancipation from the tyranny of theocracy." That's not just a clever sentence.  That centuries of enlightenment philosophy compressed into 10 seconds. Real autonomy starts  the moment you stop accepting that some unseen authority gets to dictate what you think, what you  wear, who you love, and what you can question. But the best part of this whole stretch, the part  I keep replaying is what Shmoolie accidentally hands him. Schmoolie is trying to defend his  position and he says it. He says, "You're granted freedom." And Christopher's brain lights  up because he caught it in real time. He goes, "Granted, you've made my point. Thank you for  making me free." That word granted exposes the entire problem with religious framing of freedom.  If your liberty is granted to you by an authority, that authority can also revoke it. That's not  freedom. That's a permission slip. And Schmoolie, in trying to defend the gift, accidentally proved  Christopher's whole argument that religion offers a pretend version of autonomy that depends  entirely on the mood of the giver. And just when you think schmooly might recover, Christopher  closes with Einstein. He says, "Einstein noted that the miraculous thing about the laws of nature  is they're never suspended. That's what makes them remarkable. They are immutable. But religion,  Christopher points out, depends on the idea that those laws can be suspended whenever a miracle is  needed for narrative purposes." And Schmool's only response is, "Well, depends who you ask. That's  not a rebuttal. That's a white flag. Here's the part I want you to take away. This whole exchange  is a master class in why the religious framework keeps shrinking. Every time someone tries to  plant a flag on a question science hasn't fully answered yet, somebody like Christopher  comes along and asks the harder question, the one religion can't answer at all. Why  do you want this to be true? And nobody on that side has ever had a good answer. So,  what do you guys think of this? Leave your thoughts down in the comments. Please like and  subscribe, and I will see you in the next video.