Atheism vs. Theism Debate at Stanford... Christopher Hitchens vs. Jay W. Richards

So Christine and I attended this event Sunday afternoon:

ATHEISM vs. THEISM and the Scientific Evidence of Intelligent Design
A debate between Christopher Hitchens and Jay W. Richards, hosted by Ben Stein

Sponsored by the IDEA Club at Stanford; The Stanford Review; Vox Clara: A Journal of Christian Thought at Stanford

Biographies:
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair and a visiting professor of liberal studies at the New School. He regularly writes for the Atlantic Monthly and Slate, and is the author of numerous books, including Letters to a Young Contrarian and Why Orwell Matters. He was named one of the "Top 100 Public Intellectuals" by Foreign Policy and Britain's Prospect. As foreign correspondent and travel writer, he has written from more than sixty countries on all five continents. From 1982-2002, he wrote a column called the "Minority Report" for The Nation. Since 1992, he has been columnist and contributing editor at Vanity Fair and, at different times, Washington editor and columnist for Harper's magazine, American columnist and correspondent for the Spectator, the New Statesman, and other publications.

He is also known for his book, God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything More on Hitchens here.

JAY W. RICHARDS is Research Fellow and Director of Acton Media at the Acton Institute in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He has a Ph.D. in philosophy and theology with honors from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he was formerly a Teaching Fellow. He also has a Th.M. from Calvin Theological Seminary, and an M.Div. from Union Theological Seminary in Virginia. He is the author of many scholarly and popular articles in publications such as the Washington Post and National Review Online, as well as several books, including The Untamed God and The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery, with astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez. He is executive producer of the documentary, The Call of the Entrepreneur (Acton Media, 2007), and is currently writing The Christian Case for Capitalism (HarperCollins/HarperOne, 2009). More on Richards here.

MICHAEL CROMARTIE (Moderator) is Vice President at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and he directs both the Evangelicals in Civic Life and Religion & the Media programs. More on Cromartie here.

BEN STEIN (Host) is a multi-talented journalist, economist, author, actor and lawyer. Well known for his acting career and signature role in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, the highly talented Stein graduated with honors from Columbia University and was elected as valedictorian of his Yale Law School graduating class. He has worked as a poverty lawyer in New Haven and Washington, D.C., a trial lawyer in the field of trade regulation at the Federal Trade Commission in Washington, D.C., and a university adjunct at American University in Washington, D.C., the University of California at Santa Cruz, and Pepperdine University in Malibu, CA. In 1973 and 1974, he served as a speech writer to Presidents Nixon and Ford. He has been a columnist and editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal and a syndicated columnist for numerous papers and magazines. He has written and published sixteen books, seven novels and nine nonfiction books. More on Stein here.


As you can see, it was a strong gathering of intellectuals. Ben Stein started with flattering introductions of the debaters, especially Christopher Hitchens, so this was probably a factor in why I was disappointed in the event. I don't think I'm being biased in stating that Hitchens didn't represent the atheist viewpoint well.

He really didn't argue on intellectual grounds, sound logic, and tried to appeal to the emotions of audience, especially those already leaning towards his world view. As the debate went on, he became more belligerent taking shots at Richards, Stein (borderline anti-semitic comment, so i want to review the recording), Christians, Mormons, Catholics, and others.

Even though Michael Cromartie was the moderator, it was really Ben Stein. There were times I thought Ben wanted to debate Hitchens himself. As for Richards, he was solid. Excellent, logical answers. I really liked his style and the wealth of information he provided. Enough for me to buy one of his books :)

During the open Q&A, there were even a couple audience members that asked questions that Hitchens had to dodge. I'll try to get the video or audio of this event and post it here.

An interesting sidenote. During one point, Ben Stein asked Hitchens whether he was pro-life and Hitchens explained that there is enough scientific evidence from embryology to know that life begins at conception and just the fact of seeing a fetus develop in a person's belly is enough for him.

Hitchens is pretty far-left as they come but for him the abortion issue is about science and fact, which is what it should be about. Since he's British (just last year he became a U.S. citizen), I assume he never got caught up in the politics of the abortion issue which dominates this policy issue in the U.S.


Related articles:
"My Debate with Atheist Christopher Hitchens" by Dinesh D'Souza

"God v. Atheism: My Debate with Daniel Dennett" by Dinesh D'Souza

UPDATE: More from the Stand to Reason blog with a bit of a discussion here.

WILL CHINESE OR U.S. COMPANIES LOSE OUT IN THE END?
Intel and Broadcom's China Headaches... Fortune Cookie Crumble?

China's growing arrogance and protectionist measures are beginning to bring forth questions for certain companies and industries on how much should they actually invest into China, what will the return on their investment be, and whether it is worth it at this juncture and early stage of China' growth to build a signficant presence their market.

These questions and others might be easy for some companies, such as Dell, HP, and KFC. But Intel and Broadcom are encountering some hurdles towards success in China's market. The following are a couple articles with slighty different spins on the same story. News.com explains:

"The Chinese government has passed a law stating that, starting June 1, all Wi-Fi chips sold must comply with the Wired Authentication and Privacy Infrastructure (WAPI) standard. The encryption algorithm was developed in China and is controlled by local Chinese companies." (full article)

TechWeb's Mobilepipeline headline reads, "China Tells Intel To Calm Down."

A little more sensational article, it quotes a Chinese official saying, "China is such a strategic market. I think Intel should calm down."

Overall, both articles reflect China's growing arrogance and long-term policy position to protect its domestic companies, and to rapidly acquire as much management know-how and technology from foreign companies. These are similar approaches that Japan and Korea have taken in targeted growth industries over the past decades. Japan and Korea in the early stages of their automobile markets completely blocked out foreign car-makers with high tariffs and policies allowing only a very minuscule presence.

In the wireless industry, Japan created their own standard, W-CDMA (Wide Band Code Division Multiple Access), with a similar intent as China, to protect their domestic market. In the end, the result hindered the long-term growth of their wireless companies. Korea went with Qualcomm's international accepted CDMA standard, and this resulted in their handset manufacturers' (e.g. Samsung, LG) effectively penetrating the U.S. and other global markets. The intent of China's economic policy makers are understood, but I don't know if it's the best approach for their nation and their corporations.

On the issue of forcing foreign companies, such as Intel and Broadcom, to create Wi-Fi joint ventures with one of the approved local WAPI standard companies creates a threat and loss potential (i.e. proprietary technology) that can scare off new entrants to the degree of preventing Chinese companies from obtaining what they want: management know-how and the transfer of technology.

Intel has already invest almost $1 billion into China, so they are going to work through this as much as they can. But for smaller companies and new entrants, it is a great concern.

The reality of the China market is that it is still like the Wild, Wild, West. The provinces are like cities dotted throughout the untamed West each with their own sheriffs and laws. Laws sometimes don't apply and even signed contracts don't mean much. I know of some Korean companies (favored technology partners with many Chinese companies) with signed agreements with wireless carriers and electronic manufacturers that have the most difficult time collecting their revenue or getting their domestic partners to execute on their contracts.

Korea is far more developed, but similar qualities can be seen and lessons learned for foreign partners new to Asia. When Costco initially entered the Korean market, it signed a joint venture with Shinsaegae, one of Korea's leading retailers. They created E-Mart, a Korean-style Costco, but then Shinsaegae broke the agreement (backstabbed) with Costco. Taking their know-how, but not paying the royalties. Costco re-entered the market on their own with some bitterness. Korea companies like to do and build things on their own and I have seen a similar quality in China. They will try to take and copy whatever they can get their hands on, and of course with the least amount of expenditure.

When Starbucks entered Korea a few years ago, it also signed with Shinsaegae as their domestic partner, but they came out with a favorable deal and Shinsaegae didn't. So I'm sure various industries and partners in China will also have numerous stories to tell.

So do U.S. and other foreign company take such risks to capture a piece of the China market, especially as more protectionist laws are created? How do they ensure their proprietary technologies will not be stolen and copied? How will China's legal system improve to protect foreign investors and partners? How long will China's corporate feifdoms continue?

The greater questions rest on China's policy-makers. Will this protectionist stance be better for Chinese companies or worse in the long-run? Will creating their own technology standards contain them to a domestic market of 235 million consumers, growing towards 1 billion, or allow them to dictate global standards? I really wonder how much thinking went into some of their policies and how many of them were dictated by the new rich in China.