Is religion the problem? This was the topic of my debate with America's leading atheist Christopher Hitchens before a packed house of a thousand people at the Ethical Culture Society auditorium in New York city. Hitchens is the author of God Is Not Great and I am the author of the new book What's So Great About Christianity. Unfortunately the organizers had to turn more than a hundred people away. It was a ferocious and lively debate, which also had its light moments, and many people on both sides said afterward that it was the best God v. atheism debate that has so far been held.
The current crop of atheists -- Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker -- are mainly Darwinians who don't believe in God because they regard evolution as providing a sufficient accounting for life. Hitchens, however, says he is not an atheist but an "anti-theist." By this he means that he isn't just an unbeliever; he hates the God of traditional religion. He condemns Christianity as a wicked religion involving a sadomasochistic God who indulges in a gruesome sacrifice of his son. And why? To compel people to grovel before him. And if they don't (in Hitchen's portrayal) God hurls them into hell for eternity. Hitchens sees the crimes of religion, such as the Inquisition, as stemming from the inherently totalitarian nature of religion.
My argument in the debate was that Christians would hardly recognize their beliefs and practices in this harsh and unbalanced account. For Christians, God helps to give ultimate meaning to life. Religion gives us a moral code to live by and to teach our children. Faith helps us to deal with hardship and suffering. The prospect of the afterlife gives us hope and helps us to believe that there is eventual justice in which the good are rewarded and unrepented evil held accountable. For Christians it is not the death of Christ but the resurrection that is the central doctrine. Sadomasochism doesn't even enter into it.
Some of the most lively moments in the debate came when Hitchens and I discussed whether religion or atheism is responsible for the mass murders of history. I pointed out that even the Spanish Inquisition--a favorite atheist bugaboo -- killed 2,000 people over 350 years. By contrast, atheist tyrants like Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot killed tens of millions within the space of a few decades. Hitchens sought to argue that Communism retained many of the features of autocratic religious states. I countered by saying that if we hold religious regimes responsible for the crimes done in God's name, we should hold atheist regimes responsible for the crimes done in the name of creating an atheist utopia. Let's not blame religion not only for its own offenses but also for the offenses done by atheists on behalf of an atheist ideology.
Who won? That's for you to judge. Hitchens and I are scheduled to appear tonight on Hannity & Colmes on the Fox News Channel to have another swing at each other. Our debate was also taped by C-Span 2 (Book TV) and will be aired on Saturday at 7 pm Eastern time.
You can watch the entire debate here.
If you want to read more about my views, you can find them in my new book What's So Great About Christianity.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 44)
1. A win for Hitchens, by a country mile!!
Perhaps if D'Souza spent more time actually making his points he'd have half a chance against Hitch - as opposed to complaining about "filibustering" or Hitch not actually asking him "complete" questions.
Can't have it both ways. Why not just answer the question put to you Dinesh? Or are you playing for time? Who exactly is filibustering here?
Also, D'Souza's constant use of straw-man arguments is laughable. If this were a high-school debate, he'd be laughed off stage.
Tyler Durden at 9:09AM on Oct 24th 2007
2. I think to judge the outcome of the debate based upon a nine-minute YouTube clip may do a disservice to the full dialogue of the evening. I find it interesting that D'Souza would link to this excerpt from a part of the debate where I found his arguments to be least convincing.
I, however, was fortunate enough to have attended the event, and to be frank, expected Hitchins to unequivocally dominate the discussion. Although I generally revere D'Souza's debating prowess, I anticipated him to be little match for Hitchins' smug wit. However, as the evening's dialogue progressed, it appeared as though the debate played out in D'Souza's favor.
In any theist/atheist discussion, the theist is inherently at a a disadvantage due to their reliance on faith. However, D'Souza did a meticulous job of poking out the numerous holes in Hitchins' logic, and asserting that an atheist too relied heavily upon faith in a realm where little tangible fact exists. Each individual made a series of well-founded and convincing points throughout the course of the night. What I feel put D'Souza at an advantage, however, was the fact that he did indeed answer the questions directed to him. When Hitchins was presented a difficult question, he was incredibly evasive. At most times he rambled on about new points he wished to bring up, rather than answering the question posed. It would have had a greater impact on those watching to have produced a viable argument in direct response to a question, rather than to have dodged and moved to make a separate point. Perhaps he just plain didn't have the answers?
And did anyone else stick around long enough for the question & answer session? It appears some participants misunderstood it to be a "statement & answer" session. HA!
Ryan M. at 9:32AM on Oct 24th 2007
3. My sound is not yet working. I AWAIT THE TRANSCRIPT and will search for it regularly.
vikingmother at 11:34AM on Oct 24th 2007
4. I will watch for it on C-SPAN. I trust them to be the least partisan. I am sure "Fox and Friends" and "Hannity and Colmes" were not.
David S. at 11:31AM on Oct 24th 2007
5. debate is not about winning or losing,
its about an exchange of perspective's based on ones knowledge,reason and an ability to illiterate their logic to give credence to said logic.
i find dinesh's posts here usually self-serving,and many times,ill-thought.
and while i find hitchens to be an arrogant,bloviating elitist.i did presume his exceptional knowledge and debating skills would trump dinesh.
however,to my surprise,dinesh took the ONE tactic successful in debating a supposed atheist(i have never met a true atheist),
which is to not defend religion,or even faith,but to ask the question "what if".
it is historical fact that religion,any religion,is open to scrutiny on grounds of:hypocrisy and contradictions.
and faith is too subjective to actually have a debate with any conclusive,agreeable ending.
but to take that tactic of not attempting to prove a creator,
but to have the atheist prove there is not,
which is an impossibility,
was brilliant.
it makes for a great discussion,and i tip my hat to dinesh for a surprisingly better debate than i expected.
hitchens still took the debate,if we have to crown a winner,
but dinesh did a stellar job.
and while i usually disagree with dinesh on many topics,i will give him his due on a well thought out debate.
well done sir.
till next time..peace.
Enoch D.D.S
enoch at 1:44PM on Oct 24th 2007
6. Such a debate is not worth much as Mr. D'Souza begins with the "assumption" that there is a "god", something which cannot possibly be proven. If the gentleman were to get over that hurdle, which he cannot possibly, he would be left with the next, and equally impossible task of defining that term. An undefined, or carelessly defined term, is worth less than nothing. Such inane "debates" have absolutely nothing serious about them, and have absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a deity. It is really about "I believe in a god, and am therefore superior". Such has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with ego and politics.
Robert I. Laitres at 12:04PM on Oct 24th 2007
7. The last statement Dinesh made in his debate, "if God is not, everything is permitted." To use a bit of circular logic that Dinesh is so fond of, if God is, he created all that is committed. If there is an all powerful God, he created every concept - good and evil - defined and permitted both. Why would a perfect being create not only imperfection, but malevolence as well? Satan didn't create evil, God did. To create imperfect beings, set rules that are eternally binding, with no real solid reaffiming proof of his authority, that to me doesn't show greatness, but sadism. And if Heaven is sitting around for eternity, singing praises to his greatness, that shows a sick egotist....
Neither of which I'd want a part of.
Ken at 12:13PM on Oct 24th 2007
8. Debate, at its heart, is a competition of rhetoric, in which an audience can be wooed or blinded by factors far removed from the evidences. For example, the audience "smelling fear" in a debater confronted with a "hard question" has exactly nothing to do with the matter being debated, but the audience will almost certainly be affected by that perception. The typical result is that the advantaged debater will seize upon that perception, play to it, and boast that his opponent's entire position was, as the kids say, pwned.
For not making such proclamations here, Dinesh, I say: well played.
sandslice at 1:21PM on Oct 24th 2007
9. Dinesh:
Thanks for the heads up. I will watch on Fox News tonight to get a preview. I'm sure it will be entertaining - there's usually a good bit of chest thumping going on by both Hannity and Colmes. And, I very much look forward to viewing what I hope is the full and unedited debate on C-Span.
kulari94 at 1:24PM on Oct 24th 2007
10. Hitchens won
Eddie Vedder at 1:46PM on Oct 24th 2007
11. I sincerely wish D'Souza would educate himself in regards to what constitutes a Logical Fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy)
Aequitas at 1:47PM on Oct 24th 2007
12. D, I only saw a soundbite, I am sorry, I could care less who won or lost. This is of no consequence to the horror occuring daily in our country, oxymoron, actually, USA = OUR COUNTRY, see oxymoron these days.
The Atheists will never sway from their position, just as believers will never be swayed.
It is Islamo-Facist week, being hosted by students on prominent college campuses everywhere, hosted by the very tolerant(oh yeah,pig), David Horowitz Freedom Center. From what is in this speaker list, it says 'Dinesh D'Souza, an admirer of Robert Spencer, I certainly hope this is a lie,speakers at this racist event include Tammy Bruce and Ann (stupid, inane, Christo-Facist ), and the lovely(sic) Ann is speaking at Tulane.
In the grand scheme of things, this is a bit more distubing, I should think.
I certainly hope D you get paid mad money from FAUX news, most assuredly by lowering yourself in such a manner you and your Christian values are certainly misplaced, if true I have lost every bit of respect for you. Always, Atheism, Christianity on and on and on.
Matters of religious or non-religous choices do not hold a candle to what is occurring in our country and world.
I hope you are not 'A wolf in sheep's clothing', and by all means go check it out, you will be routed to horowitz's other site and you will find a picture, we are all aware of, very infamous, be my guest:
http://www.terroismawareness.org/islamo-facism-awareness-week/49/a-students-guide-to-hosting-islamo-facism-awareness-week/
Shame on you! This has been a MSM purposely ignored violence incentive that parents of these student's should know about.
Since Horowitz was a Vietnam protester, BFF to the Black Panthers and now allows White supremicists to spread his lies.
rhodalee at 1:52PM on Oct 24th 2007
13. Hitchens owned you. Your argument was almost entirely based on a body count comparison. The opening point pretty much sums up the whole thing.
DD: Einstien was a theist.
Hitch: No, He wasn't.
God Be Gone at 2:12PM on Oct 24th 2007
14. "In the words of King Henry VIII, I won't keep you long."
"Much like a mosquito in a nudist colony, don't know where to begin."
I've now heard Dinesh employ thse silly little, crowd-placating quips at EVERY DEBATE. Give me a break man.
I thought it was ludicrous that Dinesh was granted the last word on nearly every engagement, and thus had the leverage to employ some really cheap attacks against Hitchens, including that outright VICIOUS "you didn't even mention Stalin" nonsense. Ultiately I didn't think he proved anything, let alone the existence of a Christian God, and his arguments didn't have groundwork in the mechanics of "reason".
All in all quite a lively debate though, the best I've seen over religion with Hitchens thus far. I must say, having seen numerous ones, including Hitchens demolition of Olasky and McGrath, I must give credit to Dinesh, he at least pu tup a fight.
azandi at 2:06PM on Oct 24th 2007
15. "Hannity & Colmes was there," Dinesh points out. If that's how Dinesh spoke during the debate, then perhaps he lost, though that's likely just a typo. However, if Dinesh really believes in God, then he ought to take a hard look at who and what he supports. This country has 12 million children who experience hunger on a daily basis, yet I don't ever recall seeing Dinesh write anything about that. The wealthiest of income earners were taxed at the rate of 90% during the Eisenhower years, yet now they're taxed just 35%, thanks to Bush's tax cuts half of which went to his favorite 1% of the population, with the other half going to the other 99%. When I was growing up in the 1960s nearly all families were able to get by with only one parent having to work outside the home. In spite of 4+ decades of technological advancement, why do two parents have to work in most instances today? Why have we regressed, and why does the wealthiest civilization on Planet Earth allow 12 million of its little ones to feel hunger out of a population of some 300 million? Why is it that when I was a child one heard of the occasional millionaire, yet today we hear of billionaires and hungry children, if we look beyond the mainstream media that is? Don't you think those tax cuts brought on by both parties from JFK through GWB may have had something to do with it? Do not the wealthy obtain their revenue from two sources only, Earth's resources and human labor? We're not importing either from Mars you know. We're dominated by the military-industrial-media-complex and people like Dinesh, if they really believed in God, would try to stop the massive suffering that exists simply to exalt a proportionate few who have need of nothing yet seemingly view this life like a Monopoly game. I'd love to debate Dinesh about things that can be proven regarding unneccessary human suffering and misery brought about simply to satisfy a proportionate few's greed. - Dr. Kenneth J. Hildebrandt - http://majormediabypass.com
Dr. Kenneth J. Hildebrandt at 2:28PM on Oct 24th 2007