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 2 of 44)
16. Of course Hitchens won, there is no proof of God. And the burden of proof is on those who say there is. End of story.
Rannie at 3:03PM on Oct 24th 2007
17. Having watched the clip: you completely didn't answer the question put to you by Hitchens about the relationship between the Catholic Church and all the Fascist movements both in pre-WWII Europe and post-WWII Latin America. Why not? As a Roman Catholic yourself, I should think you would have been anxious to defend the honor of Holy Mother
Church. Unless there is no defense!
emelpe at 3:26PM on Oct 24th 2007
18. dinesh got owned again. i don't really care for hitchens either though. this is like a game between the kansas city royals and the tampa bay devil royals...it doesn't matter who won...they're both losers. these two guys exist solely to make money off of the emotions of others.
d'souza though cares way too much about winning and losing. at the last debate he wanted to prove he beat a professor...now he wants to prove he beat an atheist. the truth is...he's still the same child he was in the 80's...the man will never grow up. when i saw him on hannity and colmes...he seemed like the guy who is wayyy too old to be at a college party...but doesn't want to move on. it's time for you to grow up dinesh...the 80's were a long time ago. the next generation will not find your divisiveness to be clever...and, seriously, enough for "nudist colony" thing, we get it.
jdleopoldo at 3:29PM on Oct 24th 2007
19. I'm reminded of those inane medival debates concerning the number of angels that could stand on the head of a needle - who cares. The real proof for the existence of the Christian God that DD professes to believe in would be a community that embodied the spirit, teachings and example of Christ. It would be a community where the barriers of race, ethnicity, class and gender were overcome. It would be a community that loved not only the neighbor but the enemy as well(Matt 5:6). It would be a community that did not return violence with violence (Matt 5:39). It would be a community of humility and not self righteous judgment(Matt 7:1). It would be a community where the poor and marginalized were invited to the table (Luke 14). It would be a community that is everything that modern day American christianity is not. The reason that people like DD engage in these nonsensical exercises is because the real proof for the existence of God is lacking indeed.
randy at 3:40PM on Oct 24th 2007
20. Hitchens won, of course. Apologists like Dinesh are unable to grasp that just because they make emotive appeals and the crowd claps a lot doesn't mean that they've won.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 3:57PM on Oct 24th 2007
21. sounds like fun. I'm kind of sorry I wasn't there.
Who "won" isn't relevant. Won? what does the winner get, an engraved mug or something?
michael white at 4:11PM on Oct 24th 2007
22. also, does anyone else notice that d'souza's whole blog is based on stirring anger. i mean, what is going on in california is horrible...yet all he seems to mention is his book. how is that christian? how is that even human? if west virginia (where i live) was burning to the ground, it would be the first thing on my mind...yet all d'souza cares about is, "did i win, did i, did i?" what a child.
j at 4:27PM on Oct 24th 2007
23. Dinesh,
you are an intellectual midget and belong on Sunday Morning television along with the big-haired weeping penitents asking for money.
Quit hawking your book on AOL's dime.
sam at 3:05PM on Oct 25th 2007
24. It's not a jab at scientists to remind them that they have yet to answer how the universe or life on Earth began; they are content to not yet know. This does not give you license, Dinesh, to believe whatever you like in the meantime.
Your example with the speed of light appears weak to anyone who is scientifically literate. Granted, the speed of light might be different on the other side of the universe, but the evidence we have so far is that it is and so that is our working assumption until proven otherwise. It is a lousy rhetorical trick to then call this "faith" and try to set it on par with religious faith.
Rick at 4:50PM on Oct 24th 2007
25. I think they should repeat this debate at, say, UC Berkeley. It might look somewhat different from how it looked at Kings (at least in part because Hitch got all the questions and D'Souza always got the last word)--go somewhere else too, in the name of that "fair and balanced" ideal that conservatives love.
Kind of silly to hear D'Souza whining about pushing Christians out of the public square--pure flattery of the audience, nothing more.
And yes, that stupid joke about the nudist colony is done. When will D'Souza learn a new one?
J. at 4:44PM on Oct 24th 2007
26. It's not a jab at scientists to remind them that they have yet to answer how the universe or life on Earth began; they are content to not yet know. This does not give you license, Dinesh, to believe whatever you like in the meantime.Your example with the speed of light appears weak to anyone who is scientifically literate.
Granted, the speed of light might be different on the other side of the universe, but the evidence we have so far is that it is and so that is our working assumption until proven otherwise. It is a lousy rhetorical trick to then call this "faith" and try to set it on par with religious faith.
Rick at 4:58PM on Oct 24th 2007
27. So atheist killed more lifes than theist,then God exist! Oh I love it!
jax at 5:41PM on Oct 24th 2007
28. Dinesh says he believes things about christianity that he can't know for sure. So why doesn't he also believe in astrology or scientology or any number of other absurd ideas for which there is just as much evidence...none. I think that Hitch should have asked him why he doesn't believe in allah or any of the thousands of other gods. Why christianity? Could it be that was the religion of his father? hmmm. How lucky to be born into the one true faith.
mickey at 6:40PM on Oct 24th 2007
29. Bummer about those poll results Dinesh, seems the readers of your blog think you got OWNED, as they say. Shudder to think what would have happened if Hitch had actually brought his A-game.
That's off-topic though. What would be really refreshing is if you could write just _one_ article that isn't merely a polemic response to the work of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al. I look down the list of your recent attempts and I see the same three or four names on the first page, sometimes the first paragraph, of everything you publish! You're keeping yourself very busy simply _reacting_ to the work of prominent freethinkers - how about an article which isn't leeching off the intelligence and success of others? Dinesh, how about something PRO-active, that you thought of yourself, that contains no tangential quotes from Hume or Kant...oh, wait, there was one. That ridiculous, hateful article you wrote in response to the Virginia Tech shootings months ago. If that's the best you can do when you're not simply feeding off the success of others, maybe you should just stick to what you do best and ride the backs of Dawkins et al like so many other theist parasites are doing. Oh wait, just saw you have a book coming out. I wonder what's in it ...
hemlock at 7:14PM on Oct 24th 2007
30. Both of these guys are idiots -- Hitchens is an asshole and he insults people for money -- The other guy should keep his beliefs to himself unless he also has an angle. I'm an athiest, can't help it, but I would trust religeous person before an athiest just on principal
Terry at 7:22PM on Oct 24th 2007