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 44 of 44)
646. Me and my Father along with a good friend who is in formation at a local seminary sat down after a fine dinner out to watch Mr. D'Souza debate Mr. Hitchens on C-span this past Saturday night.
I can credit Mr. D'Souza with winning the debate hands down. I cannot however credit him with originality. (not that originality is important to the debate) Mr. D’Souza has simply collected the best arguments and retorts from what is an ancient and ongoing debate. The recent spat of atheist tomes has not ploughed any new ground.
Mr. D’Souza however has done the debate a great service by synthesizing the best arguments for theism & Christianity and marshaling them against the “new” atheists. The arguments are strong and ultimately triumphant. The problem to date has only been that the theists are aware of this timeless debate as a dated one while the atheists are operating under the zeal that they have formulated something new.
Fitz at 3:59PM on Oct 29th 2007
647. The debate was among the best we've seen in years, but I suspect neither side was swayed. I note from the comments that inspidity still runs deep among the anti-religionists.
But I think this is a format Hitchens may stay away from in the future. He is more of an "arguer" than a debater, his best venue a radio/TV studio, where his words resonate better. He is one of the best at his craft, in fact. But D'Souza proving he was as quick on his feet was unsettling, but more so, the feedback from a live audience, which took to much of d'Souza's points. Hitchens uses his debating partner more as a foil or straight-man, his real purpose to instruct the third-party listeners. This is one of the few times he's gotten mixed feedback...and from such an educated audience.
It's only a matter of style, but this sort of thing causes a fellow like Hitchens to return to his closet for re-evaluation. And one of things he may want to re-evaluate is his relationship with the hate-mongering anti-religious left who seem to want to use the political process to drive any religious expression, indeed belief, back into the catacombs. It's ironic that it was the original Darwinian, Himself, who was snatched up by a group of humanists who had a grudge against the Church (of England). They damn near destroyed him. Today, it's flipped, and now evolutionsts are trying to use a fellow who has personal grudge against the Church. I don't think Hitchens will let that happen...which is good news.
Vassar Bushmills at 3:40PM on Oct 29th 2007
648. @ Fitz... 643
Let's disassemble your comment...
You give Dinesh D'Souza.."credit..winning...best arguments...great service...strong and ultimately triumphant.."
... and to poor atheists..."spat... tomes...“new”(in a bad sense)...zeal(from context means 'delusion')
Congratulations Fitz, nicely loaded words... nicely loaded indeed. D'Souza couldn't have written about HIMSELF better!!!
D'Souza gets (what?) consolation... for being unoriginal while (not just)Hitchens(but, somehow.. ALL ATHEISTS) get a failing grade for the same thing.
As a 'freshly hatched' atheist myself, I cannot but admire the subtlety of your disparagement of all atheists disguised as assessment of that debate... way better than Tom B's vitriol.
.. still .... all you are doing here is shining DD's rocket.
... you didn't think that 'Tonga dude' had even a slight smell of red herring at all then?
pboyfloyd at 3:45PM on Oct 29th 2007
649. ?
pboyfloyd at 3:47PM on Oct 29th 2007
650. @ Vassar Bushmills ...644.
You say, "The debate was among the best we've seen in years..."
Well Vassar, I guess you don't get out much. These two practically phoned it in, plus you'd almost get the impression that D'Souza had paid Hitchens to help the sale of his book.
The entire performance had a lop-sided 'feel' to it... hardly anyone noticing the question period was aimed entirely at Hitchens, him getting to answer 'red herrings' followed by D'Souza getting free shots in for the appearance of fairness.
Wasn't it just a 'shame' that there was no time for Hitchens to respond to D'Souza's self-proclaimed masterpiece of 'debate' showing Christianity to be much better for untouchables than ... hmm no... it isn't atheism.. is it? D'Souza just made it seem like that.
pboyfloyd at 4:19PM on Oct 29th 2007
651. Well, Fitz... let me update MY response to your comment then...
644. @ Fitz... 643
Let's disassemble your comment...
You give Dinesh D'Souza.."credit..winning...best arguments...great service...strong and ultimately triumphant.."
... and to poor atheists..."spat... tomes...“new”(in a bad sense)...zeal(from context means 'delusion')
Congratulations Fitz, nicely loaded words... nicely loaded indeed. D'Souza couldn't have written about HIMSELF better!!!
D'Souza gets (what?) consolation... for being unoriginal while (not just)Hitchens(but, somehow.. ALL ATHEISTS) get a failing grade for the same thing.
As a 'freshly hatched' atheist myself, I cannot but admire the subtlety of your disparagement of all atheists disguised as assessment of that debate... way better than Tom B's vitriol.
.. still .... all you are doing here is shining DD's rocket.
... you didn't think that 'Tonga dude' had even a slight smell of red herring at all then?
pboyfloyd at 4:23PM on Oct 29th 2007
652. No, Athiests are ruining this country! If it weren't for the faithful we would probably have microchips being planted in our skin by now. Everyone should be grateful God has patience with us.
Eric W at 5:50AM on Oct 31st 2007
653. BTW Tim, Whats your freakin problem? We christians are not the one's blowing ourselves up or anyone else. You think you have it bad because you don't want to see God on your money? If muslims take over you will be forced to join their religion or lose your head.
Eric W at 6:03AM on Oct 31st 2007
654. "If muslims take over you will be forced to join their religion or lose your head."
So religion IS the problem.
Thanks for clearing that up.
fabio at 7:58AM on Oct 31st 2007
655. Eric W:
"BTW Tim, Whats your freakin problem? We christians are not the one's blowing ourselves up or anyone else. You think you have it bad because you don't want to see God on your money? If muslims take over you will be forced to join their religion or lose your head."
That's funny. Most Muslims that I've met in person or have seen post on Dinesh's have been far more polite than quite a few of the Christians on this blog, despite all of the bashing done against Islam. I've never seen one that tried to make a threat to me like that I'll be burning in Hell, for example.
Tem at 4:13PM on Oct 31st 2007
656. To Pboyfloyd @645
Actually I get out a lot, but work the other side of the street. I've been a Hitchens student for years, but had never seen D'Souza speak, though I have read him. The debate was good for my side of the street for the simple reason it took away your side's command of the highway. The common ma would come away with D'souza winnign hands down.
Going after intellectual points is silly, as you'll agree, since both side believe the other 's points of view are mindless...so the only real objective other than the occasional little gotcha when someone steps on his pecker and claims clairvoyance where no other hard evidence exists (such as the deism-theism professions by Einstein) is to makes points with the Third parties. After all, your side has made this into a political rather than intellectual exercise, so like D'Souza, i'm for getting all the votes I can. Seems he won on that count, which was my point. I think Hitchens was caught off-guard. I know Dawkins was, he said as much
Cordially
Vassar Bushmills at 5:05PM on Nov 1st 2007
657. Tem,
Yeah right!
Eric W at 8:17AM on Nov 7th 2007
658. Christians don't force anyone to join their beliefs. They have different ways of presenting it but never force it upon others. I would rather someone tell me to watch out for hell than kill me like (radical islam) seems to do. And fabio, yes religion is the problem not a relationship with the creator.
Eric W at 8:24AM on Nov 7th 2007
659. I've seen several debates discussions with Hitchens. The often too nice Christians have lost each one. If you think Hitchens won this debate you are have fallen into a dexlexic Dog Delusion. Dinesh punished Hitchens who was inarticulate and in my opinion acted intoxicated which leads us to ask, "Does religion poison everything or is it simply too much alcohol."
Hitchens did not answer the questions posed to him. He repeated his same tired arguments. Which weren't even addressing the question. He was not capable of responding to the new arguments Dinesh gave him.y. It was as though someone finally called Hitchens bluff. His arguments if you can call them that because 90% of them have no point whatsoever are fluff and full of huge exaggerations.
Kidpinion at 11:51PM on Nov 13th 2007