My new book What's So Great About Christianity, just out, is already an amazon.com bestseller and is currently No. 16 on the New York Times bestseller list. AOL posted the video of my New York debate with God Is Not Great author Christopher Hitchens on its main page, and asked people to make up their minds and vote on who won. Modesty prevents me from disclosing the answer.
Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, watched the debate and reported with some agitation that the audience seemed to be applauding more for me than Hitchens. Dawkins commented on his website that the New York crowd must have been a "dopey" lot. But if you listen to the debate--and if you haven't, you can find it on my website dineshdsouza.com or watch it Saturday on C-Span 2 (Book TV) at 7 pm Eastern time--you will see that both atheists and believers were well represented. The audience applause was initially stronger for Hitchens, and only as the debate went on did it trend markedly toward me. So is Dawkins suggesting that the audience was very intelligent to start with but became more "dopey" as the debate went on? More likely we are seeing evidence of the "Dawkins delusion," an unwillingness to use good sense and face facts when Dawkins' own belief system is called into question.
One of the most interesting questions in the debate was posed to Hitchens by a man from Tonga. Before the Christians came to Tonga, he said, the place was a mess. Even cannibalism was widespread. The Christians stopped this practice and brought to Tonga the notion that each person has a soul and God loves everyone equally. The man from Tonga asked Hitchens, "So what do you have to offer us?" Hitchens was taken aback, and responded with a learned disquisition on cannibalism in various cultures. But he clearly missed the intellectual and moral force of the man's question. The man was asking why the Tongans, who had gained so much from Christianity, should reject it in favor of atheism.
In my response, I noted that when the missionaries came to India, they sometimes converted people by force. Even so, many Indians rushed on their own to embrace the faith of the foreigners. And why? Because they were born into the low caste of the Hindus. As long as they remained Hindus, there was no escape; even their descendants were condemned to the lowest rungs of humanity. By fleeing into the arms of the missionaries, the low-caste Hindus found themselves welcomed as Christian brothers. They discovered the ideal of equal dignity in the eyes of God.
If we look at the history of Western civilization, we find that Christianity has illuminated the greatest achievements of the culture. So there is indeed something great about Christianity. By contrast, does it make any sense to say, as Hitchens does in his book's subtitle, that "religion poisons everything"? Religion didn't poison Dante or Milton or Donne or Michelangelo or Raphael or Titian or Bach! Religion didn't poison the anti-slavery campaigns of William Lloyd Garrison or William Wilberforce, or the civil rights activism of the Reverend Martin Luther King. The real question to ask is, what does atheism offer humanity? In Tonga, as in America, the answer appears to be: Nothing.
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 43)
16. Q: "The real question to ask is, what does atheism offer humanity?"
A: Freedom from delusion.
Joe Bob at 4:55PM on Oct 26th 2007
17. Exactly who was that 'Tonga' dude and DD trying to misdirect here...
Low caste Hindus rushed to Christianity... 'Tonga' dudes stopped munching each other when Christianity was 'brought'(probably forced on)to them.
Are we now constrained to imagine that Hinduism and that 'old Tonga dude cannibalism' WAS atheism at it's 'finest'?
How 'grand' Christianity is when compared to Hinduism... and 'oldTongacannibalism'...
... but the question, that the Tonga dude seemed to be forgetting, was about religion in general...not 'bad' religion vs 'good' religion.
Comment 1 steve is willing to jump on that band-wagon too.
pboyfloyd at 4:56PM on Oct 26th 2007
18. I understand D'Souza's casual mention of the Inquisition and his throw-away line that a mere 2,000 were killed is incorrect.
There is a comment on another thread that I re-post here:
Re the numbers killed in the Inquisition. In a letter on pp. 69 and 70 of the latest issue of the New York Review of Books (Nov. 8, 2007, Vol. LIV, No. 17), Gabriel Tortella of the University of Madrid notes that the Spanish Inquisition "probably" burned about 25,000 people as contrasted to Germany that executed on the order of 100,000 witches and Great Britain that executed 30,000.
D'Souza's debate with Hitchens was frustrating. Hitchens let D'Souza off the hook far too easily. He didn't pin D'Souza down on his numerous inaccuracies and specious reasoning. D'Souza's patent lack of understanding of science is wide enough to drive a fleet of semi-trailers through.
D'Souza didn't address any of Hitchens points; he merely took 'bamboozle' to a high art form.
Unimpressed
Veronique at 5:26PM on Oct 26th 2007
19. Why? Why would you say something that makes you sound so impressively stupid, victor58? No different than Nazis? Such drama you have!
Mokele Mbembe at 5:04PM on Oct 26th 2007
20. Atheism doesn't pretend to be any more or less virtuous than any theism. Christianity has it's good points, like charity and a supportive faith that has provided a path of redemption for countless people. It also has it's bad points, such as religious intolerance, genocide, totalitarian power struggles, and poor scientific principle. This is a sad commentary as once christianity did support far more valid science, such as the experiments of Mendal. Incidently, that same church denied Mendal permission to travel to other monestaries to share his experiments.
So what could atheism have given that man from Tonga? An agreement. An agreement not to eat him and his family in exchange for him not to eat me and my family. An agreement not to take from him what is his in exchange for him not to take from me what is mine. And to allow for arbitration should we disagree on what is whose. It was not christianity that ended cannibalism. It was civilization, and it could have arrived from the Chinese as easily as it could have the christians. Christians simply got there first.
In addition, the atheist would offer no suppositions of supernatural agency. If the atheist didn't know, the atheist would admit such. If the Tongan had evidence of a different view, then the atheist would do their best to explain it according to rational principles that could be verified by third parties. Or again... simply admit that they did not know. The atheist could also, with some liberalism thrown in, tell the Tongan that he had individual rights for being an individual, and could express those rights so long as they did not violate the individualism of others. The atheist could also have offered the hindi an understanding of social equality without the notion that the poor deserve their status, and show that with the proper support and hard work, can be the equal of anyone born to privilaged status. The atheist would have rejected outright the notion that the rajahs were entitled to their rule due to karmic privilage.
Atheists could have offered both a system of observing the universe, making hypothesis, testing them, and proving their accuracy or not. Thus the Tongan, unable to prove his enemy had a spirit or soul, would have nothing to gain by eating their corpse. Thus too would the Hindu, unable to prove any evidence of spiritual recycling, be unable to accept that the claims of entitlement of the powerful.
Very simply, the reasons why christianity was present at humanity's accomplishments wasn't due to some mystical or practical asset of christianity. It is simply because christianity got there before the atheists. No doubt had christianity died, today Dinesh would be praising the virtue of the roman pantheon and writing "What's so great about Jupiter?"
Somber at 5:04PM on Oct 26th 2007
21. DD: "The real question to ask is, what does atheism offer humanity? In Tonga, as in America, the answer appears to be: Nothing."
More DD BS. The inhabitants of Tonga were NOT atheists before the arrival of the missionaries...
Joe Bob at 5:06PM on Oct 26th 2007
22. Some people, and I am referring to previous posts, argue that logic and reason are tools of atheism and ideology and myth are tools of Religion. Not true...If you were clearly educated enough, you would know of the concept of scholasticism, the concept that seeks to prove the existance of a diety through rational thought and logic. It stresses that God is rational, the universe is rational, and follows rational laws set by a rational creator.
womietheswami at 5:09PM on Oct 26th 2007
23. I have to agree that religion doesn't poison EVERYTHING. I survived. I figured out that the one I had been indoctrinated into didn't make any sense, and didn't help me in any way.
Some poisons, if they don't kill you, make you stronger.
Joe Bob at 5:13PM on Oct 26th 2007
24. I think it was St. Agustine who said 'Beware those who express their piety too laudly.' There is a real difference between christians and 'Christians.' I question whether 'Christians' truly believe in God at all. What they really want is for all the world, the nation, the universe to be ordered for them. God is just the convenient excuse. Example: where in the Bible is there any mention of the second amendment. Also, a bishop once declared that gay-marriage, stem-cell research, and abortion were doctrines that had to be obeyed. Yet captitol punishment and being anti-war were merely desirable.
Will at 5:17PM on Oct 26th 2007
25. I wish everyone could see what is happening in the world has been foretold in the bible. I'm tired of hearing about Darwin's theory and Global warming. The truth is in the bible if only the non-believers would open their eyes. One of the signs of the end times....you will not be able to tell the seasons except for the leaves on the trees and then all seasons will become one. It is an act of GOD. NOT GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!
Trish at 5:20PM on Oct 26th 2007
26. I would like to ask what would the world be like if God did not exist. Well, the way everyone is voting God out of prayer, off of the money in the US off the air, etc. we will find out. If you turn either direction murder is at a high, child abuse, abductions, murders amongst parent/child, etc. I can go on and on, wild fires, school shootings, ...
I hope people don't use God only when crisis and terriorism hit the world. I believe the title of this book was just to get people interested in his book he doesn't know enought about anything.
PV at 5:23PM on Oct 26th 2007
27. that's 'loudly'
Will at 5:20PM on Oct 26th 2007
28. Victor58 #14
"Atheists are all social Darwinists".
WRONG!!
Social Darwinism is discredited nonsense, and indeed Darwin had nothing to do with it.
Social Darwinist think their little in-group is superior, and should dominate over the weak (who are likewise arbitrarily chosen).
This breeds homogeneity.
Homogeneity is against the very random mutation, the differences, that are the engine of true Darwinian evolution.
So, it's actually anti-Darwinism.
Diacanu at 5:22PM on Oct 26th 2007
29. Then Womie, perhaps you can explain to me the rational reason a perfect god would have to create an angel that they know is going to betray them, and to create a humanity that this perfect God knows will fail, and then to punish that creation for all of eternity unless they follow this one arbitrary belief? It seems to me the far more rational action would have been to never create the angel in the first place, unless God needed a scapegoat.
Or perhaps you can explain the rational behind one person coming back to life (two if you count Lazarus) but can not duplicate these results by an outside third party without charlatanistic tricks. Rational implies a certain continuity, repetativity, and predictability... none of which are possible. And the exception to a rule likewise is irrational. The fact that christianity is founded on the basis of irrationality doesn't help much (IE, miracles).
More to the point... God seemed to have no problem smiting and appearing and damning humanity in the old testiment. So why the change as history becomes more accurate? Could it be that true rationality in the form of science, unshackled by the supposition that the bible is literal fact, has explained catasrophes according to actual rational and observable phenomenon? If god wanted to send us an unmistakable sign he could simply have a postit note appear on each of our pillows saying 'I'm God and I'm real... really.' no matter how well we watched them.
All your rationality says to me is that christianity isn't just irrational, it's scientifically hypocritical.
Somber at 5:23PM on Oct 26th 2007
30. Incidently PV... if you want to see an atheistically oriented world, just look at Europe.
Wow... religious rights preserved... everyone having medical care... technological innovation and scientific progress... yeah, they sure are eating each other's livers over there, aren't they?
Somber at 5:25PM on Oct 26th 2007