My new book What's So Great About Christianity has just hit the Wall Street Journal bestseller list. It's currently number 21 on the amazon bestseller list which includes fiction and nonfiction books. Especially amusing is the fact that the book is the number one seller in the categories of both "religion" and "atheism." The success of the book has the atheist websites buzzing. So I cruised richarddawkins.net, the site of the renowned author of The God Delusion. Dawkins has posted on his site videos of my Oregon State debate with Michael Shermer, and my New York debate with Christopher Hitchens.
Oh, my.
The atheists were mighty upset with what many of them perceived as my triumph in the Shermer debate. Here are a sampling of comments. "I hate to admit this, but purely in terms of who came off better, the answer in my view has to be that D'Souza did." "It's too bad Shermer...was an inferior debater." "I think D'Souza was likely perceived to be the winner of this debate." "But take heart, Men of Reason. Several atheists consoled themselves after the Shermer debate this way. "The only consolation is that D'Souza mentioned he'll be debating Christopher Hitchens soon, and I predict that Hitch will eat this odious little squirt alive and spit out the bones." "The Hitchens one is gonna be way better, I'm sure of it." "Boy, I really want to see Hitch take no prisoners. This guy needs his head handed to him." "D'Souza is taking on Hitch next? Ha, ha, RIP in advance D'Souza."
Alas for the Apostles of Evidence, it was not to be. Here is a sampling of atheist comment after my debate with Hitchens. "A little disappointing that Hitchens didn't tear him in half, instead adopting a defensive-passive approach." "It is sad that Hitchens did not nail D'Souza." "Unfortunately the trashing we expected did not occur." "I don't want to see a liar like D'Souza beat another atheist again."
After some frustrated name-calling, combined with attempts to blame the ignorance of the audience, the atheists made some revealing admissions. "D'Souza is the most challenging debater we have thus far encountered. He is extremely intelligent and in possession of superior verbal abilities. He wins many arguments because he is able to assemble a vast array of factoids that...often have the effect of overwhelming his opponents." "As much as I dislike D'Souza, he is the most able debater I have seen go up against Hitchens or any of the others on our team yet." "Hitchens...is not used to debating with someone as articulate and finely-tuned as D'Souza. D'Souza is an entirely different animal than what Hitchens is used to debating on MSNBC or Fox News. Christopher's standard boiler-plate just does not win with a guy like this."
In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins portrays the atheist position as rooted in reason and the theist position as rooted in blind faith. If this is true, Dawkins should easily be able to defeat me in a debate. I have written to invite him to debate me, and I don't mind doing it in a venue sympathetic to him, not a church setting but a liberal campus such as Berkeley or UCLA. Moreover, I am willing to have an unbeliever like Michael Shermer moderate the debate. A donor has offered to pay Dawkins' and my honorarium, and so we are ready to move ahead if Dawkins is willing.
It's time to find out whose position is truly based on reason and evidence and skepticism and science. How can atheists march behind these banners and then decline the opportunity to defend their positions in open discussion in an intellectual setting? I'm waiting to hear if Dawkins is up for the challenge.
Reader Comments ( Page 18 of 18)
256. I'll bite on that one ray.
1) Why? Because everything living has a beginning and an end. Humans' lives begin at conception, and end at death. It is also fairly evident that none of the original forms of life on this earth are living. Sure, there are plenty of ancestors, but none of the originals. It is also evident that non-living organisms have no thinking capacity. So something non-living cannot create a universe. From these points, it is evident that either our creator doesn't exist, or is dead.
2) If you can't prove the positive, does it make any logical sense to claim the positive? As we stand today, there is no evidence of a creator. The fact that we stand here today is not evidence of a creator either. So therefore it makes more logical sense to claim that there was no creator than saying there is one.
3) Why can I comprehend an eternal universe? It's because of the laws of matter and energy. Matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed.
clud at 1:07AM on Nov 5th 2007
257. DD's braggadocio and egotism is nauseating. Defenitely Not pious.
dude at 12:38PM on Nov 5th 2007
258. @ post #254 clud at 1:07AM on Nov 5th 2007 said: "Why can I comprehend an eternal universe? It's because of the laws of matter and energy. Matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed."
Just an observation but the law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another... The last sentence "can only be changed from one form to another" is not insignificant; indeed, it is a crucial part of this law.
So what is your explanation now for how primordial matter originated?
HINT: Something can't come from nothing.
ManOfMettl at 2:48PM on Nov 5th 2007
259. Enjoyed your book immensely on whats so great about christianity. The atheist camp needs to hone their debating skills as the book has some incredible insights on christ and christianity. A must read for all .
nandini viegas at 3:55PM on Nov 5th 2007
260. Do Christians drink coffee?
Win a new Senseo Coffee Machine here!
http://www.mycreditfriend.com
Troy at 9:25PM on Nov 5th 2007
261. Let's take a break and have a nice cup of coffee!
You can win a new Senseo Coffee Machine here!
http://www.mycreditfriend.com
Troy at 9:39PM on Nov 5th 2007
262. Cliff,
You are something else. If you can't answer the question, then baffle them with bullshit, right? You never answer any of my questions...you try to leverage ME into dragging FAITH into this discussion--which I have NO interest in doing--just because you know faith can't defended...you continually drag religion into our discussion--because you know religion can't be defended, except with faith.
I'm not talking faith or religion, but you can't answer my challenge, so you drag them in to try to obfuscate...a pseudo-scientist who can't admit when he doesn't know the answer.
steve at 12:32AM on Nov 6th 2007
263. Tem,
You are correct...that would be my next question.
steve at 12:40AM on Nov 6th 2007
264. ManofMettl,
Just like the law states, it was always there. There's nobody to prove this theory of course, because nobody was around at the origin of the universe. The big bang is the best theory I know of to date that describes how it all formed, but what caused it? My best guess, in my limited knowledge of quantum physics, is something along the lines of a supermassive black hole (one massive enough to carry all of the mass in our known universe) experiencing what would be considered a supernova. Of course, this can't be observed in our universe, since we have yet to actually observe a black hole. But it sounds more logical to me than some supernatural, eternal being poofing it all into existence.
clud at 10:34AM on Nov 6th 2007
265. clud @263:
Thank you for the response. I respect your beliefs. But I don't think that you are considering the law of CoE in its entirety. The last part "CAN ONLY BE CHANGED FROM ONE FORM TO ANOTHER is where the ultimate explanation (or question) of the origin of EVERYTHING rests.
My interpretation: If there is “Something” which is capable of CHANGING things or acting on them, but is not actually doing so, there cannot be change (for That which has a potentiality need not exercise it).
ManOfMettl at 12:28PM on Nov 6th 2007
266. HINT: Something can't come from nothing.
...and since God is something (or is it?),God couldn't have come from nothing.. so we're all back to square one.
fabio at 2:04PM on Nov 6th 2007
267. Can you say "T-R-O-L-L-S"?
raindrop at 4:37PM on Nov 6th 2007
268. Steve, your 'challenge' is that I attack a straw man you made. No thanks.
You had NO focus on what I wrote for your benefit.
That was strikes one through three and I'm done with it.
You're encapsulated in your religion, so that's not going to be obvious and you'll continue to be frustrated.
You either accept science or you accept your superstition and your rationale of it and try to cope with life by weaving in and out of the two.
You can't half step or strike bargains with the real world and scientific method and that's not getting through to you.
I used to teach martial arts, too. People would sometimes come in off the street expecting to get a 'black belt' in a couple of weeks. It doesn't work like that. It takes most people years and you may never get one.
You WILL never get one until you submit yourself to training and put in diligent time forging your body in the fire of your will.
It's not that you can't get a bogus black belt, but if all you got is that, you'll get killed if you get in trouble. Faith won't help you there.
I have seen the 'argument' for intelligent design, there's only one and if it's right, there's no god in the universe.
It's phony as a $3 bill but simple - everything is a design and has a designer, the designer is more complex than the design, the universe has a designer that's more complex than the design so the designer exists outside of everything that exists, i.e. the universe.
Therefore the designer doesn't exist since the universe means 'everything', including the designer.
Yawn.
And you take that the designer 'always was' and fudge the 'universe' to meet the required double standard.
That explains nothing, but that's to be expected because it's faith.
If that's all you got, it explains no more than acceptance of the universe as Prime Cause or acknowledging your god had another one before him that created him.
Science doesn't go anywhere near there, and you don't go to science with that mess. You'll never find science if you have that baggage.
If you're encapsulated in dogma, everything outside your capsule looks like dogma too. That includes science, which you seem to think is called 'atheism', another dogmatic projection.
That, and frustration with your inability to see that your 'challenge' is just that misperception that science is some other kind of dogma and nothing else is making you come off as a pretty sour person.
I'm comfortable with m-theory so far, it backs up intuition on stuff you never heard of like dark matter and dark energy and entangled matter, which has currently advanced to the stage of molecular teleportation.
It also dovetails with quantum mechanics and relativity. I think it's the first step to the Unified Field Theory. And it explains the big bang and reconciles conservation of m/e. Pretty cool!
I'm excited to have this glimpse of reality before I die.
If you really undertood this, it would probably complement genuine faith, but not by saying god made all that stuff or came before. That's the lazy way.
I dig that conservation of matter and energy are restored from the earlier problems with the Hawking Equation.
And I think it's outrageously cool that black holes remember what they ate!
These revelations and others from chaos physics are a great deal more relevant to me and bring me more peace than takin' up the sarpint, suckin' down them strychnine cocktails, bashin' those with the mark of cain, speaking in tongues and gettin' benny hinned, or cherry picking my way through second hand sumerian superstitions.
If that's yer bag, you need no validation, and the science you reject will go on protecting you if you don't attack and kill it.
If it sounds like bs to you, that's not my fault and it's not science's fault. Who didn't want to read anything?
You refuse to even lift a finger to get up to speed with science and then get pissed because there's no dumbed down explanation.
You want dumbed down explanations and moral relativism, you're already in the right place.
Why it's not bringing you the peace of god which passeth all understanding is beyond me.
Maybe time for an epiphany?
Not a huge one, just a little squatty one - there's no scientific explanation of faith and intelligent design is faith. And there's no faith-based fudging of science. It either is or ain't.
Clif Kuplen at 6:15PM on Nov 6th 2007
269. Brian, you are just miserable. Your sole purpose in reading this blog is to get pissed off and post anti-Christian rhetoric. I'm sorry you hate Christians. We're all so very sorry for having offended your extraordinary intellect. How about taking your own advice and just letting people believe what they want to in peace?
Denise at 12:08AM on Nov 7th 2007
270. Observant wrote:
Or the catholics will baptize you as a baby or sprinkle you head with water and tell you your saved.
****************************************
Inaccurate. The Catholic belief is that baptism removes the stain of Original Sin and allows sanctifying grace to enter the soul. Baptism and faith have NO REDEEMING IMPACT on sins committed after baptism. The sacrament of Reconciliation (i.e. Confession) is necessary to deal with post-baptism sins, and anyone who dies in a state of mortal sin goes to Hell. Even the Pope. Authentic, practicing Catholics avoid sin and seek sacramental forgiveness for the sins they do commit. They do not believe that simply believing that Jesus died for their sins will guarantee salvation.
Denise at 12:06AM on Nov 7th 2007