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 5 of 18)
61. There are two problems with the title of this blog:
1. There is no "atheist camp."
2. It's absolutely absurd and laughable for D'Souza to think any atheist would be panicked by him.
JK at 1:50PM on Oct 30th 2007
62. To J. Boyd, The problem isn't that we as christians have nothing better to do with our time, it is because we love our brothers and sisters thru Christ because he has commanded us to do. On the night of his crucifixion, why do you think the King of kings, got out a towel and wash his disciples feet? He was finally bringing himself down to the lowest level possibile to get these men to understand the love that he had for not only them but, the whole world. J. Boyd he even loves you. You can deny him all you want but, I as a Christian have to inform you and all that I meet along lifes highway that this is not the end. This world is not mine or your home, we are only going thru time and sometime in a closer time than what we think, he will come back. I wonder, if I had not said anything to you and not given you the opportunity to accept him what he would say to me. I as a Christian know my responsibilities and as long as I have told you that you will have eternal life the question being where, then I have done as Christ instructed me as a Christian to do. Christ does not expect you or me to be a saint, he went to a cross and died for you and me. He loves us and I just wonder what would it take for any other man to do that? Would you die for someone you loved? He died for us years ago but, his love is renewed for us everyday. I only offering you eternal life it's up to you to believe or not. God has to be the judge of that. Again, I say love the sinner, not the sin. Rita
rita at 1:54PM on Oct 30th 2007
63. "What is the atheist camp? I am not aware that atheists have a camp."
It is an eminently discernable & definable intellectual movement that found traction in the enlightenment and peaked with the publication of Friedrich Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra
“And I certainly wouldn't panic over what religious fanatics think or do.”
I would, “religious fanatics” can cause all sorts of human suffering. I suspect however that you mean anyone who takes religion seriously is a fanatic.
“Atheists are used to being in the minority and because we aren't a monolithic group who takes our marching orders from any orthodoxy we aren't as organized as most religious groups.”
No, I wouldn’t say your as organized as most religions. You are however well placed. You have orginized effectively in the past. Atheist philosophy has organized itself into political movements from National Socialism, to Communism to Maoism. This is indeed part & parcel of the debate.
Fitz at 2:00PM on Oct 30th 2007
64. These arguments aren't debates at all.
If you don't accept that there are tiny angels, you can't 'debate' about how many can dance on the head of a pin.
Forensic rules of order in a debate require a definition of terms that BOTH sides can agree on.
Without them, there's no 'debate' at all, just the kind of perpetual ranting at cross purposes that you get here and on similar blogs.
And debates aren't held or judged by people with a dog in the fight.
Debating the existence of god in a goddist-controlled setting be it christian or whatever isn't debating, it's masterdebating. You need a neutral moderator and a neutral setting.
The debate in religion is simple. Faith versus science. You have to define both terms to the satisfaction of both sides, then get busy.
My issue with the torah, haftorah, pentateuch, OT, NT, whatever you want to call the whole thing is that there is not one unopposed idea that can emerge from it. Every philosophic or religious statement in it has a counerstatement somewhere or the other.
That might be a good debate topic.
Yes, god lies all over the place and so does Christ, and so does whoever wrote the quran and it's there for everyone who wants to to see it over and over and over again from front to back.
The only way to accept the literal truth in any abrahamic religion is through dissociation.
But that's precisely WHY they are called 'faiths'! You can't get there by logic.
But if following a faith gives you and people like yourself personal comfort and aids you in life, that's very desirable to any society.
Nobody who disagrees should care much, and if they do, they can free speechify about it and you can preach about yours. No problems at all, yet.
I support a government that gives you that right in perpetuity, but with such a right comes obligation and duty!
You have to obey the laws of the land, and you should NOT attempt to change them to suit your faith.
That would be subversion of the government that granted and supported your right to exist.
It's a social contract, after all and both parties must be aware of this. You can't have Kings X on your duties of care because of your faith.
If a faith takes advantage of this position in government and tries to force their ideas, mores, customs or folkways into law, thereby subverting the government that grants them this freedom, then there will always be an issue and it's resolution will most likely be bloody.
So far on this planet, the faithful persecute the infidel and they regard science as heresy since it diminishes the territory of faith.
The good news is that eventually they will reach compromises.
Regardless of what it says in the bible, most people today don't think bats are birds or that rabbits chew cud or that the earth is flat with a domed heaven full of water in the center of the universe or that there are dragons or Lilitu or creatures with four legs and three wings or that it's ok to make slaves of Mexicans and Canadians and foreign exchange students or that there are a whole bunch of gods who won't let you pray to them if you wear sports clothes or glasses or contacts.
Science on the other hand has historically tried to stay out of faith's way and often this has been impossible.
The debate is faith versus science. You may not like it, but it's all you'll ever have.
Clif Kuplen at 2:02PM on Oct 30th 2007
65. OK, I'll start the debate. Feel free to jump in at any time.
Matthew 23:23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus.... "
23:28 "In the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be?" Jesus answered, "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. But concerning the resurrection of the dead..."
This is where I would start.
The teachings of Jesus about the resurrection of the dead. NOT his own resurrection, obviously, but a belief held by a cult within Judaism that was opposed by the Sadducees.
I say it's a Con Game. I'm saying resurrection has no scientific or factual basis, and it was completely Imaginary.
Reply to: D'Souza:"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? (end)
First topic: The reason and evidence behind a general resurrection described in Matthew 22:23-34.
I'll just sit here and sip at my diet cola while I wait for your response.
William Hays at 2:16PM on Oct 30th 2007
66. I'm astounded at D'Souza's arrogance and blatant lies. Obviously, his goal is to promote himself and his book, and he thinks outraging the atheists is the best strategy to accomplish this.
It is so funny to watch how in each TV interview and each online post D'Souza goes out of his way to promote his book. Atheists Hitchens and Dawkins have shown much more modesty and class than the smug and self-righteous Christian D'Souza.
Konstantin at 2:19PM on Oct 30th 2007
67. Clif Kuplen (writes)
"The debate is faith versus science. You may not like it, but it's all you'll ever have."
Many theists don’t see agree. We find science to verify our faith and reveal a universe of design and reason that expressly upholds our vision of God. I believe you have fallen for a false dichotomy because you believe that a collapse of the argument into strict empiricism benefits your vision.
Clif Kuplen (writes)
"If a faith takes advantage of this position in government and tries to force their ideas, mores, customs or folkways into law, thereby subverting the government that grants them this freedom, then there will always be an issue and it's resolution will most likely be bloody."
What did you have in mind? I promise not to use government to force everyone to accept Catholicism (that would also be against my religion) But does that mean we also have to due away with of that say (in effect) "Thou shalt not steal"
Any number of public policies that are for the common good are also tenets of religions. Often the atheist sees any public policy that is also upheld as a religious tenet to be a violation of a overwrought conception of the separation of Church & State.
This impulse often leads to really bad public policy driven more by atheist knee jerk anti-religiosity than a reasoned critique of law & public policy.
Fitz at 2:23PM on Oct 30th 2007
68. Will Hays,
I thought we were here to debate theism vs. atheism. Why do you, and others, keeping dragging Chrisitianity into this?
steve at 5:58PM on Oct 30th 2007
69. "Atheist philosophy has organized itself into political movements from National Socialism, to Communism to Maoism. This is indeed part & parcel of the debate."
You're inaccurate on National Socialism.
Hitler's philosophy was a spinoff of Mussolini and Gentile's. It isn't socialistic at all. It is fascist to the core.
Islam isn't fascist at all, btw. 'Islamo-fascist' is an oxymoron coined by VERY fascist-leaning people as a diversion for proletarians who are happy with soundbytes, usually with poor analytical skills.
Both Naziism and Facism coexisted with established national religions, both of which were christian.
Mussolini inherited his, Hitler established his.
Naziism is derived from fascism, not socialism.
Under fascism there is corporate privatized ownership of the state and the individual exists only to serve the state. Under socialism business is owned by the state, not the other way around, but the plight of the individual is still the same.
Hitler's germany was the former, not the latter.
If you read Mussolini/Gentile's Doctrine Of Fascism, that is one thing he and his ghost writer make clear, that it is NOT socialism.
No, Mussolini isn't a particularly precise thinker, which has led to a great deal of confusion regarding Fascism, but his distinction about who owns what is apparently the point of the thing.
I never knew the guy but I did know some expatriate Italian aristocrats who were close enough friends of his that he could be found hangin' around with them and toasting the camera in their family snapshots. They eventually changed their minds about fascism and had nothing good to say about il duce when I knew them.
Clif at 2:33PM on Oct 30th 2007
70. William Hays (writes)
“First topic: The reason and evidence behind a general resurrection described in Matthew 22:23-34.”
“I'll just sit here and sip at my diet cola while I wait for your response.”
Well first of all Bill, belief in the afterlife is predicated on Faith. That is a express concession that believers don’t require empirical evidence. (the production of such evidence would subvert the very free will required for faith to be “faith”)
Interestingly enough however (and it was news to me) extensive imperical research has been conducted on out of body experience (OBE) evidence and near death experience (NDE) evidence to argue for the existence of an after-life and a soul. In OBE a person experiences herself as floating free from her body while seeing her body from a third person perspective--usually from an elevated position. Glynn's most impressive argument for the veridical nature of OBE rests on the evidence of anesthetized patients who later accurately describe their surgical procedures--apparently perceived from a position above the operating table.
http://www.centuryone.com/1964-5.html
These are catalogued in brief within a book by Patrick Glynn, a former atheist with a Ph.D. from Harvard who argues in God: The Evidence that new scientific discoveries in medicine add up "to a powerful--indeed, all-but-incontestable--case for ... the existence of soul, afterlife and God”
Fitz at 2:40PM on Oct 30th 2007
71. If you were truly an atheist, I doubt that you would be so passionate in your hatred of DeSouza--you'd just ignore him.
---------------------------------------
DD attacked me first. You either don't read very well, or you can't. Or it's the christian selective reading technique, wherer you see what you uwant to, just like in the rest of your lives.
You didn't hesitate to counterattack me, and yet you can't see that ALL my posts are counterattacks. I was wronged first.
Go away, skippy. If you were a Christian I'd give you the time of day, but you're just a christian (no caps) or as they're more accurately known, a hypochrist. Can't see the difference? Then you're part of the problem. Christians can see that you're NOT following Jesus. I don't believe in Jesus as lord, but he did say a lot of awesome things that your type conveniently ignores in favor of their egos.
Brian at 2:50PM on Oct 30th 2007
72. Yo Bri...we used to refer to clowns like you as pseudo-intellectuals.
---------------------------------------------
Yo Mike, we used to refer to clowns like you as ignorant jerks. And we still do.
You underestimate your own inability to not reason incorrectly.
Brian at 2:54PM on Oct 30th 2007
73. Can someone tell me why god only chose to tell a small select few about himself and have them spread the word? The ancient greeks believed gods lived on Mount Olympus. Why didn't he let them know that wasn't the case? What about the tribes all over Africa that have never even heard of Jesus? I can't comprehend why this amazing being would only reveal himself to those only able to hear about him through others. Are the godless people just souless creatures because nobody has told them the story?
Bobby at 2:59PM on Oct 30th 2007
74. Clif
Well certainly the atheism of Hitler & the Nazi's is argued. It is also easy to argue that while not believing in religion these ideologies were content to use religion to there non-Christian ends.
The debate about the Nazi's being fascist or socialists seem redundant. The term Nazi itself mean national socialist. Mussolini himself said “Nothing above the State, nothing outside of the State, and nothing against the State.”
I can only take from your use of proletarian and the non response to the bulk of my critique, as well as your zeal to separate Nazism and Fascism from Communism that you yourself are an unreconstructed Marxist.
Fitz at 3:00PM on Oct 30th 2007
75. Your anti-Christian rhetoric does nothing to discredit Jesus. So what, lots of Christians are dirtbags...big surprise...that doesn't invalidate Jesus' teachings.
-----------------------------------------------
I'm speaking to the dirtbags. Plenty of them on here. Dinesh is one, too. I wasn't trying to invalidate Jesus' teachings, silly person, I was invalidating those that call themselves christian and invalidate Jesus' teachings themselves, or at least conveniently ignore them. If that's you, you're contemptable, so I hold you in contempt as the hypochrist that you are. If not, good for you and I bear you no ill will. I already said that I admire most of Jesus' teachings. Sheesh! Some people!
Brian at 3:09PM on Oct 30th 2007