I debated atheist Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine, yesterday on the Michael Medved radio show. It was a two hour debate, and conducted at a high level that is not characteristic of radio programs. The main focus of the debate was my bestselling book What's So Great About Christianity, and in the course of the discusson we covered a lot of topics from the fine-tuned universe to why humans evolved morality to whether Adam and Eve were real people.
Shermer, always ready with his ream of data, uncorked some fascinating statistics about how Christians are more prone to social pathologies than non-Christians. For example, the more-religious United States has higher crime rates than the less-religious Europe. In America, evangelical Christians are apparently more likely to be uneducated and to have higher violent crime rates than non-Christians. Shermer even cited a study showing that secular doctors were more likely to do voluntary work than Christian doctors. Shermer went on and on about all this, and I was waiting for him to reveal that Christians have a greater tendency to bestiality than secular folks, but to my surprise Shermer had no data on this subject.
Actually U.S. crime rates today are not substantially higher than those of Europe. That's because there has been a marked decline in violent crime in America. But even the old statistics prove nothing, because the U.S. is an ethnically diverse society, immigrant societies always have higher crime rates, and European countries typically don't have the black-and-white problem that is peculiar to America. Yes, evangelical Christians in America may be poorer and less educated than non-Christians, but that may be because evangelical Christians are more concentrated in the South. One can hardly conclude that evangelical Christianity makes you poor and dumb. Finally C.S. Lewis made the point that a religion like Christianity which advertises itself as a remedy for human sin and brokenness is bound to attract more people who find themselves to be sinful and broken. Christianity attracts sinners for the same reason that doctors attract patients: one can hardly hang out at the doctor's office and then condemn the service because predominantly messed-up people keep showing up day after day.
Shermer and I will be debating December 5 at George Washington University and the public is invited. (I will post the venue and time on this blog.) We will also be debating December 9 at 2 pm at Cal Tech in Pasadena, California. Tickets are available for this event at a nominal price and you can find the details at skeptic.com. Seating is limited so book early.
Reader Comments ( Page 15 of 16)
211. Many of them were murdered, starting with the beheading of John the Baptist. In that day, being a christian was nearly the same as receiveing a death sentence. They were hated as we are today. If it wasn't for the laws of the land we would be murdered
as well, in this day and age.
----------------------------------------------
And if GWB and friends had COMPLETE control of this country they'd be building the ovens for atheists and liberals tomorrow. The Dark Ages would be here again.
You're not hated, but your tendency toward illogical actions in the world is scary to sane people. And if you always feel attacked, I would suggest that you stop JUDGING others, and maybe they'll stop attacking you for it. Since a judgement IS an attack, a "first blood drawn" as it were, you are not really being attacked, you're being counterattacked. Stop it with all the pride, actually learn to follow the words and actions of Jesus, stop being judgemental authoritarian hypocrites, and we'll talk civilly with you toward reacjing common goals. But keep talking down to us, and you get what you deserve.
Don't forget, these Dinesh threads are ATTACK SCREEDS aimed not at you, but at US. Be more polite. We're the wronged ones on here, defending ourselves. Not you. Stop whining.
Brian at 1:53PM on Nov 7th 2007
212. Recruit new victims, For what purpose?
------------------------------------------------
Tithes. Money. Secular power and popularity for the leaders. Growing the cult (recruiting) and keeping it powerful. That about covers it, I guess.
Brian at 2:47PM on Nov 7th 2007
213. 185. The christian, universe challenge.
The big bang theory.
Were did the elements come from that composed matter.
-----------------------------------------------
The three options for the origin of the universe are (1) it had no beginning; (2) it arose spontaneously; or (3) something unknown (not necessarily intelligent and not necessarily beyond our ability to comprehend) is responsible for it. But #3 begs the question of where the 'something' came from. At this time, the best answer is nobody knows how our universe originated, although evidence does indicate that it had a beginning.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/feb02.html
-----------------------------------------------
We don't know.
So, do you KNOW where God came from? It's the same type of question. YOu might say that He's always been here. So then we can say that the Universe has always been here, just expands and condenses every 50 billion years or so... No way to answer either way. But at least we can SEE that the universe EXISTS, so throwing God into the mix seems un-necessary, in that we cannot see that God exists. Why attribute a fact to a fairy tale when you should be looking for more facts?
Brian at 2:58PM on Nov 7th 2007
214. The three options for the origin of the universe are...
-----------------------------------------------
And if you want to be REALLY open-minded, there's a fourth option that still doesn't include God.
4. Reality is eternal, but the non-eternal Universe that we find ourselves in is a construct of our minds, and as such does not technically REALLY exist even now.
Just another possibility that can't be disproven.
Brian at 3:03PM on Nov 7th 2007
215. Well, the topic is certainly an intriguing one. I don't pretend to be an expert, or even objective, but I would hazard to guess that poverty drives crime rates more than any other factor.
You are more likely to be a Christian if you are raised among Christians. You are more likely to be poor, and poorly educated if you are raised among poor, poorly educated people. Correlation is not causality; ie. poor education correlating with Christianity doesn't mean one causes the other.
However, my opinion is that education provides critical thinking skills that may well make faith an untenable position, particularly if that faith depends on the Bible, which is rife with error and inconsistency. Sorry if that sounds elitist and offends people, but there it is.
Someone asked: "Is the far-left movement so disillusioned that they can't see the real threat on the horizon and rather spend their time chasing Christians??"
The "far-left" (ie. one assumes from the commentors' persective this equates to "people who disagree with Bush" - apparently 70% of the country is far-left) consider the threat of faith-based public policy to be almost as scary, or maybe even as scary as the "threat on the horizon" (which it doesn't comfort me to note is also faith-based). Those who push for "values-based" governance over skills-based governance have themselves to blame if they are characterized as delusional and - yes - even dangerous.
tg at 4:59PM on Nov 7th 2007
216. Ah, Mr. Tem
I shall clarify, I meant that these results (31% Vs. 33%)were well within the standard margin of error for surveys of this kind. I cannot find where it mentioned the margin of error for this particular survey (i'll have to take more time to study it in detail later), but the standard margin of error is + or - 2% to 3%.
Thus
If 33% of athiests and 31% of religious doctors care for the underserved in test results, the standard potential range is:
Atheists: 30% - 36%
Religious: 28% - 34%
Statistical Overlap: 30% - 34%
This suggests that religious doctors are theoretically as likely to care for the poor as atheists ones. This is a failure on the part of the religious, since their belief systems hold them to a standard which demands more. However, this hardly suggests a pathology linked to religion, as Shermer would have us believe.
Additionally, I recall a post you made in Dinesh’s article titled "Was Hitler A Christian," in which you claimed Buddhism has inspired less violence than Christianity (and other religions). But history actually refutes this claim. Here are some examples:
Sri Lanka:
An ongoing civil war between the Government, which is dominated by the Sinhalese Buddhist majority, and a Hindu separatist movement commonly known as the Tamil Tigers has claimed approximately 68,000 lives since 1983. Christopher Hitchens claims this war broke out because the Sinhalese majority decided to re name the country in 1972. The prefix Sri means holy in the Buddhist sense of holiness, and Lanka means island. Hitchens says this left the Tamils disenfranchised, and thus the war was religiously inspired. However, while religion has it’s role, the primary causes are secular forces (namely nationalism and concerns about representation). Religion is mostly a demarcation line in this and most similar situations. Yet throughout the war, the Buddhist Sinhalese have conducted many pograms against the Tamils and killed thousands, often attempting to use religious justifications. Additionally, the first elected prime minister was assassinated by a Buddhist monk.
Sri Lanka is also a prime example of how almost any religion can develop into violent fundamentalism when it is threatened by the introduction of a new world view. In recent years, the local Christian population has grown massively through conversion. Feeling threatened by this development, the Jathika Hela Urumaya party of Buddhists monks has repeatedly introduced legislation to the parliament since June of 2004, which aims to make Buddhism the state religion, outlaw the conversion of Buddhists, and prohibit Christians from evangelizing them. Buddhists extremists have also led pogroms against the Christian community, and set fire to homes and Church buildings. Many churches have been forced to close down under threat of violence.
WWII Japan
The United Japanese Buddhist leadership issued several declarations affirming their support of the military conquests undertaken by Japan during the Second World War. Their justifications included allusions to the supposedly superior compassion of Mahayana Buddhism and therefore the necessity of action to drive the western imperialists out of Asia to protect the compassionate way, not unlike the justification the Catholic Church used to start the crusades. While the Crusades may have killed a maximum of 3 – 5 million people in 200 years, Japans actions from the 1920’s to the end of WWII in 1945 killed tens of millions of people throughout the Far East. This brings me to my final example, which by no means completes this list.
Arghun Khan’s Attempt to Incite Another Christian Crusade
Arghun Khan was a devout Buddhist, but he had a vendetta against the Egyptian Mamlukes for reasons similar to those which motivated European Christandem into their Crusades against the Islamic Empire. From 1285 until his death in 1291, Arghun sent several emissaries to various European rulers, starting with Pope Honorius IV to propose an alliance in which he would aid the Christian rulers in recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy land, to create a buffer between the Mamluks and his Persian khanates. However, European leaders were actually uninterested in conducting further crusades by this time. By the time an emissary from French king Philip IV arrived in Arghun’s court to work out the details in 1291, Arghun had passed away.
Thus history actually shows that Buddhists are as prone to violence and bloodshed as anyone else. I do not agree with Hitchens when he claims that these events can actually find any rational justification within Buddhist teachings. However as an Evangelical Christian myself, I can also tell you that there is no doctrine within the Bible that rationally justifies the actions of the Crusaders either. Many will point to examples in the old testament to try to refute the claim I just made, yet in context it is clear that the actions of the Israelites when conquering Canaan are not justification because these were one time special purpose instructions (ugly yes, but that will lead us to an entirely different debate), and they clearly don’t apply to the new covenant made in Christ. Christ was the fulfillment of all Old Testament law, and thus preached a new ethic, or response to God’s laws. For Example:
“You Have heard it said, An Eye for an Eye, and tooth for tooth [meaning proportional justice]. But I tell you do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
Matthew 5:38-39
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven… If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even tax collectors doing that?”
Matthew 5:43-46
The laws of God have not changed, but the ethic by which they are approached was raised to a higher standard through Christ.
Isaac at 5:43PM on Nov 7th 2007
217. for all you people who objected to the Black and White issue in America he raised, how many have lived in Europe? I have and he is correct! the UK is a fantastic point, Engish hate the welsh and the irish and the scots, and they all hate the english back, people in Cornwall point out that Cornwall (apparently like South Carolina) never surrendered in the war of 1213, so technically (in their minds) Cornwall is NOT part of the england etc etc. NOTICE the lack of RACIAL divide, their division is cultural! I admit that, sadly the EU is becoming more racist, Norway has a strict ban on foriegners immegrating, it is ranked one of the worst in the EU. France last year had race rights that closed Paris, but can ANY of you deny that these are relatively NEW phenomena? and even their minorities are really emmigre's from FORMER COLONIES not former SLAVES
PSoucy at 10:49PM on Nov 7th 2007
218. Thank you Mokele Mbembe for your compliment (#202 -if it hasn't changed). Actually, Mokele, - in what some may consider a desire for recognition - I had hoped for more playback on that post (#199 if it hasn't changed) as I am very interested in the opinions expressed here. I seldom post to this blog and it appears the thread has "run its course". Maybe on a new blog I will again express these ideas. Peace.
Roglo at 6:22AM on Nov 8th 2007
219. I'ts good to be Jewish,it's the real thing. But it's hard nevertheless. You pay full price for being the chosen people.
dude at 10:55PM on Nov 8th 2007
220. It is obvious.
2007, who would believe a forum arguing religious or non-religious beliefs all for God's sake.
If we all believe God is supernatural and capable of anything. and he needs no representatives or convincing. It is time for his Glory to reveal HIMSELF to us. Show us his mighty power and teach us the one way he prefers to be served. Only then will there be peace on earth.
may it be speedy in our days - amen
dude at 12:22AM on Nov 9th 2007
221. Excellent post Roglo.
a born atheist at 9:20AM on Nov 9th 2007
222. 44. Reply to: (7. J Boyd) Do you know why Christianity is so appealing to the uneducated? Because it's a LAZY religion. You don't need to study, you don't need to be tested or evaluated, you don't need to learn vast amounts of history or ritual or information. Hell, you don't even need to crack the textbook (Bible)! All you have to do is "let Jesus into your heart (wha'ever)", and then pick and choose whatever scripture works for you and go about and "spread the gospel" that you don't even fully comprehend. (end)
________________________________-
First off Real Christianity is not a religion it is a life style second in order for the transformation to take place it takes time with renewing your mind. Just because one professes Jesus with their mouth doesn't mean that their mind is renewed. That is what Jesus taught when he told the public to repent. Real repentance involves not only asking for forgiveness but also renewing one's mind,changing one's habits, and giving restitution if needed.
This process is not something that can happen if you are lazy and not willing to put God's word to the test.
And last but not least. I know a lot more people who are Christian and are very educated then those who are not, and just because you have a degree that doesn't mean that you are educated
have a nice day
Joe
Joe at 5:46PM on Nov 9th 2007
223. "Godbegone" implies a belief in God, although against Him. How do you plan on winning? Democratic vote?
Ray Sheehan at 5:57PM on Nov 9th 2007
224. Regarding Mr D'Souza's claim: 'the old statistics prove nothing, because the U.S. is an ethnically diverse society, immigrant societies always have higher crime rates, and European countries typically don't have the black-and-white problem that is peculiar to America.'
This is objectionable and problematic on so many fronts!
1) It's not a response to Shermer's claim that evangelical Christians tend to have a higher violent crime rate than non-Christians IN THE U.S.
2) While it may be true that OVERALL crime rates are comparable between the U.S. and Europe, VIOLENT crime rates are substantially higher in the U.S.
3) It is NOT established that as a rule immigrant societies always do have higher crime rates (viz, Australia).
4) Europe has no 'black-white' problems? (All too typical of the American conservative point of view to reduce racial and ethnic diversity frictions to 'black' and 'white'.) Perhaps in his (infrequent?) travels to Europe, Mr D'Souza moves only in all-white circles. How else to explain his misconception that England doesn't have large Caribbean, African, and Muslim immigrant populations? Or that France doesn't have a large African and North African population? Or that Germany doesn't have a large Turkish population? And so forth.
In any case, none of this addresses the fundamental issue: Whether professing Christianity (as opposed to adhering to its tenets - a very different question!) develops or retards enlightened and humane thinking.
Mitchell at 3:09PM on Nov 10th 2007
225. That guy Shermer is a fool. Go get him, Dinesh! The debate should be a piece of cake for you.
NancyY at 6:41PM on Nov 10th 2007