On Friday, November 30, I debated philosopher Daniel Dennett at Tufts University on the topic, "Is God a Man-Made Invention?" This was my third debate against a leading atheist, following my debate with Michael Shermer at Oregon State University and my debate with Christopher Hitchens at the Ethical Culture Society in New York. The auditorium at Tufts filled up so quickly prior to the Dennett debate that the organizers had to have a second overflow room where viewers could watch the fireworks on a big-screen TV. (You can watch the full debate here.)
Dennett surprised me a little by showing up with a power-point presentation. I hadn't agreed to this in advance, but I didn't object. I thought to myself, "I'm not sure what advantage slides are going to give him in a format like this one." Dennett spoke first for 25 minutes, and sure enough, he made full use of those slides. He had quotations from me up there, and he challenged me to defend them. I was impressed by Dennett's preparation, and also by his avulcular "grandpa" style, an effect enhanced by his white Santa beard. Atheism is a grim philosophy, but Dennett more than anyone else makes it seem harmless and even charming.
Normally I would use my opening statement entirely to make the case for God's existence. But I didn't want Dennett's allegations to go unrebutted for too long. So I devoted the first five minutes to puncturing some factual and historical holes in Dennett's argument. Then I proceeded to make my case. Of course I conceded that religion is a man-made invention, but I argued that modern science has over the past century produced remarkable discoveries that affirm and support the argument for God's existence. In doing so I recognized that I was challenging Dennett not only on his home campus, Tufts university, but also on his home turf, which is a philosophical atheism rooted in science.
We each had two five-minute rebuttals which produced lively exchanges about the Big Bang and about whether the universe is fine-tuned for life. Then there was a lengthy question-and-answer session. Given that the audience was mostly made up of Tufts students sympathetic to Dennett's atheism, a majority of the questions was directed at me. Most memorable for me was the philosophically-minded savant who pooh-poohed the possibility of God's existence on the basis of what he called the Principle of Parsimony. He argued that either propositions are true by definition, or they are true by empirical verification. If a proposition cannot satisfy either criteria, then it is meaningless. Since God does not exist by definition, the young man insisted, and since we cannot verify His presence empirically, clearly God has been refuted by the Principle of Parsimony.
I asked our undergraduate savant to apply his twofold test to the Principle of Parsimony itself. Is it true by definition? No. Well, can it be verified empirically? Again, no. Therefore by the student's own criteria the Principle of Parismony is worthless and can be cast aside. The student had no comeback to this and neither did Dennett.
So who won the debate? That's for you to decide. You can watch the whole thing here, and then you can cast your vote on the resolution and on who came out on top.
Watch the videos of the debate after the jump.Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Part 5:
Dinesh's Blog Roll
Featured Bloggers
 | Ada Calhoun |
 | Ben Greenman |
 | Dinesh D'Souza |
 | Jeff Hoard |
 | Mo Rocca |
 | Young Turks |
RSS Feeds
Resources
Dinesh D'Souza
Reports
Bestselling author DINESH D’SOUZA’s latest book is What’s So Great About Christianity. read more
Is God a Man-Made Invention?
Posted Dec 2nd 2007 11:22PM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Science, Christianity, Controversy, Atheism
Filed under: Science, Christianity, Controversy, Atheism
Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
What's So Great About Christianity
Dinesh D'Souza's acclaimed New York Times bestseller, What's So Great About Christianity, is in stores. Order now!
Top Tags
WhatsSoGreatAboutAmerica congress reporters DoctoredPhotos NewYorkTimes WarRecord FalseConfessions afghanistan BertAndErnie funeral Hillary BarackObama McDonalds JohnMccain bitterness PUMAs SteveDoocy HospitalNegligence DetaineeAbuse republicans FoxNewsChannel pow scary IraqWar torture Playboy GeneralWesleyClark ChineseTortureDocument dating AbuGhraib KarenHanretty Starbucks movies flip-flop GuantanamoBay death BushAdministration Devo JimGibbons RobertJastrow fairytale YoungTurks nrcc MadeleineAlbright FoxAndFriends oompaloompas BrianKilmeade HuffingtonPost iraq childbirth
Most Popular Stories
Most Commented On News Bloggers
Recent Comments
Top News Headlines
Ada Calhoun |
Ben Greenman |
Dinesh D'Souza |
Jeff Hoard |
Mo Rocca |
The Young Turks |
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 44)
16. Mokele:
thank you for that trip down memory lane. I LOVE Tull. That album in particular. It's playing in my head right now.
Like the hyphen. Looks good on you.
Miss William Hays, though
Linda at 10:46AM on Dec 3rd 2007
17. Athena, you obviously didn't see this debate. D'Souza notes Communism, Hitler (all Atheism-based) as responsibe for MILLIONS of deaths. Dennett did NOT disagree with this in the later part of the debate when D'Souza said, if the Christians must take responsibility for the Inquistion and the Witch Trials then Atheists must take responsibility for Atheists responsible for their horrific deeds.
Brittany at 10:50AM on Dec 3rd 2007
18. The "cosmological fine-tuning" argument is popular nowadays - D'Souza leaned on it heavily - but it's flawed for many reasons. Consider that many of the 'fine-tuned constants' depend on the values of other constants. It's very important to life (our kind, anyway) that water freezes at the temperature that it does, and that it becomes less dense upon freezing. If those were changed, we'd be in trouble. The way magnetism works, its relative strength and so forth, is also critical for more subtle reasons.
But the freezing point of water is dependent on the mass of the electron and proton, the strength of the nuclear forces, etc. Magnetism is likewise critically dependent on the speed of light. You couldn't change either of them without changing more fundamental properties.
As we've looked into these constants, they have generally turned out to be dependent on a smaller number of more fundamental properties. Given that we only have one example of a universe, it's difficult to say with any authority that the universe *could* have been any different. (As Einstein put it, "Did God have a choice in creating the universe?")
Humans have never, ever been able to rely on intuition or common sense when looking at regions of the universe outside their historical experience. Heliocentrism was a huge, counterintuitive surprise, as was evolution. Why should we trust our intuitions about something so far removed from human experience as the beginning of the universe? People like prffsrx (or the author he quoted, actually) deride ideas like 'multiple universes', but it's not clear on what basis they do so. Apparently it's just their intuitions... and as I said, how can we trust those without some way of testing them?
Ray Ingles at 10:53AM on Dec 3rd 2007
19. you atheist sound like your the ones dripping blood. in the beginning God... and then what follows are the fools who deny it. if the shoe fits where it. seeking to become wise they became fools. atheism is GRIM.
brian at 10:57AM on Dec 3rd 2007
20. dinesh really makes me sick. he has the audacity to dismiss his audience's opinions just because they disagree with his argument. he implies that they are incapable of thinking for themselves. i believe it is very possible that they thought he was full of bs, i know that's what i was thinking while watching the debate. and to huff about dennett using powerpoint, how infantile. so dennett came prepared and dinesh did not. boo hoo, poor dinesh, the wittle guy was picked on by santa claus :'(
Richelle at 11:02AM on Dec 3rd 2007
21. One thing to note about the 'atheist' regimes D'Souza highlighted is that one of them wasn't even atheist. Hitler's regime was a mix of Christianity and paganism - D'Souza himself acknowledges this at one point later on in the debate.
It’s true that atheist regimes have killed many more people than Christian regimes of centuries past (though the stolidly Christian Germans were in the same league) but that has little to do with atheism, and has much more to do with advances in technology - both peaceful tech (which supports larger populations) and military tech (to kill more effectively). I ask you, in all seriousness - would any side of any of the Crusades have hesitated to use nuclear weapons, had they any to use? (Look up the words of Arnaud-Amaury in the Albigensian crusade if you’re in doubt.)
Indeed, the vast majority of the deaths in regimes of the two actual atheists I remember being listed - Stalin and Mao - were due to starvation, precisely because of their rejection of science (particularly evolution) and adherence to Lysenkoism. (Look it up.) The devastation they caused was in direct proportion to their quasi-religious opposition to science... as with Hitler, whose rejection of actual genetics and evolution led him (and the rest of Germany) to genocide.
Ray Ingles at 11:02AM on Dec 3rd 2007
22. Brittany: Hitler and his henchmen were christian.
The communists killed their dissenters in the name of communism, not atheism.
The christians (muslims, hindu, whatever) killed in the name of their jesus.
don't forget crusades, pogroms, etc.
But all of that really has nothing to do with 'did man create god' anyway.
LOOK, brian little b has a new catch phrase.
where did the boil thing go, I wonder.
Linda at 11:04AM on Dec 3rd 2007
23. God is real. The "Big-Bang"?!? That was His doing! "Christians have a
bloody history, and athiests do not"?!? Wow. Ignorance is NOT biss
here, its suicide. It hurts my heart to see how so many people are being blinded by, lied to, and following Satan. I may sound like a "bible-thumper", but I just REALLY love and cherish Jehovah, our Father in Heaven. I appreciate Jesus, our Lord and Saviour, and even though I've never had a chance to write on one of these things(but
wanted to) I'm speaking up now, wanting only for people to find Him...to get to know Him...to be in His Everlasting Book of Life.
EVERYBODY. Not some, but ALL >> It's scary to see the world like this...
TwoRainbowBears at 11:05AM on Dec 3rd 2007
24. One other point: even assuming atheism were a 'grim' philosophy (which is obviously not accepted by everyone)... what would that have to do with whether or not it was true?
Ray Ingles at 11:09AM on Dec 3rd 2007
25. I have always believed in G-d, it's organized religion I have a serious problem with. I belive it is religion that it's man made.
People do a lot of things in the name of G-d. Many times it's only in the name of what they belive and nothing to do with G-d.
Just a personal opinion.
Patty at 11:11AM on Dec 3rd 2007
26. I just don't see the argumentative merit of the "fine-tuned universe" paradigm. I think when we're able to look at everything hard enough we'll see that all the universal constants are connected, and not "chosen". I don't get the argument that the universe is fine-tuned for life. Most of it is dead, Earth is a happy accident (for which we should all be grateful), and I'll bet there were others.
Linda,
Thanks, my hyphenation ceremony was yesterday!
Mokele-Mbembe at 11:11AM on Dec 3rd 2007
27. Let's not focus on the "bloody history" aspect of this. The question was is god a man-made invention. I believe so.
In the bible, he shows himself numerous times and performs many miracles. Why doesn't he prove himself anymore? Because science can explain away most "miracles" and "visions" with logic?
Also, I have one statement I would like to make. I am by no means a scholar or expert in ancient Egypt. However, I would like to know why Egyptian culture never references the plagues god supposedly sent upon them, especially if one killed every first born male child in Egypt or turned the water to blood! Surely they would include that in their writings, or on paintings on tomb walls, or even on a piece of pottery?
The bible says this happened, yet no one else recognizes or mentions this in their culture.
MC Hammer at 11:15AM on Dec 3rd 2007
28. TwoRainbowBears
okay, so if you want an example of atheists that actually killed in the name of atheism you MIGHT get away with including columbine because those boys asked some students if they believed in god before they shot them, but even that would be a stretch. there is a difference between killing in the name of a religion or beliefs system or what have you and someone who just happens to be atheist or christian and kills someone. if a person or group kills in the name of atheism they would be saying "if you believe in god we will kill you"
Richelle at 11:17AM on Dec 3rd 2007
29. 17. Athena, you obviously didn't see this debate. D'Souza notes Communism, Hitler (all Atheism-based) as responsibe for MILLIONS of deaths. Dennett did NOT disagree with this in the later part of the debate when D'Souza said, if the Christians must take responsibility for the Inquistion and the Witch Trials then Atheists must take responsibility for Atheists responsible for their horrific deeds
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That was a good enough reason not to watch it. Hitler was a madman, but a devoutly religious one. Nazi Germany was christian. So are the fascist regimes I know about - incorporated into the manifesto. Hitler established a national church. Italy already had one.
Atheism is NOT an alternate religion. The personal ambition of people like Mao or Stalin, or for that matter Tamerlane or Atilla or Alexander accounts for their deeds.
None of the preceding gave a hairball about human life either. Why aren't they a-humanists by definition because that's what they did - kill people who resisted them.
Or a-environmentalists, or a-animal rightsists or whatever.
Not one of them said anywhere that they did what they did in the name of 'atheism'. That's an invention of dominionists.
there was no banner for atheism. Ever see an atheist flag? How about an atheist symbol - big zero maybe? I've never seen one. Never heard an atheist hymn, never heard a convocation called in the name of atheism, they don't come to my door and don't approach me on the street or at airports. I never heard of an army rallying around atheism.
That's because disinterest in others' belief systems does NOT constitute an organization.
If you've been sufficiently indoctrinated by religious dogma, you no longer have the ability to understand that. There are several examples posting here.
To that extent your mind is damaged if you think of atheism as an alternate religion.
Whether religion did it or you came by it in some other manner, I couldn't say, but I have seen too many people dissociate mutually exclusive concepts so they can keep their 'faith' intact.
But hey, if you got 'em pray to 'em. Most of us would rather you kept it out of government, though.
Clif Kuplen at 11:18AM on Dec 3rd 2007
30. Linda, the important thing I mentioned on the Atheists responsible for their own bloodshed was that Dennett did NOT disagree. If he had, he surely would have faired better in his debate. The "zeolots going too far in support of their leader" comment works on both sides. The important thing was that the leaders themselves were atheist and therefore if nothing else by depraved indifference responsible for what came as a result of their ideas and actions.
Secondly, the whole idea that Christians are indoctrinated with ideas because they are not capable of thinking for themselves is also a two-way street. Unless, in support of Evolutionism, you are scientifically testing all of these THEORIES for yourself to conclude whether or not they hold water, you yourself are also being "Indoctrinated" by someone elses views. No?
Brittany at 11:21AM on Dec 3rd 2007