Is God a Man-Made Invention?

Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...

Mo Rocca Feed

Is God a Man-Made Invention?

Posted Dec 2nd 2007 11:22PM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Science, Christianity, Controversy, Atheism

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:

Permalink
Email this
Linking Blogs
Comments [652]
Share this
- Add this post to...
- Netscape
- Digg
- Del.icio.us

Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 44)

Previous 15 Comments | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

46. FL Chick,
I'm about where you are. I don't believe in the man-made gods, but am open to any explanations of what kick-started the universe, and where the makeup of intangible things like consciousness, purpose, choice, and fate comes from.

Mokele-Mbembe at 12:07PM on Dec 3rd 2007

47. The human race is a God-made invention. God also created evolution.

Our spirits are eternal, outliving the bodies.

Embrace the mystery and keep on chasing the truth, the most exhilarating race of all, and part of being human.

Renee Marie Vetter at 12:14PM on Dec 3rd 2007

48. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12035154863082161363

Self-deluded idiot.

ekhnaton1 at 12:14PM on Dec 3rd 2007

49.
I can only speak for myself, but the reason I "pick on" christianity, is that I was raised as one. Then, I started really looking at it, and it's counterparts (which are equally full of it).

I can only refute what I know well; I'm not going to learn the history and dogma of every religion to dispell an irrational, illogical concept, but use the one I know the best to show none of it exists.

Ken at 12:15PM on Dec 3rd 2007

50. Linda, I am glad you have read the bible from cover to cover. Usually I am debating Christianity with people who have never read one verse or chapter but because they heard the stories of Christmas, Easter and Noah want to make themselves some authority of Christianity by which to tell me my beliefs are completely ridiculous.
At the end of the day, we will all have to agree that it fundamentally comes down to a matter of faith. What do you believe? Why do you believe it? Dinesh posed the latter question to the group. I think that was a great way to end. Do your own research. Come up with your own conclusions. I attended this debate. I spent my whole weekend researching Evolutionism because I wanted to know why Dennett arrived at the conclusion he did and he didn't really explain why he just wanted to make a statement that religion is "ridiculous". His pro-darwin arguements were discredited and dismissed by two well-known biologits, Orr and Gould. In fact, Darwin was criticized by his hero and friend, Lyell. Dennett made a reference to the fact that even Christians can't agree on Christianity. This is only 1/2 true. We all agree on the fundamental principle that Jesus' died for our sins. What do sometimes differ on are some doctrinal interpretations of other aspects of the gospel teachings, not Jesus himself. I found it interesting to find out the a lot of Evolutionists do not agree on Evolution! So on the basic idea of Dennett's that God is a man-made invention because Christians, for instance, can't agree then Evolution is a man-made invention because neither can Evolutionists agree. You can't prove God but you can't prove Macro-Evolution either. Matter of faith all the way around....as a Christian, I am doing my homework. I invite you all do yours.

Brittany at 12:19PM on Dec 3rd 2007

51. Strados:

Thanks for sharing your story. I can't help but feel that we are the lucky ones.

The reason this blogs focuses so much on christianity is because of lead blogger, DD.

It really isn't so much against christianity as it is defending atheism against the attacks from DD.

There are plenty of christians who are just fine, thank you.

The main digs are at fundamentalists, bible literalists, who argue that the earth is 6000 years old and adam and eve were real, etc.

Linda at 12:20PM on Dec 3rd 2007

52. Brittany: thank you for your thoughtful post.

As you can see from my post to Strados, I have not dismissed theology out of hand, but have sought out information and people of faith.

Doesn't change my conclusions. I believe in what is real and tangible (not emotional), what science has and continues to demonstrate and prove about our world and the universe. I have a certainty that this life is all I have (probably as you have your certainty also).

I was lol at dungal1, he/she has probably hit the nail on the head. Although I'm glad to be here enjoying this adventure we call life.

Linda at 12:29PM on Dec 3rd 2007

53. We all agree on the fundamental principle that Jesus' died for our sins.

Please define the mechanism that equates death, or "self sacrifice" with forgiveness of sin. If god is all powerful, this is pointless. He could forgive sin without killing - Sacrifice is a man made concept that equates giving what we value most in exchange for....(the volcano not exploding, rain during a drought, rampant disease).

For god, who is all powerful to have to destroy (not really, because he came back - so he really didn't sacrifice anything) his son in order to do something he could use his omnipotence to forgive....

But don't let the illogic or irrationality phase you -

Ken at 12:31PM on Dec 3rd 2007

54. I am an Evangelical Christian...I love Jesus and I LOVE to study science and how it affects the world around me, as well as, how it is relevant to my Christian faith. I feel that I am more open minded than some Christians because I actually try to open my mind to Atheism and try to understand the beliefs, the arguments without taking it personally! I have friends who claim to be Atheist and we have debates from time to time, but we choose to try to understand one another! I know a lot of people try to put Christians down and say that we are closed minded, but I think close mindedness comes from both sides of the playing field...not just one!

Also, I have asked several of my Atheist friends and none can explain this to me...I was miraculously healed when I was a teenager...how does science/ Atheism explain that sort of thing? I don't think it was something that I made up in my mind...I know who I was then, and who I am now! I should be dead today, but I'm not! Is their an explanation for the "Miracles" or, as us Evans like to call it, the "Power" of God?

Please help...I've always been curious of what Atheist across the board thought of such a thing, and how to explain such phenomena! I would like to know what you believe.

Leah at 12:43PM on Dec 3rd 2007

55. ATHEIST

The Tufts University newspaper has a story about the debate.

D'Souza, during his rebuttal, also returned to the Big Bang theory. If all of nature came into existence at a single moment, then it could not have been prompted by a natural cause, he argued.

(I think this ONE statement explains why Dinesh LOST the debate. Physicists like Andrei Linde have explained, using data from space satellites, why the multiverse theory allows for exactly this possibility.)

"Everything that has a beginning has a cause," D'Souza said. "The universe has a beginning. The universe has a cause." That cause, he believes, is God.

The laws of nature require some sort of explanation, and he said it is possible that the explanation is divine.

(Dinesh lives in an Imaginary World. He needs to do better research.

For example, if he would simply read the first sentence of Genesis.... he would see his mistake. In Genesis, the earth existed BEFORE the seven days of creation began. The earth existed BEFORE any of the stars were created... and that's wrong.

William Hays at 12:33PM on Dec 3rd 2007

56. Um, Brittany - as I pointed out with D'Souza's last post, his representation of the discussion between Orr and Gould was... quite off. I urge you to go look at the links I provided and see exactly what their discussion and disagreement was about. It most certainly was not about them "dismissing" Dennett's "pro-darwin arguements[sic]", though D'Souza tried to present it that way.

As to your doubt of (so-called) 'macro-evolution'... here's an example you can check on your own body:

Lay your fingers on the side of your jaw. Now, trace along the edge up to the very top of the jawbone. Notice how close your fingers are to your ear canal. Inside the inner ear are three bones, the ossicles: malleus, incus, and stapes. They are carefully arranged to transfer sound energy from the eardrum to the cochlea as efficiently as possible. How could such an amazing mechanism arise? (One that's been cited, even, as evidence for 'irreducible complexity' - just Google around a bit.)

It turns out that a classification of dinosaur called the therapsids had two jaw joints. The therapsids are known (by several independent lines of evidence) to be ancestral to modern mammals... and we have a basically complete fossil record of the gradual transition of one of those jaw joints into the modern bones of the inner ear. Note that intermediate steps were all advantageous, though not as efficient or optimized. Some transitional forms did help amplify sound energy but didn't work while the animal was chewing. We still have problems with that today under some circumstances (try to listen to someone while eating celery) but the separation is far more developed now.

Ray Ingles at 12:40PM on Dec 3rd 2007

57. LOL William!!!

I have a bible in my briefcase and the first line of Genesis reads, and I quote:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". YOU NEED TO DO BETTER RESEARCH!!!!

Brittany at 12:44PM on Dec 3rd 2007

58. Actually Ray, if you read Dennett's rebuttal to Gould and Orrs critique of his book it is apparent to HIM that they are discrediting him....

Brittany at 12:49PM on Dec 3rd 2007

59. Leah: I guess you would have to describe your 'miracle' for one to make an assessment.

Linda at 12:50PM on Dec 3rd 2007

60. ATHEIST

Reply to: I have a bible in my briefcase and the first line of Genesis reads, and I quote:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". YOU NEED TO DO BETTER RESEARCH!!!!
________________

This is EXACTLY the kind of WRONG answer that I was talking about.

The Book of Genesis is written in Hebrew. Hebrew does NOT have periods.

An English translation has inserted a period that does not appear in the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE, to create the FALSE impression that there is a short sentence.

Go back to the HEBREW and post the ENTIRE first sentence..... NOT just the fraction that you posted.

In the beginning (bere'sht).... the earth was formless and void, and the pneuma of the elohim hovered above the surface of the deep....

MANY Christians make the mistake of thinking their English translations are accurate... and, like you, it leads them to the WRONG answers.

William Hays at 12:51PM on Dec 3rd 2007

Previous 15 Comments | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

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.

Mo's Video

The Sound of a Smoke-Free Barack...
Almost two years ago we speculated on how Barack Obama's voice would change if he stopped smoking. ...

Coming Soon

Most Commented On

Coming Soon

Mo's Bio

Mo Rocca appears on a bunch of shows, including CBS News Sunday Morning (with the indescribably wonderful Charles Osgood), The Tonight Show on NBC, and NPR's Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! He's a sometime judge on Iron Chef and was featured on Telemundo's Amore Descarado. Last year he starred on Broadway in the 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. His expose "All the President's Pets" was published by Crown in 2004.