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:
Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...
Mo's Blog Roll
Resources
Is God a Man-Made Invention?
Posted Dec 2nd 2007 11:22PM by Dinesh D'Souza
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.
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. ...
Most Popular Stories
- Don't Like Goodbyes...
- Pittsburgh Steelers: Is it Time to get some Cheerleaders?
- How NOT to give an Oscar Acceptance Speech
- Could Jim Belushi Win the Nobel Peace Prize?
- Spring Break Sexy T-Shirt Removal Training!
- Quest for the Crown 5: Plastic Wrap to Make you Less Fat!
- Quest for the Crown 4: Work Those Heels!
Most Commented On
-
Coming Soon
Recent Comments
- Roert Dean on General Clark is Absolutely Right!
- not-pboyfloyd on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Botts on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- fanman on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
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.
Top News Headlines
Political Machine Blog
- Report: Women Will Suffer Brunt of Climate Change
- While Wall Street Scores Big, Main Street Loses Out (Again)
- Chris Matthews Turning on Obama?
- Ho, Ho . . . Whoa! Secularists Get the Holiday Spirit
- Burma Journal: Curiosity and Hope in the Land of the Lost
- Patricia Murphy on C-SPAN: Health Care, the Economy, Foreign Policy
- South Carolina's Sanford Charged with 37 Counts of Ethics Violations
Reader Comments ( Page 44 of 44)
646. Well its not wrong for someone to need a higher power to believe in to make there life have purpose, and give them something to work toward in the after life.
I believe its wrong to push it upon others that don't need that belief to live a moral life, and happy life.
Compainionship with nature and other humans brings happyness into some peoples life. Just as God or Gods give other people something to live for.
Just think for a moment if would have sat back and prayed during WWII, and didn't pursue an Atomic Weapon. Would God have smitted them down. Most likely Russia would have been ruling the world now.
Mans belief in himself has conquered the world, or we would all have the same religion.
Thesourc at 1:21PM on Dec 8th 2007
647. If one really thinks about it; isn't agnosticism the oldest spiritual structure? After all--are we born believing in a god, -or anything for that matter?
If we are not born of religion, then wouldn't it be invented. If one was born to draw a belief, without any interferance from others. What religion would he be?
Thesourc at 2:28PM on Dec 8th 2007
648. Is Souza a talented orator? So are many preachers and politicians. So was Hitler.
Millions of people throughout history have cheered rhetoric which in their ignorance sounds good but is specious, even dangerous.
That they are susceptible to doing so is not an argument in favor of religion, or of ascertaining the "truth" by resort to popular vote, or of encouraging more such mob think.
There is nothing to debate here.
There is no evidence of the "existence of God". Gotta define "God" -- what you are purportedly talking about -- first. But the "God" word is meaningless because any concept that can be defined any way one likes from time to time ipso facto doesn't exist. Call whatever you don't know whatever you like. Call everything "God", call some kind of hypothetical creationary forces "God", call the scientific principles "God", etc.
Just don't pray to it, or assign it imaginary attributes. Nothing Goddish lends a shred of evidence or support to any of the world's religions, their bibles, their tenets, their rituals, their ideas, their value, their goods, their bads, their notions of proper behavior, their promises of punishment or reward, their heavens, hells or purgatories, or any of their mythologies, all of which stuff, periodically useful or not, was completely made up over time by primitive ignorants.
liz
Elizabeth J. Kates at 3:37PM on Dec 8th 2007
649. hahahaha..Thats one super smart volcano that could pick and choose only the first born male child, both man and animal ..39. Richelle..
It sure restored my faith :)
Will at 6:58PM on Dec 9th 2007
650. Dennett's original presentation was okay, but his rebuttals were hesitant, scrambled, and vague. I could have delivered a far more cogent defense of atheism than he did. And I'm a Catholic.
That having been said, although I sympathize with Mr. d'Souza's point of view, I wish he were less shrill and confrontational. I really think he would convince more people if he *sounded* more reasonable.
Mike Koenecke at 12:50AM on Dec 10th 2007
651. mr D"Souza who Escribio the BIBLE whay you have been able to respont to me this question
Rafy at 2:55AM on Dec 12th 2007
652. Mr. D'Souza, I would be curious what your slant on the Christian crusade against the Albigesians would be.
JefFlyingV at 4:41AM on Dec 12th 2007