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 7 of 44)

Previous 15 Comments | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

91. ATHEIST

Reply to: Ryan, William is taking the literal meaning of the bible as the basis for his position. I am merely using is own weapon. I am using the Tyndale New Living Translation (second edition).
_____________

Possibly the WORST translation ever made.

Here's the Unbound Bible at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles

http://unbound.biola.edu

This site has several Hebrew versions. there's an option where you can compare four of them side by side.

William Hays at 2:17PM on Dec 3rd 2007

92. I am pretty sure that no matter what I say William is going to have something negative to say about it. What are you so angry about?

Brittany at 2:24PM on Dec 3rd 2007

93. if one takes your science as fact, but ever changing,you are seeking to answer how things are what they are, but does science answer why they are the way they are. science might tell me how cancer took the life of my firend bill, but it does not tell me why. can science answer me why. it seems the why is the bigger question.

brian at 2:22PM on Dec 3rd 2007

94. William, thanks for the bible website, that's pretty cool!

Brittany at 2:26PM on Dec 3rd 2007

95. This debate is like live wrestling. It is pointless but someone is making money off of it.

Steve Seivers at 2:26PM on Dec 3rd 2007

96. First off If God is a man-made invention, He is in existence and is real. Second,I dont see how mankind could've created the concept of God considering the fact that the human mind can not create anything. FYI: "Create" means to bring something from nothing and its impossible for a human to do.

Raquel at 2:33PM on Dec 3rd 2007

97. Solomon, your take on the debate was brilliant. I agreed with it as well. I was also pleasantly surprised that you are an Agnostic and still feel the way you felt. I too was also dissappointed by how much Dennett left on the table. I wanted to hear his case, really I did, I just feel like he didn't do it. D'Souza is clearly better at public speaking and I will agree at parts he did get loud and step on the verge of grandstanding but he made a much better debater.

Brittany at 2:34PM on Dec 3rd 2007

98. Uhm Brian the HOW is the WHY. Besides what supernatural why are you looking for with cancer? Do you want to believe it was cherry picked on your friend from some magical deity? That seems EVEN MORE BLEAK, than accepting it was a natural cause, precarious to our control.

Chris at 3:37PM on Dec 3rd 2007

99. ATHEIST

Reply to:. I am pretty sure that no matter what I say William is going to have something negative to say about it. What are you so angry about?
_______________

Take a few days and learn to read the original Hebrew.

Then, when somebody starts quoting from a BAD translation, you get tired of having to correct them over and over.

REPLY TO: 92. William, thanks for the bible website, that's pretty cool!
________________

It's a tool. I happen to live about 30 miles away from Biola, and I've debated a grad student named Rob Bowman at Biola, in front of an audience that was as pro-christian as you are likely to find.

There are seven days of Creation in the first Genesis myth.

When I was in college, there was a Creationist in the Biology dept at Michigan State. He wrote dozens of articles about the Creation events, and his students were expected to understand HIS position.

but as the class went on... it became obvious that he was LYING.

In the first Genesis myth, the earth existed BEFORE there was light. The oceans existed on the FIRST day... and the stars were not made until the FOURTH day.

Once you realize that you're an Amateur who has never read this stuff.... you might understand why your Attitude is out of place.

Dinesh LOST this debate... because he showed no knowledge of current scientific theories about the origin of the universe.

It's like using the word "Darwinism"... and not allowing for the fact that Darwin published origin of species in 1859.

Science has learned a lot since 1859... and the fact that Darwin never examined the human genome doesn't mean evolution is false.

William Hays at 2:37PM on Dec 3rd 2007

100. Truth is offended by the characterization of all religions as schools of though which change and evolved over time. The fundamental tenants of the Catholic Faith have not changed for two thousand years, and in that the Catholic Faith is in agreement with and in fact the fulfillment of the Hebrew Tradition and the Jewish Religion as it existed in the knowledge of and service of God until the birth of Christ, it can be rightly said the basic tenants of the Catholic Faith have remained unchanged for over five thousand years. While our knowledge of the Splendor of Truth has grown by Grace in time, the 'history of man', know by the Catholic Church as rooted in the creation of man by God, the separation of God and man by doubt and sin, and in what can rightly be called the 're-creation' of man by Baptism in and through the "Paschal Mystery" (the Incarnation, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ), has remained unchanged in time, in spit of the fact that the Pilgrim Church exists in an imperfect world and is served by imperfect human persons. The Truth of the Church, which is of God, remains unchanged.

In that most eastern religions have less to do with the knowledge of a deity and lack an eschatological (of the afterlife) character, they can be rightly seen as more of a 'way of life' than a 'true religion'.

From this point of view, the Roman Catholic Church exists, by millennia, as the longest standing, unchanging, true 'religion' known to mankind. The reality of this history could in itself be considered 'miraculous'; which is of no offence to the Truth of Christ, but rather yet another example of its splendor.

Other 'religions', which ought to be characterized as at least secondary, if not lessor, in an intellectual sense, can and should be seen more as myths, cults and/or superstitions; does anyone truly wish to attempt to make a valid argument in reason that the 'religions' of ancient Egypt or the ancient Americas for example, stand up to Christianity as valid equals? This would be like putting the 'alchemy' Merlin on par with the physics of Einstein and Hawking.

Lastly, the notion that the goals of some of the modern 'demigods' who have caused such death and destruction in the guise of modern secularism (to act as if God does not exist) are some how on par with even secondary religions is beyond absurd, and in the realm of what does not deserve consideration. A 'religion' is not a school of thought, or faith, which seeks something other than 'goodness'; under no definition of goodness can one person, or one group of people, be in charge of society by the slaughter of millions. Dinesh rightly point out that Atheism must answer for this, and has not.

The Roman Catholic Church, in addition, as does any mainstream Christian faith, knows the fact that its 'religion' is not "man made." The human person did not create God, did not create the universe, did not create 'reason', did not create 'faith' and did not create the Catholic Church; Jesus Himself created the Catholic Church in the ministry of His Life, in the Sacraments, and directly in His words and mission to the Apostles, especially St. Peter, and then further in time in the work of the Holy Spirit .

The Catholic Church knows and proves (see the documents of the First Vatican Council and the JP II Papal encyclical "Faith and Reason") that God can in fact be known by 'reason'; and His Revelation is further and more perfectly known by Grace in Faith. While someone could attempt to deny the divine nature of the Church, they can not deny that the Church was begun by Christ. If, in Faith, you believe in the Divinity of Jesus, you in such believe that the Catholic Church, and its character as a 'religion', are not man made.

My hunch is the apparent disagreement between Dinesh and the Church on this matter are more to do with syntax and context than actual disagreement, but Dinesh would have to address that himself by further expanding on his thoughts in this matter.

alex at 2:44PM on Dec 3rd 2007

101. How is it that you conclude that I have never read the bible? In my opinion I was correcting you. I've been reading it every day for 7 years, read it cover to cover, attended studies on the new and old testament. I am a skeptic at heart, I have been looking for years for all of this contradicting text most atheists will refer to but I haven't found one but since you claim to be an expert, can you give me two verses that contradict each other? I have a friend who is an orthodox jew, I will call him tonight and we can discuss my version of Genesis 1 versus his and I will let you know tomorrow what shakes out. Fair enough?

Brittany at 2:47PM on Dec 3rd 2007

102. Names Brittany has called William -Zero
Names William has called Brittany -Two

Brittany at 2:52PM on Dec 3rd 2007

103. Folks, My bible is the King James version. When you translate from one language to another, you lose the original text or meaning of the message. So, when the Bible was translated from Aramaic to Greek, you lost some of the meaning. then from greek to latin, a little more. then from latin to english, german and a slue of other different languages, some more.Then when you go from King James to NIV or those other bibles that (supposedly) help people understand it better without the thy's, cans't, etc., you lose some more. When I was 20 years old, I had to go into surgery to remove a brain tumor. This was in 1978. I died on the table 3 times for a period of 2-3 minutes and the surgery was 18-24 hours long. I saw a bright light and I saw my ancestors coming toward me. I thought they were coming to greet me but they came and told me I had to go back. I tried to go forward until I heard a soft and friendly voice and I knew it was the voice of Jesus. He also told me it was not my time yet and to go back and that there is a time for all things but it was not the time for me. So I came back. This happened again and again. So anybody that wants to tell me me it's all in my head or it's all just made up, before they were born, Jesus said he was giving out brains but they thought he said trains and they already had a set! The time of reckoning is drawing near so all of u who don't believe in Jesus, Heanely Father or the Holy Ghost, best be delving in the bible. There is a passage. It's in the Epistle of James, 1:5-8. It says, "That if you lack in wisdom, ask of GOD and it will be given unto you. BUT u must ask in faith wavering not, for he that wavers is like a wave at sea driven withe wind and is tossed. For let not that man think that he shall recieve anthing of the LORD. A double minded man IS unstable in ALL his ways." Verses 6-8 speak of the man that has a wavering faith. You must also have patience.

Larry Cox at 2:55PM on Dec 3rd 2007

104. Alex: all of your arguments are basically
1. Because the bible says so
2. Because it's been around a long time
3. My religion is the right one because I call it truth.

Truth is nothing has been proven by the vatican council or anything else. It's all conjecture and opinion.

Linda at 2:54PM on Dec 3rd 2007

105. ATHEIST

Reply to: 98. How is it that you conclude that I have never read the bible?
_______________

The stars were created on Day 4.

You didn't know that. Obviously, you had never read Genesis 1:14 to 1:16. Or, if you had read it, you didn't REMEMBER what it said.

_____________________

Reply to: In my opinion I was correcting you.

And in my book, that makes you a f**l.

Reply to: since you claim to be an expert, can you give me two verses that contradict each other?

Sure. The order of Creation between humans and other animals.

In the first version, the animals are created FIRST.

In the second version, Adam (from adamah) is created first. Then, the animals are created and Adam is allowed to name them. Then, a female human is created from Adam's rib.

Reply to: I have a friend who is an orthodox jew, I will call him tonight and we can discuss my version of Genesis 1 versus his and I will let you know tomorrow what shakes out. Fair enough?
__________

You're like Dinesh. You consult ONE person and think that's enough.

There are two FACTS.

first, the TEXT of Genesis.

second, the current PUBLISHED articles about the origin of the universe.

Dinesh got BOTH of those wrong.

It's pretty easy to do well in a debate when you can LIE about your opponent's position.

anyone who think Dinesh won.... needs to do some research, and realize that his best arguments were FACTUALLY WRONG.

That's why I challenged him to an Internet debate, where I can use the EXACT Hebrew text of Genesis, and NOT a BAD translation.

by the way, I've debated Hugh Ross, too, and he's also WRONG about what the original Hebrew says.

William Hays at 2:56PM on Dec 3rd 2007

Previous 15 Comments | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 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.