UPDATE: If you haven't seen my debates with Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer and Daniel Dennett, you can watch them here. I am waiting for Shermer to post our Cal Tech debate of December 9, which was recorded by his Skeptic Society.
I watched the movie "The Great Debaters" last night, and it helped me to understand why atheists are such bad debaters. The movie portrays four students from a little black college in Texas, and shows how, under the tutelage of their pugnacious coach, they went on to defeat Almighty Harvard. Denzel Washington, who plays the coach, says early in the movie that debate is a kind of bloodsport. It's great virtue is that it puts rival ideas up against each other, as argued by people who passionately espouse those ideas, and then it lets the truth emerge through a kind of gladiatorial elimination.
For about three years, it appeared as though the leading atheists were formidable debaters. But the reason was that Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens were selecting weak opponents and then generally giving them a public whipping. In one staged encounter, hardly a debate, Richard Dawkins ambushed televangelist Ted Haggard for a film Dawkins was making. Not only did Dawkins control the format, he also controlled what was shown on film. No wonder Dawkins got the better of that encounter. Harris took on pastor Rick Warren in Newsweek, where Harris made outrageous allegations and Warren basically said that Christians are nice people because they help AIDS victims in Africa. Again, this was hardly a fair fight. Hitchens promoted his book God Is Not Great by traipsing through the South taking on local pastors. Now your typical pastor is not used to debating a versatile and suave character like Hitchens. A few months ago Hitchens embarrassed theologian Alister McGrath in Washington D.C. One problem is that Hitchens has the Richard Burton accent and McGrath sounds like he just came in from shooting birds in the Scottish highlands. Another problem is that McGrath couldn't handle Hitchens' vitriolic accusations and came off looking conciliatory and weak.
Unlike the characters in "The Great Debaters," I was never part of a debate team. I got my debate practice through confronting critics of my various books. Mostly I learned by taking on such seasoned debaters as presidential candidate Walter Mondale, the literary scholar Stanley Fish, and a whole series of civil rights activists from Cornel West to Jesse Jackson. Prior to my debate with Hitchens, he described me as "one of the most formidable debaters on any topic." Richard Dawkins seems to agree: the great Haggard-slayer has somehow gotten cold feet when it comes to debating me. I guess he's afraid that I'll make him look as ridiculous as Haggard.
Then there's Sam Harris, who tells me that debate is not a very useful medium to arrive at the truth. He didn't seem to think that previously, but now it seems that he too is afraid of looking like a public fool. Harris wants to engage in a written debate, and I've agreed, but it should be noted that written debates allow each side to consult experts and therefore they don't reflect the true spirit of debate, which is the clash of ideas embodied in the most articulate representatives of those ideas. I've suggested to Harris a couple of weeks ago that we do both a written and an oral debate, and I'm waiting to hear his response.
Why are the atheists faring so badly in these debates? I think the main reason is that they are so arrogant. Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens really think that their position reflects pure reason and that my position reflects "blind faith." If this were really true they should win every single debate, for the same reason that a round-earth advocate should never lose to a flat-earth advocate. In reality there are good arguments on both sides, and I as a believer know this. I know it's hard to make the case for an invisible God and for an afterlife. In short, I know the strength of the argument on the other side. Leading atheists, however, simply do not expect to hear good counterarguments to their position. When they do, they have no idea how to answer them. So they either erupt into jejune name-calling (all to familiar to readers of this blog) or they slowly fall apart (witness what happened to Daniel Dennett).
In reality, I don't have to win debates against atheists; I merely have to draw. Just by coming out even, I defeat the atheist premise that atheism is the position based on reason and religion is the position based on unreason. Even a tie shows that both positions are reasonable. By defeating atheists in debate, however, I have totally exploded the atheist self-pretense. I have shown atheists to be the unreasonable ones, and this is why leading atheists like Dawkins and Harris are now going into hiding. But if these guys are scared to debate me, even in secular university settings where the audience is largely on their side, what does this say about them and about the soundness of their positions? Perhaps Dawkins and company should go and see "The Great Debaters." They might get some useful tips, and they might also get their nerve back.
Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...
Mo's Blog Roll
Resources
Why Atheists Are Such Lousy Debaters
Posted Jan 3rd 2008 1:35PM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Christianity, Controversy, Atheism, Film
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!
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- andreawalker419 on Breastfeeding an Eight-Year-Old?
- not-pboyfloyd on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Ryan Anderson 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
- Meat for Public Schools Often Rejected by Fast Food Chains
- Salahis Subpoenaed To Appear Before Panel Probing Party Crashing
- Will George Stephanopoulos Go Better With My Omelet?
- $1 Billion Spent on Political Ads in '09
- In a Political Popularity Contest, Hillary Clinton Wins
- Tiger Woods' Transgressions and the Gender Split
- Jimmy Carter's Grandson Runs for Office in Georgia
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 88)
31. Debates are strange affairs. The winner is usually determined by which side of the issue he or she is defending. It has nothing to do with objectivity. Just try and win a debate in the US over the issue of women's rights vs men's rights.
gshort3011 at 4:37PM on Jan 3rd 2008
32. "Leading atheists, however, simply do not expect to hear good counterarguments to their position. When they do, they have no idea how to answer them. So they either erupt into jejune name-calling (all to familiar to readers of this blog) or they slowly fall apart (witness what happened to Daniel Dennett)."
That seems to sum up 90% of this blog...no offense to the 10% that have some very valid arguments (atheist or theist).
Perhaps we should try clean it up a bit...attacking someones character indicates only one thing...fear that your world view is erroneous. There is no other reason to do this...and I include Mr. D'Souza.
A truly rational atheist or theist would not resort to character assassination to prove a point. The method is irrational...illogical and unscientific.
-C
Molecular Biologist - Biophysicist at 4:44PM on Jan 3rd 2008
33. DD, This blog was better than most that you post. I mean you didn't compare anyone to Hitler, so right there you are more credible than usual. The funny thing to me is that in everyone of your blogs you call out your opponents for being the same thing you are, arrogant. I am glad to see that you have no ego, that is really nice.
In my experiences debating with bible thumbers after a minute or two I quit, not that they are winning, just that their logic is so twisted, that I am just wasting my breath. It is like arguing sports with someone who rarely watches, pointless.
And please make one reasonable arguement for a christian god that doesn't come out of the bible.
greg at 4:43PM on Jan 3rd 2008
34. Does anyone have a link to D'Souza's latest debate.
Ya gotta imagine that that one didn't go so well if D'Souza is claiming any draw as a victory.
Still, would be nice to watch or read, D'Souza giving an uppity atheist a resounding tie!!!
You make this, getting a 'tie', SO easy, picking topics such as, ""Is religion a force for good or evil in the world?""
Did you guys even touch on this topic, or was that decided to be so vague from the get-go that you already HAD your tie?
pboyfloyd at 4:44PM on Jan 3rd 2008
35. Rita; if you want an everyday conversation with us, maybe a blog where the author is virulently anti-atheist isn't the best place for it.
And yes, I love my family and my life and am very happy. All without Jesus. Go figure.
Ryan Anderson at 4:46PM on Jan 3rd 2008
36. One thing I notice about atheists is that they place so much emphasis on debating. They must realize that winning a debate does not mean your beliefs are true. I once witnessed a heavy drinker argue successfully in favor of "drinking your problems away." Although this person's belief was ridiculous, the debating tactic was near perfect. So the the atheists, it's not all about winning a debate.
LorMarie/Lemon at 4:50PM on Jan 3rd 2008
37. Ryan,
Then that is great, so why not try Jesus? The very least is to get to know him and then make a rational decision would it not be? What I cannot understand is how you go from day to day and not need to be able to go to your heavenly father and talk with him about your fears and future plans and just fellowship with him. He is the main reason that you are here. He breathe life into you and he did your children. Why is it so important that you not even take a chance and try JESUS? Rita
Rtia at 4:51PM on Jan 3rd 2008
38. Dinesh,
I'm reading a book written by an atheist concerning the creation of life. This person has been an atheist since he was in high school back in the 1960's. He's a well educated person, as are his friends.
He's retired now and has time to reflect and rediscover parts of his life he'd put on the shelf.
Oddly enough, one of the things he's looking back on is his atheism.
He says his entire belief in the creation of and evolution of life was based on the fossil record. He feels now, that with all the discoveries, the fossil record itself seems to point to "intelligent design".
It's an interesting book.
Willet at 4:56PM on Jan 3rd 2008
39. Rita; I tried Jesus when I was young and foolish. Rita, it was actually a close study of the New and Old Testaments, specifically the gospels, on a church trip where I saw the christian faith for what it really was.
Oh, and please don't presume to know anything about my life, by the way.
Ryan Anderson at 4:55PM on Jan 3rd 2008
40. I can't believe that you (Dinesh) actually thought it vital to post an entry addressing the abilities of atheist debaters.
I mean, really, Dinesh...do you think you could have found a more vapid topic?
Worse than that, I can't believe that I took the time to read your utterly useless post and am now commenting on it.
I honestly don't give a rat's ass who will or will not engage you in debate.
Sheesh...this is lame.
Somebody please let me know when the subject returns to something of more consequence.
Never mind. Don't bother. I certainly have more important things to do than hang around with this sniping lot of carpers.
Paul at 4:58PM on Jan 3rd 2008
41. "What I cannot understand is how you go from day to day and not need to be able to go to your heavenly father and talk with him about your fears and future plans and just fellowship with him".
Rita; I do all of this, just in my head with myself. No need to involve god.
Incidently, that's exactly what you are doing when you do the above, you just don't know it.
Ryan Anderson at 4:59PM on Jan 3rd 2008
42. "Not only did Dawkins control the format, he also controlled what was shown on film. No wonder Dawkins got the better of that encounter."
Kind of like you on this website. You even take it a step further and declare yourself the winner of these "contests." That is why most people do not take you seriously and consider you a joke. Come on Dinesh, you are an educated and interesting person. You can do a better job. Now don't go and guote just the last sentence. You are becoming the Jerry Springer of blog sites. But, hey, maybe that is what you really are.
Valley Man at 5:17PM on Jan 3rd 2008
43. If your debates were really that successful, you probably wouldn't need to post a daily blog entry talking about how well you did. You'd let the debates speak for themselves, and post about actual content and ideas instead of merely patting yourself on the back.
Rick at 5:02PM on Jan 3rd 2008
44. Rita,
I understand your frustration. When I was an atheist it was clear to me that the scientific evidence for Christ is just not there. If one does not have an experience with the divine there is no reason to try...to believe. The atheist's are acting on the information they have and their point is valid. It will do you little good to continue to badger them...they are not ignorant, most are well aware of Christ's teachings. They simply wish to reject them based on the evidence. I would suggest you pray...only God can provide the necessary incentives.
-C
Molecular Biologist - Biophysicist at 5:16PM on Jan 3rd 2008
45. Any person who does not receive JESUS CHRIST as the SON OF GOD and their own personal SAVIOR, is doomed to everlasting destruction. A destruction that will last eternally, a destruction so incredibly terrible because of the finality of it and the duration of it. The GREAT GOD who created the heavens and the Earth will unveil the entirety and fullness of HIS wrath upon all those that have opposed HIM. On the other hand, the Scriptures declare "Eye has not seen nor ear
heard,neither have entered into the heart of man, the things that GOD has prepared for them that love HIM", will be to all who receive the FREE GIFT of RIGHTEOUSNESS, that GOD has provided for everyone that names the name of JESUS CHRIST for themselves.
Bruce Battaglia at 5:09PM on Jan 3rd 2008