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
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Roert Dean on General Clark is Absolutely Right!
- SC on Are Father-Daughter Purity Balls Really Christian?
- Richelle on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- MI on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- MI on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Richelle 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
- Texas Governor Says Obama Is 'Hell-Bent' on Socialism
- Michelle Obama 'in Awe' of Military Families
- Lou Dobbs Leaves CNN to Pursue Activist Role
- Tom Perriello: Virginia's High Wire House Democrat
- The Misfits: Eight Politicians Who Really Ought to Switch
- Baltimore Braces for Trial of Mayor Dixon, Accused of Stealing from Needy Kids
- 'V' is for Obama? Not So Fast
Reader Comments ( Page 5 of 88)
61.
Who really wins a debate anyway? All of DD's arguments are rational to most of the Christian right while the atheist arguments are rational to most atheists. But I must say that as an agnostic, Densih loses. His facts are twisted and he credits morality, love and charity to be a pure Christian inventions denying accurate history that has proven these human attributes to be around before the invention of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
goddess1prevail at 5:56PM on Jan 3rd 2008
62. Ya Gahndi just didn't get it. Einstein either, man was he dense.
greg at 5:54PM on Jan 3rd 2008
63. Atheist's don't have a camp. - greg
WTF? Oh man! Then what am I gonna do his weekend?
fabio at 5:55PM on Jan 3rd 2008
64. It is not about intelligence...the most endearing folks I know are what we term mentally retarded. "You must be like a little child to enter the kingdom of God"
-C
Molecular Biologist - Biophysicist at 5:57PM on Jan 3rd 2008
65. Fabio, do what the rest of us heathens are gonna do:
rape, pillage, drink until we cant stand (like catholics), go vomit hate all over the world, destroy churches, and worship satan. (in no particular order)
greg at 5:58PM on Jan 3rd 2008
66. I knew you'd come through for me Greg!
fabio at 6:12PM on Jan 3rd 2008
67. D'Souza says, "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."
Here's the interview(otherwise known as 'staged encounter').
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wGrltT54OsA&feature=related
pboyfloyd at 6:13PM on Jan 3rd 2008
68. Bruce; you don't understand that "Jacob" wrote "JACOB have I loved but ESAU have I hated" and then "Jacob" said that it was from god so that he could have an excuse to hate "Esau" himself.
It's all just propaganda.
Ryan Anderson at 6:13PM on Jan 3rd 2008
69. Molecular - Thank you for a calm, measured reply. A rarity around here. I'm getting a little tired of the swapping accusations of arrogance, followed by the critiques of the poor spellers.
I disagree with simply equating God and Love to make it seem that I haven't really rejected God. I don't think divinity has ever been necessary for true Love to exist.
Your concept of God is definitely more tolerant than most Christians posting here. I'd like to think that if God does exist, that he would judge us on our intentions and the way we treat others. But that doesn't seem negotiable, since Jesus says "No one reaches my father except through me," or something to that effect.
You stated that you were once an atheist. What made you change your mind?
Ah, gotta leave work now. Shouldn't be wasting my time on Dinesh.
AndrewV at 6:15PM on Jan 3rd 2008
70. One problem with trying to explain why we search for, or how Truth and Peace and Love are related is that answers are not short, and they do not fit neatly on a bumper sticker, or in a catchy phrase.
The closest anyone has ever come to explaining things like that succinctly was Christ, when he laid down the Golden Rule but even then, he was only simplifying the 10 Commandments; he was not explaining who made us, why we were made, why things are or how things are. Indeed each of these things (and my short listing is by no means exhaustive) are large topics worthy of honest, thoughtful, and prayerful consideration. That is why, in addition to and sadly sometimes in cooperation with, all the blood spilled over the eons, we have had, basically from the beginnings of Man down through the ages, to the present day, so many great men and women from the great and the small cultures and civilizations devoting so much time and honest thoughtful consideration to these matters. Certainly ours is and always has been a cruel world, but it would be all the more brutal and horrific if it were not for those who spend all, or parts of their lives honestly searching for truth and love and peace.
------------------------------
Re-Post 48. I like the approach of engaging people who are looking for truth and peace. When I find others who honestly search for truth, even if I do not agree with them or ascribe to their beliefs, at least I can respect them for their honesty and for their search.
D'Souza on the other hand, has a much more difficult job in that he routinely deals with people who do not out saying something is true but rather, they say "I think your premise is false", and they seem not the least interested in searching for truth or peace or love.
Very generally, I believe that God is Truth, and God is Love, and God is Peace, and the Truth will set us free. Regardless of the religion from which they hail, I respect anyone who honestly searches for truth and peace.
------------------------
Ken Berg at 6:17PM on Jan 3rd 2008
71. Keep fighting the good fight Dinesh, you rock!!
Sue at 6:32PM on Jan 3rd 2008
72. At the end of two lives, let us evaluate the difference between the man or woman who followed CHRIST and the man or woman who refused to follow CHRIST. Speak to both types of individuals and you will find two totally diverse life styles, the Christian individual will look at the end of life not as an end but an entering into an awesomely wonderful beginning of a on going life with the GOD OF GLORY, while the other individual has no hope of anything, what this individual did in life is done and that is it, done, finished, his expectation is oblivion. His end is an aweful expectation of what the entirety of his life was all about, no GOD, the end, nothingness. This philosophy of life had a totally non productive end for the soul of this individual. Unfortunately as the end of life then occurs, this philosophy of life is discovered to have been erroneous because this man awakens or finds himself in a place awaiting the GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGEMENT of GOD. While as the Christian individuals life ends, his expectation is one of an eternal reward for the fruit of his faith, and he awakens in this other place which is in total contra distinction to the man who had rejected GOD. He finds that what he believed and followed after was totally TRUE and he receives from this GREAT GOD the gratitude love and rewards that he took on faith throughout his life. Consider this all of you who read and think on it.!!
Bruce Battaglia at 6:32PM on Jan 3rd 2008
73. Bruce; that's just silly.
Whether you know it or not, you are using "pascal's wager" and it really makes no sense.
It's been thouroughly debunked.
But in short, there are thousands of past and present relgions. You can't wager on them all.
Ryan Anderson at 6:42PM on Jan 3rd 2008
74. I can definitely feel the love. DD's love for HIMSELF that is. Another entry of shameless, narcissistic self-promotion and self-praise void of any humility.
Aside from entertainment, there is absolutely no value in debates that try to prove a belief system either false or true. Beliefs exist in the minds of people and cannot be subjected to any method that would expose them to objective evaluation. What is debatable is whether or not such beliefs do harm or good, whether they interfere with human rights, whether they should be part of government etc. If everyone could just agree that during our lifetime, we are extremely unlikely to discover the origins of concepts like time and space and the beginning of the universe (and if there was a god, the beginning of him), we could have some REAL debates about subjects that matter here and now, like our behavior, the way we are treating this planet, animals and other people. Anyone with a basic education understands that morality and ethics can be traced back to ancient cultures that existed long before Christianity. Anyone who has ever studied history and humanities would also have given some thought to the similarities between Christianity and ancient or pagan cultures. Anyone who respects life in general will respect the belief systems of others and realize that they may be as wrong or right as anyone else. Christianity is not a condition for ethical behavior and no one can make a reasonable argument to the contrary.
Therefore I despise the 80 million Evangelical Christians in this country, 75% of whom are home- schooling their kids only to teach them narrow-mindedness and disrespect. I despise preachers like Ted Haggard and Jerry Falwell who make claims as to the superiority of their followers and try to force their beliefs into government. I despise people like Becky Fisher who has taken it upon herself to brainwash kids and rob them of all critical thinking skills. I even find it difficult to respect the millionaire Joel Olsteen who is seriously cahing in on nothing more than tax free motivational speaking. If these are the representatives of Christianity, then Christianity has to go, because it is robbing us of our human rights, our freedom, justice, respect and peace and for what? For power, money, control and the ability to claim truth for something that doesn't even fit the definition.
emma at 6:47PM on Jan 3rd 2008
75. Is denise declaring himself a master debater?
Clif Kuplen
>>>
Clearly Petulant children spew ... they don't debate.
Thomas J Gassett at 6:54PM on Jan 3rd 2008