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
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Roert Dean on General Clark is Absolutely Right!
- Jerry Brown on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Jerry Brown on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Jerry Brown on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- not-pboyfloyd 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
- House Panel Passes Bill That Would Require College Football Playoffs
- Obama in Oslo -- Half Dove and Half Hawk
- Sarah Palin's Value-Added Spin on Climate Change: 'Boycott Copenhagen'
- McCartney's Meat Free Mondays: Letting a Few Bad Apples Kill the Entire Tree
- From Chicago to Oslo: Michelle Obama's First Year
- Big Majorities Believe Senate Health Bill Would Increase the Deficit and Taxes
- Poll Finds Republicans Gaining on Democrats as Health Care Debate Drags On
Reader Comments ( Page 6 of 88)
76. dinesh is calling the atheists arrogant?
wft?
this entire post was just a way for him to say "looky, what i did? i'm such a formidable opponent. now that I have arrived the atheists will fall!"
and the whole thing about name calling.
puuuuuhhhllllleeeeeeeeaaaaase! this is a clear cut case of the pot calling the kettle black. how many times has dd called atheists and liberals names? "god-hating ignoramuses" what was THAT dinesh? sounds like an ad hominem to me. dd is an ad hominem whore and he is so quick to point it out among atheists. pathetic.
Richelle at 6:58PM on Jan 3rd 2008
77. 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.
>>>>
Christianity has to go? To be replaced by what ... liberals out for power, money, control, and the ability to claim truth for something that doesn't even fit the definition?
The problem with the godless is they believe in nothing ... so they can believe anything. I'll stick with Christianity, thank you.
Thomas J Gassett at 6:58PM on Jan 3rd 2008
78. I like the saying by a great and respected mathematician, "GOD does not play dice with the universe". The awesome universe and then the earthly bound man almost infintesimally small in comparison yet so fantasically made, designed or created with unique characteristics and personality speaks volumes to argue that there was a DESIGNER
Bruce Battaglia at 7:01PM on Jan 3rd 2008
79. No, Thomas, to be replaced by common sense, ethics and critical thinking. I find it ironic that you equate Christianity with political conservatism. You are making my point for me.
emma at 7:03PM on Jan 3rd 2008
80. The problem with the godless is they believe in nothing ... so they can believe anything
----------------
would you mind supporting that claim please?
Richelle at 7:03PM on Jan 3rd 2008
81. a) I'm too reasonable, and the bloggers are just in humble awe of my sheer awesome.
b) I'm too unreasonable, and there's just no way anybody wants to talk with me. I can't be reasoned with and there's no sense in trying.
c) Maybe it's just too hard to respond to so many people.
>>>>
"Brevity is the soul of wit" Hamlet Act 2 Scene 2.
Unfortunately, you have neither soul nor wit, making your never ending screed to painful to read.
Thomas J Gassett at 7:06PM on Jan 3rd 2008
82. Right, Bruce...compelling. So who designed the designer and who designed the designer's designer and the designer's designer designer? Or are you saying that something came from nothing? Isn't that the argument believers keep bashing evolutionary scientists for?
emma at 7:08PM on Jan 3rd 2008
83. No, Thomas, to be replaced by common sense, ethics and critical thinking.>>>
You simpleton! Our sense of ethics are Christian in origin.
"Without religion there can be no good or evil no right or wrong, only the primal struggle between the weak and the strong" Me
I find it ironic that you equate Christianity with political conservatism.>>>
Gee, why would I do that ... considering that most conservatives are Christian, and most liberals don't know what they hell they are.
You are making my point for me.>>>
I bet your mother made the point on the top of your head. Clue: You spew ... you don't make debate points.
Thomas J Gassett at 7:10PM on Jan 3rd 2008
84. 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. -
Again, I must point out that the Golden Rule was NOT laid down by Christ.
A) It predates Christ by many centuries.
B) It is a prime example of the Relative Morality that religious types rail against.
fabio at 7:11PM on Jan 3rd 2008
85. 79. The problem with the godless is they believe in nothing ... so they can believe anything
xxx
the problem with the godded is if they swallow that, they'll swallow anything.
Clif Kuplen at 7:13PM on Jan 3rd 2008
86. Uncharacteristically wasting a moment of my time to make note of a few points:
1. It is not necessary for an atheist to debate matters of religion with anyone. Engaging a person of faith on the subject is done for sport or not at all.
2. Your belief that a debate ending in a draw provides even a small victory is painfully simplistic. (No doubt an effective salve for the ego, but still.) This proclaimed defeat hinges on your assumption that arrogance is the driving force behind an atheist's thinking and that the atheist believes the debate to be one of reason versus the lack of. I would hazard to guess that a truer view for an atheist -- even if not a conscious one, or never voiced -- would be one in which an internal debate takes place over whether or not it is worthwhile to explain something complicated to a child.
How well you reason makes no difference. You enter into every such debate in a lower position because you are without a very basic thing. This lacking is not of a position steeped in reason, it is a knowledge and understanding of the self that is found wanting. It is weakness. Arrogance on the atheist's part is an appropriate response but probably occurs apart from their view on the question. It would be difficult to discern that if personally offended by said or felt arrogance.
Additionally, if your round-earth and flat-earth advocates ended their debate in a draw this would only prove the two to be equal in abilities as debaters. The earth would still be round. The round-earth advocate knows this. You, apparently, do not.
3. Name-calling -- such as occurs when one turns away from a moronic statement, shaking one's head while walking away and muttering "Idiot" under one's breath -- is not jejune when it's accurate.
JoyLuckJaded at 7:16PM on Jan 3rd 2008
87. Gee, why would I do that ... considering that most conservatives are Christian, and most liberals don't know what they hell they are.
xxx
gassett thinks mussolini and bin laden are liberals. Figured out the difference between communism and fascism yet? Have you figured out that you're no conservative if you've sold out to communist china? Support Gore in Gore v. bush yet or are you on the side of government interference in states rights?
If you ever do figure out what you are, which is doubtful, you'll find you're so far right you're left.
Clif Kuplen at 7:17PM on Jan 3rd 2008
88. I bet your mother made the point on the top of your head. Clue: You spew ... you don't make debate points.
xxx
which was that supposed to be, marlowe, brief or witty? You have the wit of polonius and the briefs of Falstaff, I'd wager. Hie thee to the jakes.
Clif Kuplen at 7:21PM on Jan 3rd 2008
89. Thomas, your debating capabilities, much like your independent thinking skills are non-existent. I logically draw this conclusion from the observation that you refute intelligent argument with childish name-calling. You are also incapable of separating religious beliefs fom political orientation, which is something our founding fathers, in commendable foresight, have warned us about.
emma at 7:29PM on Jan 3rd 2008
90. The problem with the godless is they believe in nothing ... so they can believe anything
----------------
would you mind supporting that claim please?
>>>>
Better yet, use that bump between your shoulders and figure it out for yourself.
Consider what liberals do believe in, with less proof than they demand from religion.
An atheist can believe in Mao, or Stalin ... a Christian can't.
Thomas J Gassett at 7:27PM on Jan 3rd 2008