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
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- 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
- 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
- Obama's Copenhagen Climate Deal: Real or Not?
- The New Senate Health Bill Explainer: Changes You Should Know About
- Health Endgame: Time To Embrace Half a Loaf (And Learn to Love It!)
- 'Botox Tax' Out, 'Tan Tax' In New Senate Health Bill
- Health Care Breakthrough: Ben Nelson Will Vote for Health Reform
- It's the Comedy, Stupid
- Compromise Climate Deal Reached in Copenhagen
Reader Comments ( Page 7 of 88)
91. DD asks "Why are the atheists faring so badly in these debates?" The answers are simple. When you are weak, you fail. When you can't sustain a reasonable argument against a more powerful one you fail. When you attack something using gross generalizations and absurd fantasies, you fail. And that is why atheists failed in all (poor Dennet almost cried, Hitchen was so embarrassed that made me laugh) debates with Dinesh, Being right gives a great advantage to Dinesh.
Galakto at 8:05AM on Jan 4th 2008
92. @ Thomas, Post 80:
You're right. I have no soul. I took my time and answered fully. Shame on me.
Ryan at 7:33PM on Jan 3rd 2008
93. You simpleton! Our sense of ethics are Christian in origin.
_________________
Maybe YOUR sense of ethics stems from Christianity. Some of us actually went through the trouble of getting an education and understand ethical philosophies preceding Christianity by thousands of years. The ethics of Christianity are COPIED from people who actually knew how to think for themselves.
emma at 7:39PM on Jan 3rd 2008
94. Dinesh,
You are absolutely correct: these atheists do not have the spine to debate you anymore after the damage you did to their cause by humiliating Hitchens and Dennett in front of thousands of people.
By the way, when are you coming to Miami, FL?? I would like to get an autograph on my copy of What's so Great about Christianity.
Best,
Felipe
Felipe Miguel at 7:50PM on Jan 3rd 2008
95. Because you have God on your side! ha ha ha
Rick at 7:49PM on Jan 3rd 2008
96. The DESIGNER of the universe is not bounded by the constraints and limits HE has placed upon HIS creation. A two dimensional creature cannot interact with a three dimensional creature and so on and so forth ad infinitum. The CREATOR is greater than his creation, while HE is able to interact with it and supercede its laws being the creator of them. Those bounded by such laws must inherently have their existence within the framework of those laws because their existence is incorporated within them and cannot somehow evolve beyond them because the CREATOR constrained their existence within them. The CREATOR owns the creation and not vice a versa. The CREATOR has power over HIS creation and is able to allow or suspend such created laws as HE wills.
Bruce Battaglia at 8:02PM on Jan 3rd 2008
97. 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 8:06PM on Jan 3rd 2008
98. @ Bruce Battaglia 94..
...who says,"The CREATOR is greater than his creation..."
Where's he at then Bruce? Why is he any realer to you than the Flying Spaghetti Monster or The Invisible Pink Unicorn...
.. or Thor, or Odin, or Isis, or Horus... etc. etc. etc. ?????
pboyfloyd at 8:13PM on Jan 3rd 2008
99. Emma - Your neat and tidy little caricatures of Christians would be universally denounced as bigoted nonsense if you made similar assertions about adherents of any other faith. Like many of those in this blog, you're more than willing to enjoy the benefits derived from the untold multitude of Christians who founded many of the
educational institutions, hospitals, relief agencies and governmental institutions which have made this country great.
All the while, you insufferable revisionists continue to shamelessly and laughably assert that Christians had nothing to do with any of this and that it was all deists, atheists and agnostics who really accomplished all of this. Please.
Dave at 8:16PM on Jan 3rd 2008
100. The CREATOR had declared HIMSELF to humanity through the means of the Hebrew prophets and NOW through THE CHRIST, the man CHRIST JESUS. The tri-partite being that man is spirit, soul, body can find GOD through reading and obeying this CREATOR'S instructions which HE as the CREATOR has designated as the WAY to meet HIM. The instrumentality that HE has sovereignly ordained for fallen man to be able to reach out an touch this CREATOR who is beyond the reach of HIS creation know or grasp hold of, is the BIBLE.
BRUCE at 8:18PM on Jan 3rd 2008
101. 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.
------------------------
you do realize that atheists believe in no deity, right?
use the pimple between your shoulders to think about that for a minute.
even if atheists agreed with stalin they would not worship him as a deity.
your associations are absurd as are your blathering rants.
Richelle at 8:16PM on Jan 3rd 2008
102. Bruce, why hasn't your 'creator' suspended the laws in his creation. Would make a fantastic fantasy story, the creator and his ant farm.
JefFlyingV at 8:21PM on Jan 3rd 2008
103. gassett,
it is YOUR responsibility to support your claims. do you honestly expect to be able to make mindless assertions without explaining your reasoning?
it is not my job to attempt to lower myself to your level to think in such an idiotic manner that i might be able to understand you.
Richelle at 8:22PM on Jan 3rd 2008
104. What a weak, pathetic article. Atheists have the one important thing on their side...realism.
Lord Charles at 8:17AM on Jan 4th 2008
105. Definition of a Christian: evil, judgmental, destructive, racist, sexist, intolerant, self-righteous, slavers, war-mongers, discriminators, torturers, close-minded, who want to turn the earth into a polluted parking lot...
I am an athiest and I know that I am in hell right now. Why? Because there are Christians around.
The Goddess Athena at 8:25PM on Jan 3rd 2008