Debating Michael Shermer at Cal Tech

Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...

Mo Rocca Feed

Debating Michael Shermer at Cal Tech

Posted Jan 16th 2008 1:20AM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Science, Christianity, Controversy, Atheism

Of all the leading atheists, Michael Shermer may be the most affable. I also like Christopher Hitchens, who is terrific social company. But Hitchens tends to play the bad guy in public. I laughed out loud when I saw Hitchens in his trenchcoat on the cover of one of his books. That image made you want to lock the doors and hide the children. Also Hitchens seems almost pathologically anti-religious. What rational person can assert, as Hitchens does in his book's subtitle, that "religion poisons everything"?

Shermer is the editor of Skeptic, columnist for Scientific American, and author of Why Darwin Matters and most recently The Mind of the Market. By contrast with Hitchens in his trenchcoat, Shermer looks like a guy you could trust to take your kids to the park. Shermer is almost congenitally optimistic, and he has none of that chronic nastiness that has come to define modern atheism. (Witness the temperament of some of the atheists on this blog, who provide excellent advertising for the psychological benefits of belief.) Shermer concedes that Christianity has done some good in the world. When asked if religion is a force for good or evil, he answers, "Yes." By this he means that religion is good when it does good and evil when it does evil. Shermer concedes that atheists can be vicious and draw their inspiration from atheist ideologies.

I first debated Shermer at Oregon State in October 2007. Then we debated in Washington DC at George Washington University. Our third and final debate for the year came December 9 at Cal Tech University in Pasadena. The third debate, moderated by the religion editor of the Los Angeles Times, was certainly our biggest and probably our liveliest encounter. There were more than a thousand people in the audience. I understand that lots of Cal Tech professors, and a couple of Nobel laureates, were present. Given the venue, the crowd was disproportionately scientific and technical.

The topics were "Is Religion a Force for Good in the World?" and "Can We Be Good Without God?" The debate ranged widely, however, and included discussions of the compatibility of science and religion, how science supports or undermines theism, etc. My favorite part of these debates is the cross-examination, when each side gets to pose questions to the other. I'm going to be posting on this debate over the next few days, each post accompanied by video footage. So here is the first segment, with me going first and attempting to set the agenda for the evening. Enjoy.

Permalink
Email this
Linking Blogs
Comments [616]
Share this
- Add this post to...
- Netscape
- Digg
- Del.icio.us

Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 42)

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

1. oh yes indeedy,

"chronic nastiness that has come to define modern atheism"

yes this is the bacbone of this blog within the atheist faithful. you can,with 100% accuracy,state that indeed the atheist do get nasty and mean spirited. why that is? in my mind it sort of turns the common man away. even if the atheist have valid points,great questions, and well thought out drivil it still gets washed away when they go and get nasty. normally the conversations go along pretty smooth but then one gets the itch to get sarcastic and then pack dog mentality takes over and the atheist go postal. even though they do have interesting, though totally devoid of any spiritual reality, comments its lost when angered. the atheist community is going to have to do better with their smugness in order to be heard by anyone other than themselves

brian at 8:47AM on Jan 16th 2008

2. Dinesh; I am a rational person (I'm sure brian would disagree) and I can assert that religion is like morphine. Sometimes it helps, when you are injuried, but in general, it's an addictive poison.

brian; how was zeitgeistmovie.com?

Ryan Anderson at 9:00AM on Jan 16th 2008

3. ryan,

i must confess i have not watched it yet. i have no excuse other than blogging on this stupid site. religion is not as addictive as this blog and you atheist. instead of getting on this at work i will try to go to the movies,fair enough? by the way how did DD fair in this debate?

brian at 9:15AM on Jan 16th 2008

4. ryan,

to your statement that you are rational. i think your plenty rational why not? why would i think your not. your just in a deception that you think is supported by your rational thats all

brian at 9:17AM on Jan 16th 2008

5. "and he has none of that chronic nastiness that has come to define modern atheism. (Witness the temperament of some of the atheists on this blog, who provide excellent advertising for the psychological benefits of belief.)"
-------------------------------------------------
What a childish and baseless generalization. Just another of your attempts to slander people who don't believe in what you believe.

How ironic of you, as a self-proclaimed Christian warrior, to speak of the temperament of anyone else. You conveniently choose to ignore the sheer nasty, hateful, judgemental, and bigoted behavior and statements made by people who call themselves Christians on this blog. They do this even though you fanatically praise Christians and Christianity and at the same time you target your personal hatred and vile at atheists and nonChristians.

No man has witnessed true nastiness and hatred as he who has had a judgemental finger cast in their face by a rabid, so-called "Christian" who is shrieking that you are going to "BURN IN HELL!" because you are not a "Christian". And I can choose to say that THAT "chronic" nastiness has come to define Christianity - but generalizations like that are quite irrational. But, generalizations and irrational statements certainly define you, Mr. D'Souza.

Frank at 9:27AM on Jan 16th 2008

6. brian; I'm just giving you a hard time. Dinesh faired well, because he knows how to debate. It's like listening to a lawyer. You know what he's saying is wrong, but he makes it sound right. I just watched the first couple minutes though. I'll watch the rest tonight.

Have a good day. Works picking up now that the holidays are over, so my blog entries will be fewer and fewer between 8 and 5pm (EST).

Ryan Anderson at 9:27AM on Jan 16th 2008

7.
"What rational person can assert, as Hitchens does in his book's subtitle, that "religion poisons everything"?"

Poison? You mean like Phred Phelps who hangs out at Iraqi Soldiers Funerals, shouting at the family that God wanted their child dead?

How about the Kenyan gang taking machetes to the genitals of tribes that don't follow a religious belief concerning curcumcision?

How about those happy Muslims shouting "Allah Akbar" as the United 93 crashed into a Pennsylvania field?

And maybe the murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian at his home outside of Buffalo, NY, for perfroming legal abortions?

How about our Idiot In Cheif starting a useless war because he claims to have a direct line to God?

Etc Etc....
There are God Nazis everywhere, but since D'Idiot started the day with another hot steaming cup of stupid, he would be to ignorant to admit it.

Tim at 10:03AM on Jan 16th 2008

8. Brian:

Atheists are not a "community," nor are they organized. Those are religious concepts.

Ken at 11:11AM on Jan 16th 2008

9. Well, I'm pleased that D'Souza has decided to only denigrate "some" of the atheists who've commented on his blog. Not that I disagree that there's a lot of inflamed rhetoric from some atheists here, but it's not exactly hard to find the same from the theist side, either. E.g. the first comment on this very article. Many theist commentators have claimed that the so-called 'new atheists' don't address the best arguments of the theists. What I haven't seen D'Souza do is address the best arguments of even the 'new atheists', let alone atheism in general.

BTW, I'm having a hard time parsing this sentence: "Shermer concedes that atheists can be vicious and draw their inspiration from atheist ideologies." I he supposed to be agreeing that the viciousness is directly related to the 'atheist ideologies'? Or is he agreeing with two separate ideas, that atheists can be vicious (not a surprise, all humans can be) and also that atheists can draw inspiration from an ideology? Is he supposed to be ruling out the notion that atheists could draw inspiration from other sources?

Ray Ingles at 10:24AM on Jan 16th 2008

10. tim,

christians are christ followers. one would have to know the precepts of following christ before judging anothers actions. have you read much of the life of jesus? where are you getting your comparisons? not everything everyone does can be laid at the feet of christianity. likewise would you like to talk about the DAILY murders and rapes and gross crimes committed everyday by atheist? now an atheist is one who does not follow God. does not know God. does not acknowledge god. everyday on the news every where you here of the brutality of humans against other humans all in the name of what? how good we inherantly are? listen the few christians that give christianity a bad name are not acting in a christ-like manner. but the scales are tipped against you and all un-believers in terms of gross inhumanity.

brian at 10:28AM on Jan 16th 2008

11. ray,

DD is supposing that atheist can be shrill, but so can christians. jesus was never shrill but you flat out deny he even existed. you deny he was God. You deny God. you deny this universe was created by God. you beleive as dawkins said we got here by"sheer luck". when alot of you atheist are pressed for reasons to support your claim you get frustrated and lash out in angry hostile ways. christians here are chided as being sub intelligent. christians here are rediculed for being ignorant and the list goes on. so ray, DD has a point as well as you and both are equally valid.

brian at 10:34AM on Jan 16th 2008

12. (Witness the temperament of some of the atheists on this blog, who provide excellent advertising for the psychological benefits of belief.)

----------------

well dinesh, one could hardly use the comments made on this blog as an evaluation of psychological benefits favoring theism to atheism.

also, some research has actually been done that says that spiritual people are generally happier than those who aren't, but that this does not apply to religious people (consider the difference between "spiritual" and "religious")

AND studies have also shown that people who take responsibility for their own lives also tend to be happier. (as in they control their own actions and their lives weren't planned out for them)

Richelle at 10:35AM on Jan 16th 2008

13. I find it ironic that Dinesh quotes "chronic nastiness" by atheists in his blog, while being extremely condescending towards atheists in the debate and ridiculing some of them in an extremely childish manner. brian, of course, agrees in post #1, though I have hardly encountered anyone more hateful and mean spirited among those who comment here. I guess "do as I say not as I do" applies here?

As to the debate, Dinesh uses the same old argument and the same old fallacies. He misinterpretes Aristotle as regarding compassion as a vice, which is false. Aristotle advocated the golden mean in a life of virtue.
Dinesh points out that Spartans (who were an isolated military society) left infants to freeze in the cold, but fails to address the crimes against infants throughout the bible.
Dinesh also touts equality as a Christian value. Why then, did women have to fight so hard for equality? Why did it take a war to end slavery?
Let's not forget Dinesh's own history, writing for Prospect at Princeton, which opposed affirmative action and co-education. The related scandal published by the NY Times speaks for itself.
Women were writers, scholars and leaders in ancient Athens. If anything, the rise of male-controlled christian religions restricted the liberties and equality of women.
And of course Dinesh goes back to Hitler (the catholic), Stalin and the like as a reference for the "crimes of atheism" confusing atheism with political ideology. What did all these dicators have in common? An overwhelming desire for control and power. Is Dinesh saying that power hunger is restricted to atheism? Then why is there no atheist organization that tries to keep people in check with a few powerful leaders at the top? It's convenient to ignore the amount of power and control modern day churches hold over the masses. My guess is the church has figured out that mind control is more effective than forced submission, which usually leads to blood-shed and costs time and money. A genius idea, indeed.
If Hitler and Stalin acted on an ideology and out of a need for power and Dinesh blames atheism, should we then blame Christianity for the war in Iraq? After all, it is fronted by a Christian leader who wants to force a political ideology on another country. Personally, I believe that the motivation has nothing to do with belief or non-belief. As in the case of Hitler and Stalin, this war, too, is about power and control.
I believe that Dinesh, in the debate, misquoted the death toll of the Spanish Inquisition, conveniently ignoring the hundred thousand or more people who died in prison due to inhumane treatment. Let's put the real numbers in percentages of total population back then...

Finally, I am always amazed that Dinesh, being of Eastern Indian descent, never mentions Buddhism, one of the most peaceful religions in existence today and godless at that. There is no 'holy war' in the history of Buddhism, which strongly opposes violence. Buddhism advocate respect for each other, nature and everything in it. It disallows torture of humans and animals alike and focuses on discovery from within, mental clarity and focus.
Buddhist practices are known to relieve stress and promote well-being.

My question is, why not credit Buddhism with Morality? It is older than Christianity, after all and like I said, has a much more peaceful history. Why not look to Gandhi or the Dalai Lama for guidance? The latter said "be kind whenever possible. It's always possible." and "my religion is simple. My religion is kindness."

It's easy to speak out against the violence of islam, but islam is not the only religion in the world besides christianity. Why not give credit where credit is due? Afraid christianity might NOT come out on top? It's a cowardly strategy at best, if you ask me.

emma at 10:44AM on Jan 16th 2008

14. Once again, D'Souza fails to make the distinction between the values he espouses as having "originated" with Xianity, rather than being disseminated by Xianity - NOT the same thing.
Of course, his argument for Xianity is easy if you take that approach; doesn't make it right, though. He needs to prove that these values would never have occurred had it not been for JC... and he has yet to do so.

grigori at 10:53AM on Jan 16th 2008

15. Here is one reason that we atheists get angry:

http://www.kxmb.com/News/Nation/198312.asp

That's presidential candidate Mike Huckabee DELARING PUBLICLY that our CONSTITUTION should be amended to conform to the word of God.

!!!!

!!!!

Yes, that makes me very angry.

brandon at 10:57AM on Jan 16th 2008

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 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.