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.
Dinesh's Blog Roll
Featured Bloggers
 | Ada Calhoun |
 | Ben Greenman |
 | Dinesh D'Souza |
 | Jeff Hoard |
 | Mo Rocca |
 | Young Turks |
RSS Feeds
Resources
Dinesh D'Souza
Reports
Bestselling author DINESH D’SOUZA’s latest book is What’s So Great About Christianity. read more
Debating Michael Shermer at Cal Tech
Posted Jan 16th 2008 1:20AM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Science, Christianity, Controversy, Atheism
Filed under: Science, Christianity, Controversy, Atheism
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.
What's So Great About Christianity
Dinesh D'Souza's acclaimed New York Times bestseller, What's So Great About Christianity, is in stores. Order now!
Top Tags
Most Popular Stories
Most Commented On News Bloggers
- Obama or Palin: Who is the Real Hypocrite? (658)
- The Real Source of Palin's Appeal (460)
- Look Who's Calling Sarah Palin "Inexperienced" (318)
- McCain-Palin: A Chicken in Every Pot and A Bun in Every Oven (123)
- Special Coverage of the Republican National Convention Starting Monday (110)
- Even Hockey Moms Say Sarah Palin a Crazy Choice (108)
- Bristol Palin's 'Redneck' Fiancé (102)
Recent Comments
- Publius on The Real Source of Palin's Appeal
- SC on Are Father-Daughter Purity Balls Really Christian?
- Alyssa on The Real Source of Palin's Appeal
- libertarian88 on Roland Martin of CNN Goes Off on Sarah Palin
- Ann on Obama or Palin: Who is the Real Hypocrite?
- Publius on The Real Source of Palin's Appeal
- Alyssa on The Real Source of Palin's Appeal
Top News Headlines
Ada Calhoun |
Ben Greenman |
Dinesh D'Souza |
Jeff Hoard |
Mo Rocca |
The Young Turks |
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 42)
16. And brian, you have no high ground when it comes to "chronic nastiness." You are the worst of the Christians in that regard. Followed closely by Dena.
brandon at 10:58AM on Jan 16th 2008
17. The real topic that needs to be debated is "Is there a Supreme Being or not?" The atheist will try to say the burden of proof lies with the believer. This is not true. The real burden of proof lies with the atheist. If there were but one single photon, graviton, muon or any particle of matter or energy in all of the universe in all of history, the burden lies with any intelligence to explain where it came from. AND YES I ENDED A SENTENCE WITH A PREPOSITION! YAH!!!!
garnetmcriff at 11:01AM on Jan 16th 2008
18. Brian:
Atheists are not a "community," nor are they organized. Those are religious concepts.
Ken at 11:11AM on Jan 16th 2008
19. Emma: beautifully put, my German friend.
(Can't wait til William shows up....he was at that debate)
As I was in DC. DD presents such a skewed view of the debates. In DC, Shermer conceded nothing about religion being good for society in any way. So why does DD claim otherwise?
DD was unprepared for the topic of the debate. DD led off with his opening statement, which had nothing to do with the actual topic. When Shermer stood up, he seemed a little surprised, and he said that he had prepared for the topic that had been told to him(Has christianity been good for society), and began listing how it is NOT good for society (historically)
So, DD is actually lying, at least about the DC debate. Shermer conceded nothing.
I had big long blah blah blah posts about the debate, no need to rehash.
---------------------------------------------
"Shermer concedes that atheists can be vicious and draw their inspiration from atheist ideologies."
I'm unable to access the video at work. Can someone tell me if Sherman actually says this in the video???? It doesn't sound right, but I could be wrong.
Linda at 11:11AM on Jan 16th 2008
20. "Is there a Supreme Being or not?" The atheist will try to say the burden of proof lies with the believer.
______________
And it does, because you are defining 'supreme being.' So if you think it up and define it and then try to proclaim it an absolute truth and possibly incorporate it into government etc, you would first have to provide REFUTABLE evidence for the existence of such a being. A scientist has to do a lot of work to get from a speculation to a theory and even then, the theory won't hold if evidence to the contrary is produced. You can't say "prove the imaginary friends in my head." You know it's not possible, because that friend exists by your definition and you can change that definition whenever you want.
emma at 11:14AM on Jan 16th 2008
21. The reason for atheist 'nastines' is that an intelligent person eventually gets annoyed at outright, irrational stupidity. E.g. the basic stance of 'my mind is made up do not confuse me with facts'
Geoff at 11:17AM on Jan 16th 2008
22. "The real topic that needs to be debated is "Is there a Supreme Being or not?" The atheist will try to say the burden of proof lies with the believer. This is not true. The real burden of proof lies with the atheist. If there were but one single photon, graviton, muon or any particle of matter or energy in all of the universe in all of history, the burden lies with any intelligence to explain where it came from. AND YES I ENDED A SENTENCE WITH A PREPOSITION! YAH!!!!
garnetmcriff at 11:01AM on Jan 16th 2008"
That's a ridiculous statement.
Can you prove that Prometheus (he gave mankind the gift of fire) never existed?
Go ahead. The burden of proof is on you! Either prove he didn't exist or else admit that he was real!
Good grief .... sometimes when I read statements made by christians in that manner, I have to look outside to see if I've somehow awakened in an insane asylum, or if I'm still at home .......
JerryC at 11:24AM on Jan 16th 2008
23. Dinsh writes;
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"?
xxxx
Mr D'Souza, If you think Hithens is bad, what do you do when a catholic priest comes near your children?
Are you jugding book by s cover? Many athists do this with the bible... all black and empty!
mac at 11:29AM on Jan 16th 2008
24. Yes, that makes me very angry.
brandon at 10:57AM on Jan 16th 2008
xxxx
Me too. That statement he made in itself is treasonous. This man should not be allowed near a microwave, much less American government.
He would either spell the death of democratic government or create one many people, maybe most, certainly including me would feel a duty to take up arms against.
There are many predictions of a dominionist takeover of the united states and with the presence of people just like the holy roller among the general officers of the military it's more than a small concern. People like that have a singularly evil agenda. I view it as no different from satanic, just a small quibbling over symbols and festering time.
Despotism is evil. The capacity for irreversible destruction exists since 1945 like never before in history. Given the cultic nature and suicidal tenencies of fundamentalists who lean toward darbyism, the holy roller might as well be jim jones or david koresh. hello huckaby, goodbye america.
Clif Kuplen at 11:32AM on Jan 16th 2008
25. Perhaps Hitchens is wrong. Religion does not poison everyhing, just most things. Maybe not all religions, just most religions.
mac at 11:33AM on Jan 16th 2008
26. The Moderator, William Lobdell, has an interesting story as an ex-Christian. It is worth paying attention to. BTW, atheists are foolish to deny the good that came from religion. Theists regularly admit the negatives done in it's name, atheists tend to live in a false sense of perfection.
LorMarie at 11:36AM on Jan 16th 2008
27. 1) I never said I was a Christian
2) Prometheus and "the imaginary friends in my head" may be real or not. Physical phenomena are not open to question as to their existence, only their origin. There is an important qualification you overlooked.
garnetmcriff at 11:43AM on Jan 16th 2008
28. It seems that Dinesh will only debate ambiguous topics that he can provide just enough evidence for to back himself up.
I'm not an atheist, I'm just somebody who despises pseudo-intellectuals in ivory towers, gazing down on all the "other" people.
Strados at 11:44AM on Jan 16th 2008
29. Brian - Please point out where I denied Jesus existed. Specific quotes, please. (You'll be looking for a while - see, e.g., comment #20 here: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/12/universal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe/)
I admit that I don't think there's a God in the Judeo/Xtian/Islamic sense, so "Jesus wasn't God" and "the universe wasn't created by God" kind of follow. (BTW, that's not the same as "sheer luck", though it does appear that chance did play a role - just not an exclusive one.)
I already admitted that atheists, as well as theists, can be 'shrill', but I have never seen D'Souza admit that there are non-shrill atheist comments here, too.
When I am "pressed for reasons" I've come to those conclusions, I point to this: http://ingles.homeunix.net/rants/atheism/
Feel free to point out where I'm 'angry' or 'shrill' there.
Ray Ingles at 11:46AM on Jan 16th 2008
30. "If there were but one single photon, graviton, muon or any particle of matter or energy in all of the universe in all of history, the burden lies with any intelligence to explain where it came from."
Agreed. That's what we have science for. If one is going to assert the existence of something, the burden of proof is on them. Like, for instance, asserting the existence of GOD.
If I told you I owned a brand new Camaro, but when you asked to see it I always had an excuse for why I couldn't show it to you, would you start to think I was lying? Shouldn't I show it to you to make you believe me? Similarly, if you tell me there is a supernatural being, and I say "Show it to me", and all you can come up with is an old book and some anecdotal evidence about a feeling that you've had, I'm not going to believe you.
And Dinesh, I try to be civil on this blog and get my point across with a minimum of rancor. No nastiness necessary. I'm going to make an exception today for your childish remarks. Dinesh D'Souza, you are a damn fool.
AndrewV at 11:47AM on Jan 16th 2008