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.
Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...
Mo's Blog Roll
Resources
Debating Michael Shermer at Cal Tech
Posted Jan 16th 2008 1:20AM by Dinesh D'Souza
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.
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
- Darin on Are Father-Daughter Purity Balls Really Christian?
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Roert Dean on General Clark is Absolutely Right!
- Hereafter on Cho Seung-Hui's Plays
- Jerry Brown on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Ryan Anderson 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
- Republicans, Independents Make the Difference in Support for Obama on Afghanistan
- Meat for Public Schools Often Rejected by Fast Food Chains
- Salahis Subpoenaed To Appear Before Panel Probing Party Crashing
- Will George Stephanopoulos Go Better With My Omelet?
- $1 Billion Spent on Political Ads in '09
- In a Political Popularity Contest, Hillary Clinton Wins
- Tiger Woods' Transgressions and the Gender Split
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 42)
16. emma wrote: "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."
Emma, I think you've answered your own question here! It's obvious why DD doesn't address it: because it kills his pro-Xian argument.
grigori at 10:57AM on Jan 16th 2008
17. 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
18. 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
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. 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
25. Funky (?) intro music on this vid.
Every day i patrol this blog to defend the dignity of atheists (may MSWord auto-capitalization one day recognise it), although I am not in truth an atheist myself.
I believe in a universal force or will that we can all call "God", or by some other name if the very word "God" makes you contend. I believe that religions present grotesque misrepresentations of this, how to put it, entity. I believe that science is how we can divine what is or isn't true of "God", rather than faith in stories of questionable origin. Science will provide answers within our circumstantial epistemological boundaries.
There are a few points that Dinesh makes that I can't fight him on. 1: That the social virtues of modern atheists are derived from Christian values. I believe to a fair degree modern atheists inherited these through the circumstance of living in the umbrage of Christian culture. I also however believe, contrary to Dinesh, that many of these virtues can follow logically if we pursue goals beyond the Darwinist legacy of our evolutionary ancestors, that we choose to participate ourselves into structured societies beyond clan survivalism. 2: Science is predicated on faith in a universal order to the universe, where it is possible that truths may actually be inconceivable to our "rational" minds. The Biblical stories as not just morality tales, literalisms flies past the limits of inconceivability I can allow my precious mind to incur. I will never find cause to invest my faith in this suchness. This kind of unsubstantiated faith holds potential to justify anything, I mean ANYTHING.
Ha, in a new SomethingAwful article they call atheism the new Aspergers, and the most passive-aggressive jihad ever! Funny site rife with criticism of popular culture and counterculture alike, so they're hard to take seriously (I doubt they ever intend to be taken seriously).
Mokele-Mbembe at 11:48AM on Jan 16th 2008
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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
29. emma, Geoff, JerryC,
It could not be put better, you have, collectively, hit the nail on the head.
Clif,
We can only hope god does not take our second ammendment. I do not want to live in that dominionist state. We must all fight for our rights.
mac at 11:51AM on Jan 16th 2008
30. 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