Here is the final part of my Cal Tech debate with atheist Michael Shermer. In some ways the question-and-answer sessions are the most interesting of these debates, because you never know what to expect. This debate features such bizarre inquiries as "Why does God hate amputees?" That one stumped me for a minute because I wasn't sure what our undergraduate Aristotle was getting at. I've got several more debates with leading atheists coming up this year. You can find the list on my website dineshdsouza.com.
Hitchens is stepping back into the ring with me, and we have a couple of showdowns ahead. We are going to be debating at a large libertarian convention where the audience is likely to be in Hitchens' camp. Shermer and I will put the gloves on again in March, but this time I will have the friendly crowd. We are debating next before 6,000 media at the National Religious Broadcasters convention. At Dartmouth, my alma mater, I'll be facing a local hero, philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. At Harvard I'm debating Dan Barker, head of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, a kind of atheist ACLU. I'm especially looking forward to my debate Aprl 25 in Los Angeles with Peter Singer of Princeton University. You're welcome to come, but given Singer's relentless advocacy of euthanasia you may want to ask grandma to stay home.
I'd like to report that I'll be debating Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith. But Intrepid Sam has still not replied to my invitation to do both a written and an oral debate. The written debate was Sam's idea, so let's hope he isn't backing off from his own challenge. As for Richard Dawkins, he's still hiding in his closet! Finally I think I know why. I watched a DVD of Dawkins debating theologian John Lennox in Birmingham, and Dawkins got soundly whipped. The man is a terrible debater: halting, witless and verbose. Perhaps Dawkins is avoiding more debates for the same reason that many public school teachers resist undergoing competence evaluations: they know they won't pass muster.
The new atheists thought they had reason and science entirely on their side, but now you can see for yourself in these debates that it isn't so. Some atheists are so prejudiced that they won't admit it, of course. They will continue their delightful blather about what a cretin I am, how I got creamed, how stupid my mannerisms are, why I should go back to India, etc. But their own most articulate advocate, Christopher Hitchens, said publicly before our New York debate that I am one of the most formidable debaters he has faced on any subject. I think Hitchens is a more reliable source than "BornAtheist" or whatever. Besides, when they hurl embittered invective at me, my critics are unwittingly revealing that they are completly bereft of arguments.
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 53)
31. Dinesh, you are inaccurate. You have yet to debate the question that MATTER: is there a God? Probably because you have nothing to back it up, and you know you'd lose? A REAL debater is able to take both sides of the arguement, and to RESPECT both sides opinions.
You're also wrong about the people here. I, for example, am not an atheist. I think you're a moron. I find more meaning and challenge in the posts that follow than your article, and that's the only reason why I come back.
Strados at 11:30AM on Jan 25th 2008
32. "They will continue their delightful blather about what a cretin I am, how I got creamed, how stupid my mannerisms are, why I should go back to India, etc..................Besides, when they hurl embittered invective at me, my critics are unwittingly revealing that they are completly bereft of arguments."
You got that right!!!
Of course, this is bigotry based on fully thought through "reason".
Dinesh, you should know that in keeping with the spirit of the great Atheist tyrants of history, our "New" Atheists don't tolerate criticism or questioning of their assertions.
Stig at 11:38AM on Jan 25th 2008
33. Just because someone calls you a dimwitted Christian zealot doesn't mean that you aren't one.
Paul at 11:36AM on Jan 25th 2008
34. Actually, what Einstein said was ""The past, present and future are only illusions, even if stubborn ones." He was getting at the fact that, in Relativity, time and space are linked and there is no one privileged 'present'. Every moment is past to some, future to others, and all of them 'exist' in a real sense. This is essentially what's meant by the oft-repeated but seldom-understood phrase "time is the fourth dimension".
Though I have other grounds for doubting the existence of gods, the ostensible conflict between 'foreknowledge' and 'free will' is not one of them. In Relativity, it would be possible to 'see' all of time at once, given a perspective outside the four dimensions we live in.
Ray Ingles at 11:42AM on Jan 25th 2008
35. If somebody vehemently declares something to be evil. Based upon some of the back and forth regarding good vs. evil and their meaning, on this blog site.Is that statement of a religious nature or something else?
M2D5 at 11:43AM on Jan 25th 2008
36. No Stig, what we don't tolerate are unreasoned arguments based on faith, outright lies intended to smear atheists, and the condescension of the "saved".
AndrewV at 11:45AM on Jan 25th 2008
37. our "New" Atheists don't tolerate criticism or questioning of their assertions.
Stig at 11:38AM on Jan 25th 2008
I don't find that true at all. As and atheist, I just don't believe. As a Christian you want us to believe, need us to believe, but we don't. It is not in me to think something is true just because you say it is. I don't think evolution is true just because science says it is. I have actually seen the proof, I've read about it and touched it and marveled at its simplicity and its complexity. I've seen nothing of this god thing, except what man has created. And I have marveled at that also. But I still don't have it in me to believe.
TJ at 11:46AM on Jan 25th 2008
38. "There is no proof, either positve or negative. However, you typically don't have to prove a negative."
If somebody makes a definitive assertion, such as, "There is no God," they need to prove the negative.
It is not impossible to prove a negative. Think of water (or the lack of) in a swimming pool. You can prove the non-existence of water.
The fact stands that there is much evidence to support intelligent creation. If science had tested and proved away all possible evidences of a creator, there would be no argument, just as there would be no argument if you said there was no water in a pool that was dry.
The thing that's irritating is the incessant definitive claims that 'there is no God,' by the novice scientists in here, who then cite science as proving that there is no God. The funny thing is that many of the same people will say that they can't prove (or don't have to) prove a negative, aka prove the non-existence of God.
They will commonly say that science has definitively proven the big bang and macro evoltution. If this were so, why would they still be looking for evidence to support their theory? Do people still look for evidence that 2+2=4? No, we all know that to be true. Therefore it is definitive. big bang and macro evolution are not definitive, so stop trying to say they are.
I hope the people who do this realize that they are either errant or liars, because it simply isn't true.
Mark at 11:56AM on Jan 25th 2008
39. "If science had tested and proved away all possible evidences of a creator"
This is crazy. Why should Christians not have to prove the existence of God? Why is it incumbent on everyone else to prove them wrong? You are the one making the assertions, YOU should show us how you came to that conclusion. And no, to be philosophically accurate, atheists have not PROVEN the non-existence of God. What basic logic shows, however, is that God is based on so much speculation that it is unreasonable to assume that it is true. Get thee to a philosophy classroom.
AndrewV at 12:04PM on Jan 25th 2008
40. in response,
mona-the-bona. clinons was to busy with the knob slob. brian 9:48PM on Jan 24 2008
are these not the facts? there is no hate here or hard feelings. the may have been hard feelings on Bill's part or what?
brian at 12:10PM on Jan 25th 2008
41. "25. Linda...If you read the Gospels, Jesus responded to faith, not human need."
--------------------------------
You are sidestepping the question. You know what "jesus" thought? Why were there numerous miracles in "jesus'" time, then none?
Linda at 12:10PM on Jan 25th 2008
42. "I don't think evolution is true just because science says it is. I have actually seen the proof,"
You've seen the proof of one species turning into another (macro-evolution)? Where? Cite your sources.
"I've read about it"
We've all read about it. That doesn't make it true. I once read a story about Peter Rabbit.
"and touched it and marveled at its simplicity and its complexity."
It sounds profound, but I'm wondering what you mean by "you have touched evolution."
Mark at 12:10PM on Jan 25th 2008
43. The problem with so many of the Christian arguments on here is that they start with God and then try to disprove him.
GOD IS NOT THE DEFAULT!
Christians need to start from nothing and say WHY God exists, and why the Christian God is the correct one to follow. Do this using rational arguments, and I will believe.
AndrewV at 12:11PM on Jan 25th 2008
44. Hey DD; what a clever entry when you're talking about amputees. "That one 'stumoped' me for a minute". I can't believe you said that!
fanmanaf1 at 12:12PM on Jan 25th 2008
45. >>>If somebody makes a definitive assertion, such as, "There is no God," they need to prove the negative.>The fact stands that there is much evidence to support intelligent creation. If science had tested and proved away all possible evidences of a creator, there would be no argument, just as there would be no argument if you said there was no water in a pool that was dry.>They will commonly say that science has definitively proven the big bang and macro evoltution. If this were so, why would they still be looking for evidence to support their theory? Do people still look for evidence that 2+2=4? No, we all know that to be true. Therefore it is definitive. big bang and macro evolution are not definitive, so stop trying to say they are.
Former Airline at 12:14PM on Jan 25th 2008