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 5 of 53)
61. I cannot say for sure whether I deserve the label "atheist", "agnostic", "unbeliever", or "non-believer", but, having started from a well taught upbringing in one of the "big three" wetsern religions, I have as yet been able to discover only one reasonably strong argument for the existance of GOD. Every culture we know of in human history has created one! (Incidentally, they have all differed from each other in some significant way(s)) Although this in no way proves that any of these deities was either real or the correct one, it does shed some light on the value of Blogs like this one, not to mention all the myriad churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. that exist and have existed. If it is true that man as a species NEEDS a god, he/she/it will exist. However, those who NEED God also seem to need to reassure themselves that their particular faith is well placed; it is necessary for them to convince themselves of this by convincing as many of their fellow humans as possible to agree with them.
The non-believer, on the other hand, if he/she is comfortable in non-belief, DOES NOT NEEDD TO CONVINCE ANYONE!! Hence, those unbelievers who see the need to participate in this ongoing debate may not be any more "sure" of their positions than the above referenced believers.
FriarTuck at 12:39PM on Jan 25th 2008
62. Mark, what could context have to do with your statement? You are asserting that intelligent design is backed up by evidence. You provide none of this evidence, and then tell us that we have to prove you wrong. What "context" am I supposed to read that in? What is your "actual point"?
And FYI, anyone who says that something in science is "definitely proven" is mistaken. Science works by eliminating wrong answers to select the most likely answer. Evolution and the Big Bang are very likely theories(and before you start in, they have been thoroughly researched by many scientists, even Christians).
AndrewV at 12:38PM on Jan 25th 2008
63. linda,
don't hate the "new comers" we need fresh thoughts and ideas let them warm up to us before YOU tear into them. give some time before you rant. as for whether your a dirty old hag i never said you were. i never pictured it like that. i see the cellar and the pickle jars and the rollers in the hair but thats it and i don't think i'm looking in the crystal ball
brian at 12:40PM on Jan 25th 2008
64. to AndrewV at 12:11PM on Jan 25th 2008,
I think most Christians understand that belief in God is based on faith. It is a Christian virtue.
But agnostics will tell you that to be an Atheist you must believe or have faith there is not a God.
Dawkins tries to work around this by saying well the probability of God is x so that is why I don't believe.
The problem with only using science as a guide to life is that Science is wrong the a great deal of time.
Yes we improve our understanding of the natural world over time, but it is based on humane observation which is subjective.
Whatever sciences claims today, a lot of it will be incorrect tomorrow. It is your faith that science will vindicate your belief system over time.
The Sun revolves around the Earth. Looks good from this point of view (of course it is wrong). What a bad observation.
pd at 12:39PM on Jan 25th 2008
65. "Were did substance come from"
We don't know. And neither do you.
Former Airline at 12:38PM on Jan 25th 2008
66. 59. 12. here's an example,
"399. Fuck you vedanta. You have no idea what Saddam was working on.
And everyone calls him 'saddam'. So fuck you again.
Linda at 12:14AM on Jan 25th 2008
this is what happens when you cross hairs with an atheist on a rage
brian at 10:17AM on Jan 25th
_______________________-
Keep it Real said:
"brian, is Linda a drunken sailor?
Or just an old hagg....."
KeepItReal:
My vote is for slutty old hag. Scary.
kulari94 at 12:33PM on Jan 25th 2008
_____________________--
Now this is some funny shit!!!!
hand/foot/way at 12:39PM on Jan 25th 2008
67. If they are the atheists heroes atheism is in a very bad situation. Maybe they should try to use their vacant time to go back to a good library and read something about religion.
xxx
wow, you are ME again and a new one trick pony heard from.
Ok, genius, how does my personal disinterest in your religion morph into being part of some organization that has spokesmen?
If you have an argument against whatever those people you mentioned say, it has nothing to do with any other person on earth.
A-theism is not an 'ism'. It is the absence of one. You've made a displacement in your mind to what would have to be called a-theism-ism and there is no such word.
It's like going to the desert expecting to eat the sand which is there.
This comes from what I'm sensing is an affective disorder either caused by or fed by fundamentalism. Specifically one becomes so chelated by dogma that it is impossible to escape from it, even when viewing another person - you are ME.
It is a pervasive disorder and it is presently showing signs of abetting and even encouraging sociopathy in many individuals.
Magical explanations will cover anything, including justification of any behavior imaginable against a group considered an unclean caste, as the pearl of Indyah perpetually portrays his straw army of enemies he trots out on every 'new' topic.
If these people start acting out it will probably deteriorate into civil war.
brianless is a poster child for this. He has a five year-old's view of the universe, his own behavior is 100% justifiable no matter what direction it takes, and he is unable to distinguish between holy rolling and government - he thinks jesus is a republican and liberals and queers are unclean and sub human. Get him loaded and he'll follow jesus on a stick just like a horse does a carrot.
Clif Kuplen at 12:40PM on Jan 25th 2008
68. Same goes for you, foot in hand. Where is that equation you made up on Big Bang from? And I think you are embarrassing yourself with the spelling of "where".
----------------------------------------
Here: read this one:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/adolf_grunbaum/explanation.html
Linda at 12:41PM on Jan 25th 2008
69. Linda, and whoever else:
Below is a response I wrote months ago while on one of these blogs. I saved it to a word document. It's a bit long.
Cpt. Negative asked me how to prove that Big Foot doesn't exist, obviously relating it to people asking atheists to prove that God doesn't exist. This is obviously a near impossibility, which is why Big Foot's existence is still debatable, even though he probably doesn’t exist. You could say the same thing about aliens, and I'm sure that somebody could debate the existence of a a;sdojasdoi, whatever that is.
I admit that just because something is debatable, does not mean it exists. And just because you cannot prove that something does not exist, does not mean that it does exist. But the fact that you cannot disprove its existence allows room for the possibility of its existence, however small that possibility is. Inversely, because I cannot prove that something does exist, does not mean that it does not exist. My inability to provide hard evidence for its existence allows room for its inexistence, but it does not prove its inexistence.
Using the universe as the metaphysical primary in your debates does not mean that the universe is the metaphysical primary. It is still debatable whether there is an alternate metaphysical primary, such as God. You have not definitively proven that the universe is the metaphysical primary. It is erroneous for the atheists to use the philosophy that the earth is the metaphysical primary as proof that God does not exist. That would be circular reasoning. In order to dogmatically say that earth is the metaphysical primary you must first relieve all notions that other metaphysical primaries may exist. Since it is agreed that it is near impossible to prove the inexistence of God, we must also agree that there is room for the possibility that God is the creator of the universe (just as we must agree that Big Foot could be the creator).
The fact is, it is possible that God created everything, which means that we do not necessarily need to debate from the standpoint that the universe is the metaphysical primary. We can now move our debate into the realm that God is the metaphysical primary. In doing so, we can also discuss eternity, other dimensions, etc. Logically, it is impossible for something within the time/space domain to be self existent, having no cause. If you can prove otherwise, I am all ears. The burden of proof is on you. In my opinion, using an intelligent designer more adequately explains origins. If a being exists beyond of our 4-dimensional Universe, and has the ability to create all that is in our universe, then it is easier to deduct that the intelligent designer created our universe instead of our universe being self existent. I see evidence for intelligent design by the order that is observable in the universe – in inanimate matter as well as organic matter. The order and complexity of our own bodies could be God’s finger print.
This is akin to finding a large footprint in the forest (Big Foot). The existence of our mind, our intellect, our conscience, the order throughout the universe – it is all evidence (although, not definitive proof) of an intelligent designer. If we introduce Occam’s razor to the discussion of origins I would undoubtedly have to choose the notion that the universe has been created by an intelligent designer. With the lack of reasonable evidence to support the notion that the universe exists by random chance, I would even lean toward the notion that Big Foot created everything. A self existent universe in a time/space domain is akin to somebody pulling themselves off the ground by their own bootstraps. It is logically impossible. Furthermore, the order and balance of earth, its proximity from the sun, its rate of rotation, its orbit, the existence of life – point me toward a creator. The existence of a creator adequately explains the existence of everything.
Mark at 12:41PM on Jan 25th 2008
70. We don't know. And neither do you.
Former Airline at 12:38PM on Jan 25th 2
____________________________--
Stop acting as if you have all the correct answers then.
hand/foot/way at 12:42PM on Jan 25th 2008
71. cliff,
if you follow i once posted God does not ride the backs of donkeys or elephants. if that analogy is a little much for your mind let me know. i can make it simpler. cliff your really an ok guy you just so so highly of you. i am getting there though, the lights coming on its going to be close, a real cliff hanger. hang in there cliff
brian at 12:46PM on Jan 25th 2008
72. "The Sun revolves around the Earth. Looks good from this point of view (of course it is wrong). What a bad observation." pd
----------------------------------------
Ironic that pd uses this example to show how atheists wouldn't believe that the sun revolves around the earth, when this is what got copernicus and galileo in trouble with the all powerful church. Very ironic.
-------------------------------------------
And to all the christian name callers out there, brian little b dim bulb did not post what I was responding to for the umpteenth time to a dim christian. Sticks and stones.
Linda at 12:47PM on Jan 25th 2008
73. Here is the context of the paragraph from which you took several words and went on a rant:
"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."
My point is that there is still room for argument because the non-existence of God is not definitively proven and there is evidence of intelligent design.
If you notice, my comment is in response to somebody saying that don't have to prove a negative. Well, if the negative hasn't been proven in the same way that we can prove the non-existence of water in a swimming pool, there is still the potential for the "negative" to in fact be a positive - especially when you are debating a supernatural being.
Mark at 12:49PM on Jan 25th 2008
74. PD, I understand where your coming from, but I think your view of science is wrong. When you say that much of what science tells us will be wrong tomorrow; if you were talking about particle physics, I'd agree. Replace the word science with logic, which is all that science is. We assume that if we do something it will cause some effect. Everyone, even the most diehard Christian, uses science for everything in life. They expect to get wet in the rain, and they expect their dinner to burn if they cook it too long.
Also, agnostic isn't some halfway position you can take and stay out of the debate. While we are all technically speaking Agnostics, you either live your life as if there were a God, or as if there were no God, and that makes you either an atheist or theist.
AndrewV at 12:52PM on Jan 25th 2008
75. Scientific evidence and study over supersitious belief with no evidence ...........................hmmmm.
The choice is easy.
It's the same choice that I make when I take a medication that has been scientifically tested rather than prayed over by witch doctors.
Holy logic = wholey logic.
Linda at 12:56PM on Jan 25th 2008