A few days ago I debated Michael Shermer at the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Nashville. Shermer was his usual affable self and the mostly-Christian audience both liked him and treated him respectfully. I didn't feel bad about putting Shermer before a largely religious audience. The last time we debated I was in hostile territory at Cal Tech. The Cal Tech debate was sponsored by Shermer's Skeptics Society and most in the audience were on his side. The debate was moderated by Christian radio host Janet Parshall. She conducted it in a format similar to the presidential debates, in which the moderator poses questions to each side.
On July 12, a few months from now, I have a rematch with atheist Christopher Hitchens. This is in Las Vegas at the large libertarian annual conference called Freedom Fest. This is one of the liveliest political conferences in the country, and I invite readers of this blog, whatever your religious or political persuasion, to attend. Each year the libertarians have invited me to debate, and each year they tell me, "Well, next year we're going to find someone who can take you on." The first year I went I debated libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne. The next year, former Congressman Bob Barr. Last year, presidential contender Ron Paul. This time organizer Mark Skousen has decided to focus the main debate on the God v. atheism issue. So Hitchens and I will enter the arena. You can find out more information and sign up here.
April 25 I'll be debating the notorious Peter Singer at Biola University near Los Angeles. This is another event worth attending, although I also intend to post the debate on the web. When Singer was hired by Princeton University some years ago it caused a big stir. Singer is a champion not only of infanticide and euthanasia but also of animal rights! This may seem to be anomalous, even absurd, but Singer is an avid Darwinist who sees himself as following the logic of Darwinism to its unavoidable conclusion.
Man, Singer argues, is on a continuum with the animals. Unfortunately through the influence of Christianity man has raised himself onto a pedestal, invested himself with all kinds of bogus rights, such as the "right to life," and consigned beasts to a life of subordination to human interests. Singer argues that once we get rid of God we must accept our Darwinian position, and this means giving up the values that Christianity brought into the world. Ultimately human beings must be pulled down a notch, and animals raised up a notch, to restore the biological order of things. I've been reading Singer's books which are always thoughtful and eloquent; he is far superior to some of the new atheists who have gotten far more attention in the last couple of years. I look forward to taking him on next month.
Also in April: I'll be debating philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong April 21 at Dartmouth, where he teaches and where I attended. Our topic is whether it is possible to be good without God. On April 22 at Harvard I'll share the podium with Dan Barker. Barker is a former evangelical minister who is now an outspoken atheist. He is currently head of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a kind of atheist ACLU. We keep hearing from atheists that they are not a movement and that "atheism is not a belief system" but merely the denial of a belief in God. So isn't it interesting that we now have atheist books, atheist magazines, atheist conferences, atheist organizations, atheist Sunday schools, an atheist radio show, and so on? Quite clearly atheism has become an ideology and our atheist friends cannot escape criticism by inanely proclaiming that their position doesn't constitute a position. Perhaps one of these days these characters will stop living in denial and prove worthy of the rational realism that they claim to uphold.
Some atheists have emailed me asking me if I've accepted Sam Harris' offer to a written debate. A few months ago Harris proposed such a debate, and I agreed, but also proposed to Sam that we have an oral debate in the classic format. Written debates strike me as a bit wimpy, since both debaters can get advice and assistance from various experts. The advantage of a face-to-face encounter is that it compels each side to think on its feet and make its best case before a live audience. Having himself proposed the written debate, Harris hasn't responded to my counteroffer.
Given that Richard Dawkins has already wimped out, proving himself an intellectual invertebrate, I'm beginning to wonder whether some of the world's best-known atheists are losing the courage of their convictions. One of my former professors now calls me Joe Louis, in reference to the boxer who knocked out so many "bums of the month" that he eventually had trouble finding worthy opponents. Although modern atheism is very belligerent in its writings--angry missives issued from the security of academic offices--it seems that some of our leading advocates of unbelief are positively timorous when it comes to standing up and debating their core convictions.
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 61)
46. 43. If you ever find a perfect DNA match, between the animal kingdom and the human reace, then you would have proof of the darwin notion of evoloution.
---
Did you ever read about the theory of evolution. Like in high school?
The idea behind evolution is that all life CHANGES and EVOLVES to best fit their environment. You won't find a perfect DNA match between anyone accept identical twins because of the genetic recombination that occurs after conception. Please, comment on stuff you actually KNOW.
35. There's no thoughtful, rational response. The AOL Church of Atheism is imploding in complete madness.
---
There are many thoughtful and rational responses. However, many atheists, including myself, have lost patience with D'Souza's hatemongering.
"The AOL Church of Atheism." Kind of has a ring to it, doesn't it?
Jacob at 10:06AM on Mar 17th 2008
47. Observant: "If you ever find a perfect DNA match, between the animal kingdom and the human reace, then you would have proof of the darwin notion of evoloution."
So 100% DNA match would CONVINCE you that evolution is true. But 97% makes you think its a bunch of hooey. You must think OJ is innocent.
If you found an animal with a 100% DNA match with a human being, you know what you just found? A human being!!!
Don't you find it hard to suspend disbelief in such a large body of evidence to make it fit with your spiritual ideas? Its so obviously incompatible.
AndrewV at 10:10AM on Mar 17th 2008
48. I'm looking forward to the inevitable verbal beat down that Dinesh will put on these so called champions of logic and reason. It never gets old to see their weariness and disillusion after debating Dinesh. So on that note, I hope atheists continue to challenge Dinesh and vice versa. It’s always great entertainment.
Bryan CRT at 10:12AM on Mar 17th 2008
49. Uh...I'm not sure if you're aware of this, Dinesh, but you just spent most of your article proving that, no, atheists are not scared to debate.
As for "Given that Richard Dawkins has already wimped out, proving himself an intellectual invertebrate..." -- this "proves" nothing of the sort. Perhaps he has no respect for you intellectually. I don't. Perhaps he's turned off by your onanistic columns and your wildly immodest, even more wildly delusional attitude re: your intellect. I am. Perhaps he realizes that by debating you it presents the illusion that you're even worth debating -- that your ideas are actually important or offer a genuine challenge to biology and atheism. I would.
Hey, I think that Christianity is bunk. And yet no prominent Christians will debate me! Ergo, and for that reason solely, there is no god. It's D'Souzaian logic!
bza at 10:17AM on Mar 17th 2008
50. The idea behind evolution is that all life CHANGES and EVOLVES to best fit their environment. You won't find a perfect DNA match between anyone accept identical twins because of the genetic recombination that occurs after conception. Please, comment on stuff you actually KNOW.
Jacob at 10:06AM on Mar
-----------------------------------
I know the difference between a theory and fact.
The evidence that supports evolution is nothing more than circstantial at best. Go look for your missing link, And until you find real proof, try not to talk.
Observant at 10:22AM on Mar 17th 2008
51. Dinesh, please be sure to bring EVIDENCE to support your side in the upcoming debate with Hitchens.
Maybe ask your god to materialize and bring the hitch a bottle of Scotch!
Darron at 10:22AM on Mar 17th 2008
52. to Ray at # 44; that's the same question we keep asking Al Gore, now that there are a multitude of un-cooperative and inconvenient facts demolishing his man-made global warming rubbish. Never-the-less he got the award.
fanmanaf1 at 10:24AM on Mar 17th 2008
53. Observant; I would say the similarities between our #2 chromosome to chromosomes #23 and 24 of the Chimpanzee is much better than "circumstantial".
Here's a picture if you would like to see...
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/translocation.html
Ryan Anderson at 10:33AM on Mar 17th 2008
54. Observant: "Go look for your missing link, And until you find real proof, try not to talk."
Christians use the argument that there are no "intermediate" species, therefore no evolution. On the contrary, everything is an intermediate species. Evolution is not trying to reach some end state where it creates a perfect being. There are missing links because we do not have fossils of every living thing that ever populated the earth. But we do see that humans evolved from a more ape-like form (heavier brow, hunched over, hairier) to what we have today. Google "Homo habilis", and try to explain if those fossils are human, ape, or your so-called "missing link".
AndrewV at 10:34AM on Mar 17th 2008
55. "Don't you find it hard to suspend disbelief in such a large body of evidence to make it fit with your spiritual ideas? Its so obviously incompatible."
Andrew,
I think Evolution and the Bible are completely compatible. Evolution is the details.
However, most Religious people can't grasp that. They stick behind the general statements and their fine with it.
I however, love details. Science provides the details.
Creationism isn't Science. Intelligent design isn't Science. For some reason a lot of my fellow Christians are scared to death of Science.
Science doesn't contradict the Bible. It confirms it. People can only realize this, if they read the Bible correctly.
Botts at 10:42AM on Mar 17th 2008
56. 51. I know the difference between a theory and fact.
The evidence that supports evolution is nothing more than circstantial at best. Go look for your missing link, And until you find real proof, try not to talk.
---
It seems that believers in "intelligent design" always like to bring up the so-called "missing link". The point is, the fossil record spans billions of years, and there is no way to have every single organism in it. However there are enough fish with legs and the sort that are evidence for evolution.
Another tactic that I find especially brainless is the old "theory not a fact" track. In general, a theory is not a fact, yes. However, in science, a theory is an idea that has been repeatedly tested, verified and accepted. General relativity is a theory, the heliocntric solar system is a theory, but both are widely accepted by scientists and non-scientists alike. Scientific theories CAN be disproven, but in 150 years, evolution is still a strong theory that is widely accepted as fact.
Argh! I hate when people with no clue about what their talking about mislead other people!
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal
Jacob at 10:45AM on Mar 17th 2008
57. Don't you find it hard to suspend disbelief in such a large body of evidence to make it fit with your spiritual ideas? Its so obviously incompatible.
AndrewV at 10:10AM on Mar 17th 2008
------------------------------------
What I find hard to believe is taht man could embrace a theory such as evolution.
Well, lets back up a few billion years.
Before evolution, there was the big bang.lol Well, were did the matter come from that caused the bang?
Not to mention the chemical pool that evolutionist assert life originated from. Your theorys are full of holes.
Observant at 10:44AM on Mar 17th 2008
58. Observant; we'll see if Cassini's fly by of Enceladus fills any of the holes. They think it may have a primordial soup beneath it's ice crust.
Very exciting.
One hole in the anthrocentric christian world view is... what the hell's the point of Saturn? (or any of the other planets).
Ryan Anderson at 10:48AM on Mar 17th 2008
59. Also, Manatee's have "fingers". Just FYI...
http://isurus.mote.org/~hughbuffett/images/flipper_skeleton.jpg
What's the point of the finger bones encased in a solid flipper.
Seems like an unintelligent design, unless you consider that they moved from land to see eons ago and have evolved a flipper.
Ryan Anderson at 10:50AM on Mar 17th 2008
60. One hole in the anthrocentric christian world view is... what the hell's the point of Saturn? (or any of the other planets).
Ryan Anderson at 10:48AM on Mar 1
--------------------------------------
That question my freind you can ask God when you stand before him on judgement day.
Observant at 10:52AM on Mar 17th 2008