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 6 of 61)
76. "The fact that God's existence is astronomically unlikely can be demonstrated with elementary high school logic." --AndrewV
________________
As Jon Stewart might say, "Go ooooooonnnnnn..."
Paul Berror at 11:16AM on Mar 17th 2008
77. the bible says only a fool believes there is no God. there is nothing more pathetic than a so-called educated fool. as solomon said, whatever is crooked cannot be made straight. the atheist position is crooked and therefore will never be straight. its a bankrupt system of thought
brian at 11:20AM on Mar 17th 2008
78. "But if you believe evolution to be true, surely you must admit that large portions of the Bible are allegorical or legendary. The question is, when reading the Bible, how do you sort the legend from the truth?"
Hey Andrew, hope everything is great with you and your family.
The Bible was written for primitive humans that were universaly illiterate. I don't think they would have been able to grasp the details as we see today. So all they needed, was general statements.
We dont' know what one day to God is. We only know our math. We only know our time and dimensions. There are some fascinating new theories out there, that maybe one day can give us even more wonderful answers.
I don't try to focus on the stories of the Bible in a literal sense. When you do this, 2 things happen.
1. People become like brian b. and people alike. It's black and white. They don't care about details, and if you give them details that are fact, they dismiss because they think it contradicts their faith. But in actuality, it doesn't.
2. People turn away from God. They read it as literal, and we know some of the stories, can't possibly be correct.
Today's human observations give details to the General statements in the Bible. The meaning behind the stories, is what counts.
Botts at 11:20AM on Mar 17th 2008
79. "how can people who dont believe in anything fight." --Todd
_________________
Now there's some sound reasoning for you! Since atheists don't believe in god they believe in nothing!
Actually, I believe in a lot of things. I believe in the swing of a woman's hips. I believe in the cool breezes of September. I believe in the idea that we should never victimize our fellow human beings. I believe that dialog is the key to understanding. I believe that donuts will make you fatter faster than you can imagine! And I believe our government must sometimes lie to us just to get the job of governing done.
Please don't accuse me of believing in nothing.
Paul at 11:19AM on Mar 17th 2008
80. 74. Aethiests are just mad because they take an idefensible position. how can people who dont believe in anything fight.
---
Your wrong here Todd. First off, regardless of whether you're an atheist, theist, deist or anything else, you can always defend your position. Posters on this blog like Linda, Somber, Paul, AndrewV and myself are evidence that people can, and do, defend Atheism.
Secondly, you are confused as to how people who who "don't believe in anything" can "fight". Actually Todd, atheists believe in something. I, at least, believe in what can be validatd scientifically. I DON'T believe in fairy tales, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, or a guy with a long white beard up in heaven. I have read or at least heard of the myths of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism (4 of the 5 major religions of the world) and do not believe in those. I do believe in reproducable and confirmed Biological, Chemical, and Physical theories that can be taken on something other than faith.
Jacob at 11:24AM on Mar 17th 2008
81. botts,
thanks for your opinion. by the way are you yet to apologize for your slanderous statement about me? as the bible rightly warns. you are a false teacher,speaking lies. you need to re-examine your faith. i think you may need to evaluate what you cliam to know,seriously. this is no laughing matter. because you claim to be a christian yet you teach a doctrine of lies. stop being hypocritical and speak the truth in love.
by the way is the bible the innerrant word of God in what it affirms?
brian at 11:26AM on Mar 17th 2008
82. 66. You see, Observant, whenever you ask questions like this, "Well, were did the matter come from that caused the bang", it lets everyone who reads about these topics know just how far behind the power curve.
I suggest that you read all you can about the beginning of time and what happened before the big bang. That way, you won't sound so woefully unread.
Paul at 11:04AM on Mar 17th 2008
--------------------------------------
That was funny still lol.
I phrased it stipid, stupid, as to suggest the stupidity of the theory.
Observant at 11:27AM on Mar 17th 2008
83. jacob,,
in essence you only believe in what you can observe. so science is your answer for everything. how does science answer suffering?
brian at 11:30AM on Mar 17th 2008
84. Using reason, and logic I would like to know where or how the power of faith is explained
Jerry Brown at 11:31AM on Mar 17th 2008
85. Dinesh,
Why all the debating? What are you trying to prove? What if someone believes in God. Believes in the teachings of Jesus? BUT, thinks Christians are nuts. You know, the part about saying they believe Jesus' teachings, and then turn around and support torture and killing. Huh?
bleu at 11:33AM on Mar 17th 2008
86. 79. the bible says only a fool believes there is no God. there is nothing more pathetic than a so-called educated fool. as solomon said, whatever is crooked cannot be made straight. the atheist position is crooked and therefore will never be straight. its a bankrupt system of thought
brian little b, I have read many of your comments, but this might be the most vapid one yet. You attack atheism using the Bible! You attack people who reject your belief system with that very same belief system!
Let me slow down. Many Christians accept the Bible as the word of God. From this comes its significance. However, if you don't believe in God, the Bible looses it's significance. Therefore, trying to say Atheism is invalid by quoting "the word of God", you therefore reveal the sad limits of your mind, that you cannot find a reason to accept your beliefs other than that you think we should.
If I wrote a book saying the world was created by Great Flying Purple Hippos (henceforth GFPHs), then marketed it as the literal word of the GFPHs, and myself as their one true Prophet, would anyone accept me? No. If my own validation of my book is my book itself, I have not truly validated it. Same thing with Christianity, accept they talk about God and Jesus instead of hippopotami.
All praise to the Great Flying Purple Hippos! May their kingdom endure a thousand years!
Jacob at 11:33AM on Mar 17th 2008
87. Oh my God! Don't you ever get tired of talking to yourself???
dani at 11:35AM on Mar 17th 2008
88. Evolution, the big bang are theories and are not scientifically proven. these theories are not even probable. so why do aethiest tout them so much? becuase of faith -believing in something without much proof- aethiesm is a religion. these guys are hypocrites.
todd at 11:36AM on Mar 17th 2008
89. For someone so "smart" you could have come up with a better title to this article. So...you have all these debates, but are upset Dawkins won't give you an hour to pummel your brain into submission? I really think Dawkins searches for debates that can inform, not so he can tally his win loss records. So...a better title for this would be "Atheists with nothing better to do debate me."
acefondu at 8:21AM on Mar 18th 2008
90. brian,
"in essence you only believe in what you can observe. so science is your answer for everything. how does science answer suffering?"
I don't know what your angle is here, but science has produced pain-relievers, that's cool right?
Mokele-Mobembe at 11:36AM on Mar 17th 2008