We've all heard of Black History Month, but have you heard about Atheist Bashing Week? It was Atheist Bashing Week for me as I did three debates over the past seven days with a new crop of leading atheists.
First on Monday April 21 I debated philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong at Dartmouth before a large crowd. The 500-seat auditorium was full so they used an overflow room, which had hundreds more watching on a big screen. This was a scholarly debate in which Sinnott-Armstrong distanced himself from what he portrayed as the crude atheism of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Against this village atheism, well represented among atheists who comment on this blog, Sinnott-Armstrong offered a more dignified atheism that he said recognizes the accomplishments of Christianity. In one revealing moment he event said schools and colleges should teach students that the crimes of Christianity, like the Inquisition and the Salem witch trials, pale before the crimes of atheist regimes like those of Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. Overall this was an elevated debate, one of the more high-toned ones I've participated in.
Then on Tuesday April 22 I debated Dan Barker of the Freedom from Religion Foundation at Harvard. Here the audience was smaller, because Harvard is launching into final exams. But the debate was very sharp and lively. We didn't do the traditional opening statements followed by rebuttals and cross-examination and so on. Rather, a student panel posed questions to both of us, and we each answered, with the other person than having a chance to reply. This format suits me very well, and I found myself being able to develop arguments about epistemology and science more fully than in other formats. Later the atheist students who organized the debate complimented me on my performance, and one said that I had made numerous arguments that he had never thought of, and that were compelling him to rethink (although not abandon) his atheism.
Finally on Friday April 25 I debated the controversial Princeton philosopher Peter Singer at Biola University. This was the biggest event, with more than 2,500 in attendance. Since Biola is a Christian campus, the majority of those present were believers, although atheists were represented too. The Christian students treated Singer extremely well, which is not always how theists are received when they show up on secular campuses. I went first and focused on Singer's extreme views, such as his proposal that parents be allowed to kill their children up to the age of 28 days. Singer also thinks America and the West can learn from non-Western societies, not to mention ancient Greece and Rome, where children were routinely killed at much higher ages. Oddly enough this champion of infanticide and euthanasia also favors animal rights!
If this seems like a strange combination, the apparent paradox is resolved when you discover Singer's logic. Singer argues that we human beings are Darwinian primates. We are on a continuum with the other animals. It is Christianity, Singer charges, that came into the world and elevated human beings on a pedestal. It is Christianity that proclaimed that man is in the image of God, and that creation is for man's benefit. These ideas gave rise to the special dignity of man and human rights and moral principles such as "It is wrong to deliberately take human life." Singer thinks that now that we know God is dead, we should get rid of these principles and replace them with utilitarian considerations more in keeping with our animal nature. In a sense Singer is taking up Nietzsche's challenge--to rid our civilization not only of the Christian God but also of Christian morality--and his homicidal conclusions, which many people find horrific, are only a working-out of his atheist logic.
Surprisingly Singer didn't want to talk about any of this during our debate. In a way I can see why: who wants to defend killing three-week old infants in the presence of a largely-Christian audience! Instead Singer wanted to argue about why a just God allows suffering in the world, not only the suffering of children but also of animals. I didn't want our debate to be like two ships passing in the night, so I happily engaged Singer on those issues. He is a lucid and gentlemanly debater, and he complimented me for eschewing Bible citations in favor of reason and logic and history and science in developing my arguments. I praised him for having the guts to come to a Christian campus and debate me, quite a contrast from the invertebrate Richard Dawkins who seems terrified to take me on even at his native Oxford.
All these debates will soon be up on the web. I have now debated six leading atheists--Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, Daniel Dennett, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Dan Barker, and Peter Singer. Hitchens and I already have a couple of rematches scheduled, and Singer has agreed to a second debate on the East Coast. I am also planning a debate next year with Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker. The mathematician John Allen Paulos, author of the new book Irreligion, has approached me about debating and we are looking for the appropriate venue. Over the next few years I am hoping to assemble the most extensive existing archive of "God v. Atheism" debates. Many churches are already showing these debates in order to educate and instruct believers. I wonder if atheist groups will have the confidence to air them at their conferences.
So far no takers though. And my challenges to Dawkins to step into the arena have only met with pathetic rationalization: "Richard is simply too busy and smart to debate you Dinesh." Busy doing what besides being caught with his pants down by Ben Stein? And I guess he's smart because he doesn't want to risk further embarassing himself and destroying his public reputation! Won't it be hilarious if the "party of faith" is unafraid of opposing arguments while the "party of reason" cannot withstand the arguments of its critics? This is what Henry James might describe as a most interesting turning of the screw.
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 61)
16. terry,
sorry, i did not mean to anger you or make you hostile towrds my view.
brian at 8:04AM on Apr 28th 2008
17. brian; it's well documented that you lie on this blog.
Ryan Anderson at 8:10AM on Apr 28th 2008
18. kumar,
i think your right. there will always be a fallout for the truth. darkness will never come to the light for fear of exposure. the darkness hides behind the mask of psuedo-intellectualism that takes on the most bizarre forms.like one bloggers"big mind" posting???? big mind,??? as opposed to what? little mind,medium mind,no mind,blind mind? atheist have a millions reasons for whatever when god just has ONE!! I AM!! thats reason enough!!
brian at 8:13AM on Apr 28th 2008
19. ryan,
here we go with you again!! good morning!! go ahead a post the lies!!! lol!! your rantings against the truth are so shrill. why do you rant and rave? why do you keep on with the denial of what is true? and then you make such claims. what is a lie this time? john 3:16 is that a lie?
brian at 8:15AM on Apr 28th 2008
20. as jesus said, blessed are you when they speak all many of evil against you!!! accuse you of lies!! naturally they would because a lie thinks everything else is a lie also. its the nature of satan, tha father of lies!!
brian at 8:17AM on Apr 28th 2008
21. brian; I think most of John is probably a "lie".
Ryan Anderson at 8:17AM on Apr 28th 2008
22. ryan,,
why would you think that? i mean what about john is a lie?
brian at 8:23AM on Apr 28th 2008
23. Kumar, you ethics are showing. Your callous statement about "collateral damage", reminds me of when I argued the case against invading Iraq, noting that it would lead to a civil war and hundreds of thousands more than in Saddam's worse nightmares (or fantasy).
My opponent couldn't come up with evidence for his position for invading, so he dismissed the deaths of innocents as "collateral damage". Of course, the analogy doesn't apply to the same level of attack, but your wanten callousness is very similar. If would have to be for someone who says he "enjoys bashing" while....
Brian reminds us how angry atheist are. Pure hypocrisy in a forum that starts with a title that smacks anger and thuggery...."Bashing Week."
I guess my secular ethics are all out of whack, because in my worse nightmares I would dream of a "Bashing Week" for anyone, and I doubt if over a hundred of my atheist friends would either.
Former Athiest - you would do yourself a favor by eliminating some of the lies on your website.
The homepage link you spammed above leads to a link that is in itself a lie: "Atheism is Dead".
Atheism is very much alive, growing in percentage in Europe, Canada and America. Further, much of Thailand and China are atheist. In fact much of the world is atheist to your god - and you are atheist to some 3,000 other gods found in various cultures. I just happen to be an atheist to one less god than you are - it was my default position at birth. I was later indoctrinated as a Christian, baptized, became a converter for our church, etc., all the while knowing deep down in side that I "believed" in a god just as much as a two year old believes in Santa Clause...both without evidence, but they sure sound good to an immature mind....minds can change.
Then, Former Athiest, THAT link, that links to a LIE at the top of the page leads to another link that is a LIE - "Atheist is a failed Belief".
Atheism is not a "belief". It just simply asserts that there is no evidence of god. If you can prove there is one, I'll accept it, and then I would ask him how a "divine" and "perfect" being can create such an imperfect, screwed up world. I'd also ask him why he created animals to butcher and eat each other, while their offspring strave after their mother is eaten, when he had all the power in the universe to create something better.
In short, I'd ask this alleged "god" what kind of sick experiment is this and explain to him, that I would have done, as someone else noted, a much better job. I hope you would have too ...it's called compassion, and was around long before your bibles were, and is the opposite of Dinesh D'Souza's "Bashing Week". Ann Coulter must be proud.
TerryMadison at 8:26AM on Apr 28th 2008
24. ryan,
i think you struggle with the fact its the truth and your concious cannot ever get away from that.as a result you and others invent these intellectual arguments to soothe your guilt. much like a drunk uses drinking to soothe his pain. not realizing,until its too late, what he used as his medicine was really his poison. this is what atheism is, a poison. the poison is the way of thinking. the lies it has to create tocover guilt. you and i and all of humanity are guilty before a just God. i accept his atonement for my guilt, you want to stand on your own merit
brian at 8:28AM on Apr 28th 2008
25. brian; this is hardly worth discussing with you, since you think John the Apostle, son of Zebedee actually wrote "John" and you don't believe anything modern biblical scholarship says. Even Epiphanius of Salamis didn't believe John wrote John.
It's an eye-witness account, written, most likely, by a non-eyewitness. Hence, a lie.
Ryan Anderson at 8:31AM on Apr 28th 2008
26. brian: "you want to stand on your own merit"
Yes I do!!!
Ryan Anderson at 8:34AM on Apr 28th 2008
27. I have to go. Thanks for the disagreements, after all, without them, there would be little to discuss or to learn....about human nature, from all sides, or as Dinesh D'Souza put it, there would be little to "Bash" (with ad hominems such as "invertebrate" no less).
I respect many of the opinions in here, but I don't respect D'Souza's style nor dark outlook towards the billions who don't adopt his particular version of a god that apparently approves of "Bashing week". And here I thought Jesus, the image of god, was the "Prince of Peace". Oh well. Have a nice day and happy personhood - "Life as we *know it* (not *believe it* is short, which makes this life on earth all the more precious.
TerryMadison at 8:39AM on Apr 28th 2008
28. TerryMadison 23,
I think you are missing the spirit in which all this is being said.
It doesnt really matter what "collateral damage" or "bashing" means in any other context than the one it is being used in.
If i had found the collateral damage due to the war in Iraq funny, then that is clearly wrong and disgusting. But i am using it in the context of a debate and the quashing of ideas of an opposing view.
Having said that, i do take your points about humility. Christians shouldnt go out of their way to be offensive. Humility IS a christian virtue :)
kumar at 8:43AM on Apr 28th 2008
29. ryan,
do you realize standing before a just and holy god on your own merits is not a good idea? do you not see that your comparison between you and god is infinite in terms of your goodness verses his.Gid gives you a free gift to believe or not, you reject his offer? and you think its un-just for un-believers to spend eternity in hell? who pays for your wrongs? god made a way and you reject it
brian at 8:43AM on Apr 28th 2008
30. brian; "do you realize standing before a just and holy god on your own merits is not a good idea?"
It's a good thing then that I don't believe in a "just and holy god".
PS: have I mentioned that you are a terrible witness?
Ryan Anderson at 8:47AM on Apr 28th 2008