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 5 of 61)
61. MM, no i am NOT brian, please dont confuse me with him. thanks
Jay at 10:30AM on Apr 28th 2008
62. Guess you're right Jay, I've never seen him use an emoticon.
"afterall if actions got u saved"...
U suckas got SAVED! Thanks for the nu catchphrase.
Mokele Mbembe at 10:31AM on Apr 28th 2008
63. Jerry:
ALthough I had a fairly extensive background and education in Judaism, including a certificate that would allow me to teach Hebrew School, when I got to college and had the opportunity for the first time to really question all of this and to experience what other religions taught, I realized that ALL religious thought must start with at least "a kernel" of faith. Since I have, as yet, been unable to find that, I guess I must consider myself agnostic. My grandfather never refused to try to help me to find that faith during his lifetime, but also never stopped caring about me and NEVER implied that I was a bad person or even a bad Jew. From him I learned that if you believe, that's a blessing for you, but if you don't you can still live by the ethical teachings (ie the latter six comandments) that our forefathers transmitted to us as examples of proper dealings with your fellow man (if not with God).
Harvey at 10:36AM on Apr 28th 2008
64.
Jay, I, too, appreciate such a post from a Christian. I think your concepts, which supposedly come from your bible, have befuddled many of us unbelievers on this blog.
However, DD's agenda has nothing to do with belief or behaviour. I has everything to do with his right-wing agenda and his mission to insert his agenda items into american society.
It is totally about politics and power.
Linda at 10:38AM on Apr 28th 2008
65. I can't believe the "believers" actually follow DD. He has to be one of the weakest debaters I've heard. I really feel embarassed for those who give credibility to what he asserts. I've challenged him, but he isn't biting. I guess all the things he says about Dawkins would apply to him, since he just won't take me on.
Randy at 10:38AM on Apr 28th 2008
66. Jay:
"judge not least ye be judged. he who is without sin may cast the first stone. sound familiar?"
It should sound familiar to everyone, but unfortunately many must fight for what they believe is rightous. They'll take their prejudices and hate, spreading them among others. Sigh. So sad.
Elizabeth at 10:39AM on Apr 28th 2008
67. Is Dinesh blowing his own horn again today?
If god was such a great thing, there would be no need for men like Mr D'Souza to 'bash' atheists.
Dinesh reminds me of a mediocre rapper, one who must always sing his own praises, be they imaginary or real.
mac at 10:40AM on Apr 28th 2008
68. "Many churches are already showing these debates in order to educate and instruct believers." Dinesh
The key word here is "Instruct".
Now tell me again what you're doing to believers?
Botts at 10:41AM on Apr 28th 2008
69. Linda,
thank u for your comment. im sorry if i have "befuddled" nonbelievers, its never my intent. also its not my intent to try to convert anyone but expose dd, and his followers, as the frauds that they are. finally i dont go around quoting scripture except in selfdefense of such judgemental people. in plain words, believe or don't-makes no difference to me.
also i realize that its only about control and power. dd, ann, and other right wingers love to cherry pick the bible to puff themselves up and put others down. its pretty sad really.
Jay at 10:47AM on Apr 28th 2008
70.
Thanks, Jay and Elizabeth, and others, like Botts and Jerry:
I have read about christians claiming persecution for their righteousness throughout the history of their religion. (saints, martyrs, etc)
And yet
Here they are, on this blog, persecuting others. Well, maybe not so much today (so far); but start talking about homosexuality, abortion, anti-war, etc etc and many become the Righteous Cops.
How could you possibly claim the New Testament as completely and wholly true, and then proceed to persecute others?
I found a lovely site that discussed righteousness for righteous sake:
http://www.zarathushtra.com/z/article/dhalla/ch1/i31.htm
Linda at 10:52AM on Apr 28th 2008
71. Oh no, Jay. I was inarticulate. It is the haters and the despisers on this blog who befuddle me.
Your post exemplified what I always thought Christianity was supposed to be like.
Your post was the "correct" view.
Linda at 10:56AM on Apr 28th 2008
72. WHOO-HOO!!! Dinesh, baby, you are THE MAN! Way to go, knocking out atheistic evil-doers! What, no embedded book plug after your pugilistic word-fest? Oh, right! I see it now! Right at the top of the blog...hee-hee, sorry, me silly blind sheep. Okay, I go now, to do something slightly less masturbatory than this!
Aloha!
Robert
Robert at 11:02AM on Apr 28th 2008
73. Jay,
"finally i dont go around quoting scripture except in selfdefense of such judgemental people. in plain words, believe or don't-makes no difference to me."
I'm sorry for the mixup. You seem more level-headed.
Again DD tries to dig up the "Who murdered fewer people" lightning-round contest to vie for the grand prize of "Most Righteous Ideology". Can't you see that whoever wins we all lose? It's so ridiculous!
Mokele Mbembe at 11:02AM on Apr 28th 2008
74. "Again DD tries to dig up the "Who murdered fewer people" lightning-round contest to vie for the grand prize of "Most Righteous Ideology". Can't you see that whoever wins we all lose? It's so ridiculous!"
Seems he stopped trying to make Hitler an atheist too! It's the little victories that mean the most...
Ryan Anderson at 11:07AM on Apr 28th 2008
75. //OFF TOPIC//
Sorry, but I just have to vent, and this is the only place I know of...
At work, we are not allowed to send email forwards for numerous reasons, one being this is a working environment, another being it bogs down our email server thingy, and three being not everyone wants those stupid things. However, many people disregard the rules, and most appear to be Christian people as the emails I get are religious like "Praise God every day! Send this to 20 people and you will be blessed!" (like god keeps track of email forwards) or somesuch nonsense. I usually delete these straight away, but for whatever reason I read one I recieved this morning 'cause it looked pretty harmless. But about 2/3 into the email we hit the religious gunk - and it annoyed the hell out of me. I can't complain, argue, and point out the obvious errors because all my coworkers are Christian, they sent me the email, and I have to work with these people everyday... so, please, forgive me but I have to vent!!
This is what the forward said, and my rebuttal:
"Why is it that our children can't read a Bible in school, but they can in prison?"
Sigh. They CAN read a bible in school. I mean, they had prayer circles at my high school before first bell around the flag pole, and that was 4 years ago. No one is trying to stop kids from reading their bibles, you just can't TEACH the bible in school. What is so hard to understand about that? Jeez! Are Christians always looking for ways they are 'discriminated' against?? Must they always feel the need to play victim?!
"Why do I have to swear on the Bible in court when The Ten Commandments cannot be displayed outside?"
Sigh. NOBODY does this anymore unless they WANT to. If you WANT to swear on the bible, you can. Otherwise, they just make you raise your right hand and take the oath. And the 10 Commandments can't be displayed because there needs to be a wall of seperation between religious organizations and the judicial system. Didn't you learn about the Salem Witch Trials in high school? Mixing religion and justice/law is dangerous and against the Constitution!! Fundie Conservatives love to say Libs and Dems hate America, but we're the only ones striving to preserve our Constitution!! The day the USA becomes a theocracy will be the day the greatest nation falls.
Whew! Anyway, thank you for letting me vent... feel free to reply/add-on... I just had to get that out.
//END RANT//
K at 11:13AM on Apr 28th 2008