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 60 of 61)
886. As D'Souza brags:
"I have now debated six leading atheists--Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, Daniel Dennett, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Dan Barker, and Peter Singer."
And yet, Dinesh, still can give no evidence of an invisible god in an invisble heaven nor proof of and "all-creator" who created himself....but first had to play with the dinasaurs for 300 million years before playing with the minds of people like D'Souza.
LindaL at 7:03AM on May 6th 2008
887. Would you like to debate me? I'm the author of the soon to be released book, "Why I Became an Atheist" to be found at amazon.com.
If you like a challenge I'll give you one, that's for sure.
Cheers,
John
John W. Loftus at 8:33AM on May 6th 2008
888. Not only does Dinesh fail to provide evidence for his god he then, in response to being asked for evidence, he goes on the offensive attacking the very notion that evidence has any value what so ever. It would be quite funny if it wasn't so sad for him.
Peter at 10:42AM on May 6th 2008
889. How very Christian of you. Tool.
Dave at 8:11PM on May 16th 2008
890. If some one declaired next week to be christian bashing week, would that be acceptable? How about gay bashing week? Black bashing week? Woman bashing week?
Anne at 2:32PM on May 7th 2008
891. How about "Dinesh Bashing Week"?
No, that wouldn't be good. Oh, how about "No Bashing Anyone Week" or "No Bashing Anyone Century". That would be good except that it would interfere with all those wars and power plays that are on going around the world.
Peter at 4:17AM on May 8th 2008
892. the title of this post, and the description of it.. seems to me highly bigoted
even if you swept the floor with your opponents, witch you did not... the phrase "atheist bashing week" is not quite like Black history month is it?
it's more like "black history bashing week" or "gay bashing week" ( the latter could very well be a christian one, and endorsed by it's mythology )
i'm actually less outraged then i should be, given the fact that your core beliefs about the state of the world we live in and the most important questions in life.. are biased by dogma even falsifiable by logic alone
Colin at 7:34PM on May 8th 2008
893. Dinesh,
So what exactly do you think you have won here? A year's supply of Twizzlers? A lifetime supply of BS? When will you learn that sometimes no matter how hard you try, you can't bring God to some people. They have to go for themselves.
You are too busy stroking your own ego about how you "won" or saying "look at me". All you can do is bring the word you believe in to people and the let them choose for themselves.
To you this is a solid faith and seems rational in your eyes. You give a viewpoint that makes the existence of God possible. However, there is a long way to go with this as an Atheist will always have a one up on you simply based off of logic and common sense.
You do good work but seem to be losing site of the message due to personal ego boosting. A person who lacks humility cannot expect others to give it in return.
Ericka
E at 1:53AM on May 9th 2008
894. Peter and you other atheists (note my lack of hubris by not resorting to derisive name), Christianity resorts to mainly 2 attributes of knowledge: faith and reason. Where reason breaks down, faith builds up.
We cannot prove irrefutably, the existence of God, true. However, you cannot irrefutably prove
the existence of anything, including yourself.
People change, society changes, laws change, science changes; all this change is an imperfection is it not? Science tells us that everything breaks down, moving from order to disorder. There is nothing eternal, nothing eternally true. If science changes, (laws of nature, etc)it must be imperfect (as change denotes imperfection)
If math and science are imperfect, putting your trust in them is blameworthy. To use science to prove or disprove the existence of God makes for a poor intellectual argument.
As people of faith, hope, and love, we go beyond the discussion about the existence of God. That makes for a silly argument, can't you see?
That would be like a scientist arguing with a child about the existence of gravity, a waste of time.
If you want proof, I'll give you a bit. Every American adult knows that a witness to a crime can be used as evidence in a court of law to prove a man is guilty. (Of course the veracity of the witness must be in evidence as well.)
In the same way, I can prove both God's existence and Jesus Christ's existence:
About 12 years ago, a college student at a Pennsylvania University claimed to see Jesus Christ on the Cross, with a man on either side of him. I was there. I witnessed the man's shock at this unexpected vision.
This was a secular University with no religious affiliation. The student was an irreligious person as well.
There you have it: proof, seen with the very eyes of an ireligious man.
(Of course, I doubt you will accept this argument. Hey, even men who are supposed to have faith, Catholic priests, reject the above factual experience.)
tomb
Tom B at 7:16PM on May 11th 2008
895. By the way Dinesh, love your title. Atheists do not exist, so you can bash all you want as far as I am concerned. Keep up the good work! May the Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God bless your work.
Tom B at 7:33PM on May 11th 2008
896. Ah yes, the really wonderful wishes of Christians like Dinesh and Tom B really makes for an ethical and moral bunch. NOT!
I don't exist. Ok, that's a good one Tom B.. Could it be that I do exist and your deluded by thinking that a "Living God" and "Jesus" don't? Ok, let's see, there is evidence that I exist since I'm writing this to you. What evidence that your mythical god exists is there? Oh right, we're still waiting for that to magically appear. Peter 1 God 0 Jesus 0.
Oh, and you want your mythical god to bless atheist bashing...
The corruption of you christians is stunning.
Peter at 4:20PM on May 11th 2008
897. Atheists make the claim that there is no God, because they want to steal that role.
Tom B at 8:09PM on May 11th 2008
898. tommy, you must be a 10 year old, if you have faith, you are devoid of reason. Child go back to catechism.
JefFlyingV at 7:36PM on May 11th 2008
899. Emen is like a spoiled little brat, plugging his ears to truth, and screaming, "I will NOT serve, I will NOT serve, I will not SERVE!" Stop your crying, little brat. Philosophers have made all kinds of irreverent claims about the existence or lack thereof, of gods. Aristotle called god, the prime mover. The Greeks worshipped many gods, led by Zeus. The Romans claimed the official state religion to be paganism: many gods, head of which was Caesar (unofficially of course).
Atheism is a modern phenomenon, very weak indeed, the belief of which has been used mainly to hold the masses down. Atheism has been used to make the poor people remain poor, to raise up the rich, to crush the elderly, to kill the sick and peo ple with intellectual disabilities(Stalin and Hitler)and on and on.
Atheism is a lie. The people who embrace this lie are directly and indirectly responsible for the murder of more people by any other people of any other philosophy or religion in the history of humankind: Napolean, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mau. I would add Adolph Hitler as he really was an atheist, though only privately. You understand. Atheism (and its adherents)is a blight on the world.
The world is only temporary, and soon you will know the Truth.
Tom B at 9:19PM on May 11th 2008
900. Tommy, you are late for your catechism recital.
JefFlyingV at 8:24PM on May 11th 2008