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 7 of 61)
91. Hello Everyone,
I'm checking in with the group to share some words.
As atheism can appreciate faith, I would like to appreciate atheism.
Atheism is a reasoning that change is required in the procedural life of mankind. So far the atrocities of our history and of our current day are unbearable and require new direction.
I commend this ideologue.
I must impart to you the proper venue for which this "clean-up" will be undertaken to success. Through unity of the people. This is a unity of conscious, physical, and spiritual means.
Even an atheist can exhibit the spirit, love being the most evident explication of such metaphysical interaction.
By claiming atheistic views, one can harbor an apparent unity, but ultimately it is encouraged to be individualistic in existence.
Under such transcription of morality the unity of any group will be indubitably shaken by the shear constant of individualized thought.
Not to disclaim the values of personal conviction, being that this construct of belief is indelible as any human right, but an overt focus on such self-directed mediums will encourage selfish considerations. Anyone can agree that although humans are innately selfish, superfluous selfishness can lead to frustration and indignation.
I am not interested in brainwashed culture, in fact I abhor the circumstance where a person can not exercise free thought (shown in religious perspectives as well as atheist prospective).
Instead, I'm very convinced that open minded collaboration can lead to the best results possible. An open minded mentality absolutely allows for the existence of God, as well as personal opinions contrary to this.
If you are not considering and developing both aspects of any situation, you are leaving half of the equation in the dark. This is limiting yourself in ways that constrict the thought development and progress.
I stand as a firm believer in God, knowing full well my experiences and the experiences of those surrounding me correlate to a very clear indication of God's direct impact in our lives. Those who don't believe in God typically do not record such impacts, attributing them to either luck or circumstance.
In the comparative analysis of Luck and Circumstance versus God, I will personally choose God.
Not once in this statement did I say your views were either right or wrong. I make a specific point in my life to abstain from condemning other people's views, being that condemning another perspective is no different from condemning my own.
If you can understand this then you are pretty smart. I follow God in all my life and true to my beliefs there are clear improvements of liberty and success. This is a success within my heart where pain and suffering is transformed to useful education to nurture a beautiful existence. Such truths may seem marginal to the highly intelligent, but our intelligence developed not for selfish endeavor but for mutual success.
mincpa at 12:14PM on Apr 28th 2008
92. I think in his anti-religious views, Richard Dawkins is a bit of a reptile, too, as the fellow in the EXPELLED movie humorously, off-handedly described him. If memory serves me correctly, Dawkins himself has said that believers might liken activist atheists as doing the work of Satan, the serpent.
And yet, as the serpent seduced Adam and Eve, there is a seductive, seeming "freedom" to believing that there is no God, as Richard Dawkins talks about in EXPELLED. The Bible says that sin is fun for a season but it leads to destruction. That has been my experience before I got Saved, ten years ago.
The problem is that this "freedom" from God is also a rudderless, pointless existence that ends in emptiness and self-destruction for most folks, you do things that are self-centered and short term in advantage. Each sin no longer satisfies, so it must be amped up, hence the increasing perversions of sin that the fallen human heart devises to his own ultimate destruction. Also, there is the major point of Christianity, that you will NOT enter Heaven if you reject Jesus.
If the choice is to reject Jesus and sin now but burn in Hades for eternity, how sane is it to choose the fire? Not a wise choice at all.
Rev 3:16 at 12:21PM on Apr 28th 2008
93. mincpa. Nice try. You are pretty much in the dark, though.
You can believe in the supernatural and superstition all you desire: it still represents primitive thinking to me.
And this premise is totally wrong:
"Atheism is a reasoning that change is required in the procedural life of mankind."
Wrong. Atheism is not anything of the sort. Atheism mean no supernatural belief, especially in deities.
Linda at 12:21PM on Apr 28th 2008
94. Rev, even the jews don't take Genesis literally. Why do you fundies?
minca, you think entirely too much of your intelligence. Boasting is decidedly un-christianlike.
Linda at 12:25PM on Apr 28th 2008
95. Im sorry, I have been raeading DD's blog, about his debates, for quite some time now. He makes some good points about some things. As does, the person he is debating. I have yet to find where he proves there is a god! If I told you, I saw somethng, or, I believed something, you would ask me to prove it. Well he says he believes in a god. I say, prove there is one, and I will believe it. Otherwise, there is no god!
John at 12:51PM on Apr 28th 2008
96. If the choice is to reject Jesus and sin now but burn in Hades for eternity, how sane is it to choose the fire? Not a wise choice at all.
Rev 3:16 at 12:21PM on Apr 28th
--==--
Or a third choice...god does not exist - no hell, no heaven.
Rev that's the old Pascals wager arguement, it holds no sway with me and many like me.
mac at 12:29PM on Apr 28th 2008
97. Rev, the only thing you were saved from 10 years ago is intelligence.
Your assumptions about atheism could fill books, but they are no more right than your beliefs.
There was a fellow on the weekend's blog who has logged in more than 10,000 hours working for the homeless. Yet, he's not a believer.
Undoubtedly, many of the atheists and unbelievers on this blog do plenty of good works, are ethical, law-abiding, etc etc.
You probably don't know any atheists. christians are often afraid of us; so they try to look down on us.
Linda at 12:30PM on Apr 28th 2008
98. mincpa:
A very thoughtful, enlightening post! The problems that many of us have with believers is not with that belief, but with what seems to happen (throughout recorded history, I might add) when people of similar beliefs band together. I understand (I think) that you see this banding together in some sort of organized structure as important for many, but, unfortunately, it too often seems to graduate from community/mutual support to "and if you don't agree with our view" you must be excluded in some way from any other contact or punished for not agreeing. Implicit in this is the fact that atheism/agnosticism is the antithesis of traditional organized belief systems and is clearly not a religion in the sense that you have put forward. If organized religions remained seekers of the truth, rather than "we have found it and you haven't", we would have had many fewer circumstances in which organized religion has given us noteworthy examples of Man's inhumanity to Man in our history.
Harvey at 12:32PM on Apr 28th 2008
99. rev.
your on spot with your comments. but decieved people do not see the deception or else they would not be decieved!!think about it. atheism is a void that cannot be filled. not even science can fill the void.i just cannot imagine a life with any meaning whatsoever,whos only function is to exist. try and be as happy as you can and then die. what utter non-sense. is it any wonder the majority of the world reject atheism . there is nothing,just blank space. what does atheism do for a person other than allow them to be decieved about an after-life,about a moral god about a judgement for which they will suffer of their own free will. and spend eternity in hell. why would anyone aspire to such a bankrupt state? honestly is there an answer?
brian at 12:32PM on Apr 28th 2008
100. Dinesh is to god as Johnny Cochrane is to O.J.
"If the glove doesn't fit, then you must believe that god is real and not just the anthropomorphic projection of the ego"
Rich at 12:38PM on Apr 28th 2008
101. Harvey,
I know what you mean by kernel of faith. At the time that I was reborn I was an atheist. I did not have faith in God at least directly. After that experience I looked back at why this happened, and even though I am not 100% sure of the why, I did come up with some ideas. One that might interest you would be I whole heartily bought into what I now consider the will of God (at least in part). For one thing, shortly before (about two months) the experience I did accept equality with all human beings. I consider myself equal with the likes of extremes such as Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, and all others at that end of the spectrum as well, and like Hitler, Mao, and every other low life who ever lived at the other end. I love all human beings, however I am able to separate them from their actions. There is an old saying , I looked for God, and did not find him, Looked for myself, and did not find myself, I looked for my brother, and found all three. I believe it was the total embracing of my fellow man, and myself as being equal with each other that was, at least, a big part of my experiencing being born again spiritually speaking. So I do consider faith to be necessary. For me faith has to align with logic, and reason. I do believe faith can be placed into such things as equality, as well as having total faith in the truth being the strongest thing we know, and will ultimately triumph over all else.
Jerry Brown at 12:40PM on Apr 28th 2008
102. brian:
The strongest argument I have been able to find (in a fairly long lifetime of seeking for the existance of God is the fact that every culture in mankind's history has seen fit to create one. Clearly, there is some kind of innate need in most of us to find something "better" than ourselves, given that we are born as selfish and rather aggressive creatures. The growing up and acculturation of a child into a reasonably ethical, caring adult mirrors the maturation of human cultures. We learn to modify our selfish inclinations because we must if we wish to be included in society. Believers see fit to ascribe this ethical behavior to the laws set forth by the God they believe in. This would be no problem, if, in our fear and insecurity, we did not feel the need to be reassured that we were doing the right thing by convincing or forcing others to "join up" in whatever belief system we happen to have chosen.
Harvey at 12:47PM on Apr 28th 2008
103. brian,
You still don't get it, and probably never will. I say probably, because I hold out hope for you.
Do you know any Atheists?
Almost all the Atheists I've ever known, I would say they were ethical and lived a life of morals. They helped others, and have helped me out specifically when I needed something.
They have plenty of meaning in their lives. What makes your life meaningful, doesn't necessarily make the next persons life meaningful. And because of that, you cannot ever look down on someone else.
That's what you do, you look down on them.
On May 15th, I have 47 people meeting me in Nigeria to start our Humanitarian Project.
47 people
16 Agnostics and Atheists
19 Muslims
15 Christians
7 Hindhu's
We are building homes, Schools, getting medicine there, and so forth.
I hand selected each one of them. They risk their lives in dangerous situations for the greater good of the unfortunate.
Your argument will never hold any water, and this is why I have such a hard time listening to your ignorance.
Your false belief has blinded you to the rest of humanity. Exactly what Jesus warned. Your using His name to look down on others and judge others.
And the worst part: You don't see it.
You're foolish. And every time you talk down about people, you are hurting my feelings, because I know so many people of other faiths and lack of faiths that do more in ONE DAY for others than you have done your entire life.
Botts at 12:48PM on Apr 28th 2008
104. brian: "but decieved people do not see the deception or else they would not be decieved!!"
How true.
Ryan Anderson at 12:47PM on Apr 28th 2008
105. brian,
Let's take your statistics to their illogical conclusion, shall we?
If, as you say, atheists make up only 2% of the population and we accept the consensus that America has a 10% homosexual population...how many gay folks are christian.
Let us suppose all 2% atheists are gay( not nearly accurate, but for you let's imagine). That still leaves 8% of the population who are gay non atheists. Dare I say that 8% of the nation are...(gasp)...GAY christians.
That's the problem with your statistics, they don't make sense.
mac at 12:51PM on Apr 28th 2008