I'm not sure why atheists praise me so much. When my book What's So Great About Christianity was published, Skeptic magazine editor Michael Shermer called me a "first rate scholar" whose "thorough research and elegant prose have elevated him into the top ranks of those who champion liberty and individual responsibility." Shermer wrote of me that "although non-Christians and non-theists may disagree with some of his arguments, we ignore him at our peril." As for my Christianity book, "it takes the debate to a new level. Read it."
Then Christopher Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great, complimented me on the occasion of our first New York debate, saying I was a formidable debate opponent on any topic. Recently Hitchens told me and my wife that I am responsible for one of the big conversions in his life. He informed me about something about which I had no idea: following our debate on capitalism vs. socialism at Georgetown University more than a decade and a half ago, Hitchens said he abandoned socialism. "After that evening," Hitchens said, "I just stopped calling myself a socialist." I was too polite to speculate on what might follow for HItchens from our God v. atheism debates, but of course I was delighted to hear that I helped a friend find his way out of the dead-end maze of socialism.
The latest addition to my atheist fan club is Dan Barker, head of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Barker is a former evangelical preacher who has become a hard-core atheist. Now he heads a group that I would describe as a kind of atheist ACLU (although why we need two such organizations remains a mystery). Basically Barker's group agitates to remove all vestiges of God and religion from American public life, what Barker terms an "absolute separation" of church and state. Recently I debated Barker at Harvard University, after which Barker wrote me to say that of the hundreds of opponents he has faced over the years, "you are clearly one of the best debaters I have encountered." Is he right? You can find out by watching the debate here.
The Harvard debate was sponsored by the Harvard Secular Society and moderated by Harvard's humanist chaplain Greg Epstein. Epstein is himself an atheist, and only at Harvard can we expect to find such a creature as an "atheist chaplain." The format of the debate was interesting: no lengthy opening statements, no formal rebuttals, etc. Rather, a group of Harvard students peppered both Barker and me with questions, and then we got to engage with each other. Our debate was lively and wide-ranging, covering such topics as the existence of God, science and religion, the relationship of theism to morality, and church and state. Following this debate, the student head of the Secular society told me that unlike any religious believer he had previously encountered, I had compelled him to re-think some of his basic positions.
I know that there are some atheists who will respond to my Harvard debate with their usual ritual of abuse and name-calling. In a way I sympathize with them. Never has a group so desperately sought an intellectual victory in these contests, and so far there are no signs that it will come. So the best these atheists can do is to call me arrogant. But even the atheists I debate seem to think that this arrogance is justified.
In reality, as people like Shermer and Hitchens who know me will testify, I'm not arrogant. I am, however, just a little tired of hearing the propaganda about how atheists are the champions of reason while religious believers are the ignorant practitioners of "blind faith." You can see why I relish taking on the atheists with their chosen weapons of reason and science and evidence, and showing that I can not only defend myself but also defeat them on their own terms. At this point the atheists are running out of capable opponents. Many atheists are reduced to what one of their number, the mathematician John Allen Paulos, terms "the argument of the red face and the raised voice."
Is there any doubt why Sam Harris seems to have changed his mind about debating me, and why Richard Dawkins is still hiding under his desk? How come these "brights" seem to have fled into the cover of darkness? Do any of the atheist organizations offer an annual Wimp award?
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 30)
16. Why would he respond when he's making a good buck spouting this stuff and getting paid? Letting everyone rant on for almost 1000 posts per blog. Actually he'd be stupid to be drawn into something he couldn't win.
Ron V at 7:51AM on May 7th 2008
17. Who says they get paid for comments? I dont think so cos if that was the case other blogs which get less comments would at least get their friends and family to make a comment and increase their tally... :)
kumar at 8:18AM on May 7th 2008
18.
"I was too polite to speculate on what might follow..."
But not so polite as to skip writing a self-aggrandizing Hot Steaming Cup Of Stupid for my blog.
What a dickhead. Ever notice how smug and self righteous all God Nazis become after they get their "Mommy, look at me" instincts tickled by a mass audience? Then they rush to suck the wallet of any sucker fool enough to come up to their magic booth, praying they get so swept up in the extasy that they miss feeling the picking of their pockets. Which is, ultimately, what D'Stupid is...a tawdry petty-ante theif with a book to sell and a degree from Scamford.
On another note, saw Iron Man last night and it rocked.
T.Brough at 8:20AM on May 7th 2008
19. Dinesh, congratulations for your successful talks at the UNSHAKABLE FAITH apologetics conference over this past weekend in Cincinnati. I registered to attend mainly to get to hear you speaking live at an event, instead of just reading what you say in a book or online. I think you made a good impression on the conservative Christian crowd who got to hear a fresh perspective and strategy concerning defending the faith against the onslaught of "New Atheist" false claims against Christianity.
I happened to attend a smaller apologetics event a few weeks prior, and they presented ideas which have something to say to your wondering about why the atheists seem to be losing steam and wimping out. At this smaller event they were saying that atheism in the culture is a failure because it denies the soul and longing in the hearts of mankind. Atheism says we are meaningless accidents, so live randomly without much morality, and then you die. This is human emptiness, secular humanism, which has failed to meet the needs of the human heart in the past century, so it is now, in the culture, being replaced by a sort of "Cosmic Humanism," as they called it at the event. This Cosmic Humanism is merely a New Age twist that combines everybody's favorite parts of all religious beliefs, while basically denying or redefining the concept of sin, away from the Biblical teachings. Basically "cafeteria Christianity" as you mention in WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT CHRISTIANITY.
This cosmic humanism can be seen in famous, influential people like Oprah, who promotes a brand of spirituality which tolerates the gentler aspects of Christianity while denying the sin aspects of human nature, (like promoting homosexuality which the Bible condemns, or having a hit TV show where people brag about giving to charities in direct opposition to the teachings of Jesus who says you already have the only reward you will get from Heaven for that, public recognition, because you were "showing off" how "righteous" you are to impress people, instead of discreetly doing the work of the LORD without receiving great praise from the world, which is the only charity that impresses God, according to the Bible).
It is also catching on in the form of phony political posing as Christianity in the form of the left wing candidate like Barack Hussein Obama who says to ignore "obscure" passages in the famous book of Romans, to instead focus on global warming and health insurance, all without any moral restraints or recognition of Biblical teachings.
The secular humanists are basically trying to convince themselves that they can now be cosmic humanists, keep all the pleasant aspects of Christianity without any of the discipline and moral restraints taught in the Bible.
The Bible teaches that this is false Christianity which must be exposed by true believers, and that they will most certainly NOT be accepted into Heaven on THEIR own, made-up terms, but on God's terms alone, as already defined in His Word -- the Holy Bible.
Rev 3:16 at 8:42AM on May 7th 2008
20. Rev; "Atheism says we are meaningless accidents, so live randomly without much morality, and then you die"
As a christian, you have no idea what Atheism is. Your above statement is wrong. To me, Atheism (agnosticism really) means living a good and moral life for no other reason then it's the right thing to do. I don't need pronouncements on high and fear tactics to tell me to not kill people or to not cheat on my wife.
Ryan Anderson at 8:47AM on May 7th 2008
21. http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
PROFESSOR X at 8:48AM on May 7th 2008
22. Goddess 15,
I'm reading 'whats so great about christianity' as well and i think you have misunderstood the chapter on morallity.
The main point of the chapter 'Atheism: opiate of the morally corrupt' (something like that anyway :) is to give a moral explanation for atheism. This is similar to atheists giving sociological/psychological reasons for religion.
DD's argument that people turn to atheism because it permits them to be morally corrupt (if they choose to be corrupt) is equally strong/weak as atheists who say theists believe in God because it provides a crutch, comfort etc.
kumar at 8:54AM on May 7th 2008
23. may i post up?
well of coarse. DD is a very articulate debater no doubt. and he has ability no doubt, i would not debate the guy. but he is a flamer, i think he measures the success of his post by how close he gets to 1000 post. i really think thats his aim. and he knows the more he throws the flame the more atheist will be drawn to it. is it right? no! the real measure of whether he wins or not isn't the debate its how many converts he has made. that is somethin he is quiet about. so what if he wins the argument,you might say what does it matter if you winn the battle but lose the war!! and this is where DD is.
show me the converts and then i will say DD won
brian at 8:55AM on May 7th 2008
24. brian; you forget to factor in how many people he pushes away from christianity.
Ryan Anderson at 8:59AM on May 7th 2008
25. Remember AOL sells ads, large # of posts = large # of eyes = large # of $$$ paid by advertisers. And many more watch but don't post, so it's in AOL's best interest for the Offical Blogs to be controversial. I, too, don't believe they get a set $ amount per post, but there may be trigger levels built into the contracts.
Ron V at 9:03AM on May 7th 2008
26. Brian 23,
DD has one famous convert - Christopher Hitchens.
I know its from socialism to capitalism... but its a start! :)
kumar at 9:09AM on May 7th 2008
27.
Saying that atheists are morally corrupt is nonsense. Every culture defines it's norms and taboos. Modern societies define norms OUTSIDE of religious dogma, with the exception of FUNDAMENTALIST governments.
For instance, our forefathers were adamant on the individual liberties, and respect each persons right to follow what god they wish. However, there are limits to religious freedoms - you can't marry 21 women and claim it's your religious right - our society has defined monogomy as the norm.
The term "morally corrupt" is one that's VERY open - corrupt as to the norms of the society, or as Dinesh always points out, corrupt by the standards of his god. Our society doesn't have a problem with people looking at other people naked, but the christian doctrine most definitely does. If someone is happy in a same sex relationship, it's not an affront to our society, but it is to the nuke slinging, gay burning god.
One thing our culture DOES define as morally corrupt, is unbridled greed at the expense of the innocent and poor - How many professed "christians" are found to be guilty of this crime?
ex-christian at 9:16AM on May 7th 2008
28. One of the things that enjoy about reading this blog is how DD tries to blame all of Americas sorrows on atheist while at the same time saying that atheist only make up 2% of the population. Its statistically impossible.
tjenkins at 9:16AM on May 7th 2008
29. Kumar,
No I didn't understand it at all. DD does blame societal problems on atheistic thinking more so than he places blame on Christianity itself.
DD's argument is weak based on statistics that show Christians are the most morally corrupt, more so than atheists. With that said one can then say that people turn to atheism based on logic, reason and a great study of history that debunks the Christian god as myth. My point is that DD should argue against the Christians and not the atheist.
goddess1prevail at 9:56AM on May 7th 2008
30. Without even reading...he debates athiests and kicks their asses, atheists hate him, even though he is all sweetness and light and just doesn't understand why.
Same 5 people on comment board. Godless Heathen Brian (who is really DD in athiest drag) leading the pack with insults.
Am I right?
Davidg at 9:57AM on May 7th 2008