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 3 of 30)
31. ryan,
while atheist may find DD repulsive in one sense. its not him that pushes un-believers away all together. granted he may be very obnoxious to atheist but there are far more people who just have no opionion of religion for good or bad. i venture to say most people are not religious in any way and jyust do not care. in this circle DD is repulsive,offensive,obnoxious and mostly disagreable but to academia he is probably viewed as he said"formidable",which he is. the best thing to do is just like the advice everyone gave me on this post and that is attack the idea,not the person. which i have been trying to take to heart. and its weird i would have atheist to thank,who would have thought it. though bear in mind i still totally disagree with an atheist world view. still it has helped me to change and hopefully be a better witness not a worse one
brian at 10:01AM on May 7th 2008
32. brian,
For what it's worth I think you're a better witness now.
Mokele Mbembe at 10:06AM on May 7th 2008
33. kumar,
hitchins god seems to be his bottle from what i can gather. but he may give that up one day. but i think the bottle for him may be the numbing of his soul at un-rest. i do not know the man but that is my opinion.
i was listening to erwin lutzer yesterday and he made an interesting comment. he was talking about our human need to be justified in our minds and what we will do to bring equalibrium into our lives and seek to justify whatever position we take. i suppose we all look for a balance of what is right. another reason i think we were made in Gods image. we seek some measure of "moral rightness". we are the only ones that do
brian at 10:08AM on May 7th 2008
34. brian; my mom's very devout and she cannot tolerate DD. She read "What's so great..." and was very turned off. There are plenty of anit-DD christians on this board too.
The deliniation on this board seems to be atheists (et. al.) and liberal christians Vs. the fundamentalists.
What's been eye opening to me is that amongst the regular posters, there are as many christians on the atheist "side" as there are on the other side.
I'm glad you are seeing things a little more clearly these days. You seem much more at peace.
Ryan Anderson at 10:08AM on May 7th 2008
35. thanks mo, and strangley i feel better for it.
brian at 10:09AM on May 7th 2008
36. Giving Christianity credit for moral values is like, giving the English language credit for man's ability to talk
Jerry Brown at 10:10AM on May 7th 2008
37. brian; "we seek some measure of "moral rightness". we are the only ones that do"
This is your opinion and not fact. Examples of "Morals" in the animal kingdom are well documented.
Ryan Anderson at 10:12AM on May 7th 2008
38. All your debating, all your patting yourself on the back, all the accolades you receive in private that you make public, and all your self-proclaimed "victories" still have not made any Christian dogma any more factual - at all. Debate does not make reality go away - no matter how good the debater. I'm certain there are debaters who can defend Wicca quite impressively, articulately, elegantly, and with their own version of what they label "reason" and "science" but as we both know, in the end, it simply is not reality.
Keep up your prolific debating. Debate everyone out there. And tell the world of your heroic debating ability.
In the end, though, there is simply no debate.
Frank at 10:13AM on May 7th 2008
39.
You seem to have backed off a little, I like the new you better. What's for lunch?
mac at 10:17AM on May 7th 2008
40. Observant knows Pati.
And this is what I gather.
It all started with Dani, and it's going to end with Dani. Her paranoia led her to do this.
There might not be a Tay. But if there is, it certainly isn't Tay tonight. It's still Dani(Jess) in here right now.
And that's all I have to say.
Botts at 1:27AM on May 7th 2008
----------------------------------
No Botts, I really don't know Pati.
I was intrigued by her and fascinated by her comments.
Her theorys were different from what anybody else had to offer.
I found her interesting, I did notice though ,she spelled her name Pati, and I wondered if she was Dani???
Observant at 10:18AM on May 7th 2008
41. I'm not perfect, ten years ago I made a mistake. Yes, ten years ago a failed in my attempt of persuasion of my perfection and someone came away with the horrible notion that I was not perfect
jim at 10:27AM on May 7th 2008
42.
brian
I believe my old TKD masters philosophy, that the purpose of life is to be happy.( Jhoon Rhee)
I don't think we can all be happy all the time. But if we try hard, we can achieve some state of happiness.
I think this philosophy transcends religion and culture. People share this common goal the world over. Religion may be good or bad, cultures may be different, but all want happiness.
I hope most find it.
mac at 10:33AM on May 7th 2008
43. are the FLDS folks more moral than atheists?
abbot at 10:34AM on May 7th 2008
44. I did notice though ,she spelled her name Pati, and I wondered if she was Dani???
Observant at 10:18AM on May 7th 2008
--
I wouldn't bet against it.
mac at 10:35AM on May 7th 2008
45. ATHEIST
Dinesh, work on your Reading Comprehension.
I didn't call you Arrogant.
I called you a Friggin' Idiot.
You read a two-page account called "Genesis" or "bere shyt" in Hebrew... and you can't figure it out.
The story is about "what came first."
First (in the story) there were trees bearing fruit on earth.
Then (in the story) YHWH 'elohiym made the sun, moon and stars.
That PROVES the story was NOT written by a Creator, or anyone with superior knowledge to humans of the day.
the atheist position is supported by the FACTS.
Only a friggin' idiot would LIE about it, the way you do.
You live in a delusional world.... and you want to drag new victims into it.
Christianity is nonsense. All of it. Your Pope LIES, by saying it's not a silly story written for a single purpose, to FOOL people into thinking that the dead can come back to life.
William Hays at 10:36AM on May 7th 2008