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 4 of 30)
46. ryan,
there a mnay christians who do not find catholics to be christian. some would argue they are not. i was raised catholic and i have trouble with their doctrine. DD may not know any other way. you notice he quotes very little of tyhe bible. you know why? because he is at odds with the bible and does not know it. he thinks he is saved by being a member of the catholic church and its the church that saves. this is poatently not true and its the reason i disagree with the catholic doctrine. but DD does not appearr to be redeemed much at all. for instance he could not talk much about what it means to be born again,he would not know. though it is a christian principle. many christians would have trouble with DD. while most conservatives would not. this is about politics not religion, he just throws the religion for a curve,truthfully.
brian at 10:37AM on May 7th 2008
47. Today's DD blog literally made me nauseous as I read it. Ugh. I once had a boyfriend who was constantly boasting and looking for reassurance. It wore on me terribly. We were together for 7 years, but ultimately broke up. Thank goodness.
Have you noticed that DD never cites his supposed quotes? Some may be true, but some are undoubtedly lies.
I can't stand liars. For example, I would never post surreptitiously under another name, because to me that would be dishonest.
========================================================
Botts, can you email me who you think is Clif? I haven't picked up on it>
Linda at 10:38AM on May 7th 2008
48. abbot, more moral than aheists, yes. But are they true christians, no. See, it is all a matter of interpretive belief.
Jubal Harshaw at 10:40AM on May 7th 2008
49. mac,
you know i too think we cannot be happy all the time. for myself i would like to find contentment. happy for me is the moment, depending!! contentment is learning how to "be" with or without.i have not mastered it. my wants scream at me
brian at 10:41AM on May 7th 2008
50. brian: "there a mnay christians who do not find catholics to be christian. some would argue they are not"
This is why I think you ALL are full of it.
Ryan Anderson at 10:42AM on May 7th 2008
51. abbot,
They seem like a lovable bunch on "Big Love" (I call it "The Margene Show"), even though they are quite crazy, and Roman Grant is a veritable portrait of religious evil.
mac,
Happy is nice, but misinterpreted, it could promote hedonism, which cannot address a support structure for society
Mokele Mbembe at 10:47AM on May 7th 2008
52. brian; your comments of late are so refreshing. With kudos to Moke, was it the big hug that brought about the metamorphosis? Like you, I'm looking for the convert total, but conversion comes through "the foolishness of preaching", not the cleverness of debating skills.
Hey Rev @ 19, I like most of what you say there.
fanmanaf1 at 10:55AM on May 7th 2008
53. I got this off of Wike, Moke:
Modern day hedonists strive firstly, as their predecessors, for pleasure. But also, hedonists feel that people should be equal, and that the way to achieve that is through allowing much more personal freedom. Hedonists, in the words of an organization known as Hedonist
International, "want joyful togetherness, anarchy, epicurean ideas, multifaceted joy, sensuality, diversion, friendship, justice, tolerance, freedom, sexual freedom, sustainability, peace, free access to information, the arts, a cosmopolitan existence, and a world without borders or discrimination, and everything else that is wonderful but not a reality today. "(Hedonist Manifesto)[2]
Doesn't sound TOO bad. I'm not fond of anarchy, however. But I certainly don't like others to dictate my moral values.
Linda at 10:58AM on May 7th 2008
54. fanmanaf1,
Botts did more for brian than I. I do think the hug has had a visible effect on many of us.
P.S. I don't think I've agreed with Rev on anything yet.
Mokele Mbembe at 11:00AM on May 7th 2008
55. apprec. the humility Moke, but I think you could rightly be humming "I started a hug, that started the whole blog hugging". That show of emotion did far more than words ever could. But, since words are all we've got here, don't you love DD's opening line today?
fanmanaf1 at 11:04AM on May 7th 2008
56. Linda; great definition. Isn't that what BHO is campaigning for?
fanmanaf1 at 11:07AM on May 7th 2008
57. They praise you because you're an educated guy who happens to have a belief in something and because you actually understand the religion that you practice, as opposed to some blind fool who was "saved by Christ" to combat "sin" and convert every non-Christian in this world.
I've read your blogs and books a while now and never have I seen you condemn another religion is necessarily as wrong or that atheism is wrong either. I've seen you condemn individuals, yes, like bin Laden or Stalin... but you don't make claims that you can't back up so that's why (open-minded) atheists can tolerate you.
Tony Messinger at 11:09AM on May 7th 2008
58.
Mokey
We must ask ourselves if happiness is achievable. While utter bliss may not be achievable, some measure of happiness is within our grasp...it is up to us as individuals to seek this happiness.
While the hedonist may not represent a society in which most folks would want to live(seems cool to me), they seem to be searching for happiness.
I do not advocate most forms of religion, but they, also, seem to be seeking happiness.
I think it's universal. That doesn't mean that what makes you happy will make me happy. It merely means we all seek our own happiness.
It's just sad that some folks happiness involves taking another's happiness away.
mac at 11:12AM on May 7th 2008
59. So Mac, what's the answer for some people's pursuits of happiness that lead to despair and ultimate destruction? How about alcoholics, addicted gamblers, crack-heads? Should we just blindly let them continue pursuing?
fanmanaf1 at 11:19AM on May 7th 2008
60. mac,
I just watched "The Money Pit" with Tom Hanks and Shelly Long. One line that got me was "You have the opportunity to profit off another human being's misfortune. That's the basis of realism!"
Mokele Mbembe at 11:20AM on May 7th 2008