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 5 of 30)
61. "It's just sad that some folks happiness involves taking another's happiness away."
=========================================================
Ah, mac, there's the rub! There is a lot more to individual freedom than meets the eye. The key point is harming others.
I cannot see how, in any capacity imaginable, how the union of two people in love who are of the same sex, can possibly harm others. Their happiness is as deserving as anyone else's.
I see Canada has not gone down the slippery slope with people marrying their farm animals or their siblings. Yet gay people can be married there. Marriage in Canada is probably stronger than marriage in the US.
========================================================
Well, fan, if life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is considered hedonistic (philosophical term), then who would not campaign for that?
Linda at 11:21AM on May 7th 2008
62. Ugh. DD's "What's So Great About Dinesh D'Souza" entries just make me want to hurl. No other news blogger on this site talks about themselves nearly 1/4th as much as DD does.
K at 11:22AM on May 7th 2008
63. Linda; I'm all for more liberty; get the gov't out of our affiars (maybe a poor choice of words there). But I bet the framers would have worded it differently had they had a copy of the modern def. of hedonism.
fanmanaf1 at 11:25AM on May 7th 2008
64. fanman, what causes people to become addicts...etc., the war on drugs hasn't been a success. Prohbition on alcohol failed. So what is the answer?
JefFlyingV at 11:28AM on May 7th 2008
65. "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?" fan
========================================================
Granted, I'm not mac, but I AM and alcoholic in recovery, and the answer to your question is yes. You cannot take away their liberty because they are self-destructive. If they are going to recover from an addiction, IT HAS TO BE THEIR CHOICE.
To follow your presumed thinking, does that mean that we refuse to give food to the obese person? Or imprison a pregnant woman for having a glass of wine? Personal liberty is quashed enough by our laws, even that which does not harm others.
There are literally millions of people in prison for breaking laws non-violently, which I believe is wrong.
Linda at 11:29AM on May 7th 2008
66. What's All Wrong About Christianity: http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2008/05/06/sub_teacher_claims_fired_for_wizardry/5191/
AndrewV at 11:32AM on May 7th 2008
67. The day Dinesh actually acknowledges the intelligent arguements in these comments and actually responds for debate, is the day I go get baptised.
Strados at 11:35AM on May 7th 2008
68. We mustn't hang on every word of the "Founding Fathers" just for the sake of "being American". We honor the Constitution because it is a brilliantly conceived collaboration that addresses "freedom" and "balance" in ways few nations have ever dreamed before.
Mokele Mbembe at 11:38AM on May 7th 2008
69. How about alcoholics, addicted gamblers, crack-heads? Should we just blindly let them continue pursuing?
fanmanaf1 at 11:19AM on May 7th 2008
----------------
Funny you should mention addiction, fanman.
I know a thing or two about addiction. Not from a clinical standpoint, mind you, but from a personal standpoint.
I gave up drinking and smoking herb in 1992. I've been dry for 16 years. I am neither proud nor ashamed of this, it is just what it is, my life.
Should we allow drunks and drug addicts to seek their happiness? Sure, as long as their pursuit does not harm me, I don't see how it's any of my business.
That's where conservativism has lost itself. We should not begin to think we could legislate someones happiness. What about people who don't believe in your god? Surely they're going to hell where they'll burn forever - let's stop them... for their own good. Let's pass a law so these poor bastards don't wind up in hell.
My happiness is naturaly different than your happiness, which is different than Mokey's, which is different than mine. You see where this goes?
What was the question again....
mac at 11:42AM on May 7th 2008
70. Linda; thanks for the heart-felt response. I don't pretend to have all the answers; hence my questions. As a recovering alcoholic, what was it that convinced you quit? What did you do to overcome the desire to continue drinking to excess? I don't believe anyone is advocating throwing a pregnant woman in jail over 'a glass of wine'. Maybe some whack job suggested that one time, but as we see daily on this blog, there are lots of whack jobs out there.
fanmanaf1 at 11:43AM on May 7th 2008
71. 63. Linda; I'm all for more liberty; get the gov't out of our affiars (maybe a poor choice of words there). But I bet the framers would have worded it differently had they had a copy of the modern def. of hedonism.
fanmanaf1 at 11:25AM on May 7th 2008
What would they have worded differently, in your opinion?
Jerry Brown at 11:43AM on May 7th 2008
72. Thanks Linda, I was busy writting my response, I didn't see yours.
I coulda just copy and pasted yours, it would have been better.
mac at 11:47AM on May 7th 2008
73. mac; you seem a bit heavy on legislating more laws. I say we have far too many now. But having said that, is it contradictory for me to try and influence my kids not to use what I deem to be harmful substances? Do I just have to leave them to their own devices? Can I refer them to your last post and say "Look what mac did in 1992? Perhaps you could elaborate on why you gave those pursuits.
fanmanaf1 at 11:50AM on May 7th 2008
74. sorry mac; that should be 'gave up' thtose pursuits.
fanmanaf1 at 11:52AM on May 7th 2008
75. Hi Jerry; good question deserving more than a 1-sentence answer. I'll work on a response for later.
fanman
fanmanaf1 at 12:00PM on May 7th 2008