Peter Singer is a calm, lucid and able debater, and our debate at Biola University in Los Angeles on April 25 was lively and hard-fought. Not for nothing is Singer considered a world-class philosopher and advocate. You can watch the debate here.
Singer praised me for not simply making assertions of faith or hurling Bible passages at him but rather for using reason and argument to make my case . And I complimented Singer for stepping, so to speak, into the lion's den. (Biola actually stands for Bible Institute of Los Angeles.) Unlike the pusillanimous Richard Dawkins, who doesn't dare to debate me even at his home campus of Oxford, Singer was brave to come to a Christian campus to dispute the resolution "God: Yes or No." The audience of 3,000 was mostly though not exclusively Christian.
So perhaps atheism has found an able advocate. But unbelievers may want to think twice before lining up behind Singer, who argues in favor of infanticide, euthanasia and (this is not a joke) animal rights! One of Singer's interesting proposals concerns what may be called "fourth trimester" abortions, i.e. the right to kill one's offspring even after birth!
Here are some choice Singer quotations on the subject which I get from his books Rethinking Life and Death and Writings on an Ethical Life.
On how mothers should be permitted to kill their offspring until the age of 28 days: "My colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggest that a period of twenty-eight days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others."
On why abortion is less morally significant than killing a rat: "Rats are indisputably more aware of their surroundings, and more able to respond in purposeful and complex ways to things they like or dislike, than a fetus at ten or even thirty-two weeks gestation."
On why pigs, chickens and fish have more rights to life than unborn humans: "The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy, while if we make the comparison with a fetus of less than three months, a fish would show more signs of consciousness."
On why infants aren't normal human beings with rights to life and liberty: "Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness...make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings."
In my opening statement I showed the profound connection between Singer's Darwinian atheism and his advocacy of infanticide and euthanasia. Remarkably Singer responded by saying he didn't come to debate his bioethical views! Rather, he wanted the debate to focus exclusively on the question of whether God exists or not. I didn't want this to be a debate in which Singer and I ended up talking on completely different subjects, so I engaged him on his chosen ground.
Even so, I was disappointed that Singer wouldn't stand up for the opinions that have made him famous, or infamous. Our topic resolution was broad enough to permit a discussion both of the existence of God and also of the social implications of the theist and the atheist positions. I view Singer's work as exploring the consequences of living in a truly secular society, devoid not only of the Christian God but also of Christian morality.
So while Christianity introduced into Western civilization the concept of dignity of human life, Singer explicitly says we have to get rid of this outdated concept. He contends that God is dead and we should recognize ourselves as Darwinian primates who enjoy no special status compared to the other animals. In the animal kingdom, after all, parents sometimes kill and even devour their offpsring. Singer argues that the West can learn from the other cultures like the Kalahari where children are routinely killed when they are unwanted, even when they are several years old.
Some of Singer's critics call him a Nazi and compare his proposals to Hitler's schemes for eliminating the unwanted, the unfit and the disabled. But as I note in the debate, Singer is no Hitler. He doesn't want state-sponsored killings. Rather, he wants the decision to kill to be made by you and me. Instead of government-conducted genocide, Singer favors free-market homicide.
Given the connection that Singer draws between atheism and child murder, using the former as his premise to recommend the latter, I wonder if our atheist friends are going to rush to embrace this guy as one of their heroes. Is Singer showing us where the road to complete secularism actually leads?
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 49)
16. GET HELP FAST BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE ...
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com/#the_message_that_we_were_born_to_hear
ALLEN JONES at 10:18AM on May 9th 2008
17. Linda, I'll bet the Jews only wished that the Christians had only left them in seclusion. While in truth it seemed that everytime the Crusaders went off to save the Holy land ... they first stopped to dip their swords in Jewish blood. But Dinesh will never admit this ... he prefers to believe that only the only Christian victims were a few witches at Salem.
JimCO at 10:24AM on May 9th 2008
18. A very enlightening and disturbing article DD. It's no surprise atheists fail to value human life as discriminately as Christians.
Greg at 10:24AM on May 9th 2008
19. Fortunately there is nobody setting policy for atheists to follow. Sounds like Singer is a bit of a nutcase. Atheism is a personal choice that is based on personal observations of the world we live in.
a born atheist at 10:30AM on May 9th 2008
20. Gee, Greg, it seems to me that the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis are at the hands of your christian president and his minions.
By the way, where in the bible does it forbid abortions?
Linda at 10:32AM on May 9th 2008
21. I had much respect for Mr. D'souza until this blog entry. When he loses a debate on it's topic, he looks for anything he can do downplay that loss so he points to Singer's radical views. The title of the debate was "God: Yes or No" - nothing to do with social issues.
Shame on you Dinesh. You lost a fan today.
Brian at 10:36AM on May 9th 2008
22. Dinesh,
I am posting a comment today to offer my support for your apologetics efforts. Your blog is always thought provoking and enlightening. Today, you were on target regarding Peter Singer. The dehumanization of the unborn child logically leads to his world view. I can respect him for being consistent and honest. Keep up the good work. The battle is already won; this we know. Our duty is to evangelize and remain faithful. God bless!
If God doesn’t exist; why talk about him? If there is no truth; why insist on tolerance?
janesophie1 at 10:57AM on May 9th 2008
23. http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html
Linda at 10:59AM on May 9th 2008
24. I don't know anyone who adheres to Singer's philosophical description of personhood and human rights.
http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html
This author maintains, rightfully so, that the rights of the infant begin at separation from the mother, otherwise known as birth.
Linda at 11:01AM on May 9th 2008
25. I made first page.
People, the only reason people like dinesh exist is to get other people riled up. They push your emotional buttons to make you mad. Getting mad makes you pay attention to them. Whether or not you agree with them is besides the point, the point is that you pay attention to them. If we treat DD with indifference, then he will go away.
DD wants to portray all athiests as child murderers, he wants athiests to be immoral and unjust because then he can say that athiests are evil and should be gotten rid of. The first step in claiming you are the best is to try and show that everyone else is the worst.
The Budha belly at 11:06AM on May 9th 2008
26. janesophie,
"If God doesn’t exist; why talk about him? If there is no truth; why insist on tolerance?"
From that, one would think this was only your first time here.
Mokele Mbembe at 11:06AM on May 9th 2008
27. I understand Singer's argument. A baby isn't a person so it's wrong to apply inate human rights to it. Likewise someone who is braindead isn't a person anymore either. Personality makes a person a person. So I get his argument.
I likewise disagree with it. Once a fetus is born and capable of surviving outside the body of its mother without immediate and constant biological connections then it is a human being and subject to the full and complete protections and entitlements being human entails. I, personally, don't think of most kids as people until they can come up with an opinion on their own. Heck, I come across adults all the time who are barely people. But that's my own skewed judgement. I doubt they find me personable either.
So once again Dinesh is drawing a false analogy: Singer is an atheist who advocates infantcide; so therefore all atheists must advocate infantcide. As master of the generalist misrepresentation, it's not surprising Dinesh makes such a distorted insinuation. What Dinesh can not understand or tolerate is the fact that Atheism HAS no spokesman. Not Singer. Not Hitchens. Not Dawkins. I have not read a single one of their books nor have I ever attended a single debate or lecture of theirs. I do not need an academic to explain atheism for me nor do I need one of justify my belief.
The galling fact is that atheism needs no spokesman, and any who try to step up as one is treated at best with polite interest and at worst with dismissal. What is so infuriating to theists is that they need spokespeople for it. In fact they are utterly dependant on people going out and perpetuating this social phenomenon. If there were no more bibles being printed, no more preachers preaching, no more churches being worshiped in, then christianity would be as relevant as the Egyptian and Persian pantheons. A historical curiosity. But atheism is the purest representation of looking objectively at the universe without imagining ghosts and goblins and gods lurking unseen in the shadows.
I speak for myself, thank you very much.
Somber at 11:18AM on May 9th 2008
28. If DD thinks Singer speaks for atheists, I'm just going to go ahead and assume that all Christians are exactly like Eric Rudolph.
Jerry #3: I'm going to borrow that saying, if you don't mind.
AndrewV at 11:26AM on May 9th 2008
29. Jerry #3: I'm going to borrow that saying, if you don't mind.
AndrewV at 11:26AM on May 9th 2008
Help yourself.
Jerry Brown at 11:33AM on May 9th 2008
30. Somber - Nice post. No spokesman needed for Atheism! I can speak for myself thank you.
Faithful - Atheists do not commit acts in the name of Atheism. I have never heard of anyone say I murdered that person because I'm an Atheist. Can the religious say the same thing?
Secular American at 11:36AM on May 9th 2008