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 3 of 49)
31. Who cares what this guy thinks?
Are you, dd, aligning yourself with jerry fallwell, a christian who has pretty much the same treasonous views as you do, blaming US for 9/11?
Or mccain's good christian man, with his ridiculous views?
Are we to believe that you might also align yourself with christian faith-healers and snake handlers?
Or is it only the purview of the atheists to take the most extreme dope and follow him blindly, out of belief and faith (or lack thereof).
dd = dope squared
America's Most Gangsta at 11:37AM on May 9th 2008
32. Eloquent as always Somber. Well said.
a born atheist at 11:53AM on May 9th 2008
33. ATHEIST
As usual, Dinesh is a cunning LIAR.
He took an interesting question about whether babies born with severe birth defects should be considered human beings for the sole purpose of charging a doctor with MURDER.... and smeared his opponent with it.
Yes, babies ARE born with severe birth defects. That's a fact of life.
If a baby has no chance of a normal life, should a doctor be charged with a felony for killing it? That's the QUESTION. When you look at all the facts, it's an interesting question without a clear answer.
Dinesh, you're a friggin' idiot, and your lies and slander show it.
There is NO GOD.
Catholicism is NONSENSE. Complete and utter nonsense, and the only way you defend it is by LYING and slandering your opponents.
The Gospel of Mark is a Sales Pitch for
demonic spirits
angels and messages in dreams
resurrection
the dead coming back to life
the world ending while some people who heard Jesus preach were still alive.
Any person of high intelligence would realize and acknowledge that Catholicism HURTS people by dumbing them down.
You are NOT an intelligent person, Dinesh. But your LIE and pretend that you are.
The ability to QUOTE is a poor substitute for the ability to THINK.
William Hays at 12:11PM on May 9th 2008
34. Brian post 21 - GHB - you never were a DD fan.
Man_in_Wilderness at 12:16PM on May 9th 2008
35. So while Christianity introduced into Western civilization the concept of dignity of human life,...
Why don't you explain that to the American Indian? Those "decent, god fearing christians" almost wiped them off the planet. What were they called again? Let me refresh your memory - savages.
When Cortez turned the Aztec people into slave gold miners, what gave him the authority? They were godless heathens, deserving of no better.
It's no wonder you think you win debates. Making grand statements with no basis in fact is a hallmark of yours. I really think that you don't believe them yourself, but your ego is so big you think that nobody is smart enough to use a shovel on your bullshit to discover the truth beneath it.
ex-christian at 12:21PM on May 9th 2008
36. ATHEIST
http://www.pathology.vcu.edu/WirSelfInst/neuro_medStudents/image/042encephcele.jpg
http://www.chinalittleflower.org/lovingmemory.html
This is NOT child murder.
Dinesh is a friggin dimwit.
Under the laws of some states, a doctor cannot put a child with severe birth defects to death.
The issue is, should that law be changed.
NOBODY is advocating child murder.
What a wonderful headline Dinesh wrote.
Dinesh is a dimwit Catholic who refuses to admit the truth.
He's recruiting new victims for a ridiculous End of the World Cult.
That's what the Catholic Church is. They want their victims to have FAITH that the world will end when Jesus appears in the clouds...
and all the dead will be resurrected in new bodies so they can live as angels without benefit of marriage or sex.
If you print out the beliefs of Catholicism, the truth is obvious.
nutjobs.
William Hays at 12:22PM on May 9th 2008
37. BUSTED!! PLANNED PARENTHOOD involved in harboring Child Molestors & Predators alike
http://childpredators.com/
See, we told you PP is no good. Boycott Planned PArenthood for all its damage to women.
Ben at 12:26PM on May 9th 2008
38. Ben, why are you spreading innuendo with this deliberate twisting of facts in your website? It is more than obvious that this an anti-abortion (and etc.) front for a religious group. If you are anti abortion, why not be upfront about it?
JefFlyingV at 12:39PM on May 9th 2008
39. "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
Hello and Shalom!
I occasionally post to encourage Dinesh and praise his work; which I admire. Most of the comments don’t reflect my world view and are not edifying to the Christian spirit. They exhibit an ignorance of history, theology, philosophy, etc. I find them sophomoric. I doubt very seriously if those posting negatively would engage Dinesh in a debate. The fallacy of their convoluted arguments would be made clear, immediately. Tolerance; the battle cry of our age is rarely exhibited, unless one agrees that there is no God or truth and that Christianity is bad. It is all very sad. You are an exception to the above. You are humble, respectful, and genuinely inquisitive. I told you once about the great rabbi that said there would be a rebirth of Israel. You have work to do. I keep you in prayer.
janesophie1 at 12:40PM on May 9th 2008
40. Oh yippie Ben, you found a website.
What you seem to ignore and omit is the fact that PP puts the woman's needs utterly and completely first. They will encouage her to go to the police. They will encourage her to step forward. But the fact is that they leave it at the woman's initiative because they recognize that some girls are utterly dependant upon their family and that they do not have the psychological or finacial resources needed to survive independantly. To come forward and report every case of rape and molestation would violate their confidentiality with their patients.
Also, you think that rape is easy to prove? Girl gets raped and she has this great big light over her head that says 'I was raped?' Guess again. A girl slipped GHB has less than 24 hours to get bloodwork done before it disappears. Most girls are too confused to make that decision. And violent rape? Two weeks, less in young girls, and the evidence heals and is gone. Ironically, a pregnacy is the longest lasting evidence of a rape there is... of course... if she can prove it wasn't concentual.
And as for molestation, you are demanding that PP put a child in extreme risk. Girls who are molestested get abortions to hide their pregnacy from the parent doing the molestation. Because many of them end up getting killed when it comes to light. If the girl is lucky the cops will act immediately, get a DNA sample, compare it to the fetus' DNA, and hope for a quick conviction. If they don't 'talk' about it first and release the guy. If he doesn't get out on bail and go looking for the child. PP can not make that decision for the child; they will encourage, they will council, they will document, but they leave the choice up to the child. For better or for worse.
Somber at 12:42PM on May 9th 2008
41. >>>>>What you seem to ignore and omit is the fact that PP puts the woman's needs utterly and completely first.
Yeah. Luring minority women to give up their minority baby. The womb is not a tomb you know. PP seems to think that and especially if you want to reduce the black & Hispanic population. Margaret Sanger was a racist. No doubt.
Ben at 12:59PM on May 9th 2008
42. One must not look at what the Catholic church has done and say 'Christians' did it. The Catholic church is not Christian -- they are Mary worshippers. True Christians do not worship Mary. Great comments DD, keep up the good work.
Carol at 1:03PM on May 9th 2008
43. I guess Ben is only capable of reading and responding to the first sentence of Sombers well thought out and well written post.
And only with nonsense...
Ryan Anderson at 1:04PM on May 9th 2008
44. Carol; you don't get to disown groups that you are assosiated with by your beliefs because you disagree with them.
If someone thinks their a christian, they are a christian.
Ryan Anderson at 1:05PM on May 9th 2008
45. Luring sounds like propagandizing Ben. How does Planned Parenthood lure women into the clinics? And doesn't the front group you represent fanatically picket those clinics?
JefFlyingV at 1:06PM on May 9th 2008