This weekend I am in Vegas sampling some great shows, food and shopping. I took math in college, and so I know exactly why I shouldn't play the casinos. (It's not a question of morality; it's a question of knowing when you're being shafted.) Besides, I'm saving my brain for a bruising man-to-man debate against Christopher Hitchens. Every survey taken following one of my debates with leading atheists has me the winner, and I'd like to keep it that way.
In this blog I want to return to one of Hitchens's favorite arguments, one that he used in our New York debate last October and also in an Orange County debate last spring. In fact, in the Orange County synagogue event that also featured Jewish radio host Dennis Prager, Hitchens came out swinging with precisely this argument. Essentially Hitchens noted that Homo sapiens has been on the planet for approximately 100,000 years but for most of that time God seems to have been indifferent and inactive, choosing only to intervene in human history a few thousand years ago. What kind of a God, Hitchens contemptuously asked, behaves in this way?
When Hitchens first sprung this on me last year, I was surprised. But since then I've given some thought to it. When Hitchens brought it up a second time I was ready for him. Here I want to show how Hitchens' argument completely backfires on atheism. Let's apply an entirely secular analysis and go with Hitchens' premise that there is no God and man is an evolved primate. Well, biology tells us that man's basic frame and brain size haven't substantially changed throughout his terrestrial existence.
So here is the problem. Homo sapiens has been on the planet for 100,000 years, but apparently for more than 95,000 of those years he accomplished virtually nothing. No real art, no writing, no inventions, no culture, no civilization. How is this possible? Were our ancestors, otherwise physically and mentally undistinguishable from us, such blithering idiots that they couldn't figure out anything other than the arts of primitive warfare?
Then, a few thousand years ago, everything changes. Suddenly savage man gives way to historical man. Suddenly the naked ape gets his act together. We see civilizations sprouting in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, and elsewhere. Suddenly there are wheels and agriculture and art and culture. Soon we have dramatic plays and philosophy and an explosion of inventions and novel forms of government and social organization.
So how did Homo sapiens, heretofore such a slacker, suddenly get so smart? Scholars have made strenuous efforts to account for this but no one has offered a persuasive account. If we compare man's trajectory on earth to an airplane, we see a long, long stretch of the airplane faltering on the ground, and then suddenly, a few thousand years ago, takeoff!
Well, there is one obvious way to account for this historical miracle. It seems as if some transcendent being or force reached down and breathed some kind of a spirit or soul into man, because after accomplishing virtually nothing for 98 percent of our existence, we have in the past 2 percent of human history produced everything from the pyramids to Proust, from Socrates to computer software.
So paradoxically Hitchens' argument becomes a boomerang. Hitchens has raised a problem that atheism cannot easily explain and one that seems better accounted for by the Book of Genesis.
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 35)
31. I know some (most (all)) aspects of evolution go over his head, but now he needs a primer on social evolution? NEXT...
Mokele Mbembe at 9:09AM on Jul 11th 2008
32. It is remarkable that the things that distinguish us from cave dwellers came about in the past few thousand years. Certainly, we don't call survival of the fittest an "accomplishment," whereas we do speak of law and writing and music and as such. And those things are young indeed.
preteristvision at 9:23AM on Jul 11th 2008
33. "Dont you find it strange that out of all the gods that you say man invented, that the God of the Hebrews is the only one who was able to have a book called the bible endure the test of time."
So many ways to respond, I can't pick! Who teaches you all this?
Mokele Mbembe at 9:16AM on Jul 11th 2008
34. Observant; "According to the bible ther is to be a n increase of knowledge at the of end times"
---------------------------------------------------
To tell you the truth, I dont think humans are smarter then they were thousands of years ago. With every increase in technology that saves us a few minutes of time, we are expected to produce more in that few minutes. We are not living the way we were meant to. We are getting fat, lazy, and more repressed from our true biological calling.
I think we should go back to hunter-gatherer type lifestyles. Everyone would be in shape, no one would need viagra, valium, or any other psychotropic medication. Think about it, we need medication for being totally human.
We have evolved to sit in cubicles for 8-10 hours a day, go home, watch tv and then go to sleep, get up in the morning, and do it all over again. We are sedentary now and we think we are advanced.
This is God's work??? Jesus needs viagra.
CaptainCack at 9:16AM on Jul 11th 2008
35. Dinesh writes,
“Well, there is one obvious way to account for this historical miracle. It seems as if some transcendent being or force reached down and breathed some kind of a spirit or soul into man, because after accomplishing virtually nothing for 98 percent of our existence, we have in the past 2 percent of human history produced everything from the pyramids to Proust, from Socrates to computer software. So paradoxically Hitchens' argument becomes a boomerang. Hitchens has raised a problem that atheism cannot easily explain and one that seems better accounted for by the Book of Genesis.”
Your argument seems to take on the form.
A is explained by B or not B
A is not explained by not B
Therefore A is explained by B
That is,
Civilation is explained by theism or nontheism
Civilization is not explained by nontheism
Therefore Civilization is explained by theism
The problem with this argument is that any eliminative argument must be exaustive. In the above argument you must be sure that there are only two elements to the set of phenomena being considered. If there is a third, unknown element to the set, the argument is no longer valid. Consider the following.
A is explained or not explained.
A is explained by B or not B or not explained
A is not explained by not B
Therefore A is explained by B or is not explained
Or,
Civilization is explained or not explained.
Civilizaton is explained by theism or non theism or is not explained
Civilation is not explained by non theism
Therefore, Civilization is explained by theism or is not explained.
The problem with your argument Dinesh is that you excluded a necessary option from the set.
Another way of looking at this problem is as follows,
A is explained by B or not B.
The explanation B is true or not true.
The explanation ‘not B’ is true or not true.
The explanation ‘not B’ is not true
Therefore the explanation B is true or not true
Thus:
Civilization is explained by Theism or Nontheism
The Theist explanation is true or not true
The Nontheist explantion is true or not true
The Nontheist explanation is not true
Therefore the Theist explanation is true or not true
That is even if we establish that the nontheist explanation is not true it does not follow that the theist explanation is true.
Paul M at 9:22AM on Jul 11th 2008
36. Somber: If God really did need or want man for something, why let humanity languish for millenia
PV: Why not let humans exist in a primitive form for millennia?
Somber: There is no deliniation or point where all of humanity is interceeded by this supposedly universal being.
PV: Clearly, it was something conceptual which took place in recent centuries that elevated humans to a new level. Perhaps the idea of law.
Somber: any believers who'd care to propose why God would behave in such a way only to reverse that decision and intervene at some incalcuable moment in time?
PV: Who cares when it took place?
Somber: why has God willingly allowed countless variety of life to go exinct? More species have died out than currently exist.
PV: Why should God have created differently? Who says?
Somber: Perhaps that's why the theists are so worried. They know eventually their church will go the way of the Dodo.
PV: If history of humanity shows us anything, it's that Theism is hard-wired. It's built in. You have to indoctrinate it out of people, and even then only a tiny percentage of humanity can conceive of life apart from a Creator.
preteristvision at 9:23AM on Jul 11th 2008
37. Observant; start here, if you really want an answer to your question. Somehow, I don't think you do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer
Ryan Anderson at 9:23AM on Jul 11th 2008
38. PV: If history of humanity shows us anything, it's that Theism is hard-wired.
True, probably a byproduct of our dreams and societal evolution but like Clif pointed out, Neanderthals showed an inclination to religion and I believe Elephants do as well. Where are the pachyderm cathedrals and spaceships? And where are the Neanderthals?
Ryan Anderson at 9:30AM on Jul 11th 2008
39. Wow, dd, and you consider yourself a scholar???
Considering that you have yet to explain why the creator of these pathetic do-nuttin "slacker men" sat by for so long before breathing soul and glorious life into them, allowing for civilization...this phenomenon is better explained by Chariots of the Gods than Genesis.
Your lack of logic and lack of depth of thought is truly astounding...almost childlike in its pathetic simplicity.
America's Most Gangsta at 9:33AM on Jul 11th 2008
40. Ouch. Come on Dinesh, you can do better than that. I disagree with virtually all of your arguments, but at least they are generally related to tough issues that even Christians have a hard time providing an answer for. Pick up some books on anthropology & history and you'll have your answer.
Jason at 6:47PM on Jul 11th 2008
41. Yeah, like that guy Paul M said above....you excluded Erich Von Danicken's theory from your conclusion, and thus missed out on the intelligent alien explanation, you dope.
America's Most Gangsta at 9:36AM on Jul 11th 2008
42. I get why people would use "goddidit" to explain the unexplainable. People have a need to fill the gaps.
But in this case, DD is trying to use "goddidit" to explain something that already has a very well established, scientific explanation based on hard evidence.
Ryan Anderson at 9:42AM on Jul 11th 2008
43. According to the bible ther is to be a n increase of knowledge at the of end times.
Observant
So toilet paper ushers in the apocalyse? What bad timing.
a born atheist at 9:43AM on Jul 11th 2008
44. One of the things that really pisses me off the most is when a nice quiet area starts to grow rapidly. Sure its great for the economy but who gets first dibs on it. New Yorkers & Californians always seem to be the people who get first dibs on these areas. These people "assholize" the nice areas.
The place goes from simple, plain good-hearted people to greedy, contraceptive mentality. A Starbucks goes here, a Quizno's goes here, etc. etc.
Darren at 9:47AM on Jul 11th 2008
45. CC,
"I think we should go back to hunter-gatherer type lifestyles."
Worst. Idea. Ever. Everyone will have to hunt to survive, wildlife will get wiped out, cannibalism will become necessity, and natural selection will make a brutal comeback. A return to agrarian lifestyles might be better.
PV,
"Theism is hard-wired."
Wolves are hard-wired to howl at the moon. Moths are hard-wired to fly into flames. That doesn't make the Moon and Sun gods.
Mokele Mbembe at 9:51AM on Jul 11th 2008