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 35 of 35)
511. I'm surprised you wonder what a soul is.
isn't 'a soul' the apex of the north end of any vertebrate going south? Heyy, maybe they're calling Gonesh 'a soul', but why you flaming 'a soul'?
Maybe it's a hindu expression.
Clif Kuplen at 2:09PM on Jul 15th 2008
512. The book that might help explain this problem is Julian Jaynes The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. I wish I still had the book but it was lent to a person whom opted not to return it. Simply put the norm for our ancient forefathers was a state of constant schizophrenia that in my own impression was slowly replaced with manic depression over time. Modern man suffers from over-consumption and has evolved into HOMO SAPIEN SHOPPAHOLUS
John Lotz at 4:52PM on Jul 15th 2008
513. Haven't posted in a long time, I see it's pretty much the same. Realize that this is a little late for this blog, but what math class did DD take ? I would guess Math for Liberal Arts or something. If it were a calculus course he would know where the "explosion in human advancement" came from.
Ron V at 9:59PM on Jul 16th 2008
514. somber has the right idea.
regarding religion, there must have been some survival advantage to those cultures that had religion. how religion came about was that the human brain become complex enough to think it up. or perhaps it was the wine, or opium, or some grain gone bad.
in any case, once the ball got roling, those religions the "worked", worked, and those that didn't didn't. try to open your mind to the whole process here. remember that religions that worked and religion itself gave an survival advantage in those environments, both in climate, competition, degree of technology, etc.
so, the religions we have today are those that worked IN THE ENVIRONMENT over the last 2000 years.
however, that doesn't mean these religions will work in the future. from what I see comparing those societies that still hold to a fundamentalist view of the world, to those that don't, I believe they give a negative to survival. that because of econmic, environmental, technical, and competition elements.
One thing for sure, the environment will change, and so will religion, or lack thereof.
all evolution really says is things that work, work, and those that don't, don't.
ageofreason at 1:10AM on Jul 21st 2008