Modesty is one of my great virtues, and that is why I am always worried when people praise me too much. I'm starting to become concerned I'll end up like that atheist megalomaniac Nietzsche, whose autobiography Ecce Homo contains such chapter titles as "Why I Am So Wise" and "Why I Write Such Good Books."
This past weekend I debated atheist Christopher Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great, at the FreedomFest conference in Las Vegas. Hitchens is probably America's leading atheist and is widely regarded as unbelief's best debater. Richard Dawkins raves about Hitchens' oratorical prowess. Entering the debate, the odds seemed stacked against me: the organizers warned me that the vast majority of the 1,000 libertarians in the audience would be in Hitchens' camp.
Yet when the debate was finished the moderator called for a vote on "who won the debate." By a show of hands, I did! In order to be magnanimous, I said that what really mattered was how many people were on each side prior to the debate. But Hitchens burst in to say that he would have lost anyway! Later several atheists came up to me and said that although they were rooting for Hitchens, they had voted for me because they felt I had prevailed decisively.
I also spoke at a special luncheon event at FreedomFest. My talk was introduced by atheist Michael Shermer, the eidtor of Skeptic magazine and author of Why Darwin Matters. Shermer commented that with the passing of William F. Buckley, I am one of the leading defenders of conservatism and freedom in America. He also added, "Whatever your beliefs, you should read Dinesh's book What's So Great About Christianity. It is the best defense of Christianity that has ever been published."
In addition to dealing with atheist accolades, I also have to contend with the same from fellow conservatives and Christians. The July-August issue of the American Spectator contains a review of my book written by Matthew Kenefick. With the title, "C.S. Lewis, Move Over," the reivew begins this way: "In his new book What's So Great About Christianity Dinesh D'Souza stakes his claim as one of the great Christian apologists." The review ends thus: "In any case, D'Souza has written a book that both G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis would have appreciated and that perhaps even Billy Graham and Pope Benedict XVI could agree is a masterpiece of modern apologetical writing destined to set the standard for years to come."
With comments like this, I am in serious danger of getting a big head and losing my reputation for self-effacing modesty. I suppose I should take consolation from the fact that I have some vitriolic detractors on this blog. But what credibility do these poor fools have with their unimaginative insults and wishful "Hitchens owned you!" declarations? Then an audience biased in favor of Hitchens votes me the winner and Hitchens himself admits that he lost the debate!
Atheists like to think of themselves as akin to champions of the round earth, confronted by religious ignoramuses who keep insisting that the earth is flat. But is it even conceivable that a round-earth advocate should lose a debate to a flat-earth advocate? To put the question differently, if atheists are truly the party of reason, and believers like me are truly the party of "blind faith," how come reason keeps getting its butt kicked?
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 22)
16. Now I'm sure DD is a talented debater, but at the same time atheism is hard to defend these days. Those who try talk in circles about first cause, morality, etc. Maybe 60 years ago, after Darwin and prior to some of the more recent scientific findings it would have been easier.
But science is at a draw concerning god, you can't prove or disprove god scientifically. And philosophically the arguments 'for' are very strong.
It leaves alot of atheists with either 'I just can't believe without proof' which is understandable, or a bunch of insults and complaints about the old testament, which is weak.
bigTuna at 6:48PM on Jul 14th 2008
17. Dang Doug, that sounds like one of D'ouche's circular arguments.
Dennis at 6:47PM on Jul 14th 2008
18. Dinesh,
Be careful, you are starting to remind me of Wolverine, from the old X-men Saturday morning cartoon show, whose catch phrase was, "Cuz I'm the best there is at what I do!"
You had better stay humble, or your winning streak just might end sooner than you thougt.
Here are a couple of good quotes to keep in mind.
"Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall." -- Proverbs 16:18
"Whoever secretly slanders his neighbor,Him I will destroy; The one who has a haughty look and a proud heart, Him I will not endure." -- Psalm 101:5
I wish that you would police your blog's comments more strictly. I don't mind when folks stalk you to disagree, but anybody leaving profanity and hate should be banned. Liberal web sites don't allow even half the hatred that you allow to appear against you on your own blog. Go to a liberal blog and see if they have a majority of folks disagreeing in great anger, hatred and profanity, as much as it appears on the Dinesh D'Souza blog.
Not having a standard of decency just cheapens this blog, and it encourages the lowest standards of decency to rule on your blog. Please clean it up, or get a trusted volunteer to delete anybody who uses profanity.
Rev 3:16 at 6:51PM on Jul 14th 2008
19.
Modesty requires NOT tooting one's own horn....
No wonder you win when you lose.
ex-christian at 6:52PM on Jul 14th 2008
20. I think DD was born in India but moved at a young age to the US with his parents. I know not his parents' lineage, but his surname doesn't appear to be Indian. I know not if there are significant numbers of Christians in India. I once attended a Catholic Church in Pakistan a few years after Pakistan was separated from India. What I wonder is, would DD be a Christian if he had remained in India? I once attended a Catholic service in Iraq. Would DD have been one of those Iraqi Christians if he had been born there? What if he had been born in Saudi Arabia? Would he have been a Christian? Perhaps an aircraft hijacker?
Natural Puppy at 6:57PM on Jul 14th 2008
21. Tuna (#16) it's not up to science to discover God, if they did you'd hear about it and they'd be called prophets. It's up to the followers that try to jam it down everyone else's throat
Dennis at 7:01PM on Jul 14th 2008
22.
Evidently wingnuts DO irony, they just don't GET irony.
Clif Kuplen at 7:09PM on Jul 14th 2008
23. How many times had Big Tuna been informed of the fact that those that make extraordinary claims need to provide extraordinary evidence? It's incumbent upon those claiming that there is a God to not only prove it, but to prove that the God that there is, is identical with their version of God, since they accept no other versions. Science can sit back and wait for that day. It doesn't need to try to disprove or prove anything supernatural in the mean time, because if it's supernatural, it's not science. Period.
Godless Heathen Brian at 7:12PM on Jul 14th 2008
24. "it's not up to science to discover God"
Of course not, it's up to science to objectively find answers. Precluding god from the get-go is irresponsible. Don't make me pull out my quote from Michio Kaku on this topic.
"It's up to the followers that try to jam it down everyone else's throat"
sure, on both sides though. If you are going to jam something down someones throat you should be able to back it up. If an atheist wants to tell me they don't have to believe in god, I'll say 'sure', if they tell me god doesn't exist and I shouldn't believe or teach my kids what we believe, they better have a strong argument to back them up.
bigTuna at 7:15PM on Jul 14th 2008
25. By modesty he must mean his criteria for claiming victory in a debate - unless he is beset by an angry mode of torch-carrying villagers in lederhosen he declares himself victorious.
Steve at 7:16PM on Jul 14th 2008
26. "How many times had Big Tuna been informed of the fact that those that make extraordinary claims need to provide extraordinary evidence?"
I can never stop appreciating that tired cliche. It's extraordinary that we are here at all, so any explanation you come up with needs evidence: inflation, einstein's god, an eternal universe, and let's not forget your big mind theory. You pick your preferred explanation, provide your extraordinary evidence and then claim your victory.
bigTuna at 7:19PM on Jul 14th 2008
27. DOOH!
obviously that should be 'mob' not mode
Steve at 7:21PM on Jul 14th 2008
28. big T - You are correct in stating that supernaturalism is beyond the scope of science. You are incorrect assuming that philosophy supports belief. Intuition is all that supports any kind of supernaturalism.
Natural Puppy at 7:23PM on Jul 14th 2008
29.
Hmmmm....
"How I became so Modest"
Paragraph one: Hope I don't turn into an oft quoted egomaniacal genius
Paragraph two: Debated a guy I call the best; boy am I scared
Paragraph 3: I won, and was meek about it. Many people I call names told me how great I was.
Paragraph 4: Had lunch with a fellow opportunist. He told everybody to buy my book, cause it's great.
Paragraph 5: Not only do my opponents love me, but my fans say I'm the greatest thing since Salmonella.
Paragraph 6: Boy, I hope I don't get a big head, at least the people who I call names, and call me names back, don't have lots of degrees and trophies and money.
Paragraph 7: Atheists are stupid, and I'm a great writer who can't lose.
....You're as modest as you are benevolent.
ex-christian at 7:25PM on Jul 14th 2008
30. If I come back here tomorrow am I going to find "How I Became a Genius"?
Another one who thinks every brain fart deserves 10 paragraphs. Where does AOL find these folks?
bob at 7:30PM on Jul 14th 2008