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 4 of 22)
46. 44. DD is awesome. At least there is one conservative blog on aol.
Matt DX at 8:52PM on Jul 14th 2008
----------------------
You just made William F. Buckley's corpse spin like a top in his grave. I hope you're pleased with yourself.
Godless Heathen Brian at 8:58PM on Jul 14th 2008
47. Bigtuna; "Of course not, it's up to science to objectively find answers. Precluding god from the get-go is irresponsible"
I disagree. Precluding God is akin to precluding Santa Claus from studies of the arctic.
Ryan Anderson at 8:59PM on Jul 14th 2008
48. DD claiming to be modest??? Perhaps he is getting tired of debating atheist, and is practicing to become a stand up comedian.
Jerry Brown at 9:17PM on Jul 14th 2008
49. My god, my god... why have you abandoned my?
TJ at 9:36PM on Jul 14th 2008
50. JefFlyingV, thankyou sir, I try.
A Thinking BUM,
Personally I find the teleological argument compelling. I was a physics major back in the day and enjoyed Paul Davies on this topic. One thing that enforces the validity of this idea for me is the degree to which cosmologists and physicists have embraced the multiverse hypothesis as a counter.
Ryan,
"Precluding God is akin to precluding Santa Claus from studies of the arctic."
but have you ever heard of a researcher doing this? Nope. You go and study what you find. You don't presuppose Santa Claus is there, you don't presuppose he isn't, it isn't part of the process to make an assumption like that. In the case of the North Pole you will not come back with any argument that Santa lives there, it won't even be discussed. In the case of a designer, scientists have come to the conclusion that there is an argument 'for'.
that's it for tonight folks, have a good one
bigTuna at 9:40PM on Jul 14th 2008
51.
You know, Ryan, that's a really good point...
Why do kid's believe in santa clause? It's an extention of god - knows when you've been bad or good - and there's a reward attached to it.
Even when they're old enough to know he doesn't exist, they'll milk it for all it's worth.
Maybe some greedy, self righteous kid could write a book about whats so great about santa.
ex-christian at 9:40PM on Jul 14th 2008
52. What a great cast of characters this blog attracts. You can leave for a month; come back and pick up right where you left off. Best response so far, in my humble opinion,# 38 - Big Tuna coins new phrase "ego envy".
fanman at 9:43PM on Jul 14th 2008
53. My only agenda here is that I am truly curious.
Steve at 8:05PM
________________________________________________
My mother, cheesecake god - bless her cellulite riddled thighs - didn't know that the FLDS was an off-shoot of the Mormon faith.
This came out when we were having a discussion about Mitt Romney and the fact that I couldn't, with clear purpose, ever give a nod toward anyone who actually subscribes to the whole magic underwear belief system. And the fact that their whole belief system is based on the nefarious machinations of a con-man with a record of swindling stupid people out of their pocket change. Anymore than I can subscribe to a sci-fi religion like Scientology. Anything that Tom Cruise subscribes to - well - I might like his movies, some of them anyway - he can keep his freak-ology to himself.
TJ at 9:47PM on Jul 14th 2008
54. In the case of a designer, scientists have come to the conclusion that there is an argument 'for'.
xx
find a non-anthopomorphic one and you might be onto something.
Clif Kuplen at 9:53PM on Jul 14th 2008
55. DD is awesome. At least there is one conservative blog on aol.
Matt DX at 8:52PM on Jul 14th
**************************************
DX is a late term abortion procedure where the fetus is partially delivered, and the brains are sucked out of the head. Apparently, Matt survived the procedure. But then, so have all conservatives.
Bob at 10:15PM on Jul 14th 2008
56. 54. In the case of a designer, scientists have come to the conclusion that there is an argument 'for'.
xx
find a non-anthopomorphic one and you might be onto something.
Clif Kuplen at 9:53PM on Jul 14th 2008
---------------------------
Good point, Clif. If anyone in hard science nowadays is thinking about the possibility of a designer or a spiritual component to the universe, they're most certainly NOT thinking about Yaweh. Or any anthropomorphic deity. But the hypochrists jump on it and try to make the connection between apples and orangutans.
Godless Heathen Brian at 10:26PM on Jul 14th 2008
57. 55. DD is awesome. At least there is one conservative blog on aol.
Matt DX at 8:52PM on Jul 14th
**************************************
DX is a late term abortion procedure where the fetus is partially delivered, and the brains are sucked out of the head. Apparently, Matt survived the procedure. But then, so have all conservatives.
Bob at 10:15PM on Jul 14th 2008
---------------
Bob, that was a tad harsh, no?
I guess I mean, while I agree with the frustration that you feel, to be so harsh is to concede the high ground to the theists. And believe me, they'll jump on it and claim that it was always theirs. I'm in the process of learning myself that the harshness and anger is truly counterproductive. It not only doesn't hurt them nor convince them of anything except that they were right about us all along, but it lessens US by allowing ourselves to become base.
Just my opinion. As I said, I'm learning. Or at least trying to. That's another difference between our side and theirs. They're done learning. They already are convinced that they know it all.
Godless Heathen Brian at 10:30PM on Jul 14th 2008
58. Wow, that really doesn't sound like Hitchens, but if it's true, congratulations Mr. D'Souza. I just hope you were a little more gracious at the actual event than you have been in your description of it.
I've never read anything in this blog that's shattered my agnostic philosophy, but at least it's nice to know that a civil debate of both sides of the issue can take place.
Joseph at 11:05PM on Jul 14th 2008
59. yes godless,
the good book says a kind word brings healing but a harsh word stirs up strife,very good lesson to learn!!
brobert at 11:06PM on Jul 14th 2008
60. as for DD's comment. i think the guy is just yanking chains because the anti-DD crowd just goes balistic with this stuff. it works for him like a charm,
my question to any rational atheist is why get drawn in?why say anything at all? what does it matter what DD thinks. for that matter its his blog and he gives all of his critics life. it works
brobert at 11:12PM on Jul 14th 2008