Dear Richard,
We're both scheduled to discuss issues of Darwin and God on the Riz Khan Show on Al-Jazeera on Monday, July 21. Viewers who are interested can watch the show live here. The segments will also be posted on Youtube and I'll link to them.
But a few hours after I mentioned our forthcoming debate on this blog, you posted a comment on your website essentially accusing me of making the whole thing up. So first you accuse me of having a Hitler voice, and now you accuse me of misrepresentation.
Here's what happened. Al-Jazeera contacted me a while ago, asking me to appear in a point-counterpoint format with a leading opponent. I said I was writing about God and atheism, and suggested I appear with a prominent atheist. They chose you. Then the producer Zeresnaey Abraha confirmed that you were ready to do it. Late last week I got a studio notice from Al-Jazeera giving me the time for me to arrive at their rented San Diego studio. The other guest was listed as "Richard Dawkins" and your studio details at Oxford were given.
Apparently when you found out that the two of us were booked on the same show, same segment, you rushed to the producer to insist that we appear separately. Your pretext according to Abraha was that you have a long-standing pledge not to debate "creationists." I can understand that you don't want to give legitimacy to people who flatly deny evolution or who insist that the earth is less than 6,000 years old. The only problem with you invoking this pledge is that I believe in evolution and am not, nor have I ever been, a "creationist."
Apparently the format now is that we will each be interviewed separately. So technically it's no longer a debate, although it is most certainly an exchange of rival ideas on the same topic. It's a pity that we cannot engage each other directly.
To be honest, I find your behavior extremely bizarre. You go halfway around the world to chase down televangelists to outsmart them in an interview format that you control, but given several opportunities to engage the issues you profess to care about in a true spirit of open debate and inquiry, you duck and dodge and run away.
If we debate on the Riz Khan show, a format comparable to ABC "Nightline," you cannot seriously think I will drown you out with Hitler shouts. And if I tried that in an academic setting I would make a complete fool of myself. I have done several debates with your fellow atheists Michael Shermer and Christopher Hitchens (and have just scheduled my second debate this fall with Peter Singer) because all of them have consistently found me a serious and worthy opponent. Hitchens told me in Las Vegas that each time our debates are different because both of us adjust to what the other guy said the last time around. This is how knowledge is tested, through the process of critical exchange, isn't it?
You are supposed to be the public champion of science and reason and enlightened discourse. This is basically what your title at Oxford says, right? This is why the Microsoft billionaire Charles Simonyi is paying your salary, isn't it? So are we to believe that despite the seriousness of the issues involved, issues that engage your whole life's work, you won't even stand up and defend your views even in a hospitable setting like Oxford or any other venue of your choice?
Many years ago I read The Selfish Gene and was deeply impressed. What especially struck me was your intellectual audacity, your willingness to jump into a big debate and take on the big questions, and of course your literary eloquence. If you are so confident that your position is right, and that belief in God is an obvious delusion, surely you should be willing to vindicate that position not only against Bible-toting pastors but also against a fellow scholar and informed critic like me!
If not, you are nothing but a showman who takes on unprepared and unsuspecting opponents when you yourself control the editing, but when a strong opponent shows up you manufacture reasons to avoid him. Somehow, I would have thought the author of 'The Selfish Gene would be made of sterner stuff. .
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 26)
1. This is a typical Dawkins tactic. He thinks that by refusing to engage with someone, he's making the point that the person in question isn't worth engaging. This may work with Ken Ham, or some creationist nutcase; however, when the person in question is a respected scholar, such as Dinesh or William Lane Craig, it actually backfires, and makes Dawkins look weak and insecure.
Renzo at 6:09PM on Jul 20th 2008
2. This is really getting sad...
Ryan Anderson at 6:09PM on Jul 20th 2008
3. Renzo: "...when the person in question is a respected scholar, such as Dinesh..."
I'm really not trying to be snide in saying this, I'm not in academia anymore but I've read my share of scholarly books and papers, I've also read "What's so Great about Christianity" and I truly don't believe DD to be "scholarly". More of a pundit.
Ryan Anderson at 6:12PM on Jul 20th 2008
4. Ryan, you're certainly entitled to that opinion. However, many other highly respected scholars -- secular scholars -- seem to disagree, e.g. Shermer and Fish.
Renzo at 6:16PM on Jul 20th 2008
5. ???????
web jones at 6:29PM on Jul 20th 2008
6. you must be joking - Richard Dawkins doesn't debate with D'souza because he's not even a close academic rival - D'souza just preaches...
This would only help D'souzas reputation not Richard Dawkins -
robotaholic at 6:37PM on Jul 20th 2008
7. So, let me get this straight.
1: Dawkins has repeatedly and pointedly declined to grant you the credibility boost of a debate.
2: A producer for al-jezeera tells you that he has finally relented.
3: A week before the date, the event is confirmed for the following Monday.
4: You don't mention it until just before the weekend.
Riiiight ...
Given the histories of both you and Dawkins, there's really no question which one is more likely telling the truth here. And it ain't you, Dinesh.
skeptik at 7:08PM on Jul 20th 2008
8. Let me get you Dawkins monkeys straight.
Your champion has been independantly invited to comment on a television show. He then finds out that Dinsh will be there. Then proceeds to shit himself and run away.
After this you still believe Dawkins has a shred of credibility left? I haven't seen this level of faith directed towards a man since the Pope cruised up George street last weekend.
allabaster at 7:19PM on Jul 20th 2008
9. An example of just three worthy and scholarly opponents Dawkins has debated:
1. Francis Collins (Christian physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes, and his leadership of the Human Genome Project)
2. Alister McGrath (Christian theologian, with a background in molecular biophysics)
3. John Lennox (MA, MA, Ph.D., D.Phil., D.Sc., Reader in Mathematics and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science).
The last two aforementioned were formal debates on the subject of God. Neither parties controlled editing. In fact one of the debates with Lennox was hosted by the Fixed-Point Foundation (A Christian "think-tank" and teaching resource for churches and the broader community).
.a) D'Souza is lying when he says Dawkins, "takes on unprepared and unsuspecting opponents when you yourself control the editing"
.b) D'Souza is misrepresenting the scholars Dawkins has debated as "Bible-toting pastors" while describing himself as a "scholar" though he is no such thing. Quite interesting.
I find it quite hard to believe Dawkins would engage in debates with these people, yet cower to debate D'Souza (political writer and ardent proponent of straw man arguments). Assuming there is avoidance on Dawkins part, I suspect it has to do with the dishonest nature of D'Souza.
ix at 7:37PM on Jul 20th 2008
10. Actually, this fits perfectly with *Dawkins's* record, not with Dinesh's. I remember an instance some years ago in which Dawkins was scheduled to debate a creationist on NPR. Just before the show, the host had to apologize for the fact that while the program had been billed as a debate, Dawkins had decided at the last minute that he would only speak on the topic in separate segments, and that he didn't want to confer any legitimacy on the opposition by directly debating him. I remember Dawkins' mentioning Ken Miller, who routinely debates creationists and destroys them, and saying that while he appreciates what Miller does, he thinks it's wrong to give the public the impression that there's any serious scientific debate going on between evolutionists and creationists. Now, I understand Dawkins's point entirely when we're talking about young-earth creationists, but it simply doesn't hold when applied to Dinesh. There *is* a legitimate debate to be had concerning the existence of god, and concerning the nature of religion and society. Dawkins evidently beluieves this; if not, why write a book about it? And Dinesh is a scholar at Stanford, not from some third rate seminary. The 'I-don't-want-to-legitimize-him-or-his-topic' move simply doesn't work: Dawkins's own work has legitimized the topic, and Dinesh's credentials as a scholar at Stanford, not to mention the seriousness with which the likes of Hitchens, Shermer and Dennett have taken him, serve to legitimize him as a worthy opponent.
Renzo at 7:43PM on Jul 20th 2008
11.
DoubleD is an intellectual, but scholar? Once again it is understandable why Dawkins does not want to waste his time with a debate.
JefFlyingV at 7:47PM on Jul 20th 2008
12. Dinesh, don't worry so much about Dawkins. Worry about your upcoming debate with Steven Pinker.
insaneatheist at 8:06PM on Jul 20th 2008
13.
It also strikes me odd that many in DoubleDs corner, including DoubleD, are trying to make use of public opinion to force Dawkins into a debate. It seems many of you are more fearful that Dawkins will not debate.
JefFlyingV at 8:06PM on Jul 20th 2008
14. I agree that DD is probably not a worthy opponent for Dawkins. To be fair though, Dawkins shouldn't engage him at all if he's not willing to debate him. Dawkins correctly pointed out that sometimes DD screeches like Hitler used to. But by doing that he's kinda put himself in the ring with Dinesh.
Ryan Anderson at 8:08PM on Jul 20th 2008
15. DdS wrote: "Now I'm not sure if you agreed to debate me and then changed your mind. What seems more likely is that they booked you as a guest without telling you that I was also booked on the same show, same segment. When you found this out from my blog you rushed to the producer to insist that we appear separately."
Note that he admits he's not sure what happened. He then speculates about "what seems more likely". The rest of his article is written as if this speculation is simply the truth.
I think that's more than a bit slanted, and I think it's questionable for anyone to take as truth what DdS says "seems more likely".
orpheus at 8:22PM on Jul 20th 2008