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 2 of 26)
16. "8. Let me get [sic] you Dawkins monkeys straight.
Your champion has been independantly [sic] invited to comment on a television show. He then finds out that Dinsh [sic] will be there. Then proceeds to shit himself and run away...."
The Dawkins monkeys? I wonder if Mr D'Souza appreciates the support of comments like the above?
Ayn Sof at 8:27PM on Jul 20th 2008
17. Probably the reason Dawkins does not want to debate dimwit goes back to the old adage 'Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig'
Geoff Barker at 8:58PM on Jul 20th 2008
18. 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
-------------------------------
It is? I would think that Dawkins would jump at the opportunity to smash Dinesh on TV if he thought that ws going to happen. Controlling the order of appearance allows your competition to find the wak points in your arguement and exploit them while demolishing strong points. It doesn't appear rational from the presenter's position, so I guess you just tune in and see.
Dedmanrisn at 9:05PM on Jul 20th 2008
19. Here's RD's answer to this:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=51339&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=25#p1118536
Zemi at 9:09PM on Jul 20th 2008
20.
heysus, Dawkins has stated his reasons for not giving theologians a platform for debate, and he has stated why he no longer sees religion as a benign force.
JefFlyingV at 9:09PM on Jul 20th 2008
21. "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?"
What you do is not "critical exchange" it is convoluted salesmanship. There are those interested in getting at the truth, and then there are dishonest showmen like yourself. Your debates have less to do with honesty than ego boosting sport.
As I've written here before, if you're interested in the truth, post 'all' of your best defenses of christianity, god's existence, and so forth, and leave them open to 'public' comment. A true test of 'critical exchange' is not to positions yourself against one individual's perspective and debating style in a limited timeframe, but to expose your positions to ongoing scrutiny.
S at 9:22PM on Jul 20th 2008
22. "19.
heysus, Dawkins has stated his reasons for not giving theologians a platform for debate, and he has stated why he no longer sees religion as a benign force.
JefFlyingV at 9:09PM on Jul 20th 2008"
Sounds more like "there's no point debating this cause i'm already right".
It is a chicken shit excuse for a man who is demonstratedly hopeless outside of his narrow field of specialisation.
For those who take him seriously i recomend downloading The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day and see if your faith in Dicky D holds.
allabaster at 9:36PM on Jul 20th 2008
23. BTW - according to Al Jazeera's schedule, the Riz Khan show airs at 3:30pm Eastern (DD said 4:30 in the last blog). And it's only a half hour show - so I doubt that they ever intended to indulge Dinesh with an actual debate.
Toad at 10:31PM on Jul 20th 2008
24. "nothing but a showman"
Indeed, Dinesh baby, indeed.
Well played right up until post # 20, where the link shows that Dawkins states the ACTUAL truth, and the facts.
I agree with Ryan...this is just getting sad. Please go away and stop posting this depressing, worthless, self-flagellating crap.
Whilst your minions (Hi Renzo!) slurp your satan-semen and smile.
brandon at 11:14PM on Jul 20th 2008
25. maybe Dawkins says you made it up because you made it up. Seems like a good old republican Rove like trick. Make up some bullshit about someone and then attack the answer to that bullshit as if that proves something.
And for the record, Dawkins could in fact be the biggest lying piece of crap in the entire universe and it still won't make your myths any truer. It won't make you any less full of crap either.
tmo at 11:22PM on Jul 20th 2008
26. Debating someone of faith is nonsense anyway. Since they can offer no proof it's either a really long silence or an attack on their opponent. Which means to haver a debate the opponent agrees up front to spend the entire time on the defensive or at best arguing secondary issues, since the main issue, really the only one, is essetially declared off limits since one side has nothing to offer but faith.
tmo at 11:28PM on Jul 20th 2008
27.
From Dawkin's Site - The Riz Kahn response to Da'Dolph D'Itler's non-event:
No.... no Richard! He was going to do the segment after you Sir...
There is no direct debate between you on screen. D'Souza will be talking about whether Darwin theory should be taught in the American classroom.
We would not dare to pull such a cheap trick on you Sir because we'd want to continue debate over Darwin for a long time to come..
Z Abraha
In today's Hot Steaming Cup O'Stupid, D'Idiot seems to forget that there's this little thing called The Internets (they flow through tubes!) that what you post can be verified without a heck of a lot of effort. But then, as a God-Nazi Faith Fool, D'Itler probably thought Jesus or his Daddy would reach into the World Wide Web and scourge the Dawkins Facts away.
But then, God probably has Windows and it crashed.
Sorry D'Stupid. If this is a measure of your intellect or your debating skills, no wonder Dawkins doesn't want to bother with you, and most of your "opponents" mop the church floor with you.
T.Brough at 11:54PM on Jul 20th 2008
28. ATHEIST
I agree with Dawkins.
Dinesh is a friggin' idiot. He brags and brags about how he wins debates.
When you're dealing with a liar like Dinesh, the only thing you can do is NOT debate him.
dinesh, you are an intellectual pygmy.
Let me explain it to you in simple terms.
for 200 years before Jesus was born, the Pharisees were trying to add the concept of DEMONIC POSSESSION and RESURRECTION to Judaism.
After all the people who actually knew Jesus died, around 70 AD, some Pharisees rewrote the Gospel of Mark...
making jesus an Exorcist... adding accounts where demonic spirits said,
"I know who you are. You are Jesus of Nazareth, the Holy One of God."
A story about a DEMON who identifies Jesus as a HOLY ONE... is nonsense.
that's how Dawkins treats Dinesh.
A silly child who doesn't know how to THINK.
Bad Dinesh. Quit LYING and grow up.
William Hays at 11:59PM on Jul 20th 2008
29. Dinesh...who do I believe, you or Dawkins? Gotta believe Dawkins!
emelpe at 12:42AM on Jul 21st 2008
30. Bottom line?
A Dinesh/Dawkins debate would resolve no more than the pointless back-and-forth already popluating this worthless blog, so why bother?
Robert at 12:51AM on Jul 21st 2008