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 3 of 26)
31. RD won't debate DD or any other Christian apologist or self-proclaimed scholar. RD has correctly stated that there is no controversy about biological evolution and won't involve himself in any pretense that there is.
Natural Puppy at 1:34AM on Jul 21st 2008
32. Puppy,
Dawkins doesnt think that there is a controvery about biological evoloution - and neither does DD. As a biologist who abuses his position Dawkins tries to give the impression that evolution creates a superhighway to atheism.
This is what DD wants to and Dawkins is too afraid to debate.
kumar at 2:25AM on Jul 21st 2008
33. Why should Dawkins debate about the existence of God? There is no scientific evidence for such a thing, hence no reason for debate. The "design" fallacy was discredited long ago.
Take comfort instead in the fact that, when you look up at the stars at night, --you are the stars looking up at yourself.
Knowledge is peace.
noobie2 at 2:58AM on Jul 21st 2008
34. Dinish professes to be an evolutionist. What kind of evolutionist? Christians hold many different evolutional hypotheses, only one of which would be the same as that held by Dawkins. Any hypothesis of the genesis of life, or its autogenesis, held by a Christian would necessarily be different than that held by Dawkins because he dismisses supernaturalism a priori. Evolutionists understand that the genesis of life is not considered to be a part of biological evolution. Most Christians don't. Any supernatural intervention in biological evolution after the genesis of life billions of years ago would not be accepted by Dawkins as possible. Would this be the same evolution accepted by Dinish?
Natural Puppy at 3:04AM on Jul 21st 2008
35. Dinesh is nothing but a stupid preacher and a war criminal for his support of the mass murderer Ronald Regan, for whom he worked for at the White House, and for his support for Bush (jr and sr) and Cheney.
Peter at 3:10AM on Jul 21st 2008
36. Noobie,
If you think its not really worth talking about whether God exists or not - thats fine!
But Dawkins apparently thinks it is worth discussing - which is why he wrote a book on the subject. But having written a book he is now trying to hide away and is refusing to debate his arguments with people who disagree with him!!!
Actually thats not entirely accurate - Dawkins IS willing to argue against tele evangelists and the like (which is better than nothing!) but actually he needs to be debating people like William Lane Craig and DD. When he does get opportunities to do so he doesnt want to....
kumar at 7:09AM on Jul 21st 2008
37. Puppy, you asked: "Dinish professes to be an evolutionist. What kind of evolutionist? Christians hold many different evolutional hypotheses"
LOL :) firstly non christians also have different evolutional hypotheses (as you call it) so not sure what the point is...
secondly, you say you dont know what kind of evolutionist Dinesh is...
thats the whole purpose of debates such as this... (which Dawkins is avoiding) where you would find out the way a christian reconciles evolution with faith in God.
kumar at 7:22AM on Jul 21st 2008
38. Many years ago the Village Voice called Dinesh D'Souza a "useful idiot" -- miraculously, he still lives up to that nomenclature!
Tara Reddy at 7:17AM on Jul 23rd 2008
39. I would just like to see DD be clear about how he reconciles his beliefs.
Mokele Mbembe at 8:54AM on Jul 21st 2008
40.
Renzo has brought up the fact that Dinesh won't engage US - "Why should he? - given SOME of the comments, he'd be debating himself"
Ever stop to think that Dawkin's is doing the same? In one debate, Dinesh claimed that god is "outside the narrative" of a allegorical book.
How do you debate that? Outside the narrative, therefore, untouchable (pun intended). Pascal's wager? That more people believe than not believe?
So, if Dinesh want's to debate with Dawkins, maybe he should start here.
Funny he accuses Dawkins the same thing we accuse him of - Why is a master of the universe afraid of direct dialog with us?
ex-christian at 9:00AM on Jul 21st 2008
41. "DEBATE: a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides."
-----------
I suspect this is the reason Dawkins doesn't want to 'debate' D'Souza. On the subject of evolution vs 'other', the overwhelming amount of data across multiple disciplines hardly allows for this to be a proposition between matched sides particularly if you exclude the deliberate propaganda of organizations like the Discovery Institute, et. al., which have been conclusively proven to have an anti-science agenda.
Here's my suggestion; instead of ridiculing the so called atheists using the hackneyed debate strategy of the strawman argument, Mr D'Souza, why not concentrate on trying to argue the merits of your side. What's so great about what you believe? Let skeptics define what they believe in response and have a true debate. Or are your beliefs so weak that you have no choice but to lie about what others think? That works in debates and it's how gutless wonders like Karl Rove make a living but it isn't scholarly, intellectual or honest. And if you want to look down your nose at skeptics from a high and mighty Christian perspective, then honesty really would be the best policy. There are people who post here who put you to shame with their ability to argue their perspective without name calling. Why not be a leader and do the same.
That's my question - do you have the guts and the intellectual chops to stick to your own arguments? If not then you will remain nothing but a bully and a shill and then why would the likes of Dawkins bother with you.
Steve at 9:03AM on Jul 21st 2008
42. ATHEISM ... STILL ... A CATASTROPHIC FAILURE
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
WILL SMITH at 9:16AM on Jul 21st 2008
43. From their embarrassing appearances in the EXPELLED movie, we now know that evolutionists cannot think on-the-fly. So, though it is cowardly of Dawkins to wimp out of debating Dinesh, it is a smart strategy for an invertebrate such as Dawkins.
Dawkins prefers to pontificate, rather than debate, and his followers seem to not mind that kind of cowardice from their fearful leader. Apparently, they all must seem to realize that atheism is hollow and cannnot withstand scrutiny and side-by-side debating.
In EXPELLED, David Berlinski says Dawkins is a bit of a reptile. I think Dawkins is evolving into a chicken. Bock, bock, bock.
The winner by forfeit: DINESH D'SOUZA!
Rev 3:16 at 9:16AM on Jul 21st 2008
44. Rev: "from their embarrassing appearances in the EXPELLED movie, we now know that evolutionists cannot think on-the-fly..."
The Jewish people were not portrait well in "Triumph of the Will". But most of us are capable of recognizing propaganda when we see it.
Ryan Anderson at 9:25AM on Jul 21st 2008
45.
Rev prefers to pontificate, rather than debate. Just once could you be spontaneous insted of predictable Rev?
JefFlyingV at 9:29AM on Jul 21st 2008