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 5 of 26)
61. For all of his severity and dogmatism, Dawkins is a soft-spoken man. I don't begrudge him debating Dinesh one iota. Even if the intellects and knowledge bases were equally matched that would be moot because their presentation styles are so vastly different.
Dawkins is a proponent of anti-theism yet he inquires of those he disagrees with in a purely intellectual fashion. Dinesh does it in the manner of Mike Tyson crossed with Teddy Roosevelt imbued with Kant. Interesting to be sure, but you know full well he's not going to tone down the way he says things.
To put it in perspective, perhaps Dawkins would be unwilling to debate a fellow atheist on another topic (war, economics, politics etc.) because their manner has too much braggadoccio and their tone is too shrill.
oneblood at 10:34AM on Jul 21st 2008
62. XC,
Free pope hats for all the peasants! A charity raffle to win an eco-friendly popemobile!
Mokele Mbembe at 10:34AM on Jul 21st 2008
63. Great question ex-christian. Great question.
oneblood at 10:35AM on Jul 21st 2008
64. I'm going to pray to be more charitable. When I look at others' inadequacies I try to be twice as hard on myself, or put myself in their shoes. In this case...corinthinian leather shoes?
oneblood at 10:39AM on Jul 21st 2008
65. This is such a stupid thing to blog about. Why does D'Souza care so much about debating this guy? Its not going to change the world. No one will wake up tommorow and say "Hey, because of that debate last night, I will change my ways". No matter who wins, D'Souza will be on the blog the next day claiming victory.
I think Dawkins has all the power. Why? Because D'Souza has to respond to Dawkins indifference towards him. DD is desperate to debate Dawkins because it WILL legitimize his views.
The way I see it, both of these guys need to get in the ring and have a boxing match. When it gets started, we can all jump in and pound them both.
CaptainCack at 10:49AM on Jul 21st 2008
66. Please, Dinesh is not going to single out one of us to debate with.
For starters, there's no fame or prestige in it. We're nobodies. It doesn't matter how smart we are or how well we argue or out right we are. For Dinesh, it's not about being right. It's about fame and exposure... and selling books. Dinesh operates in a similiar vien as Ann Coultier... be inflamatory, be loud, and above all be noticed. She took it just a smidge too far (hear anything about her in the last month or two) but Dinesh operates in the same vein. It is better to be bigoted, decitful, and obnoxious than it is to be a nobody.
So Dinesh isn't going to debate us, for the very same reason that Dawkins won't debate Dinesh... it diminishes him. Is he going to post in his next book 'In my brilliant debate with atheistposter2099'? No. And if he's reduced to having to pick fights with anonymous internet opponents then what does that make him.
Thirdly, Dinesh won't debate us here. For one, as threads demonstrate, we can be all over the place and lets face it... all of us would want a piece of him. Now, he could use that as an opportunity to say 'look how incoherently hateful these atheists are' but even with that there's probably be half a dozen individuals with well enough rhetoric to demand a response. And if Dinesh actually couldn't hack it he could just play the 'six against one is hardly fair, but you screamed for a debate and I gave you the opportunety.'
Lastly, Dinesh isn't interested in any kind of truth or reaffirment of his own belief. If he was, he wouldn't have to stoop to taunting, mocking, and provoking Dawkins. This is something I hold against Hitchens who conduct 'spot debates' against a pastor or priest. If some one doesn't want to debate you, you respect it and move on. You don't hawk and hem and taunt and try to force them into an argument. That's just being obnoxious.
If Dinesh could demonstrate a little restraint and self control, let alone respect, he might fight Dawkins more amenable to debating with him.
Somber at 10:55AM on Jul 21st 2008
67. CC,
Reminds me of when Uwe Boll engaged in boxing matches with several of his critics.
Mokele Mbembe at 11:04AM on Jul 21st 2008
68. SOMBER>>> your statement ..."we're nobodies. ..For D'inesh, it's not about being right. It's about Fame...">>> perfectly put and just the way I feel. If he treats everyone like a 'nobody' it must really bust his balls that Dawkins treats him they way he treats his blog posters. Now if only he would blog some reasonable arguements that support his theary, we might all be more interesting posters.
emanon at 11:21AM on Jul 21st 2008
69. I will debate DD right now.....
YOU'RE WRONG, I AM RIGHT, NO MATTER WHAT
DEBATE OVER
CaptainCack at 11:45AM on Jul 21st 2008
70. Somber has a point. It doesn't really help your career to picking fights with anonymous internet opponents. It serves him better to simply cherry-pick anonymous internet atheists who slap their mothers.
Mokele Mbembe at 11:45AM on Jul 21st 2008
71. "Because D'Souza has to respond to Dawkins indifference towards him."
If he were indifferent he would have been fine with D'Souza being on at the same time.
pretty sure I called this one btw:
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/07/18/the-dogma-of-materialism/5#c13246243
and should get a prize.
bigTuna at 12:08PM on Jul 21st 2008
72.
Somber, It's very rude of you to tell me I can't use obnoxious goading in order to point out the obnoxious goading displayed in this installment. How dare you.
Will you marry me?
ex-christian at 12:24PM on Jul 21st 2008
73. Will you marry me?
ex-christian
Get in line.
Jerry Brown at 12:31PM on Jul 21st 2008
74. AGAIN EX-christian,
You are asking the wrong questions and you are using the wrong approach toward God. What light we can see with our eyes is only 3% of the light that exists. A God who created the Universe if could only be seen with the naked eye, would be a 3% God. We understand length width height and depth (LxHxD) within our three dimensional world wherein we may also analyze weight, volume and densities, even though, it is mathematically proven that there are 11 to 12 dimensions in reality. But to squeeze the God who created all things into just three dimensions means the person would still only have a three dimensional god. One's frustration in approaching the one and only God who is inherently Holy and whose size and class is greater than ones’ self, is no reason to deny that He exists.
Now let every eye be opened and he who has ear let them hear. Regardless how water molecules are structured into ice or salt is structured into a patterned appearance, it cannot be compared with living systems from the microscopic unto the enormous when analyzing the complex depth of DNA or its preprogrammed purpose-filled existence extrapolated into adulthood that we call life. Such design requires purposeful, deliberate inputs, as you would expect when building a computer program. Such purpose requires a plan. Such a plan demands a planner. Such a planner requires a mind. Such a mind requires intelligence and power to get creation or universe built. Such intelligence and power (ability to get work done) must be greater in class than its product and not forced to be limited by its product; thus by necessity it must be transcendent. Therefore, as transcendent has the power of being within itself because its existence is not dependent on anything else but itself. Such a Being is God.
Knowing that He exists is one thing, but to know him PERSONally requires another approach. You must approach him on His terms not your own. Just because Mankind's man-made instruments are far too small and lack the capacity of measuring His size is no excuse to invent His replacements as a meaningless way to reject His involvement over or within our lives. It is not an accident that Jesus Christ said of Himself, “I am the WAY, THE TRUTH, and the LIFE, NO one can come to the father except through Me.” John 14:6 As long as sin (rebellion against God and His word) has existed in the nature of humanity, injustice, evil, death and torment has ruled over us all.
But answer is NOT in creating god's of self that worship man and his own will, nor is the answer in attempting to be a god yourself. The solution is found when you first get to know and serve the one and only Holy God who designed this world –but not its sin.
Check it...
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com/#the_message_that_we_were_born_to_hear
PROFESSOR X at 2:29PM on Jul 22nd 2008
75.
Big Tuna -
Your prize awaits. I bestow upon you the most prostigious Title, "Chicken Of The Sea." You may now bask in it's reverent glory.
ex-christian at 12:35PM on Jul 21st 2008