Last night at the New York Society for Ethical Culture, Christopher Hitchens debated with Dinesh D'Souza about religion and atheism. It was an extremely interesting debate.
First of all, the terms of the debate seemed fair. But I noticed that it was set up to slightly favor D'Souza. Quite frequently, especially during the Q&A session, D'Souza was allowed the last word. Which left no time for Hitchens to rebut because of time constraints. The questioners were all people of faith, there were no atheists asking questions of D'Souza.
Truthfully I don't know how useful the debate was since well trodden ground was covered by both sides. There was no give or take between D'Souza or Hitchens since both were keen on hitting their talking points. Although I do think Hitchens made more of an effort to pull himself and D'Souza out of the rut. This is a problem with modern debates, it is all turned into spin, into marketing. It is in the marketing that D'Souza excelled. His arguments are successful not because they are logical, intellectual and adhere to reason but because they are simple.
Here are the simple points that D'Souza used.
1) Atoms follow the same pattern inside his head as they do outside in the larger world. Therefore that is evidence of a divine hand.
2) D'Souza says that the speed of light was measured many times in our universe with the same result. But he can't be sure that light travels at the same speed outside of our universe. So to do so, would be a leap of faith.
3) All morality was taught by Christianity and without Christianity it would be a world full of chaos and immorality. People are not capable of moral actions without the Christian religion. He stated that only Christian nations donate blood.
4) In answer to the fact that the law of gravity is immutable, he used a strange pen analogy. D'Souza held up a pen and stated that if he chooses to drop his pen then the law of gravity will act upon the pen. But if he doesn't than he has stopped gravity. Therefore our freedom of choice can affect gravity. Since we can affect gravity then it is possible for things such as resurrection to exist.
5) All the biggest despots of the 20th century were atheists. Hitler was an atheist and so was Stalin so atheists should take responsibility for these criminals. D'Souza did admit to the inquisition but he stated that not as many people were killed during that atrocity.
6) He also used the talking point that the Founders were christian and the U.S. was a christian nation.
7) The universe shows the signs of being "designed" for us therefore it is evidence of a god who has a plan.
8) D'Souza stated that since Christianity advocates a moral world, actions have consequences. A world without Christianity would be an anything goes world in which people would run amok. He is glad that his religion advocates and assures a "what goes around, comes around" ethic and that there are consequences for "what we do in the dark".
This is the kind of convoluted, market speak we get out of religious. Arguments that eschew sense in favor of simple blurbs that play upon the ignorant. There was also a big reason why D'Souza focused in on faux scientific arguments because it hamstrung Hitchens. Hitchens was intellectually honest enough to admit that he was not familiar with scientific proofs and would not argue them. That is why D'Souza's ridiculous pen argument was allowed to stand. On the flip side, when arguing with scientists such as Dawkins, D'Souza and his ilk favor societal/cultural arguments.
These aren't arguments that D'Souza used but tricks and they should be viewed as such. The problem that Dawkins, Hitchens and others run into are that they are treating their opponents sophistry with respect. The time for that is over. As wonderful and intelligent as Hitchen's answers were to all of the above, they sounded convoluted compared to D'Souza's one sentence blurbs. The gloves must come off.
Whoever debates these people must become familiar with their M.O.'s. Scientists should expect cultural arguments and non-scientists should expect to be faced with faux-scientific arguments. Hitchens was knowledgeable enough to know that the pen trick that D'Souza used was specious. No one and nothing in this universe has a choice to escape the law of gravity through choice. It is acting upon our persons all the time. Hitchens could have answered that. That strange blood donation example is another argument that has a simple rebuttal. Quite frequently poorer, "non-christian" countries have no access, no facilities, no money and no opportunity to donate blood. It cannot be stressed enough that Hitler was not an atheist and that he received help from Christian churchs. The Holocaust argument is the most dangerous since it allows Christians to shirk off the responsibility for the prevalence of anti-semitic racism within Christianity and its awful acceptance of genocide. The Founding Fathers trick must be combated with meticulous anti-theistic arguments that the Founders have all used in their writings. They were not religious men and quite frequently stated so. Quotes straight from the source is the only way to fight this "Christian Fathers" argument.
The "What we do in the dark" comment just sums up what this group is really afraid of, sexual impulses that they can't control. They are frightened by their physical bodies. Hitchens made a nice rebuttal that evolution is slow and we are locked into bodies that are still trying to evolve. Christians want to rise above this, can't and it causes them problems. It causes atheists and non-Christians problems as well because Christians seek to control everyone's physical responses because their "God" tells them to do so. Even if it is a hopeless aim.
I think Atheists, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, have the right idea when they state that malformed religious ideas should be marginalized and destroyed. They should not be given the respect of debate. That only validates them. Unfortunately, D'Souza's delusional ideas were given the glow of validation last night.Labels: atheism, commentary, new york, religion, reviews