Click here for the full video of a recent three-way debate between Dinesh D’Souza, Dennis Prager, and Christopher Hitchens, representing Christianity, Judaism, and atheism, respectively. It’s an excellent, stimulating, wide-ranging discussion on faith, reason, God, and morality, with three tremendously formidable debaters—even if Hitchens tends to be a snide, boorish ass.
debate
Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is "Ethicist"
Alonzo Fyfe recently devoted an entire post to condemning misleading, context-free attack ads, and in another, chastised a reader for taking his own words out of context:
–
Words get their meaning from their context and it is impossible for a person to write anything or to carry on any discussion that will not contain elements whose meaning changes in a different context. For this reason, there is no option but for the burden of the responsibility to be on the reader to understand a statement in that context.
–
Isn’t that remarkable? It seems the Atheist Ethicist understands and values the importance of context more than he let on…
–
Words get their meaning from their context and it is impossible for a person to write anything or to carry on any discussion that will not contain elements whose meaning changes in a different context. For this reason, there is no option but for the burden of the responsibility to be on the reader to understand a statement in that context.
–
Isn’t that remarkable? It seems the Atheist Ethicist understands and values the importance of context more than he let on…
What Is It with Atheists?
For being such a self-righteous guy, Richard Dawkins is quite the coward.
D’Souza on "An Absentee God?"
During this debate, Christopher Hitchens actually raised an intriguing challenge to God’s existence (good points from atheists are so hard to find these days). Now, Dinesh D’Souza has an answer:
–
What happens in Vegas doesn’t always stay in Vegas. On Friday July 11 the libertarian conference FreedomFest will have, as its featured event, a debate on “Christianity, Islam and the War on Terror” between Christopher Hitchens and me. The media will be there, and the organizers also expect to have the debate up on the web. (Just in case Richard Dawkins is listening, I’ll have to remember not to use Hitler-style shrieks and yells.)
–
In thinking about this debate, I’m reminded of an argument that Hitchens made in our New York debate last October. At that time I did not know how to answer his point. So I employed an old debating strategy: I ignored it and answered other issues. But Hitchens’ argument bothered me.
–
Here’s what Hitchens said. Homo sapiens has been on the planet for a long time, let’s say 100,000 years. Apparently for 95,000 years God sat idly by, watching and perhaps enjoying man’s horrible condition. After all, cave-man’s plight was a miserable one: infant mortality, brutal massacres, horrible toothaches, and an early death. Evidently God didn’t really care.
–
Then, a few thousand years ago, God said, “It’s time to get involved.” Even so God did not intervene in one of the civilized parts of the world. He didn’t bother with China or India or Persia or Egypt. Rather, he decided to get his message to a group of nomadic people in the middle of nowhere. It took another thousand years or more for this message to get to places like India and China.
–
Here is the thrust of Hitchens’ point: God seems to have been napping for 98 percent of human history, finally getting his act together only for the most recent 2 percent? What kind of a bizarre God acts like this?
–
I’m going to answer this argument in two ways. First, in this blog I’m going to show that Hitchens has his math precisely inverted. Second, in a future blog I’ll reveal how Hitchens’ argument backfires completely on atheism. For today’s argument I’m indebted to Erik Kreps of the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research.
–
An adept numbers guy, Kreps noters that it is not the number of years but the levels of human population that are the issue here. The Population Reference Bureau estimates that the number of people who have ever been born is approximately 105 billion. Of this number, about 2 percent were born before Christ came to earth.
–
“So in a sense,” Kreps notes, “God’s timing couldn’t have been more perfect. If He’d come earlier in human history, how reliable would the records of his relationship with man be? But He showed up just before the exponential explosion in the world’s population, so even though 98 percent of humanity’s timeline had passed, only 2 percent of humanity had previously been born, so 98 percent of us have walked the earth since the Redemption.”
–
I have to agree with Kreps’s conclusion: “Sorry Hitchens. And Hallelujah.”
–
What happens in Vegas doesn’t always stay in Vegas. On Friday July 11 the libertarian conference FreedomFest will have, as its featured event, a debate on “Christianity, Islam and the War on Terror” between Christopher Hitchens and me. The media will be there, and the organizers also expect to have the debate up on the web. (Just in case Richard Dawkins is listening, I’ll have to remember not to use Hitler-style shrieks and yells.)
–
In thinking about this debate, I’m reminded of an argument that Hitchens made in our New York debate last October. At that time I did not know how to answer his point. So I employed an old debating strategy: I ignored it and answered other issues. But Hitchens’ argument bothered me.
–
Here’s what Hitchens said. Homo sapiens has been on the planet for a long time, let’s say 100,000 years. Apparently for 95,000 years God sat idly by, watching and perhaps enjoying man’s horrible condition. After all, cave-man’s plight was a miserable one: infant mortality, brutal massacres, horrible toothaches, and an early death. Evidently God didn’t really care.
–
Then, a few thousand years ago, God said, “It’s time to get involved.” Even so God did not intervene in one of the civilized parts of the world. He didn’t bother with China or India or Persia or Egypt. Rather, he decided to get his message to a group of nomadic people in the middle of nowhere. It took another thousand years or more for this message to get to places like India and China.
–
Here is the thrust of Hitchens’ point: God seems to have been napping for 98 percent of human history, finally getting his act together only for the most recent 2 percent? What kind of a bizarre God acts like this?
–
I’m going to answer this argument in two ways. First, in this blog I’m going to show that Hitchens has his math precisely inverted. Second, in a future blog I’ll reveal how Hitchens’ argument backfires completely on atheism. For today’s argument I’m indebted to Erik Kreps of the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research.
–
An adept numbers guy, Kreps noters that it is not the number of years but the levels of human population that are the issue here. The Population Reference Bureau estimates that the number of people who have ever been born is approximately 105 billion. Of this number, about 2 percent were born before Christ came to earth.
–
“So in a sense,” Kreps notes, “God’s timing couldn’t have been more perfect. If He’d come earlier in human history, how reliable would the records of his relationship with man be? But He showed up just before the exponential explosion in the world’s population, so even though 98 percent of humanity’s timeline had passed, only 2 percent of humanity had previously been born, so 98 percent of us have walked the earth since the Redemption.”
–
I have to agree with Kreps’s conclusion: “Sorry Hitchens. And Hallelujah.”
–
Part 2 of his response:
–
Here I want to show how Hitchens’ argument completely backfires on atheism. Let’s apply an entirely secular analysis and go with Hitchens’ premise that there is no God and man is an evolved primate. Well, biology tells us that man’s basic frame and brain size haven’t substantially changed throughout his terrestrial existence.
–
So here is the problem. Homo sapiens has been on the planet for 100,000 years, but apparently for more than 95,000 of those years he accomplished virtually nothing. No real art, no writing, no inventions, no culture, no civilization. How is this possible? Were our ancestors, otherwise physically and mentally undistinguishable from us, such blithering idiots that they couldn’t figure out anything other than the arts of primitive warfare?
–
Then, a few thousand years ago, everything changes. Suddenly savage man gives way to historical man. Suddenly the naked ape gets his act together. We see civilizations sprouting in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, and elsewhere. Suddenly there are wheels and agriculture and art and culture. Soon we have dramatic plays and philosophy and an explosion of inventions and novel forms of government and social organization.
–
So how did Homo sapiens, heretofore such a slacker, suddenly get so smart? Scholars have made strenuous efforts to account for this but no one has offered a persuasive account. If we compare man’s trajectory on earth to an airplane, we see a long, long stretch of the airplane faltering on the ground, and then suddenly, a few thousand years ago, takeoff!
–
Well, there is one obvious way to account for this historical miracle. It seems as if some transcendent being or force reached down and breathed some kind of a spirit or soul into man, because after accomplishing virtually nothing for 98 percent of our existence, we have in the past 2 percent of human history produced everything from the pyramids to Proust, from Socrates to computer software.
–
So paradoxically Hitchens’ argument becomes a boomerang. Hitchens has raised a problem that atheism cannot easily explain and one that seems better accounted for by the Book of Genesis.
–
Here I want to show how Hitchens’ argument completely backfires on atheism. Let’s apply an entirely secular analysis and go with Hitchens’ premise that there is no God and man is an evolved primate. Well, biology tells us that man’s basic frame and brain size haven’t substantially changed throughout his terrestrial existence.
–
So here is the problem. Homo sapiens has been on the planet for 100,000 years, but apparently for more than 95,000 of those years he accomplished virtually nothing. No real art, no writing, no inventions, no culture, no civilization. How is this possible? Were our ancestors, otherwise physically and mentally undistinguishable from us, such blithering idiots that they couldn’t figure out anything other than the arts of primitive warfare?
–
Then, a few thousand years ago, everything changes. Suddenly savage man gives way to historical man. Suddenly the naked ape gets his act together. We see civilizations sprouting in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, and elsewhere. Suddenly there are wheels and agriculture and art and culture. Soon we have dramatic plays and philosophy and an explosion of inventions and novel forms of government and social organization.
–
So how did Homo sapiens, heretofore such a slacker, suddenly get so smart? Scholars have made strenuous efforts to account for this but no one has offered a persuasive account. If we compare man’s trajectory on earth to an airplane, we see a long, long stretch of the airplane faltering on the ground, and then suddenly, a few thousand years ago, takeoff!
–
Well, there is one obvious way to account for this historical miracle. It seems as if some transcendent being or force reached down and breathed some kind of a spirit or soul into man, because after accomplishing virtually nothing for 98 percent of our existence, we have in the past 2 percent of human history produced everything from the pyramids to Proust, from Socrates to computer software.
–
So paradoxically Hitchens’ argument becomes a boomerang. Hitchens has raised a problem that atheism cannot easily explain and one that seems better accounted for by the Book of Genesis.
–
UPDATE: A reader posed a few challenges to D’Souza’s argument (if he wants to know why I’m not publishing his comments, he’s free to ask here). I want to address them, though, since they strike me as common areas of misunderstanding.
–
Humanity’s “takeoff” provides no evidence that God was involved. It could have been coincidence, or the invention of something like the written alphabet or mathematics or several such developments at once.
–
Humanity’s “takeoff” provides no evidence that God was involved. It could have been coincidence, or the invention of something like the written alphabet or mathematics or several such developments at once.
–
But this is precisely the issue: mankind had a whopping 95,000 years in which none of it happened. Then “several such developments at once”? Granted, it’s not material evidence, and it’s not proof, but you’ve gotta admit, it’s certainly intriguing circumstantial evidence.
–
It also provides no evidence that it was Christ or Christianity specifically that is the answer. Advancements took place before Christ…maybe the Greek Gods get credit for Ancient Greece?
But this is precisely the issue: mankind had a whopping 95,000 years in which none of it happened. Then “several such developments at once”? Granted, it’s not material evidence, and it’s not proof, but you’ve gotta admit, it’s certainly intriguing circumstantial evidence.
–
It also provides no evidence that it was Christ or Christianity specifically that is the answer. Advancements took place before Christ…maybe the Greek Gods get credit for Ancient Greece?
–
This complaint gets the two arguments mixed up. D’Souza does not tie human advancement to the coming of Christ at all, but to the endowment of man with a soul. The only point Christ pertains to is the percentage of the human race that lived before Him as opposed to after.
–
It’s also interesting that technology has advanced exponentially in recent history, despite no known input from Allah or God or Zeus.
This complaint gets the two arguments mixed up. D’Souza does not tie human advancement to the coming of Christ at all, but to the endowment of man with a soul. The only point Christ pertains to is the percentage of the human race that lived before Him as opposed to after.
–
It’s also interesting that technology has advanced exponentially in recent history, despite no known input from Allah or God or Zeus.
–
That’s because the input we’re talking about—the soul transforming an animal called human into a man, giving him a true mind rather than a brain—already happened. According to D’Souza’s theory, human reason and creativity flow from this singular change.
That’s because the input we’re talking about—the soul transforming an animal called human into a man, giving him a true mind rather than a brain—already happened. According to D’Souza’s theory, human reason and creativity flow from this singular change.
What’s So Great about Christianity?
Currently I’m about halfway through Dinesh D’Souza’s latest book, What’s So Great about Christianity, and it’s outstanding. Arguing from history, science, philosophy, and reason, D’Souza promises to beat the secularists on their own terms—and he does with flying colors. For Christians who want to defend their faith, atheists willing to put their beliefs to the test, or agnostics on a search for truth, I cannot recommend it highly enough. (For more, check out D’Souza’s debates with atheists Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens.)
Quote of the Day
What concerns all, should be considered by all; and individuals may injure a whole society, by not declaring their sentiments. It is therefore not only their right, but their duty, to declare them. Weak advocates of a good cause or artful advocates of a bad one, may endeavour to stop such communications, or to discredit them by clamour and calumny. This, however, is not the age for such tricks of controversy. Men have suffered so severely by being deceived upon subjects of the highest import, those of religion and freedom, that truth becomes infinitely valuable to them, not as a matter of curious speculation, but of beneficial practice. A spirit of inquiry is excited, information diffused, judgment strengthened.
–
Before this tribunal of the people, let every one freely speak, what he really thinks, but with so sincere a reverence for the cause he ventures to discuss, as to use the utmost caution, lest he should lead any into errors, upon a point of such sacred concern as the public happiness.
–
– John Dickinson, 1788
Post-Debate Analysis
Some reactions to last night’s debate…
–
The absence of the bottom tier was refreshing (and also whipped the Paultergeists into a frenzy).
–
I think Romney, Thompson & Giuliani all had good nights, though Huckabee suffered when Mitt pinned him to the wall.
–
We all know John McCain is a genuine war hero, but he seemed to remind us of it more than usual last night. If he’s not careful, he could wind up reminding voters of John Kerry (only without the treason).
–
There’s a perception out there that moderator Chris Wallace denied Fred his full share of the airtime. I sure didn’t see it.
–
The talking point du jour has been “change” lately, and Rudy actually had the best answer to it: that change can be for better or worse, and isn’t a positive in and of itself.
–
The absence of the bottom tier was refreshing (and also whipped the Paultergeists into a frenzy).
–
I think Romney, Thompson & Giuliani all had good nights, though Huckabee suffered when Mitt pinned him to the wall.
–
We all know John McCain is a genuine war hero, but he seemed to remind us of it more than usual last night. If he’s not careful, he could wind up reminding voters of John Kerry (only without the treason).
–
There’s a perception out there that moderator Chris Wallace denied Fred his full share of the airtime. I sure didn’t see it.
–
The talking point du jour has been “change” lately, and Rudy actually had the best answer to it: that change can be for better or worse, and isn’t a positive in and of itself.
History Repeats Itself
Consider the following passage:
–
Those on the Religious Right, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind — from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-choice fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the embryo is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the born man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just — but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails.
–
Sounds like your typical pro-abortion hyperbole, right? Demonize the opponents as fanatics and claim the mantle of reason for yourself. Right out of the playbook.
–
Well, it is, but the interesting thing is which playbook. Y’see, these words were spoken many years ago by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America, in his famous Cornerstone Speech. Of course, he was talking about Northerners, the Negro, and the white man where I substituted in the terms of today’s debate, but it’s remarkable to note that his spiritual successors are using the same tired, discredited arguments to justify their dominance of their chosen inferior class.
–
(Incidentally, the speech is also interesting in that Stephens’ rhetoric pretty clearly refutes the idea that the Founding Fathers, and the Constitution they produced, viewed slavery as a decent societal norm. Well worth a read.)
–
Those on the Religious Right, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind — from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-choice fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the embryo is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the born man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just — but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails.
–
Sounds like your typical pro-abortion hyperbole, right? Demonize the opponents as fanatics and claim the mantle of reason for yourself. Right out of the playbook.
–
Well, it is, but the interesting thing is which playbook. Y’see, these words were spoken many years ago by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America, in his famous Cornerstone Speech. Of course, he was talking about Northerners, the Negro, and the white man where I substituted in the terms of today’s debate, but it’s remarkable to note that his spiritual successors are using the same tired, discredited arguments to justify their dominance of their chosen inferior class.
–
(Incidentally, the speech is also interesting in that Stephens’ rhetoric pretty clearly refutes the idea that the Founding Fathers, and the Constitution they produced, viewed slavery as a decent societal norm. Well worth a read.)
GOP Debate Reaction
I caught most, but not all (missed the first ten minutes or so), of tonight’s debate. A few thoughts:
–
Mitt Romney: A good performance. His gay marriage answer was OK, but I’ve heard him deliver it more eloquently. The rest of his answers came off confident and conservative, and his exuberance in response to “Can Hillary be president?” will likely go over well.
–
Rudy Giuliani: Another strong performance overall, but there was one very interesting tidbit. Hizzonor reiterated that he doesn’t support the Federal Marriage Amendment, but then said if judges did start imposing same-sex marriage on the states, he would support it. He says this has always been his stance, but I’ve never heard it before. But Rudy would never change his positions for political expediency, would he? Of course not.
–
Fred Thompson: He was awake, and actually had a bit of spark tonight. I think he represented himself well, and his answer about education was especially strong. But his spin on the Planned Parenthood lobbying story was disgraceful. First, he made a distinction between “private practice & public service.” What’s your point—as long as you vote the right way, you’re entitled to make money by helping the bad guys when you’re off the clock? No acknowledgment whatever that what he did was wrong; in fact, he dismissed the whole thing as “Planned Parenthood is now attacking me over this because I’m their worst nightmare.” As some of his thugs just helped me demonstrate, Thompson’s full of it. He should be ashamed of himself.
–
John McCain: Good (if futile) performance. I especially thought his line about seeing the letters “KGB” in Vladimir Putin’s eyes was phenomenal. But his claim to be a “consistent conservative”…consistently maverick (read: wrong) on a whole host of oft-cited issues. And his observation about the lack of a GOP majority in Congress; now why do you suppose that is, Amnesty John?
–
Sam Brownback: GONE. Good riddance.
–
Mike Huckabee: Very polished, and some good one-liners, as usual (especially about the aging hippies & drugs), but seemed to have a problem with answering questions directly.
–
Ron Paul: Still demented.
–
Duncan Hunter: Not as good as his early debates. He too had a bit of a problem with direct answers.
–
Tom Tancredo: Okay performance, and he had some good conservative reminders for the crowd. Still a waste of airtime, though, as are Hunter, Paul, Huckabee & McCain.
–
Mitt Romney: A good performance. His gay marriage answer was OK, but I’ve heard him deliver it more eloquently. The rest of his answers came off confident and conservative, and his exuberance in response to “Can Hillary be president?” will likely go over well.
–
Rudy Giuliani: Another strong performance overall, but there was one very interesting tidbit. Hizzonor reiterated that he doesn’t support the Federal Marriage Amendment, but then said if judges did start imposing same-sex marriage on the states, he would support it. He says this has always been his stance, but I’ve never heard it before. But Rudy would never change his positions for political expediency, would he? Of course not.
–
Fred Thompson: He was awake, and actually had a bit of spark tonight. I think he represented himself well, and his answer about education was especially strong. But his spin on the Planned Parenthood lobbying story was disgraceful. First, he made a distinction between “private practice & public service.” What’s your point—as long as you vote the right way, you’re entitled to make money by helping the bad guys when you’re off the clock? No acknowledgment whatever that what he did was wrong; in fact, he dismissed the whole thing as “Planned Parenthood is now attacking me over this because I’m their worst nightmare.” As some of his thugs just helped me demonstrate, Thompson’s full of it. He should be ashamed of himself.
–
John McCain: Good (if futile) performance. I especially thought his line about seeing the letters “KGB” in Vladimir Putin’s eyes was phenomenal. But his claim to be a “consistent conservative”…consistently maverick (read: wrong) on a whole host of oft-cited issues. And his observation about the lack of a GOP majority in Congress; now why do you suppose that is, Amnesty John?
–
Sam Brownback: GONE. Good riddance.
–
Mike Huckabee: Very polished, and some good one-liners, as usual (especially about the aging hippies & drugs), but seemed to have a problem with answering questions directly.
–
Ron Paul: Still demented.
–
Duncan Hunter: Not as good as his early debates. He too had a bit of a problem with direct answers.
–
Tom Tancredo: Okay performance, and he had some good conservative reminders for the crowd. Still a waste of airtime, though, as are Hunter, Paul, Huckabee & McCain.
GOP Letdown
Here’s the video for this week’s Republican debate. I have not seen much of it (this college thing kinda has that effect), but a conversation with someone who did suggests that everyone but John McCain had a disastrous night (even Romney, and surprisingly Hunter). Some will doubtless call this the perfect opening for the now-official (or maybe “officially official”) Fred Thompson, but Fred’s pathetic performance on Laura Ingraham’s show suggests otherwise. Thompson’s mythical straight talk just isn’t there. Instead we get vague fluff about “solving problems” and weaselly excuses for past mistakes on immigration and McCain-Feingold. Bleh.
Conservative Standards 