Dinesh D'Souza debating Richard Dawkins July 21

[bhaktajan 0]

July 18th 2008

 

My Las Vegas debate with Christopher Hitchens continues to attract attention and comment. If you'd like to read an account of the debate, you can do so here.

 

Also on Monday July 21, at 4.30 pm Eastern time, I'll be debating Richard Dawkins (yes, Richard Dawkins!) on Al-Jazeera (yes, that Al-Jazeera).

 

This is a noteworthy development because Dawkins has so far refused to debate me. But now we're appearing together on the Riz Khan television show, which I understand has some 25 million viewers worldwide.

 

If you want to watch Monday's debate live you can watch it here. The segment will also be posed on the web and I will link to it on this blog.

 

I also hope that, upon seeing for himself that I am not a Hitlerite kind of speaker, Dawkins will summon up the courage to step into the public arena with me.

 

Like one of the atheist commenters recently said on Dawkins's own website: all the best spokesmen for unbelief have gotten a whipping from this D'Souza guy and it's now up to Dawkins to try and redeem the reputation of atheism.

 

Given that my thoughts are currently focused on how to deal with Dawkins, I'm going to post here on a question that seems to mystify him and many other scientific atheists.

 

These fellows wonder: if there is reasonably good evidence for evolution--as, by the way, both Dawkins and I believe there is--why do around 50 percent of Americans refuse to accept it? T

 

he conventional wisdom among Dawkins and others is that Americans oppose evolution because they are religiously committed to a literal reading of the Book of Genesis.

 

But there is a much better explanation of why Americans reject evolution: the idiotic claims of leading champions of evolution who are promoting an atheist agenda.

 

Consider Dawkins himself, rebutting the claim that there are significant "gaps" in the fossil record. Dawkins concedes that there are such gaps, but then writes this: "The gaps, far from being anoying imperfections or awkward embarrassments, turn out to be exactly what we should positively expect."

 

In other words, the absence of evidence for evolution is itself proof that the theory is correct! This is so bizarre that it makes one wonder what the presence of evidence might do to this theory.

 

Would a complete fossil record without gaps be evidence against Darwinian evolution, as we hear that Dawkins and his fellow biologists "exactly" and "positively" expect that such evidence should not be present?

 

Dawkins finally puts his cards on the table by saying of evolution: "Even if the evidence did not favor it, it would still be the best theory available."

 

And if Dawkins is dismissed as a crank, here is Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker making the same point.

 

"Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it."

 

We have here the weird spectacle of so-called scientists who are so wedded to a theory that they cannot even imagine it not to be true. This is a level of dogmatism that would embarrass any theist.

 

Even the strongest religious believer can imagine the possibility that there is no God. So how can these self-styled champions of reason adopt so closed-minded an approach?

 

The short answer is given by Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin, who in a 1997 essay in the New York Review of Books makes a revealing admission:

 

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant proises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment--a commitment to materialism.

 

It is not that the methods of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation for the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori commitment to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

 

And you thought I was making this stuff up! No wonder Americans are skeptical of these apostles of skepticism. They are peddling their own metaphysical dogmas in the name of science, even though few are as honest as Lewontin in admitting it.

[bhaktajan 0]

July 17, 2008

"You guys ready for some sparks," a man quipped as he took his seat to hear the rhetorical pugilists go head-to-head on the topic, "War, Terrorism & Geo-Political Crisis: Is Religion the Solution or the Problem?"

Billed on yellowing posters as a Wild West showdown and a championship boxing match all rolled into one, moderator Alex Green felt it was appropriate to set a few ground rules.

"For tonight's two debaters; Please, no head-butting, no ear-pulling, no slapping, no biting and no gagging," Green said tongue-in-cheek. "No eye-gouging, no spine locks, no neck cracks, no faking an injury and no escaping the ring. No hair-pulling, no fish-hooking, no distracting the referee, no groin strikes and no toe locks. No grabbing the throat. No attacks on the windpipe. No punches to the head, kicking below the belt and no unsportsmanlike conduct."

Hitchens, a pugnacious secularist and author of "god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," entered the ring first, loosening the mostly Libertarian crowd up with a few coarse jokes and then launching into what D'Souza later described as the "elliptical mode of attack."

Arguing in his book that religion is man-made, sexually repressive, the basis for totalitarianism and a threat to human survival, Hitchens described a series of experiences from his travels as a foreign correspondent that convinced him just how dangerous faith is.

He recounted his remorse over favorable articles he once wrote about Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe, a dictator who has allegedly subjected his country to torture, famine and death squads. Despite these abuses, Hitchens said the nation's religious leaders have been conspicuously silent during Mugabe's 28-year reign.

"He'd probably have to recommend condoms and abortions before any condemnation would come from the pulpit," Hitchens said.

Hitchens, contributing editor to Vanity Fair and Atlantic Monthly, topped off his argument about the potential nightmare religious fanaticism poses – whether it's Islamic terrorists abroad or Christian fundamentalists at home – by drawing the audience's attention to <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Iran</st1:country-region></st1:place>'s recent missile launches and concerns it is developing nuclear weapons. He further cited the example of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">North Korea</st1:country-region></st1:place>, a totalitarian nation and the "most worshipful and religious country I've ever seen" in its adulation of leader Kim Jong-il.

"We have worried and wondered when it will happen that a messianic regime, gang or group would manage to get a hold of apocalyptic weaponry," Hitchens said. "When will those people who think the end of the world is coming get weaponry to make it happen? Well, it's about to happen in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Iran</st1:country-region></st1:place>."

Stepping to the podium, D'Souza, author of "What's So Great About Christianity," described Hitchens' opening statement as "sneaky" and containing a grain of truth, but using a bogus analogy.

"There is an effort here to equate Islamic radicalism with Christianity," D'Souza said. "Now, first of all, let's ask in a very reasonable way, who is the Christian bin Ladin? Where is the Christian Al Qaeda? Where is the Christian Hamas or Hezbollah?"

D'Souza, the Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Stanford</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">University</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>, also sought to debunk Hitchens' argument that conflicts in hot spots around the world are driven by religious beliefs. He asked the audience if the Israelis and Palestinians are really fighting over God.

"No. They are in fact fighting over land," D'Souza said. "Similarly, the Hindu's and Muslims are fighting over <st1:place w:st="on">Kashmir</st1:place>. And in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Northern Ireland</st1:country-region></st1:place>, the Catholics and the Protestants are not fighting about the Eucharist or Transubstantiation. They are fighting over which group of guys gets to rule that country."

D'Souza challenged Hitchens' claim that religion has been responsible for countless deaths over the years, arguing the alleged sins of Christianity – the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and religious wars – were vastly overblown and occurred hundreds of years ago. For example, Henry Kaymen, the leading scholar on the Inquisition, found about 2,000 people were killed over 350 years during the Inquisition.

In contrast, D'Souza said atheist regimes of the past century – Communist Russia, Communist China and Nazi Germany – are responsible for upwards of 100 million deaths. Even Pol Pot, a minor league dictator and leader of the Communist Khmer Rouge in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Cambodia</st1:country-region></st1:place>, killed up to 2 million people in the late 1970s.

"If religion must take the blame for the crimes committed in the name of religion, let's be consistent and blame atheism for the crimes inflicted in the name of creating the atheist utopia and the secular paradise liberated from the shackles of traditional religion and traditional morality," D'Souza said.

In his rebuttal, Hitchens continued his argument that religion is the source of the world's problems, noting the "cheapest and nastiest" moments in the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region></st1:place>' presidential campaign involved clergyman like Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He also registered his disgust with Rowan Williams, the controversial Archbishop of Canterbury, who has suggested the British adoption of Sharia law is unavoidable. Hitchens suggested the comment is indicative of the masochistic nature of Christianity, a faith that proposes the "hideous, the disgusting, the contemptible, the revolting, the dangerous, the suicidal idea ... that we should love our enemies."

"I don't want him saying in the name of this contemptible Nazarene ideology that I must give up my freedom – that the rule of law is over, that there is a separate law for people of religion, that we aren't all governed by the same courts," Hitchens said.

But D'Souza said Williams was making an argument based on secular, liberal multiculturalism - not Jesus Christ's admonition to love one's enemies. Rather, the comments were something a university professor might argue, contending the collapse of the religious foundation of Western civilization has opened the door to a certain kind of "namby-pamby tolerance." D'Souza also pointed out Hitchens' contention that faith leads to totalitarianism involves a "very stylish sleight of hand."

"He's basically saying, 'Let's blame religion for the crimes of religion and then lets take all the things done by atheist regimes in the name of atheist regimes and blame them on religion, because after all, isn't it true when you look at these atheist regimes, that they kind of resemble theocratic regimes," D'Souza said.

Ultimately, D'Souza said Hitchens' arguments amount to a "dodge," attempting to blame religion for the crimes of atheist regimes, which have historically resulted in an ocean of blood and a mountain of bodies.

"The 20th Century was really an attempt to create the secular utopia," D'Souza said. "It's failed miserably. So the one great experiment of creating secularism, of creating the religion-free society, has been a terrible failure."

At the end of debate, the conference host asked the audience – through an informal show of hands – who they thought won. Surveying the hands, the host named D'Souza the champ.

Later that night, the comment about the debate igniting sparks proved eerily prophetic as thunderous lightning bolts lit up the skies above Bally's <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Las Vegas</st1:City></st1:place>, the rumbling sound reverberating throughout the Strip.

[jinglebells 0]

This souza is fake. Hitchens is a good man. All these debates are a farce to make the good guy look bad, the results (and even the audience) cannot be trusted.

[krsna 3]

 

 

[bhaktajan 0]

This souza is fake. Hitchens is a good man. All these debates are a farce to make the good guy look bad, the results (and even the audience) cannot be trusted.

 

<!-- / message -->Hitchins has his on challange. Don't you know?

 

Hitchins has issued a challenge to any one to Debate Him publically to

weather atheism is the ultimate conclusion of Intelligent men.

 

Hitchins is the atheist here and he is Challenging all comers to debate him.

 

Oh, how I'd love to take up his challenge!

 

Why would desouza be a fraud? Because of his economic market prediction or prognostications?

[theist 1]

Dinesh D'souza has always been held in respect by me since reading his End of Racism but now to learn he is taking on these prominent athiests puts me clearly in his corner. Go Dinesh!

 

There is a huge need for intelligent well educated theists to take on these foul mouthed atheists like Hitchens and especially Dawkins.

[jinglebells 0]

Souza is fake, the whole program is fake. Hitchens is an intellectual, whereas this souza is a moron who babbles like an idiot. But since religious people always control the proceedings, it's no surprise he's 'won' the debate.

[krsna 3]

 

 

<H1>Theists and Atheists Forever

 

Submitted by Mukunda Goswami

 

Both believers and non-believers will always exist. No “proof” will ever convince an atheist that God exists.

 

 

 

 

</H1>

[theist 1]

 

Submitted by Mukunda Goswami

 

Both believers and non-believers will always exist. No “proof” will ever convince an atheist that God exists.

 

True in a general way but not true for the true seeker. A true seeker will always be shown the truth by Supersoul.

 

 

 

 

Antony Flew – His History

Antony Flew, a British philosopher, Oxford professor, and leading champion of atheism for more than fifty years, honestly followed the evidence and renounced his naturalistic faith in 2004. In a published interview with another philosopher, Flew said, "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

After chewing on his scientific worldview for more than five decades, Flew concluded, "A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature."

Antony Flew – His Central Work

Previously, in his central work, The Presumption of Atheism (1976), Flew argued that the "onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist." However, at the age of 81, Flew shocked the world when he renounced his atheism because “the argument for Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it." In his same 2004 interview, Flew shared, "It seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before."

The story of Antony Flew reminds us that physics and metaphysics are not mutually exclusive. True science asks us to follow the observational evidence, no matter what the destination. Does life really occur in a naturalistic vacuum? Or do its design, order, and complexity necessitate something more?

 

Antony Flew – His Conclusion

Antony Flew is an honest thinker who ultimately acknowledged the existence of God. Like many of us, recognition is a huge step. However, when it comes to the questions of God, purpose, meaning, origins, and destinies, can we rest in mere recognition? What about Dr. Flew’s observations of Intelligent Design -- the immensity, intensity, and intricacy of it all -- don’t they compel us to move forward and seek additional signposts for truth in our life journeys?

[krsna 3]

 

True in a general way but not true for the true seeker. A true seeker will always be shown the truth by Supersoul.

 

 

 

 

Antony Flew – His History

Antony Flew, a British philosopher, Oxford professor, and leading champion of atheism for more than fifty years, honestly followed the evidence and renounced his naturalistic faith in 2004. In a published interview with another philosopher, Flew said, "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

After chewing on his scientific worldview for more than five decades, Flew concluded, "A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature."

 

Antony Flew – His Central Work

Previously, in his central work, The Presumption of Atheism (1976), Flew argued that the "onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist." However, at the age of 81, Flew shocked the world when he renounced his atheism because “the argument for Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it." In his same 2004 interview, Flew shared, "It seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before."

 

The story of Antony Flew reminds us that physics and metaphysics are not mutually exclusive. True science asks us to follow the observational evidence, no matter what the destination. Does life really occur in a naturalistic vacuum? Or do its design, order, and complexity necessitate something more?

 

Antony Flew – His Conclusion

Antony Flew is an honest thinker who ultimately acknowledged the existence of God. Like many of us, recognition is a huge step. However, when it comes to the questions of God, purpose, meaning, origins, and destinies, can we rest in mere recognition? What about Dr. Flew’s observations of Intelligent Design -- the immensity, intensity, and intricacy of it all -- don’t they compel us to move forward and seek additional signposts for truth in our life journeys?

 

KRSNA says in the Bhagavad Gita- vasudeva sarvam iti sa mahatma sudurlabha - one who knows that the Supersoul is the source of all that be is a rare good soul indeed.

[jinglebells 0]

Is Souza a liar?

[suchandra 1]

 

Is Souza a liar?

If he isn't a Vaishnava what to expect?

 

 

 

<embed src="

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344">

[jinglebells 0]

 

If he isn't a Vaishnava what to expect?

 

 

 

<embed src="

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425">

 

What do you mean?