D’Souza vs. Dennett

I’ve listened to this debate about Christianity vs. Atheism.  The specific topic was supposed to be “Is God a man-made invention”, but I didn’t really get a good answer to that question from listening to it.

Here are my impressions:

1. This is not the first D’Souza debate I’ve listened to and in both cases he gets really excited about a half-point he makes about how the universe must be exactly as tuned as it is or else we wouldn’t exist.  He talks about the mass of a proton and gravity, etc. etc., and evidently concludes that therefore, a God with us in mind must be pulling the strings.  I was shocked that his Harvard Ph.D. opponent didn’t derail that entire line of reasoning (on which Dinesh spent several minutes) by pointing out the circularity of the argument.  If you are trying to suggest that God eixsts, you can’t prove it with an argument that assumes God exists.  More simply put, while it is true that if the universe were any different we wouldn’t exist, it only proves a creator if you assume that human beings are the reason the universe exists in the first place.  Sure, if you believe that the universe exists to serve human kind and give us a place to exist, it’s not much of a leap to believe in God.  but if you don’t, as Dennett doesn’t, such an argument would fall on deaf ears.  Come on Dinesh, you can do better.
2. Atheists spend a lot of time defending the concept that if God is dead, anything is permissible.  In other words, they have to prove that man is an equal source of morality as God.  This simply is not true.  Every human being fears death.  It is one of the many things about our existence that we simply cannot know.  And that scares us.  I believe in God not because of evidence one way or another, but rather because I am a cautious person.  Let’s suppose that God does not exist.  In that case, it really doesn’t matter what I do until I die.  I should spend my days smoking crack, enjoying as much hedonistic pleasure as I can possibly derive, at the expense of myself and everyone else.  Why should I bother doing anything?  There are no consequences except that I blink out of existence and rot in the ground.  Right?  If this were true, wouldn’t fatalism be far more widespread than it is?  Sure, if you want to take the Darwinism angle, which atheists absolutely love, they’ll tell you that instinctually we have drives to reproduce, blah blah blah, and that gives us false optimism about our fates so we have the drive to do reproductive things.  Sure, that’s valid.  Let’s assume that God does exist, but I believe that he doesn’t.  I’ve just wasted my life, and probably hurt a whole lot of other people along the way.  Am I going to burn in Hell?  Such a fear has motivated millions of people throughout history.  Well, I err on the side of caution on this one.  I’m going to assume that when I die, I’ll be held accountable for what I’ve done on Earth.  If I’m wrong, then I blink out of existence and what, I missed out on smoking crack?  No skin off my back; I’ll be dead.  But if I’m right, I won’t have anything to answer for because I lived my life responsibly.  Morality for the sake of morality doesn’t drive 99% of humans the same way it doesn’t drive 99% of monkeys, but fear in God will drive at least some of those people (and maybe those monkeys), which is enough to make the world you live in better than it otherwise would be.
3. Someone asked “who created the creator” and Dinesh gave a good answer.  He was trying to say, albeit in a somewhat conviluted way, that our entire notion of existence vs. nonexistence is a concept that God “created” as it were.  Our understanding of creation was in fact a creation of God.  To ask “who created God” doesn’t make sense, because the concept of creation is (possibly) unique to God’s creation.  The analogy I would have used would have been to ask how you would describe a sphere to a circle, or a cube to a rectangle.  The rectangle couldn’t possibly comprehend a 3rd dimension in the same way we can’t really comprehend a 4th (although we like to imagine that we can).  God is outside of our existence, so to ask what came before or after him will only make sense if we are ever allowed to exist in the same frame that God exists, which many theologians suggest is what the afterlife actually is.  We transcend God’s created universe and return to God’s level of existence.
4. Some balding boomer professor got on the microphone and started basically mocking Christianity, which got a rise a bit out of the audience.  I’m so sick of these assholes.  He’s the reason debates like this interest me.  I like to see them derailed.  I took a 100 level history course at UMCP that answered every single one of his questions: “how do you move from there is a God to all of the beliefs of Christianity, such as the story of Jesus, etc, etc.” in a very historical, intellectual way that would have satisfied even someone hell-bent on mocking it.  Christianity is a philosophy and part of why it is so compelling is because it is explained through myths, allegories, and stories.  And they’re really good stories.  People have been questioning whether or not these stories are true for thousands of years – ever since they came around.  And guess what?  It doesn’t matter.  So this dumbass boomer professor just doesn’t get it.  He missed the point entirely, which is probably why he’s gone through life a total asshole.
5. This douchebag thought he was too cool for school when he made another totally unoriginal point in his question.  “Well if every religion has different sets of things you must do or else you’ll go to hell, doesn’t one need to be either an agnostic or an atheist?  LOL!”  The shit-eating grin on his face as he dropped this bomb on Dinesh and the almost-giddy inflexion he spouted as he thought to himself, “I’ve got him now… aren’t I clever?!  I bet he’s never thought of this one before!” was enough to inspire me to screenshot it so I could publicly mock this kid.  He also sounds like a total homo.  Dinesh totally owned him: you’re suggesting that since these religions have different demands and, according to you, they can’t all be right, rather than choose one of them, you’ll choose none of them.  Good job Dinesh.
6. Another kid said, “oh, well, since God is outside our realm of existence it’s too easy to use him as a fallback on every thing.  God works in mysterious ways?  Give me a break!”  I said it more eloquently than he did.  That’s the point.  If you understand why Christianity gained so much steam in the era it did (Rome), you’ll know that it is because God is intangible and impossible to rationalize that he is God.  The Romans gave up their very tangible gods from their day who they very sincerely believed lived on Mt. Olympous and threw lightning bolts and seduced women in the form of white bulls.  Those gods obeyed the same kind of physical laws of mankind, they just had magical powers.  In this frame of thinking, all you would need is a time machine and an iPod and you’d be declared a god in pagan Rome.  If, however, men from the future came to us today with equally amazing technology, Christians would never think of him as God because God “doesn’t exist in the same universe that we do.”  I think Tertulian said it best: “God is at once Father, Son, and Holy Spirit not because it is possible or logical but exactly the opposite – God is one being and three beings because it can’t be explained.”  Christianity is about faith – believing something even in light of a total lack of evidence which academic types like Dennett use to demean it but the truth is, they just don’t understand why faith is appealing.  It goes against everything they learn and all the tools they use to do their jobs every day.  When your God is science, of course you don’t believe  in Christ.
7. Dennett called religion as a “nurse crop” – meaning that religion is a baseline for teaching us how to be moral but now we’ve progressed to the point where we don’t need it anymore.  In other words, he tipped his hand in a major way.  There it is – he’s a progressive, which is why he’s an atheist.  He believes that we must progress, which means abandoning the past for the sake of progressing.  And I think in this case, the argument against “progressivism” is never clearer than now.  Sure, religion paved the way for moral society, but let’s do away with it.  I’m going to reap the benefits of all that religion has done to build our civilization while simultaneously waging a crusade against it simply because it’s what people used to do and if we do it their way we haven’t progressed.  Dinesh calls Dennett on his bullshit.  Good work.
8. Dennett is asked: “Sir, what if you’re wrong?”  He didn’t answer, except to say that the religions community instructs its members never to ask that question and he wishes they would, but he didn’t answer it.  The girl tried to persist but the moderator wouldn’t let her.  It’s too hard for Dennett (or anyone else) to say, “well, if I’m wrong, I’ll see you in hell.”  I think he’d have garnered some respect and credibility if he had courage behind is conviction.  But the truth of the matter is that he is so convinced that he refuses to accept the fact that he might be wrong.  So right is he, and so impossible will it ever be to prove him a liar, that he doesn’t need to answer that question.  I suppose questions that can never be settled are very safe positions upon which to base your career as a published and tenured professor.

Stylistically, Dennett came off as a condescending, pompous academic, and Dinesh sounded like he was speaking at a church revival.  He really sounded like an evangelical.  I had to turn the volume down because he was yelling.  Had he hollered “Praise Jesus!” after every point, I doubt any eyes would have batted.  He calmed down considerably during the Q&A but you could definitely tell when he’s getting fired up.

Winner: D’Souza, again.  He always wins these debates not because he’s a great debater (although he is), but because the other side’s position is just so weak.  Religion offers the good, the bad, and the ugly.  The question you should ask yourself is whether the good is worth the bad and the ugly.  Atheism, however, offers nothing.  Nothing good, anyway.  Which one are you going to choose?