War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf
As usual, the argument over God becomes one over Torquemada and Mao, Stalin and Richard the Lionheart
Last night at the Society for Ethical Culture, the big question was: whose body count is bigger? Atheism's or Christianity's?
In one corner was Christopher Hitchens, a leading contributor to American intellectual dyspepsia and the author of God is Not Great; in the other was Hoover Institution and former young Reaganite Dinesh D'Souza, author of What's So Great About Christianity. (If the war between the two were to cause any collateral damage, a look around the packed auditorium put the number of civilians in the line of fire in the hundreds.)
The Salem Witch Trials killed just eighteen, said Mr. D'Souza. And the Inquisition killed only 2,000 in 300 years! Whereas atheists could claim Stalin, Mao... his list went on.
"Atheism, not religion, is responsible for the mass murders of history," he declared triumphantly. "I think Hitchens by the end of the day should be chanting ‘Thank God for Christianity.'"
Earlier Mr. D'Souza had opened the debate, sponsored by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and The King's College on the topic "Is Christianity the Problem?" on a rather more lighthearted note.
"I don't believe in unicorns," he said drily, "but I haven't written a book on the subject." This was a dig at the "militancy" of the "new atheists:" Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Mr. Hitchens.
He charged that the values claimed by atheists-individual dissent, personal dignity, equality, antipathy to oppression, compassion as a social virtue-actually "came into the world from Christianity," thank you.
Mr. Hitchens took the podium with a plastic glass of dark-colored liquid and thanked the "alarmingly polite and wholesome faculty, staff and students of King's College."
(His alarm no doubt partly consisted in speaking before this particular audience: The King's College's mission is to educate its students from a "commitment to the truths of Christianity and a Biblical worldview.")
To Mr. Hitchens, those truths have a deeper origin even than that, because "human solidarity predates monotheism."
God, as Christians describe him, he said, is a "celestial dictator" who will "continue to judge and persecute us even after we are dead."
It is "very fortunate," he concluded, "that we posses no evidence of this."
Then came the zingers: "It's not moral to lie to children and ignorant uneducated people-to tell them they can be saved. It's wrong. The [idea of damnation] is one of the most wicked ideas ever preached." And its preachers?
"Vicious, child-hating old people."
Someone apparently flashed Mr. Hitchens the "two minutes left" sign.
"I don't need two minutes to finish with this religion!" he crowed.
But he did. He reminded the audience that for tens of thousands of years, humans lived for 20 or 25 years before they were "dead of microorganisms." Christians, he said, believe that heaven watched this for 98,000 years and then suddenly decided to intervene 2,000 years ago with "a filthy human sacrifice in a remote part of Palestine." This "can't be believed by a thinking person," he said, to applause.
Then it was Mr. D'Souza's turn again. "I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony," he said. "I'm trying to decide where to begin!"
He started with Christ, "one of the mildest men to ever set face on earth," he said, whose "ideas have done good for the world."
He surmised that for poor Hitchens, "the gates of hell are locked from inside." Because, well, we are free to accept or reject salvation, and if we reject it, "God reluctantly gives us our wish." The crowd liked this, too.
Then back to Mr. Hitchens, who said we've all heard the argument that without religion, "we'd descend into nihilistic chaos," but "is there anything forbidden to those who say they have God on their side?"
On to "cross-examination," which went approximately as follows:
D'Souza: How do we live in such a fine-tuned universe?
Hitchens: "We're in a tiny solar system in a tiny corner of the universe. The sun will eventually boil us alive. We're poised on a gigantic knife edge. Quite some design. Quite some designer!
Then, as is customary in debates on this topic, it was ... back to the dictators!
Hitchens: "There is nothing secular about fascism. Hitler praised the church in Mein Kampf."
D'Souza: "Hitchens zooms in on Hitler, leaving untouched Communism. He didn't mention Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il..."
Hitchens: "Bah!" (takes a drink).
"Take Russia in 1917. Is not the case that for centuries they've been told their head of state is a little more than human? Out of this were serfdom and similar delights born."
D'Souza: "Christianity has a lot to answer for. That's why we have forgiveness. But not Mao, Stalin, Hitler-people who would have wiped it off the face of the earth if they could have, as would Christopher Hitchens!"
With that, the question and answer period began. Mr. Hitchens, mugging about alcoholism as is his wont, said his favorite miracle is the one where water was turned to wine. Mr. D'Souza reiterated that evolution can't account for morality. Mr. Hitchens said that when he was a socialist, he enjoyed giving blood. Mr. D'Souza said this was because Mr. Hitchens was raised in Christian Europe. Mr. Hitchens said "Yuck!"
And Mr. D'Souza got the last word, declaring that "the atheist is chafing under the laws of a world in which we are accountable. Atheism isn't an intellectual revolt, it's a moral one."
Phew. At this point anyone could have been forgiven for rushing the stage to grab Mr. Hitchens' cup and throwing it down his throat.
Mr. Hitchens lingered at his podium as the crowd clapped, looking as if there were more he wanted to say.
He didn't. And as Mr. D'Souza smiled and greeted admirers on the stage, signing copies of his new book, Mr. Hitchens made his way toward the door.
"Christopher is used to steamrolling his opponents," Mr. D'Souza told The Observer with all the boyish relish of a 26-year-old foreign-policy advisor to Ronald Reagan. (He's now 46.) "I've watched a couple of his debates, and they're very one-sided in his favor. So I was determined to be the equalizer."
He estimated that he'd done exactly that.
"I feel very pleased about it, and I'm looking forward to taking on the other atheists now," he said cheerfully.
Kiley Humphries, 22, the tall brunette Student Body President of King's College, was standing nearby.
"I feel like Dinesh won, because I don't feel like Hitchens ever answered the question of ‘Were these people really fighting for atheism?'" she said. She said that she was originally from Wichita, Kan. and that being a student at a Christian college in Manhattan is "a fascinating clash."
Mr. Hitchens, meanwhile, was cornered on the steps outside, where a large group of students had gathered to watch him fend off an agitated opponent named Ryan Sorba, a self-described "young professional from California"-not a King's College student-who was wearing a suit and hollering something to the effect of: "According to the atheists, why ought we to preserve the species?"
"What's your answer?" shouted one woman to Mr. Hitchens' challenger. The Observer was a bit puzzled.
"Shut up and let him sign some books!" shouted another man.
Mr. Hitchens kept his voice low and fired back at his opponent politely, keeping pace with the increasingly loud inquiries.
He eventually tried, with an apologetic air, to escape. His opponent, unsatisfied, shouted: "There's no reason to preserve the species, OK?"
Mr. Sorba was looking wounded as he made his way down West 64th Street, but a reporter catching up with him found him willing to expound further.
“According to Hitchens, morality is nothing but a chemical reaction in the brain,” explained Mr. Sorba. “If right and wrong is determined by instinct, than it means we’re nothing more than genetic meat puppets dangling from the strings of our DNA!”
Mr. Sorba, it turns out, is something of a celebrity on the family-values circuit; a former college Republican who gives a speech on college campuses these days called “The Born Gay Hoax,” about how homosexuality isn’t genetic. (Here's Ryan Sorba on YouTube!)
Once he was fully gone, Mr. Hitchens looked around with beagle eyes.
"Comrades?" he mustered to the two gentlemen beside him, who pointed out the location of his car.
"I don't feel any better," he muttered.
D'Souza is an eloquent pseudointellectual. Not only does he advocate intelligent design, but in his book he credits Christianity with advances that came in spite of the faith, not because of it. Is democracy a product of Christianity, as D'Souza would have us believe? Has he forgotten that democracy developed in pagan Greece and re-emerged in Europe only after the Renaissanse and the Enlightenment in the teeth of clerical opposition? D'Souza's selective memory and revisionist version of history is utterly disgusting.
D'Souza is an eloquent pseudointellectual. Not only does he advocate intelligent design, but in his book he credits Christianity with advances that came in spite of the faith, not because of it. Is democracy a product of Christianity, as D'Souza would have us believe? Has he forgotten that democracy developed in pagan Greece and re-emerged in Europe only after the Renaissanse and the Enlightenment in the teeth of clerical opposition? D'Souza's selective memory and revisionist version of history is utterly disgusting.
D'Souza doesnot live in the reality based society. He creates reality out of thin air to keep it consistent with his dogmatic world view.
Is this the same D'Souza who writes in the book 'What's so great about Christianity' that '"Only by examining the text in relation to the whole can we figure out how a particular line or passage is best understood."'
So Jews cannot understand the Old Testament because they do not have a New Testament in their Bible?
If Christianity is so great, then what is wrong with Judaism?
D'Souza '“If right and wrong is determined by instinct...'
Most of us have an instinctive revulsion against the thought of God ordering the Israelites to kill the Canaanites, man, woman, and child.
Fight against that instinct...
""I don't feel any better," he muttered."
well, this was in regard to his quitting smoking. I noticed he wasn't smoking and asked him if he had quit 'stopped, not quit' 'we'll see how long it will last' 'i certainly don't feel any better'
Hitch also said earlier, when accosted by the man the article refers to as Mr Sorba, something to the effect that the reason to live and continue to live and to procreate is because this is our only life. it's the christians who don't want this life, they can't wait for it to be over.
D'Souza makes the assertion that Christ "was one of the mildest men to ever set face on the earth".
He's kidding, right!?
Wasn't it the Jesus of the Gospels who labeled his detractors 'serpents', a 'generation of vipers', and who envisaged for his antagonists an eternity of 'wailing and gnashing of teeth' (one supposes that dentures will be provided for the dentally challenged), in 'a furnace of fire', 'everlasting fire', 'fire (that) is not quenched', 'where the worm dieth not'.
My couldn't describe my dad as one of the mildest men ever to have set face on the earth, but even at his most petulant and vindictive he was far more sensitive and compassionate than the supposed gentle lamb of the New Testament.
I was unaware the Observer was into hiring non-professionals these days, as I had been lead to believe that they see themselves to be of reputable standing. I had assumed that the author of this article was perhaps an intern, given a small project to spice up an otherwise dull existence of filing paper and getting people their morning java, so imagine my surprise when I see a sizable number of articles under her belt. While her "reports" tend to be entertaining to read, they are a tad too gonzo for those seeking something more than a flourished editorial or column piece. Mayhaps our Meredith has not yet found her calling, as it is not journalism as I have come to know it.
Really. I would like to see the actual video. I cannot believe that Hitchens didn't bury this unctuous apologist. The same straw man arguments, going around in circles, morality arose from religion hogwash, etc etc
Be nice to see a debate where they actually say something which will make me stand up and say "hmmm, maybe he has a point", instead of the same old banal drivel. As an old teacher would have said "Try harder!"
I have watched many debates that Christopher Hitchens has done with various people on the subject of religion and my impression has always been the same: he manages to outclass and outsmart all of his religious opponents. I would be very surprised if indeed someone like D'Souza would prove to best Hitchens at any debate and on any subject! I agree with the comments of the other readers that this article is poorly written and if it was supposed to add some humour to a rather serious subject it certainly failed to target the person whose beliefs can be the source of great amusement. The only excuse I can think of for Hitchens not to be as effective as usual is perhaps being bored debating someone with the intellect of D'Souza in a religious-based college. Let's wait to see the video and make our own conclusions since this article is meaningless.
Dinesh D'Souza is from India. Most Indians from India will be ashamed of him. India is the land of Buddha who was an anti-theist, he never spoke of god in his 80 years of life.
Hinduism , Jainism and Buddhism are better religions because they have doubt at the core of their teachings. Hinduism accepts theists, atheists, agnostics, polytheists, monotheists...It is a truly tolerant religion.
Dinesh D'Souza is a Fundamentalist. Converts become more fanatic because they want recognition and crave for an identity. See Pakistanis, Bangladeshis... all converted Muslims who are much more fanatic than Arabs!
This D'Souza fellow is truly sick preacher of ignorance.
The author of this article deals with this issue as an amusing debate between two equally funny characters about the existence of UFOs. She obviously fails to realise that today the world is at the threshold of a new global and devastating war because of people like D'Souza who have strong delusional beliefs on supernatural beings and their instruction manuals as interpeted by various lunatics in history during a time when there was no mental health science to take care of them and their strange revelations. If there is any hope for people to finally wake up to the reality of the world around them is by debates of this nature which can hopefully attract the attention of the public and make people start thinking rationally for a change. This article is simply a waste of bandwidth and an embarassment for Observer.
"As usual, the argument over God becomes one over Torquemada and Mao, Stalin and Richard the Lionheart"
Does that surprise you my dear and profoundly uneducated Meredith?
Don't you know that religions were created and exploited by men throughout history as a way to control people and make them obey bizzare rules even if they make no sense?
Which other force is there in the world more capable of converting a rational person to an obedient slave for a ruling class such as priests and "leaders" of all types?
Why an entity like God, if it really existed, would care if people worship him or not? Could it be that this type of behaviour would be ideal for a power hungry person to enforce on his fellow people in order to make them do as he wishes without any complaints for their miserable life with the promise of a better future after they die?
Religon and Authority go together in history. Religion "trains" the masses to accept Authority without questions based on rationality.
I think that the world would become a far healthier place if the Electric Monk, imagined by Douglas Adams in his book "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" was ever invented and sold in huge numbers:
"The Electric Monk was a labour-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. Dishwashers washed tedious dishes for you, thus saving you the bother of washing them yourself, video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electric Monks believed things for you, thus saving you what was becoming an increasingly onerous task, that of believing all the things the world expected you to believe."
Perhaps D'Souza with the co-operation of the King's College prestigious academic staff could write the operating system for these devices and therefore do something of scientific value for a change.
The video of the debate is now available online. As I thought, for one more time Hitchens is superb despite the naive audience.
http://www.tkc.edu/debate/
Ignore this article and just watch the video.
I just saw the video as well. Hitchens kicked D'Souza's ass big time!!
"What are the body counts?" is a stupid debate question indeed. If everyone believed that an invisible, cruelty-hating imp lived in their heart, and it would give them a heart attack if they deliberately hurt another creature, it would curb a lot of bad behavior. So that's a belief with good results—a lower body count. If everyone believed that a fertility demon lived in every man's testicles, and it would cause his penis to fall off if he failed to force every fertile female he encountered to have sex with him, it would result in constant violence. That's a belief with bad results—a higher body count.
Of course I created beliefs that are disproved immediately by everyone's everyday experience. The trick is to move the proof into the past and future. A long time ago some people told stories about being visited by cruelty-hating imps/fertility demons, who told them that if they didn't do what the imps/demons said, their invisible bodies would be punished invisibly after they died. (And yes, the state will wither away, but not in your lifetime)
2,000 years later, you must decide if there really are imps/demons. And, sure, it's better for society to believe in the cruelty-hating imps, but that has nothing to do with the question of whether there really are cruelty-hating imps who revealed themselves to a chosen few humans a thousand or so years ago, and then retired into a parallel world undetectable by human senses. There is no reason to conclude that a belief is true because it's good for human society if it's true, or that it's false because it's good for human society if it's false.
I would refuse to debate the existence of God with anyone who didn't agree that the results of belief were not evidence for or against the truth of the belief.
Debates are fun, but of course we'll never be able to disprove the existence of something that by definition cannot be directly observed.
Some believers say that since evolution is demonstrated by indirect evidence, it hasn't been proven. So they say scientists believe in it like dogma. Then they show that they've totally missed the point by mocking scientists who modify the theory of evolution when new evidence comes to light. "Nah, nah, nah. You changed your belief when evidence conflicted with it. So your belief isn't reliable. It might change again."
Yeah. That's kind of the point.
"What are the body counts?" is a stupid debate question indeed. If everyone believed that an invisible, cruelty-hating imp lived in their heart, and it would give them a heart attack if they deliberately hurt another creature, it would curb a lot of bad behavior. So that's a belief with good results—a lower body count. If everyone believed that a fertility demon lived in every man's testicles, and it would cause his penis to fall off if he failed to force every fertile female he encountered to have sex with him, it would result in constant violence. That's a belief with bad results—a higher body count.
Of course I created beliefs that are disproved immediately by everyone's everyday experience. The trick is to move the proof into the past and future. A long time ago some people told stories about being visited by cruelty-hating imps/fertility demons, who told them that if they didn't do what the imps/demons said, their invisible bodies would be punished invisibly after they died. (And yes, the state will wither away, but not in your lifetime)
2,000 years later, you must decide if there really are imps/demons. And, sure, it's better for society to believe in the cruelty-hating imps, but that has nothing to do with the question of whether there really are cruelty-hating imps who revealed themselves to a chosen few humans a thousand or so years ago, and then retired into a parallel world undetectable by human senses. There is no reason to conclude that a belief is true because it's good for human society if it's true, or that it's false because it's good for human society if it's false.
I would refuse to debate the existence of God with anyone who didn't agree that the results of belief were not evidence for or against the truth of the belief.
Debates are fun, but of course we'll never be able to disprove the existence of something that by definition cannot be directly observed.
Some believers say that since evolution is demonstrated by indirect evidence, it hasn't been proven. So they say scientists believe in it like dogma. Then they show that they've totally missed the point by mocking scientists who modify the theory of evolution when new evidence comes to light. "Nah, nah, nah. You changed your belief when evidence conflicted with it. So your belief isn't reliable. It might change again."
Yeah. That's kind of the point.
Question: "Which other force is there in the world more capable of converting a rational person to an obedient slave for a ruling class such as priests and "leaders" of all types? "
Answer: Marxism.
Meredith Bryan is terribly biased and ought to go work for the "Times." The article is blatantly written from her own little perspective on the debate. Stick to the facts Miss Bryan, or get another job. I am cancelling my subscription to the "Observer"...NOW!
Someone should tell Souza that not all atheists are communists.
Also, it doesn't matter if atheists killed 100 billion people, that still wouldn't make Christianity any more true. Is Souza to pick the religion what the lowest body count? If he did, it wouldn't be Christianity.
Hello, I am anti many things , but C. Hitchens is not one of them. Because of his position in the world as an important spokesperson for a logic that is unfamiliar and never to be welcomed by many, Hitchens has to contend with small minded moronic knuckleheads like D’Souza every day. Dinesh is just the latest dillydallying past lover in a long line of people whose hopeful cause is to believe in something that is simply not believable. For Hitchens these kinds of debates after all these years must be like spending a night shooting fish in a barrel. One can only wonder how he does and how long he will suffer fools so gladly . I am eternally grateful for all of his efforts. D’Souza gets a C+ for his, lest we forget .
It always amuses when Christian apologists like D'Souza claim that Christianity gave us freedom and democracy. I challenge Mr D'Souza or any other apologist to show me any reference to freedom and democracy in their bible. You won't find any; nor will you find any condemnation of slavery; nor will you find any encouraging words about education, women's liberation or scientific curiosity.
Shocking omissions for a book supposedly inspired by an omniscient, omnibenevolent god.
A totally forgettable exchange. Hitchens looked bored and weary. Once his beverage of choice was finished he had to resort to bottled water. His longing for that famous vinification miracle was palpable. And who could blame him? Dsouza had the home field advantage. (The King's College may as well be in the Shenandoah Valley.) The student crowd was overtly and loudly partisan. Mr. DD rose to the occasion like a young Turk eager for his chance to do battle with a first-rate mind for a change. Perhaps he hoped to bask in reflected glory with his Fox News cronies. He's glib and slick and trained in the art of misdirection. He attempted to use the tools of reason and science to prove the unreasonable and the unprovable. He actually made it sound at times as though being a hardcore Faithist was the only logical position for a man of learning to take. But, in the end, who really cares? No minds were changed. The debate was carried on CSPAN2 (that's right, all three of us watched it). Unless he can muster more verve, Hitchens should forego these forays into the wilds of the Faithist jungle and stick to the printed page. The natives don't want reason, they want To Believe. Let them.
I'm not quite sure what the question of body count will prove either way it goes.
To me the bigger question is, why do theists drop common morality when they think God has asked them to do so, in essence saying that if God says it, it is therefore moral, even if it clearly is not. As an example, not long after the ten commandments were brought from on high, the first thing God instructed his people to do was kill everyone in sight, how is this justified?
D'Souza's eloquent dismantling of Hitchins was a joy to watch. Time and time again I've seen Hitchins intimidate those with opposing views with a constant dismissive and haughty attitude coupled with filibustering. Not this time, D'Souza has fatally exposed Christopher. As a result of D'Souza reducing Hitchens to appearing to be a babbling petty whiner, many others will now be less enamored with Hitchens. There was nothing special or new in Hitchens arguments, only the same old tired anti-Christian dialogue. True is, that his debate style is mostly misdirection and bullcrap, with the emphasis on bullcrap. Hitchens embodies the old adage that if you can't dazzle em with brilliance baffle em with bullshot. D'Souza had him coming and going, he picked him apart intellectually (all that Hitchens finds value in) yet also has a reverent faith in God to further ground himself.
The Salem Witch Trials killed just eighteen, said Mr. D'Souza. And the Inquisition killed only 2,000 in 300 years! Whereas atheists could claim Stalin, Mao... his list went on
Comments like this irritate the hell out of me, D'Souza is making it look like religious people have killed relatively few people but he is conveniently ignoring the tens of millions killed of people killed by Christian imperialists in areas such as Africa and south America, also Islamic imperialism has killed huge numbers also, just look at the actions of the Islamic government in Sudan or the Armenian genocide.
Fred Rogers can hold the title of "mildest" man.
Mr D'souza said "I don't believe in unicorns and I have not written a book on the subject". I don't believe in unicorns either nor have I written a book on the subject. I guess the reason for this is obvious, its because no one bases their life and actions on unicorns. Unless Mr D'Souza wanted the listener to conclude that God was mythical just like unicorns, I don't see his analogy as being relavent.
In the article Meridith Bryan writes ... "This was a dig at the "militancy" of the "new atheists:" Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Mr. Hitchens." ... Its not clear to me whether this sentence was the result of Meredith paraphrasing what Mr D'Souza had said or whether it was her comment with the inverted commas being used as highlight. One thing is certain, neither Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, nor Mr Hitchens are militants. They are not taking up arms to fight theists! The accusation is rediculous.
If its true that Mr D'Souza said that "evolution can't explain morality", then its likely that D'Souza is ignorant of evolution or he is using a definition of morality that puts it outside that of the natural world.
Mr D'souza said "I don't believe in unicorns and I have not written a book on the subject". I don't believe in unicorns either nor have I written a book on the subject. I guess the reason for this is obvious, its because no one bases their life and actions on unicorns. Unless Mr D'Souza wanted the listener to conclude that God was mythical just like unicorns, I don't see his analogy as being relavent.
In the article Meridith Bryan writes ... "This was a dig at the "militancy" of the "new atheists:" Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Mr. Hitchens." ... Its not clear to me whether this sentence was the result of Meredith paraphrasing what Mr D'Souza had said or whether it was her comment with the inverted commas being used as highlight. One thing is certain, neither Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, nor Mr Hitchens are militants. They are not taking up arms to fight theists! The accusation is rediculous.
If its true that Mr D'Souza said that "evolution can't explain morality", then its likely that D'Souza is ignorant of evolution or he is using a definition of morality that puts it outside that of the natural world.