Home » Atheism, Expelled » Dinesh D’Souza on his recent debates with atheists

Dinesh D’Souza on his recent debates with atheists

D’Souza has been debating lots of atheists lately. One atheist who won’t debate him is Richard Dawkins. Dinesh comments:

[M]y challenges to Dawkins to step into the arena have only met with pathetic rationalization: “Richard is simply too busy and smart to debate you Dinesh.” Busy doing what besides being caught with his pants down by Ben Stein? And I guess he’s smart because he doesn’t want to risk further embarassing himself and destroying his public reputation! Won’t it be hilarious if the “party of faith” is unafraid of opposing arguments while the “party of reason” cannot withstand the arguments of its critics? This is what Henry James might describe as a most interesting turning of the screw.

READ WHOLE ARTICLE

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

31 Responses to Dinesh D’Souza on his recent debates with atheists

  1. Dr. Dawkins also seems to be a bit reluctant to answer a single question about a children’s book. Even when the speaking fee — for any answer he cares to provide — is $64,000!

    Perhaps he knows, at bottom, that he’s got bupkis.

  2. Maybe Dawkins learned something from a book he hates so much:

    Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue. Prov.17:28

  3. “Richard is simply too … smart”

    He’s smarter than you, he’s a scientist. He’s smarter than you, he studied biology.

    See, I told you that the promo clip was the real Dawkins.

  4. Dawkins wants to debate simple-minded religious fanatics. He can then proceed to use all his well-worn lines, delivered in his crisp British accent, leaving everyone with the impression that science is so much more rational and civilized than the religious stuff.

  5. Leo Hales says, “Dawkins wants to debate simple-minded religious fanatics. He can then proceed to use all his well-worn lines, delivered in his crisp British accent, leaving everyone with the impression that science is so much more rational and civilized than the religious stuff.”

    If that were true, he’d be taking up my challenge!

  6. “Richard is simply too busy and too smart to debate you Dinesh.”

    Every now and then, I get the urge to give the good doctor Dawkins the benefit of the doubt and grant that he is not an elitist, arrogant, ivory tower-residing atheist twit.

    Then he goes and says something like this.

  7. I dont think it really matters if Dawkins gets walked over like he did by Keziah films, John Lennox or Ben Stein. Phisicalists will still be putting their faith on him as long as he keeps advocating for their faith and writing silly books.

  8. 8

    OK here is a question. Aspergers Syndrome aka “high functioning autism”.

    It is believed that Individuals with Asperger’s Syndrome tend to have an IQ ranging from average to genius, and there is much speculation that the likes of Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton and many other philosophers, scientists and genius musicians were “Aspergians”

    How do we look at this from an ID perspective?

  9. 9

    As opposed to an evolutionary fluke, perhaps this was somehow meant to be.

  10. I’m with you, Pannenberg. I’m often tempted to believe that we were designed to have a spectrum of characteristics. Everybody seems to have a strength and a weakness — and the stronger your strength, the weaker your weaknesses.

    Supergeniuses with asperger’s syndrome, beautiful people without minds, artists that can’t do math, etc etc etc … it’s almost as though our weaknesses are built in to make us interdependent.

  11. ungtss,

    Or how about: decent biologist, lame philosopher.

    Etc

  12. Mike: agreed.

  13. With aspergers, I find you can do things you supposedly are pre-disposed to being hampered in, However not via conventional learning techniques and processes.

    I had to teach myself to read without the typical phonetical devices, I had to learn to find a way of understanding math that didn’t follow the processes of work the rest of the class did…

    That said, I hated when teachers would ask me to show my work.

    One thing that should be noted about aspergers, your visualization of the world around you will suffer greatly.
    Things will appear flat and one dimensional at times, and memorizing your surroundings by looking at them can be quite difficult.

    From an evolutionary perspective I question whether autism is actually caused by natural or unnatural causes. I think exposure to some heavy metals in the time during and even after the industrial revolution, may have something to do with a triggering mechanism. Although Autism wasn’t always a diagnosis it’s symptoms are easily noted, even when subtle.

    And since there is a greater flux of people displaying such symptoms I think there is some level of consistancy…

    Truth be told, that’s just a guess though.

  14. what if it’s just a particular set o highly pronouncedf personality traits? What if it’s just the opposite of another pseudosyndrome, add?

  15. PBO, you have started a fun line of reasoning. Stone, thanks for sharing your personal experience.

    This line of reasoning reminds me of the discovery that mice have a “mediocrity gene” (my term.) It appears that if you knock out a gene in mice, they become smarter, stronger, have greater stamina, and in many ways are superior. How natural selection developed this gene, and why NS didn’t rid mice of these superpowers is beyond me. Maybe NS doesn’t work! However, it would appear that mice have the capacity that they have so that they fit into the world that they live in rather than dominating it. Hmmm, sounds strategic to me.

    The idea that the only way nature has of producing humans with great gifts is to also give them great handicaps is intriguing.

    That said, however, there remains to be a more intriguing question — within the neo-Darwinian framework how can humans have talents far beyond the average that are just a mutation or two away from being implemented? How has a neo-Darwinian nature developed such talents? Why has a neo-Darwinian nature not released these talents to us all?

  16. edit — “and why NS didn’t rid mice of these superpowers is beyond me.” should read “and why NS didn’t rid mice of this handicap is beyond me.”

  17. Rzeppa, what is the question you want to ask? Or can you not say? Do you know if Dawkins has seen your challenge?

  18. Berceuse asks, “Rzeppa, what is the question you want to ask? Or can you not say? Do you know if Dawkins has seen your challenge?”

    The question must remain a mystery until it is revealed at the event. That’s part of the fun. And, seriously, we hope that will encourage everyone to search and ponder and discuss the text more closely. I can assure you it’s not a trick question, and that it is based directly on my little story (which anyone can read, for free, online).

    I presume that Dr. Dawkins has gotten wind of the thing by now. His movie-going buddy PZ Myers posted a thread about it a couple of weeks ago that generated over 200 rather nasty responses and more than 3500 hits on our site. I’ve personally posted the challenge on richarddawkins.net and we’ve sent the doctor copies of the hardcover edition at two different addresses. We’ve also notified every blogger we could find with the big red “A” in case any of them might have his ear. Needless to say, that also generated a hornet’s nest of public and private abuse, along with a couple of productive discussions.

    Additionally, we’ve sent over 400 hardcover copies to various television and radio personalities, believing bloggers, and reporters. We’re running ads on four different sites, plus Google adwords and the adword equivalent in Time Magazine online. My ex-sports-reporter brother Zip hand delivered a copy to Bill O’Reilly who read it and remarked that he “loved the cover!” We’re still pursuing that avenue. Dr. Schroeder enjoyed the work and sent us a very nice note, but Dr. Berlinski and Mr. Stein have not yet replied. I do not know if Dr. Dembski has read his own personal copy. I do know he hasn’t mentioned it in our rather sparse correspondence. And why our Ms. O’Leary has not yet considered the challenge a newsworthy item is certainly beyond our ken.

  19. Dawko recently debated fellow Oxfordite Dr John Lennox, a mathematician and philosopher, and was looking very red-faced throughout.

  20. “Dawko recently debated fellow Oxfordite Dr John Lennox, a mathematician and philosopher, and was looking very red-faced throughout.”

    As I said before, he only wnts to debate simple-minded religious fanatics.

    Philosophers seem to bother him, because he himself does philosophy rather than science.

  21. Leo Hales says, “As I said before, he only wants to debate simple-minded religious fanatics.”

    Indeed. Since Dr. Dawkins crossed, long ago, the legitimate boundaries of the various scientific specialties and intruded on holy ground — and since this wolf (and his publishers) seem intent on extending his blasphemous influence into the still pastures of the world — it is only appropriate that he be met there, in the name of the Lord, by a shepherd of the sheep. And if this unknown shepherd can, by the grace of God, with mere sling (children’s book) and stone (question) fell this Goliath in the presence of the sheep, then to God be the glory.

  22. Relating to the question with Aspergers/Autism, does anyone know how the Darwinists/Materialists attempt to explain the human calculator ability? For example, you ask the person what day of the week July 18, 1898 fell on, and he or she comes forth with the correct answer in mere seconds (and not with a 1/7 probability of being correct, mind you).

    The first problem is how random genetic variations could reach such a high peak of functioning. And perhaps of greater challenge is how such an ability would be naturally selected. Sure, our ancestors had the need to count prey, logs for a fire, and approximate distance from a predator. But this is going far, far beyond such practical benefits. Hmmm.

  23. 23

    I don’t think Aspergers is an evolutionary defect nor a birth defect, the result of industrial pollution.

    Personally I think the mind of an “Aspergian” may be tapped into a higher reality.

  24. seems to me most likely a built in trait that shows up due to recombination. Not a straight heritable trait — but one like height or muscular development that varies widely every generation.

  25. “I don’t think Aspergers is an evolutionary defect nor a birth defect, the result of industrial pollution.

    Personally I think the mind of an “Aspergian” may be tapped into a higher reality.”

    Oh no, it’s most certainly a defect.
    I lack the small motor skills to move my hands when I walk, the social skills to look people in the face when I speak and I happen to be a 21 year old who can’t balance well enough to ride a bike…

    The ability to do basic math in my head and the ability to remember things said years ago really serves no use.

    Savants are worthless.

    To be so far ahead of your peers in verbal intelligence, and so far behind in writing, visual memorization and social ability, as well as having a complete lack of empathy for other human beings in moments where you should be feeling, is almost like a bad joke.

  26. Savants are important too — look at the geniuses of the past with a similar skill/weakness configuration. Nobody can be good at everything — nor do we need to.

  27. No, but people can be balanced in all areas, and I think that would greatly benefit society. More so than a few individuals with savants anyway.

    And to not attempt to give people the oppurunity to live normal lives is wrong. To address Autism is a good thing is as morally bankrupt as calling Polio a good thing.

    It’s not something we need more of lol

  28. I don’t think anyone is wishing Autism on anyone, or arguing that it is a good thing. The relevant question is how does NDE explain the unique Savant abilities. Incredible human calculator feats cannot be explained as flukes or malfunctions.

  29. “Dr. Dawkins also seems to be a bit reluctant to answer a single question about a children’s book. Even when the speaking fee — for any answer he cares to provide — is $64,000!”

    Can I take a swing at that question? I need the gas money.

    On a more serious note I do not think Dinesh is a great champion for any cause. If anything he comes across as snooty and arrogant, sometimes more so than his debate opponents. I would like to see a Dawkins V Dinesh debate as much as anyone but the whole challenge aspect of it just doesn’t feel right.

  30. Nathan,

    Dinesh is one of those people who comes across differently in writing than in speaking. I’ve watched his debates with Dennett and Hitchens, and if anything his stances and attitude displayed are pretty humble and reasonable.

    Then again, that’s Hitchens and Dennett, not exactly ‘measured ego’ country.

  31. Darwinists can preach a non belief in G-d, but having the children of Louisiana taught basic survival training, such as learning to swim is completely beyond their scope of understanding. Though, it is supposed to be a part of their agenda.

    Wonder if Gerald is kin to Richard Dawkins?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38.....-sinkhole/

    Interesting group, all this concern on whether or not G-d exists and nothing on teaching the basics in life huh?

Leave a Reply