It is surely not Dinesh D’Souza’s fault that the debate of November 30, contrasted with his encounter with Christopher Hitchens, was less like the World Series than a slow week during Spring training.   Hitchens was at the top of his game, which made D’Souza’s success especially vivid and memorable.  Dennett, whose populist Philosophy has come to enjoy unusual attention in quarters otherwise quite demanding, spent the evening trying to get his curve ball to break, his sinker to drop, his control sharper.  Nothing seemed to work, and the entire encounter seemed rather like a six-inning game.  Still, it was all worth the price of admission, for there is something about the game itself that repays the faithful. 

And the game?  The metaphor may seem ill-chosen, but recall what Schiller had to say in his Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man:  “Man is never so authentically himself as when at play”.  The play of ideas on fields of uncertainty and even danger is a tribute to a rational being who, apart from considerations of survival and prosperity, yearns for self-understanding and evidence – compelling if not convincing – that life has a meaning beyond the moment, beyond time itself.

Readers of any of Dennett’s many books (the choice is not decisive, for the messages are pretty much the same in all of them) will find nothing new in his remarks at Tufts.  Design without a designer; the ‘beauty’ of evolution; God as a human invention; the development of moral sensibility over time by way of rational problem-solving, etc.  Indeed, it is just this power of problem-solving that explains, on Dennett’s reckoning, the worldwide decline of religion.  The religionists, he notes, form a community of believers in such diverse and weird propositions as to find little by way of common ground, little by way of shared understanding.  As Dennett summarized the tenets of major and minor and nearly unknown sects, he found support for his contention that all of them come from the same shop; viz., human needs served by human tools.  Nonetheless, religion has formidable powers and should be studied.  Dennett would require children to be instructed in the world’s religions, but with what he called “the toxic stuff” removed.  Though he offered his proposal with seeming sincerity, it is clear that the course of study he would require might appear in the curriculum as Rubbish-101.

This, of course, was a curve ball with too little movement to disarm a major league hitter.  D’Souza has seen its like before, hundreds of times in different stadiums.  Thus, in his first appearance at the plate he made clear that the truth of a set of propositions is finally indifferent to the number of persons aware of that truth and, in any case, Christianity’s losses in the Anglo-European world are more than made up in Asia, Africa and the Orient.  As for “the toxic stuff”, D’Souza reminded the audience that it was godless Communism, and the Nazi combination of Nietzsche and Darwin  that produced body counts of such grotesque proportions.

Again, as with Hitchens, Dennett hoped to pit religion against science, assuming that this was akin to pitting superstition against rationality.  Ah, if matters were only so simple!  What greater advance was made in astronomy than that produced by Kepler?  But Kepler’s calculation of planetary motion, his deduction of the laws of this motion, and his estimation of inter-planetary distances were all predicated on the assumption that the five perfect solids of Plato’s Timaeus were God’s chosen units for the creation of the cosmos.  Now, one might be tempted at this point to urge us to keep Keplerian science and get rid of the ‘toxic’ platonic stuff, but this would be rash.  Instead, we might accept (with good reason) that Kepler was superior to most of us in his scientific insights, his genius, and ask how this revealed itself, in this case, in his attachment to the Timaeus.  The answer is ready to hand:  Only by assuming that the observable order of the heavens is evidence of a universal, deep ordering well beyond the ambit of human observation, is the larger project of science itself intelligible. 

Dinesh D’Souza employed this same rationale in challenging Dennett’s scientism.  The two disagreed on how to interpret what is called the “anthropic cosmological principle.”   It should be noted that the principle itself is not immune to criticism.  Nonetheless, calculations at the ultra-micro level of analysis demonstrate the degree to which the very possibility of human life depends on physical constants in the cosmos at large.  It surely seems as if the entire affair was brought about so that we would have shelter in an otherwise mindless universe.  In response to Dennett’s rejection of any such interpretation, D’Souza – in what may have been the most memorable statement of the evening -- . concluded, “We are both reasoning in the dark; the only difference is he won’t admit it”.  

At one point, insisting that he can’t “thank God”, Dennett was content to “thank goodness”.  That very goodness -- expressed in the development of a more caring and generous solicitude toward others, in the growth of our powers of sympathy, our recognition of the dignity of the person – is perhaps what we should be most thankful for.  And its source?  Christianity!  This was D’Souza’s bases loaded home run, perhaps undervalued owing to the already lopsided score.  How easy it is to take for granted that our notion of universal human rights, our attitudes toward the handicapped and the defenseless, our recognition of charity as a virtue, our understanding of mercy as “the perfection of justice” are Christian teachings.  It is all this and more that found Evelyn Waugh declaring Western Civilization itself to be creation of Christianity and unimaginable in its absence.  So if Dennett is sincere in being thankful for goodness, he might express this gratitude next time in, say, St. Patrick’s Cathedral.  It’s not that far from Tufts, at least in mileage.

Atheist Angst over D'Souza Debates

After Dinesh D'Souza debated atheist Michael Shermer at Oregon State University this fall, atheist bloggers on Richard Dawkins's website complained about Shermer's lackluster performance and said that though Shermer fell short, surely Hitchens would have him for lunch at the New York debate. After the Hitchens debate there was equal consternation when D'Souza proved more cogent in his arguments, but atheists were confident that Dennett would finish him off. But, alas, last Friday night it didn't go as they had hoped and so they are now banking on Sam Harris to get the job done. As one blogger put it:

"Yeah I'd like to see Sam Harris destroy D'Souza. I think Harris' style would humiliate Dinesh."

Brights founder Daniel Dennett's low wattage performance disappoints fellow atheist

And here's the weakness of the entire Atheist movement on display. Argument via ridicule only takes you so far, and only keeps the already converted entertained. Time and again I was disappointed not only by Dennett's inability to articulate the science, but in his inability to respond to D'Souza's very interesting thought experiments, analogies and use of example from the history of Philosophy itself. What a disappointment from such a well-trained professor of philosophy!

When the audience was given the chance to participate, the vast majority of the questions were directed toward D'Souza, who handled them all with extreme alacrity.

I should point out that, though I have been tough on Dennett and the Atheists in this, that's not to say they don't have their own good arguments. The thing is, I'm relating my impressions of this debate, and those good arguments just weren't on display last night. We're always hardest on our friends who disappoint us.

Richard Dawkins's website features atheists comments on Dennett/D'Souza debate.

The pathetic thing is, and I do love Dan Dennett as a Philosopher and Author...but C_____ he could of done better. Shermer too. This is simply pathetic. I've debated people at my school and friends of mine on the same caliber as Dinesh, and obliterated them. As a 21 year old college student, I think I could of done better than Dennett, and Shermer. For the love of goodness Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, debate this man, or me. I'd gladly do it.
-------------

Despite yours and numerous other posters' low opinions of D'Souza's debating skills, Christopher Hitchens says he's one of the most formidable debaters he has faced.
-------------

I'm sad to say, that you do have a point… I'm afraid people could actually come away from this debate feeling that Dinesh D'Souza - because of his "rhetorical slyness" and well polished manner - made more sense than Dennett. I'm therefore sceptical of the effectiveness of these debates. In Sweden, politicians don't engage in debate with leaders of Racists organisations, simply because they don't want to give their position any validity. It has, to the best of my knowledge, worked. I'm wondering if that principle should be used against speakers such as Dinesh D'Souza?
-------------

Daniel Dennett is a wonderful debater. I admire him enormously. Unfortunately, the eloquent exposition of verifiable facts, masterful application of reason and logic, and a cool, controlled presentation does not guarantee that an argument will be 'won' unless the audience happens to be psychologically and intellectually amenable to it all - in which case one tends to be preaching to the converted (ouch!). It seems that the majority of people are rather less amenable. They seem to be more susceptible to the sort of emotionally charged claptrap delivered by many a dictator and religious zealot. Be that as it may, we can, perhaps, hope that in the more educated regions of the world, the message of the atheists/agnostics will be well received...even if rather unnecessary.
-------------

Yeah I'd like to see Sam Harris destroy D'Souza. I think Harris' style would humilate Dinesh.
-------------

I do enjoy these debates. But I think people are giving D'Souza way too much exposure. I wish Harris v. D'Souza would happen next though. Sam could just repeat his opening statement from his debate with Chris Hedges and that would be the end of it.
-------------

I'm hoping that PZ Myers debates this turd in the future. Myers really deconstructs Dinesh better than anyone I've seen in print.
-------------

I expected Dennett to shred D'Souza and it didn't happen.
-------------

I am no fan of D'Souza and I don't share any of his opinions but as in the debate with Hitchens I feel compelled to point out that he is indeed a formidable opponent. Many here will not like hearing this but I agree with some other comments here along the lines of "D'Souza handed Dennett his ass". Dennett's initial presentation was good, but his rebuttals and answers to D'Souza fell way short, both in specifically addressing D'Souza's points and, specifically, in the manner Dennett presented them. He was no match for the skilled rhetoric and quick-paced sophistry of D'Souza. D'Souza is one of the most talented and skilled demagogues I have seen in the whole unbeliever-vs-theist debate lineup so far. Juvenile slurs against him or a stubborn denial that one of "ours"
could have been outperformed in a debate will not change the fact that just as the visiblity of unbelievers grows, the other side will also improve its tactics and bring forth increasingly more experienced and skilled proponents of a theistic worldview and morality. Carping and complaining about this won't help. Our side has do its job and refine their arguments and tactics for increasing the public appeal of a naturalistic and materialist worldview. I honestly believe that this failure of a human... D'Souza has just completely robbed me of my wit, mood and words. I can't understand how anyone debating him would not get exasperated.
-------------

OK, Dennet sucked. I am sick of people that think they do not need to take the time to consider the arguments before time and work out quick responses for the debate. Dennet's "ums" and, "That is just that ol' argument" type of responses just made him look like an ass... I agree somehow, Denet is nice, but the lack of short and clear responses to some of the most retarded statements that D'Souza was shouting, bothered me. I was longing for some of the old Hitchens quick answers... and personally I know by now lots short answers just by watching and reading articles in this site. to an audience who does not know as much as most of us do here, it would seem that Denet was rambling, and lots of mmmh and ahhhs, ... Denet is great when he does a presentation, but not so much when answering on the fly. kinda missed a bit the chance there.
-------------

I don't think Denett's strength is in debate, like Hitchens or Harris. To be a good debater you have to get as much in the time alotted, Dennet simply speaks too slow.
-------------

Well not having listened to the debate I just want to make a general comment. Real time debate is a skill on its own, a bit like oration or rap. Good ideas help, but a lot of it is theatric and rhetorics. So I wouldn't be the least surprised if DDS "won" (based solely on the reviews here and other, similar debates I have heard or seen).

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.