To listen to Richard Dawkins, or read his book The God Delusion, you would get the idea that belief in God is a dangerous delusion, even a kind of virus of the mind.  Dawkins finds absolutely no rational sense in theism, and moreover, he insists that science stands firmly behind him.

Given this, one would think that Dawkins would be eager to debate the best advocates for God, in the firm confidence that he could defeat them.  Why should an advocate of the round-earth have any hesitancy in debating an advocate of the flat-earth?  Surely a round-earth man should be able to prevail in such debates every single time.

Last October, Richard Dawkins did debate theologian John Lennox in Birmingham, Alabama, and it didn’t go very well.  Despite his impressive British accent, Dawkins was frequently long-winded, off the point, and unconvincing.  Lennox at least pulled off a tie against his much-more-famous opponent, and arguably won the debate.

Shortly after the publication of my book What’s So Great About Christianity, I invited Dawkins to debate me.  Since that time I’ve debated many of the leading atheists—Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, Daniel Dennett, Peter Singer.  Hitchens has said publicly that I am the most formidable debater he has faced, and he admitted in Las Vegas two weeks ago that he lost our most recent debate.

Despite my several invitations, Dawkins has always refused to debate me.  I even wrote him to say that I wouldn’t mind debating him in a venue largely hospitable to him, such as one of America’s elite liberal campuses or his home campus of Oxford University.  I’m even ready to debate Dawkins at a conference of the world’s atheists.

A few weeks ago, Dawkins posted a comment on his website complaining about me and a conservative rabbi named Boteach.  Dawkins wrote that Boteach and I had loud voices and engaged in “shrieks” and “yells” of a kind reminiscent of Hitler!  Even several atheists wrote me to say how preposterous this is.  I speak mainly in academic venues and would sound like a complete fool if I engaged in Hitler-style shrieking and yelling.  The only time I can even recall raising my voice was in my Tufts debate with Daniel Dennett and that’s largely because the microphone wasn’t working properly.

Imagine my surprise when a television producer for Al-Jazeera called to say that Richard Dawkins has agreed to appear with me on the Riz Khan show. Al-Jazeera had asked me several weeks earlier to come on the show and debate the War on Terror, and I had told them I’d rather debate a leading atheist. They found Dawkins.

But apparently Al-Jazeera had booked Dawkins without telling him the name of his opponent. When he found out it was me, he called producer Zeresnaey Abraha and told him he had a policy of not debating "creationists." Dawkins apparently believes that by debating advocates of a young-earth or those who flatly deny evolution he is giving them credibility. Whatever the merits of his position, it has this shortcoming in my case: I am not, nor have I ever been, a "creationist" as Dawkins defines it. In my writings I endorse evolution and I see no incompatibility between evolution and the biblical account of creation.

Dawkins posted a comment on his site accusing me of making up the whole idea of a “debate.”  He told Al-Jazeera that he would only appear on the show if he and I were interviewed in separate segments, and moreover, he had to go second.  I suppose he was worried that if he went first I might be able to rebut some of his statements.  He insisted on a format in which he could rebut what I said but I couldn’t rebut what he said. 

One may conclude from his behavior that Dawkins is a tender-hearted soul who shies away from confrontation and controversy.   Not true at all.  The God Delusion is is full of unremittingly scornful and belligerent attacks on God and religious believers.  Dawkins flew halfway around the world to corner a prominent televangelist so that he could surprise him in an interview format and make him look dogmatic and foolish.

Yet it seems that when a competent opponent shows up, Dawkins runs away.  He doesn’t eschew aggression, only the sort of aggression in which he may himself get bruised.  His behavior resembles that of the neighborhood bully who picks on the someone who won’t or can’t fight back but avoids a showdown when faced with an opponent of his own size. 

Even this analogy is inadequate, however, because the issues between Dawkins and me involve God and atheism, science and religion, evolution and creation.  They are some of the deepest cleavages in contemporary culture, and they are the issues that have engaged Dawkins for his entire career.  Currently Dawkins is professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford.  A Microsoft billionaire pays his salary to make the case for a scientific view of the world.  Wouldn’t public understanding and truth be served by engaging these issues with a scholarly opponent in an appropriate venue, or should Dawkins, the self proclaimed intrepid crusader for scientific atheism, just admit, “I’m not a very good debater and I’m a little scared of looking foolish.”

John Marks Templeton, the pioneer global investor who founded the Templeton Mutual Funds and for the past three decades devoted his fortune to his Foundation's work on the "Big Questions" of science, religion, and human purpose, passed away on July 8, 2008, at Doctors Hospital in Nassau, Bahamas, of pneumonia.

As a pioneer in both financial investments and philanthropy, John Templeton spent a lifetime encouraging open-mindedness. If he hadn't sought new paths, he once said, "he would have been unable to attain so many goals." The motto that Templeton created for his Foundation, "How little we know, how eager to learn," exemplified his philosophy in the financial markets and his groundbreaking methods of philanthropy.

John Templeton Foundation

D'Souza responds to Dawkins's question "who made God?"

Here I want to address Dawkins's response to my argument that the effect that is the universe requires a causal explanation.

It seems unreasonable in the extreme to say that nature had a beginning and nature is the cause of itself. So God is the name we give to the supernatural being that is the cause of nature as a whole. Dawkins argued: "This leaves open the question of where did the creator come from?" Since the creator is this "great big complicated thing," what good does it do to invoke one complex thing to explain another? "If you postulate a designer you haven't explained anything." Basically what Dawkins is saying is that there is no point in using complex explanation A to account for complex phenomenon B if you cannot also account for A.

This is a complete fallacy. We can see this by applying the logic to evolution itself. The logic of evolution is a "great big complicated thing" with all its elements of replication, natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, and so on. Yet it is invoked to explain another complicated thing: the exquisite fit between living creatures and their surroundings.

How reasonable would it be to argue: "We are invoking one complicated thing, namely evolution, to explain another, namely living things. Yet this leaves open the question of where evolution came from. We have no idea how and why evolution originally started. Since we cannot account for evolution, our explanation is useless. Simply to postulate evolution is to explain nothing." This is precisely Dawkins's argument regarding God, and here we can see how it boomerangs on evolution!

But consider the argument itself more closely. Is it really true that Complex Explanation A for Complex Phenomenon B only works if we can give a full account of A? This is a non-sequitur. Gravity may account for why objects fall at a certain pace, but this does not require that we give an account for where gravity comes from or why it exists in the first place. If we find various signs of intelligent life on another planet we can conclude that there are aliens on that planet without having any idea of who created them or where they came from. In summary, the best explanation for something does not require that we also provide an explanation for the explanation.

The problem I think for Dawkins is that his trademark snorts and sneers only work against televangelists who do not do much more than hurl Bible verses at their opponents. When he is confronted with history, philosophy, and logic, Dawkins seems to have very little to say.

And perhaps this explains his peculiar insistence that I be given no chance whatever to respond to his statements on the Riz Khan show.

Dinesh D'Souza

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