Part 13 - Dinesh D'Souza Debates Daniel Dennett

http://www.tothesource.org 6yrs of free weekly emails.

tothesource has broadcasted over 300 weekly emails featuring informed opinion on current cultural issues. The articles address a variety of topics and the related moral and ethical issues they raise. Past tothesource articles are found on our archives page at http://www.tothesource.org/archives.php

Subscribe to tothesource free weekly emails at http://www.tothesource.org/subscribe.htm

Dinesh D'Souza, Christian and best-selling author, will face off against Tufts professor, author, and atheist Daniel Dennett in a debate on the existence of god. The resolution for the debate will be as follows: "God is a manmade invention." Daniel Dennett will be arguing the affirmative, and Dinesh D'Souza the negative

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Dinesh
• D'Souza
• Daniel
• Dennett
• debate
• Christianity
• Atheism
• God

[starchaser28]

It's great that Creationists such as D'Souza are now starting to accept the idea of evolution, 10 years ago evolution would have been the focus of the debate. Unfortunately that just means they are now on to the next thing that hasn't yet been explained by Science. Will it never end?

[Cougar139tweak]

Morality?? Christianity?? Has this guy actually read the Bible??? Give me a break!!

[huwrj]

D'Souza is so dishonest. He pretends that he reasoned his way into reconciling evolution with his religion. But the real answer is that he is allowed to accept evolution because the Pope said it's OK to agree with evolution. This is all post-hoc rationalisation. He has his religious beliefs first, then later he shops around for justifications and arguments to support it.

[EquinoxIV]

D'Souza argues as if 2500 years of philosophy and science had not happen and religion was the only source of morality. I was impressed by his statement that he wants to learn more about this subject though!

[BannorPhil]

Part 14 has been deleted - someone please upload it again, and post links here.

[santajimi]

I know I m just a stupid atheist but i am pretty sure that 13 is followed by 14. Isnt it? :S

[santajimi]

Equality of men and women a christian idea? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA­HAHAHA

[whauffend]

@starchaser28 Before unwillingly accepting it, D'Souza and his brothers were denying evolution. Before that, they would have burned us at the stake. The inquisitors probably sounded and reasoned just like D'Souza does. If they want to join evolution, they should excommunicate Ratzinger and make Dennett pope.

[GodTheHypothesis]

@ngimangi

Well I'd call it empiricism rather than materialism. You don't presuppose anything, you just decide that you should only believe factual claims that are backed up by evidence- if that happens to lead to what you call materialism, then so be it- empiricism remains the ONLY way humans have found for making sure we're not just talking nonsense. I didn't say no evidence therefore no God.I said therefore probably no god-big difference. What reason do you have to assume there is a purpose?

[ngimangi]

@GodTheHypothesis... this way of thinking is called materialism. You presuppose that all that exists is what u can smell, taste, see etc. Science is not concerned with philosophy. It does not measure purpose. it cannot find God and is silent in these discussions. This is why it is odd to me that all atheists point to "evidence" from science as "proof" for God or no God. It can never toch upon these things... so why the same argument no evidence, no God is circular reasoning

[GodTheHypothesis]

@ngimangi

It can't access or falsify the divine chiwawa that created the universe either. Science not being able to access something is not a point in its favour- it's a suggestion that it's probably not there.

[ngimangi]

Neither ultimate cause nor purpose can be proven or falsified by empirical science.empirical science is not designed to detect or define a purpose. biological evolution can acknowledge no purpose but likewise it cannot contend that there is a purpose outside of a metaphysical conclusion that there is no God.science cannot offer access to God and can neither establish his existence nor falsify his existence. To deny God is not a scientific conclusion but one drawn from the LIMITATIONS of science