Evaluation of the D’Souza and Singer Debate at Biola

To the Source sponsored yet another debate between Dinesh D’Souza and a leading atheist. Dinesh has debated Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett. I believe he would debate Richard Dawkins if he could. I hope someone of more stautre would. Some have called them the “Four Horsemen of Atheism.” This time Dinesh faced Dr. Peter Singer from Princeton University. The debate was held at Biola University.

I have to admit, I was not overly impressed with Dinesh’s debating skills when he faced  Harris or Hitchens. Dennett wasn’t much of a debater either, so that exchange went to Dinesh easily. I’ve thought Dinesh was more a “social theorist” or “political commentator” than an apologist. Certainly, he isn’t a philosopher and this last debate proved that.

The format for the debate was to open with each side having a fifteen minute statement followed by a five minute rebuttal. Then a new twist in debate was added with a “cross-examination” as it was termed. Each side was to ask the other whatever he pleased. the debate concluded with questions from the audience.

Dinesh’s first mistake was to come out attacking Singer’s world, instead of showing evidence for the existence of God. Singer quickly picked up on this and began to show evidence why he believed God cannot exist. His main point was the cruelty in the world, better known as the problem of evil. Unfortunately, Dinesh didn’t know how to present the theistic presentation for this argument either. Another strike against Dinesh.

Singer appeared confident, not arrogant, which is not a good sign for your opponent. Even on a Christian campus, Singer exuded  a self-confidence that should beg you to ask some questions. In the end, Singer’s questions to Dinesh either went unanswered or t he answers were incomprehensible. A few times I found myself asking, “What is he talking about?” referring to D’Souza’s replies.

On the other hand, Singer’s answers were cogent and clear. His logic was impeccable. Make no mistake this man is brilliant and hasn’t risen to the head of his field because he’s stupid. Dinesh on the on the other hand came out “reporting” how he’d been debating “these atheists all week.” It appeared he may have been feeling his oats after one of his less taxing debates. Personally, I thought it was an arrogant statement. He may have felt he was on a Christian campus and would play to the crowd. Singer had Dinesh sized up and then began to unravel his argument.

Having studied in the world of debates and apologetics I’ve watched a couple of dozen debates. There are much better choices to debate Singer than Dinesh D’ Souza. Bill Craig comes to mind immediately. He’d give Singer much more to ponder. Dinesh wrote some good books and is known from his White House days during the Reagan administration. Christian apologist, I don’t think so. His fumbling through questions and ill-advised attacks on Singer do not win anyone, even the listeners. Personally, I think this does more harm than good for the cause of Christ.

Singer’s last comments we that he felt this kind of debate is what is supposed to happen on university campuses - that is the exchange of ideas. This is true. We would all benefit from the kind of debates that explained views and helped us understand our opponents position.

If you wish to watch the debate you can see them here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Phgb67NAaHA

Digg It!

no comments yet.

En Defensa de la Fe: Ideas y el Discernimiento »« Lyrics for the g_orey of ….?