(8 votes, average: 4.75 out of 5)
Loading...As you all know, Dinesh D’Souza is in the national news again; he’s one controversial fellow! As you may not know/remember, I had three public debates with Dinesh some years ago, not on campaign finance laws but on the problem of suffering, an issue he was long interested in as a committed evangelical Christian who believed he had (has) a reasonable answer or set of answers to the question of why there is so much pain and misery in the world if God is in charge of it. I was digging around and I found the following post from four years ago, giving one of our debates. Here is my intro to it and the debate itself. (WHEN I talk about him “being in the news” — this, again, is from four years ago)
–
Dinesh D’Souza is the author of What’s So Great About Christianity, and What’s So Great About God, among others.
*********************************************************************************************
A prominent figure in the news lately has been Dinesh D’Souza. Dinesh is best known as a hyper-conservative political commentator. His most recent book is America, and this week it is #1 on the New York Times bestseller list for non-fiction. It has a companion documentary film. If you’re politically very-right-wing conservative and despise Barack Obama and everything he stands for — this is the book for you! Dinesh was a policy analyst in the Reagan White House as a 20-something Wunderkind; he has served as John M. Olin Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. The New York Times Magazine named him as one of America’s most influential conservative thinkers. Newsweek listed him as one of the country’s most prominent Asian Americans.
Dinesh has also been in the news for several other things in the past two years, in connection with his (former) presidency of Kings college — a conservative evangelical institutions that trains conservative Christians in business and finance so that they can get high level places at Goldman Sachs– and more recently because of issues involving campaign financing for senatorial candidates that he supports. He has had some high peaks and deep valleys in recent years, the best of times and the worst of times. I mention this only because he is very much a public and prominent figure, unlike most of the other people that I have debated over the years, and that — for me at least — adds a bit of interest to my public disagreements with him. (Though his political views and the news items connected to him have no relevance to the quality of his arguments in the public debate that I attach here.)
I have known Dinesh for maybe five years now. On three occasions we have had public debates — not on public policy and the relative merits of Obama but on another topic of interest to him and certainly to me: the Problem of Suffering. Our second debate was on November 11, 2010 at the conservative evangelical Gordon College. (The first debate was on my turf at Chapel Hill; the third was on neutral territory in NYC). Dinesh is obviously an unusually smart fellow, and he is fantastically quick on his feet — a real challenge for anyone who wants to disagree with him. He strongly thinks that the existence of suffering in the world should have no effect on a person’s faith in God. My view is the opposite. And so we have debated.
Here is the debate at Gordon College, for your viewing pleasure.
Please adjust gear icon for 720p High-Definition:
Wow! You were firing on all cylinders. Well done Dr. Ehrman.
This is good. You did a nice job handling his silly argument that God, who presumably created the laws of nature, is constrained by them. Note how he ran from it and resorted to suffering doesn’t matter if you are in heaven for eternity. As an evangelical, does he even believe in scientific truisms or does he insist the earth is 5000 years old and things like that? If he does, a good rhetorical point would be Dinesh, you don’t even believe in the laws of nature, so how can God be bound by them?
As the Roman empire expanded did other people adopt it’s theology
Certainly the worship of Roman gods became common.
The impression I get from reading ancient works is that most polytheistic cultures basically conflated their pantheon of gods with those of Greece or Rome — and vice versa. Herodotus, for example, is constantly refering to “the Zeus” of the Egyptians, or “the Aphrodite” of the Scythians, or the “the Apollo” of the Persians, etc. What he means is that they are essentially the same gods by another name. That’s why the Jews stuck out like a sore thumb, because they refused to identify their one god with, for instance, the Greek Zeus, or the Roman Jupiter, or the Persian Ahura Mazda, etc. The Jews believed all those other gods were not real gods. Only their god was the true God of the universe. This belief seemed to be exceptional in the ancient world.
And vice-versa.
This is probably the only thing I agree with him about. The existence of suffering doesn’t prove anything about God, other than God isn’t a magic genie who grants everyone’s wishes. Which is a banalized interpretation of Christian thought, though it must be said a lot of the banalizing was done by Christians.
Not by Jesus, who knew as well as the Buddha that life IS suffering. As the saying goes, if nothing hurts–you’re dead.
Basically all D’Souza’s suffering has been self-inflicted.
And he clearly doesn’t care about anyone else’s.
I’d rather hear a debate between people who have undergone real suffering. Yeah, I know, back pain–ever had GERD? My latest cross to bear. Doesn’t make me an expert. 😉
Dinesh D’souza is what we in the world of socio-political research would call a “native informant”. Whether or not that is a fair label depends, I suppose, on your view of D’souza and the appropriateness of such a label to begin with. Let’s just say that D’souza has a conspicious obsession with what can best be called an ostensible defense of imperialism and colonialism, which is pretty much item numero uno on the shortlist of native informant criteria.
Anyway, I have thoroughly despised the man since the late 1990s.
Here is the big question about suffering that came to mind just the other day:
Q: Who will keep the fire stoked in Hell for all eternity?
A: None other than the God of love and forgiveness himself – or should I say “three-self” – God the Father, Son and HS.
Can you imagine living the ultimate eternal life in Heaven knowing that all your loved ones and friends that didn’t make it there will be living in horrific pain, anguish and torture in a fiery Hell for all eternity? And to top that off, your savior and god are the ones totally responsible for creating and maintaining that eternal torture chamber?
This is all irrelevant if the founder of Christianity didn’t believe in Heaven and Hell, as Bart may well be suggesting in his next book. The fire stoking thing is definitely not something Jesus talked about. Gnashing of teeth, but you know, that implies they still have teeth to gnash.
Given that you’re clearly not the most forgiving sort yourself, can I ask–do you never imagine punishments for those you don’t like?
People love to attack the unfounded beliefs of others, but somehow they’re more sensitive about their own. 😉
Presumably they will pay demon interns starvation wages (this IS Hell, after all) to keep the flames stoked.
I will admit Dinesh’s ‘free-will’ aesthetic is extremely problematic.
Not only failing to answer how can there be a blissful heavenly afterlife entailing free agents.
But it further seems to contradict Jesus’ teaching that the Kingdom of God on earth is imminent, populated by disciples whom he never at all implies are to be transformed into robots.
Dinesh and your slight/aside mention of God’s suffering shared with His sons and daughters should be investigated by scholars more, I think.
Have you studied/considered any ‘practical theodicies’ (e.g Moltmann) ? if not, may I recommend you do so, as I hope such could be more pleasing than an Ecclesiastes escape.
The main problem I see with most (all?) practical theodicies is they fail to account for the origin from a Loving God, of suffering and/or sin. Any comments?
In my humble opinion, the religion which does the best job of explaining why a good God allows suffering, or why a good God allows evil people to prosper, is Zoroastrianism.
Because, in all of the “great monotheistic religions” — Judaism, Christianity, Islam — God is both One and all-powerful. It’s His very quality of omnipotence which gives rise to the problem.
But Zoroastrianism avoids the problem altogether because it denies that any god is all-powerful. There are not One, not many, but TWO gods in Zoroastrianism. One is the good god; the other is the evil god. And because BOTH are gods in their own rights, NEITHER can be said to be all-powerful, because the power of either one is constrained and restricted by the power of the other, everytime they meet and clash.
In Zoroastrianism, when evil people prosper, or when bad things happen to good people — such as a volcano erupting and destroying an entire city filled with both good and evil people — all it means is that THIS time, the evil god happened to win out, but the next time, the good god might win, and restore happiness and prosperity to the deserving good people.
*Pardon* me, (????) but I thought D’Souza was really strong with his argument. If we’re like our pets, then we are gods to our pets. Sometimes we take care of them, sometimes we don’t, some have no owner or god and run wild. And dogs are smart, but they cannot attain our level of intelligence. Our god would be the earth and this universe which relates to us in a similar fashion.
But we might not even be dogs, we could be ants which means suffering or not, we basically know zip.
Sr. Anselm’s Proof of the Existence of God works by arguing hierarchy.
“Hierarchy” is something we see in nature. An amoeba is higher than a stone; an ant is higher than an amoeba; an anteater (mammal) is higher than an ant; and homo sapiens astrides the top of the food chain.
What is God? Surely God is THE Supreme Being, right?
But if God is Supreme, that means all other things which exists form a line behind God, in order of their hierarchy in the Grand Scheme of Things.
Now — suppose that God THE Supreme Being doesn’t really exist. That jolly old fellow with the long white beard doesn’t really exist; Karl Marx was right.
In THAT case, if God Himself doesn’t exist, then what about that being who HAD been # 2, right beneath God? Surely HE exists, right? In that case, since God Himself doesn’t exist, this otherwise # 2 being therefore is the # 1 being. Therefore, he fulfills the definition of Supreme Being. Therefore HE is God. And therefore, God Himself MUST exist.
How do you like THEM apples?
Think of a sports league. Currently, the Boston Red Sox lead the American League Eastern Division of Major League Baseball, and the NY Yankees are right behind them. The Red Sox therefore are the Supreme Team in that division. But now suppose the Red Sox all perish in a horrible plane accident and no longer exist. No problem; in this case, the NY Yankees now are the highest team, and THEY become the Supreme Being.
Therefore, God must exist.
One more observation: If God doesn’t exist, if there is no metaphysical realm of spirit, if all there is, is our material world, then Man Himself is The Supreme Being. Man Himself therefore is God. But unlike the ONE True God, Man is many. If there are 6 billion human beings there are 6 billion gods, all co-equal with the other.
The result can only be moral chaos.
I dunno if God Himself is real, but I am REAL confident that a general BELIEF that He is real is absolutely essential to the orderly working of any civilization.
Dr. Ehrman,
Great debate! One of my favorites. Based off of your books and previous debates, I am positive that you feel the problem of suffering lends itself to the notion that the Christian god does not exist.
Do you personally conclude that “no” god exists in any form? Many non Christians conclude that a god is a reasonable explanation of the big bang, the fine tuning of the universe, morality, and the philosophical question of “why is there something rather than nothing?”. I guess I get confused when you say agnostic in one talk and then say atheist in another.
Thanks
Yes, I’m an atheist. The very, very old argument is that if God is needed to explain the Big Bang, what is needed to explain God?
> Yes, I’m an atheist. The very, very old argument is that if God is needed to explain the Big Bang, what is needed to explain God?
I’m pretty much an atheist myself, at least an atheistic agnostic. But the “so where did *that* come from?” question strikes me as being one of the outstanding problems in our understanding of reality. If the Big Bang was caused by Yahweh or a random fluctuation in an eleven-dimensional quantum field, where did Yahweh or the field come from? And on back from that.
You can see hints of that in traditional cosmological arguments for the existence of God: everything has a cause, but an infinite causal regression is impossible, therefore God/First Cause. All three of those are at best assumptions, but I think the real problem is with the impossibility of an infinite causal regression. Maybe it is impossible, maybe it isn’t, but either way it’s hard to understand.
I thought you told Dinesh that you were an atheist vis a vis the God detailed in the Bible; but that you are an agnostic as to whether there is a God (“a greater force in the universe”) – maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. See 1 hr 14 min.
I’ve dealt with that issue on the blog before — but I think it’s time for me to deal with it again! I’ll do so soon.
For centuries, we lived in a world governed by the logic of Thomas Aquinas’ Proof of the Existence of God via First Cause.
There was no escaping it. For it is self-evident; ALL things are caused by SOMETHING which preceded them. But what caused the VERY FIRST THING that was caused? It can only be, an entity which himself was not caused by anything else. And we call that “God;” therefore God exists.
So argued Aquinas, and none could argue against him for centuries.
Aquinas’ world got shaken in the 19th century by discoveries that the world is a very ancient place, and by Darwinism, which showed how it was possible to imagine how Life itself COULD arise spontaneously, without any Divine Will.
The coup de grace was given to Aquinas in the 20th century when the Steady State Theory of the universe was in vogue. This posited that it is the Universe itself which is eternal, in a perpetual cycle of expansion, contraction, self-implosion, explosion, and expansion. God wasn’t needed at all to explain this one — and Aquinas went right into the garbage can. By being itself eternal, the Universe bore one of God’s attributes — Eternity.
But this theory now has been “discredited”(?) in favor of the Big Bang Theory. Scientists do so based on their ever-keener observations of light and red-shifting of same, and on their ASSUMPTION that the speed AND frequency of light are ALWAYS constant, and NEVER, not EVER, slow down.
This is really, REALLY risible. ALL things decay and undergo friction. Why not light itself?
The constancy, or inconstancy, of the speed AND frequency of light, are impossible to prove or disprove. All we can say is, we’ve not observed it. But with this, scientists accept the Big Bang Theory. (I argue that the speed and frequency of light are NOT eternally constant; if so, then the Big Bang Theory is garbage. But this is just me talking.)
Which is to say, Science now posits that at the primordial moment of Creation, there existed a speck of infinitesimal dimension and infinite mass.
It is a GROSS VIOLATION of basic Laws of Thermodynamics which state that in any open system, Entropy — the tendency of things to go into disorder — must ALWAYS increase. Only in a CLOSED system can Entropy be reversed, and then, only at the expense of greater Entropy outside the closed system.
But the Universe is the ultimate open system.
And the Primordial speck of infinite mass and infinitesimal dimension is totally VOID of Entropy. Entropy commenced only at the moment of the primordial explosion.
Just as in our own closed systems, where we can reverse Entropy, for this primordial speck, ONLY an outside actor could have put it together — a being outside time and space.
We can call that being “God.”
And in the Big Bang Theory, Aquinas lives again.
This is a long shot. But, If God values faith above all else, wouldn’t a universe devoid of evidence for God be exactly what you’d expect to find?
If it were completely devoid, there would literally be no reason to believe. That’s why even believers say there are traces of evidence.
> If it were completely devoid, there would literally be no reason to believe.
I think that’s ddorner’s point. If, for whatever inscrutable reason, Yahweh values baseless belief/faith above all else and makes it the test for salvation, then any objective evidence would detract from the value of faith.
I don’t think I expressed myself clearly enough. If there was *NO* evidence of God’s existence, no trace at all, then it would never occur to anyone at any time that God exists. The thought would simply never occur. There is *something* in the world that people experience that makes them think there is a divinity behind it all. (Also, that’s what the Bible and Christian theology has always insisted on, rather forcefully; but that’s not my ultimate point)
I enjoyed watching, Bart, your Gordon College debate with D’Souza. I was struck by the contrast between the measured and intelligent fellow with whom you debated and the disgraced adulterer and convicted felon who produced this travesty:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r7e6gLht6OQ
Some things *are* difficult to understand, aren’t they.
Many thanks, Bart.
I watched the debate through.
The Old Testament answers the question, giving a recurring theme of how the people will cry out to God, he will hear them and make them a great nation, and they will subsequently grow fat and lazy and will forget God, and he will turn his face from them, and their enemies will conquer them and make them slaves, and they will cry out to him, and the pattern repeats. It is so predictable a pattern that God prophesies it will perpetuate, in advance.
The story is a child’s story holding a hidden elevated message of “present moment awareness”. “God” is the “Self”. When we remember the “Self”, which is us and is our greater natures, we become more self-aware. When we fail to do so we become hypnotized by the forms and sensations surrounding us, forgetting “God”, seeking out our own pleasures, and we become lost in activity. It is this — a mental degradation and lack of focus — that brings suffering.
We create our reality with our thoughts. Negative thoughts bring a negative result, and positive thoughts, a positive result.
We thus create our own suffering by our failure to control our own mind.
I don’t think Dinesh is *hyper* conservative, he’s pretty mainstream.
I like and respect both Bart and Dinesh; they’re each thoughtful and interesting thinkers. Unlike the debates Bart does with many of the other evangelical preacher types, where I am mainly waiting for their circular thinking to wrap up, so Bart can give the “right” answer.
One of my favorites!
I don’t think his theology is, but I’d say his politics are. Still, we ain’t goin’ there on the blog….
I have to admit that I thought one of the arguments that D’Souza used was new to me, and fairly persuasive — the idea that a lawful universe is necessary for human morality, since a random universe would make it impossible for us to effectively expect good or bad consequences to our actions.
Why he believes in miracles at all then seems a bit difficult to understand. It seems he uses arguments only as far as it suits him. That might be a general human problem, though…
Interesting and entertaining debate! I think both you and Dinesh are highly intelligent and and eloquent speakers. I think there is something to Dinesh’s argument that we are probably akin to dogs trying to understand how an internal combustion engine works in attempting to apply our limited knowledge and reason to the problem of suffering. However, using the Bible or Christian theology to back up an argument about the reasons for suffering is impossibly inadequate, as you say.
If there is a “reason” for suffering, it obviously lies way beyond our normal logic, and may forever be beyond our ability to figure out. From a strictly scientific, or Darwinian, perspective, there is no such thing as good or evil – they are simply mental constructs or names we apply to our feelings about social interactions and to living in this material world. On the other hand, perhaps Goodness is all that truly exists, as Plato would have it, and its “shadows” being what create our imperfect world.
I once saw an episode of the Late Show where Stephen Colbert had Ricky Gervais as a guest, and they were discussing religion. Colbert, a devout Catholic, asked Gervais, an atheist, the popular “gotcha” question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Gervais offered a bloviated and bumbled response and it struck me that all the two of them needed was a car and some coffee and they could have a knock off Jerry Seinfeld show, “Comedians in cars getting coffee… discussing theoretical physics”.
You don’t use philosophy or theology to determine the area of a rectangle, nor should it be used to discover the origins of the universe. As I love to tell people in situations like this, “Just because you can’t do the math doesn’t mean the answer is ‘God’ “.
That’s a GREAT line!!!
You are welcome to use it royalty free!
I once developed this complex logical answer for the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” which involved syllogistic arguments on necessity vs contingency, existence vs non-existence, impossible vs possible, etc. And then the other day I read a line from the Hermetica that perfectly encapsulates my entire argument! Anyway, next time I get that question, I’ll just quote this verse:
Hermes Trismegestis: “And all things are made of things that are, and not of things that are not; for the things that are not, have not the nature to be able to be made; and again, the things that are, have not the nature never to be, or not to be at all.” – Corpus Hermetica, 9
“During his lifetime, Jesus himself didn’t call himself God and didn’t consider himself God, and … none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. …”
Jesus believed He was God. His disciples knew He was God.
You do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, or the last Gospel. Jesus says things like, “Before Abraham was, I am.” And, “I and the Father are one,” and, “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father.” These are all statements you find only in the Gospel of John, and that’s striking because we have earlier gospels and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things. …
Jesus made it perfectly clear throughout the gospels that He knew He was GOD. He knocked Saul to the ground when He told Him He was God.
You may want to read my book on this topic.
Jesus says he has the power to “forgive sins.”
The scribes charge him with blasphemy in the secret of their hearts, and Jesus is aware of it.
Jesus identifies himself as the “Son of Man.”
He claimed to do what only God can do—namely, forgive sins.
Isaiah 43:25 were running through their minds: “I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.”
Jesus is claiming to have the same power as God in forgiving sins, he’s manifesting another divine power, namely, the power to read hearts (see Jeremiah 17:10, 1 Kings 8:39).
“that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . rise take up your pallet and go home.” Jesus’ response is significant not only because he validates his claim with a miracle, but he refers to himself as “the Son of Man.” This is yet another clue in the narrative that suggests Jesus’ claim to be God.
The “Son of Man” is an allusion to the figure in Daniel 7 that is described as “one like a son of man” who comes “with the clouds of heaven” (v. 13).
Another event in Mark’s Gospel that supports Jesus’ claim to be God is his walking on water (see Mark 6:45-51)
A beginning
Priests in the temple pronounced sins forgiven. (Neither they nor Jesus ever said “I forgive your sins.” Instead it was “your sins are forgiven” — i.e. by God.) Jesus, then, is assuming the prerogative of Jewish priests.
There was as much suffering in the world when you were born again as there was when it caused you to turn away. The priests followed God’s directions to present a path for forgiveness. Jesus wasn’t a priest. “Your sins are forgiven” is the phrase Jesus used because it was He Who extended forgiveness.
Certainly, the big shots understood what Jesus communicated. “But some of the scribes were sitting there and contemplating in their hearts, 7 “Why does this man speak like this? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” From Mark. Not only does He say He is God, He sticks His divinity in their faces.
“8 At once Jesus knew in His spirit that they were considering this within themselves. “Why do you question these things in your hearts?” He asked. 9 “Which is easier: to say to a paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, pick up your mat, and walk’? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” He said to the paralytic, 11“I tell you, get up, pick up your mat, and go home.”
When historians reject the miraculous, they dismiss significant portions of the N.T. Doing so skews and distorts the very essence of the sacred message. Only recently did scientists discover that 70 percent of the known universe consists of the unknown in the form of dark matter. Dark energy boosts that figure to 90 percent. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle proves that the more we know about where electrons are, the less we can know how fast they travel. “Uncertainty” drove Einstein nuts. If God created the universe, He can disturb/alter/modify it any way He likes.
Neither they nor Jesus ever said “I forgive your sins.” Straining at gnats. Missing the entire point He makes by demanding a literal rendering when it is as plain as day what He meant.
Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were often fasting. So people came to Jesus and asked, “Why don’t Your disciples fast like John’s disciples and those of the Pharisees?”
19 Jesus answered, “Can the guests of the bridegroom fast while He is with them? As long as He is with them, they cannot fast. 20 But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them; then they will fast.
He is far above John. He’s saying He’s God. From Mark
I thought this debate was one of the best I have witnessed. Two very smart individuals addressing the key issues head on. I wonder if the other 2 Ehrman-D’Souza debates are available. I wish we had more debates with Bart and similarily worthly adversaries. Sometimes when Bart is debating more fundamentally oriented Christians who not as smart as he is it’s too easy for him!
Good question. I’m not sure if the other two *are* available. But they weren’t hugely different from this first one.