D'Souza vs. Dennett: The Aftermath

(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)

I just finished watching the 15-part video of the D'Souza vs. Dennett debate held at Tufts University. All in all it was a good and entertaining debate. Nothing new with the arguments. But I still recommend watching it from beginning to end. Now here's my take...

Before watching the debate my bias was with Dennett. I was rooting for him. I thought that Dennett would easily topple D'Souza's Christian worldview with rational and philosophical arguments. But surprisingly, not only was D'Souza a better debater (more articulate and passionate) than Dennett, he also scored points when he brought up the subjective and consciousness arguments. D'Souza also pointed out the limits of (hard) science and its subtle metaphysical assertions when it comes to questions such as morals, meaning, and human nature (see Part 6 of the debate). Between Dennett and D'Souza, in terms of passion, effectiveness, delivery, eloquence and persuasiveness, D'Souza had the upper hand.

However, this doesn't mean that D'Souza "won" the debate. In terms of delivery of his message, then yes, D'Souza was the better debater. But upon closer look at some of his arguments, there's nothing new that had not been rationally counter-argued before. His arguments about God (or the concept of God) range from Argument from Design to Cosmological Argument. Dennett addressed these arguments in his book Breaking the Spell, but unfortunately, he was not articulate enough in this debate to counter D'Souza. Or maybe because D'Souza just talked louder as if he was giving a sermon on the mount?

Take this argument for example. D'Souza said (see Part 5 of the debate):

"The premises of modern science themselves are based upon Christian metaphysics: the idea that the universe is rational, it obeys laws, these laws are accessible to our human minds. There is no Darwinian reason it must be so. Yes, we evolved, and I agree with Dan [Dennett] about this. But we evolved to survive, if you will, in hunter gatherer primitive environments. We did not evolve to figure out the rotation of the planets. We did not necessarily evolve to figure out the theory of relativity. So evolution can tell us why we survive and why we adapt. But evolution can't tell us why we believe certain things to be true."

Dennett didn't rebutt D'Souza on this argument. Too bad though because Dennett could've countered D'Souza with something like this:

Ok, let's say you are correct about the premise of modern science being based on Christian metaphysics. So what? All it says is that science has roots in a Christian culture. Algebra took root in Islam. As one of the main branches of mathematics Algebra had enriched our culture and has taken science to where it is right now. But as Sam Harris had eloquently put it,

"Whenever human beings make an honest effort to get at the truth, they reliably transcend the accidents of their birth and upbringing. It would, of course, be absurd to speak of “Christian physics” or “Muslim algebra.” And there is no such thing as Iraqi or Japanese -- as distinct from American -- science. Reasonable people really do have a monopoly on the truth. And while they might not agree about everything in the near term, common ground surrounds them on all sides. Consequently, there is no significant impediments within scientific discourse: It isn’t always pretty, but the conversation continues without appeals to force or deference to dogma. There are scientific dogmas, of course, but wherever they are found, they are set upon with hammer blows. In science, it is a cardinal sin to pretend to know something that you do not know. Such pretense is the very essence of religious faith."

As to the Darwinian imperative, D'Souza had a good point. That is if Darwinian evolution in its biological sense is used to explain the evolution of "reason", or consciousness if you will. But this is not always the case. That's why memetic methodology has been proposed. Also, the idea of memes (or core value systems) was adapted by Spiral Dynamics because it is a good model for (individual and cultural) human development. So the theory of evolution (with the use of memes) can also explain how humanity evolved to figure out the "rotation of the planets," and why people "believe certain things to be true."

IMHO, there is no runaway winner in this debate because none of them directly addressed the main point of the debate: God is a manmade (human) invention. This is not surprising, because they have to argue the existence or non-existence of God to address this point. And that is a metaphysical proposition which is impossible to prove or disprove. So they both ended up taking turns pooh-flinging at religion and atheism, while accusing each of other of "caricaturing" each other's position.

I think these God debates should be taken down a (metaphysical) notch and address something more concrete. For example, here are some concrete debate themes: Should different religions and their pros and cons be taught in schools? Should parents exclusively pass on their religion to their children? Should immigrants in secular countries be accepted if they refused to put the secular values of their host countries above their religious beliefs?

Dennett started the debate with a slideshow illustrating religion as a natural phenomenon (see Part 1 of the debate). This opening salvo was the highlight of Dennett's arguments. Dennett argued that religion evolved overtime just like music and language. So in effect Dennett implied that since religion evolved then God (or the concept of God) is also manmade. I was waiting for Dennett to ask D'Souza these questions: If religion evolves, and the concept of God evolves along with religion, does God evolve? What does this say about religions that have evolved but don't have a concept of God or a Creator (e.g. Buddhism)? Are non-theistic religion wrong because they don't have a concept of God?

In any case, I think the valuable meat of this debate is Dennett's very compelling argument that religions (at least the major world religions) and their pros and cons should be (compulsory) taught in schools (see Part 2 and Part 3 of the debate).



D'Souza agreed with Dennett (see Part 4) as long as Atheism is also included in the curriculum. Sounds fair enough to me.

Why?

Allow me to answer this from personal experience. I was raised in the only Christian country in Asia. By virtue of birth, my religion is Roman Catholic. We had religion classes in elementary and high school but the curriculum is all Christian (Roman Catholic to be exact). No religious comparison. No religious evaluation. We're required to memorize the Creed. We're required to make confessions and participate in Holy Communion. No reasoning was offered. It's basic dogmatic indoctrination. I reached college without being exposed to other religious beliefs (aside from Protestants which are essentially also Christians). The only time I got exposed to other religions was when I went out of my way and self-educated myself by reading a small booklet about world religions. That booklet was enough to stretch my understanding beyond the psychological fence of my own religion. I can't remember the exact title of that book and the name of the authors but I'm still grateful for it after all these years. It has been my stepping stone that guided my psychological development, enabling me to hold different perspectives at the same time and form value judgments based on a combination of those perspectives.

If a simple booklet on world religions was enough to help me in my psychological development, I think that teaching children about different religions (and their pros and cons; including Atheism) from a very young age will speed up their psychological development and minimize religious fundamentalism in the future, not to mention that children will be more alert with the pitfalls of some New Age hubris and cultish thinking. This would pave way for more secularization as well as "healthy" versions of religions. This is the truest sense of religious freedom.

In this sense, by making D'Souza agree to teaching different religions to children, Daniel Dennett had advanced his agenda a little further. So I think Dennett has some small victory to celebrate for, even if he was out-debated by D'Souza.

(Note: Since D'Souza is single-handedly taking on "the New Atheists," it would only be a matter of time before he debate Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. I'm looking forward to a D'Souza and Harris debate because among "the New Atheists" Sam Harris is the only one who had argued for psychological development and the contemplative science, i.e. meditation. I'm interested to see how D'Souza's Christian worldview would compare with Sam Harris's Buddhist worldview.)