Oh, D'Souza.....

[Ryantology]

If you can't figure out why it makes sense to tolerate others, I feel really sorry for you. That's the mentality of a fanatic.

I am tolerant of viewpoints which draw from evidence in the real world in the attempt to paint an accurate picture of it. I am not tolerant of superstitions which actively oppose, or insidiously subvert, reason and scientific inquiry. I will not pretend that a viewpoint which, even though its only 'proof' lies in its own writings, is used to justify millennia of slaughter, slavery and degradation of humanity. Such a viewpoint is worth nothing but contempt.

[festive1]

This is the one debate of theirs that I watched:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V85OykSDT8

I won't say Hitchens doesn't hold his own, I think he does reasonably well. But I think D'Souza does quite well too, and in certain ways, a bit stronger than Hitchens.

I can see where, as a theist, you'd be inclined to support D'Souza's argument and, as an atheist, I would be inclined to support Hitchens.
However, I reject D'Souza's premise that because science can't explain everything, the rational mind should turn to religion to fill in the gaps. Why shouldn't the rational mind simply accept that some things aren't knowable given our current limitations? Perhaps in the future with the invention of new technologies and techniques some of these mysteries will reveal themselves, perhaps not, either way science should and will keep moving forward. Why is there the need to fit everything in a nice, neat box? And why is it "rational" when one can't answer something, to point to a god (for which there is no empirical evidence)? Wouldn't it be more rational (and honest) to simply say, "I don't know."?
That's the crux of it for me. As an atheist I'm happy to admit, "I don't know." It seems that most theists would rather have faith in something for which there is no evidence than admit there might not be a reason for life. Even though there IS evidence for the chemical and electrical systems at work in the human brain during "religious" and "divine" experiences and the effects of those systems on the human experience.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

However, I reject D'Souza's premise that because science can't explain everything, the rational mind should turn to religion to fill in the gaps. Why shouldn't the rational mind simply accept that some things aren't knowable given our current limitations? Perhaps in the future with the invention of new technologies and techniques some of these mysteries will reveal themselves, perhaps not, either way science should and will keep moving forward. Why is there the need to fit everything in a nice, neat box? And why is it "rational" when one can't answer something, to point to a god (for which there is no empirical evidence)? Wouldn't it be more rational (and honest) to simply say, "I don't know."?
That's the crux of it for me. As an atheist I'm happy to admit, "I don't know." It seems that most theists would rather have faith in something for which there is no evidence than admit there might not be a reason for life. Even though there IS evidence for the chemical and electrical systems at work in the human brain during "religious" and "divine" experiences and the effects of those systems on the human experience.

Saying "I don't know" is a position that I appreciate and consider rational. It may not be the most rational position, though.

Sivarama Swami does a pretty good job of articulating the view of this subject that I accept in his first few comments in this debate (although this debate isn't quite as exciting as the others):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMuHMVVoPjw

[Brian37]

I actually had an e-mail exchange with him after he took part in Infidel Guy. This guy could make alchemy look like Tinkerbell winning a nobel prize in comic books. Slick, dishonest and slimey

[festive1]

Didn't watch the entire video, just Swami's opening statement. But this bit:
God gives a basic map, a basic outline how it is we can approach him, and he gives generally a process or processes, whereby which, he, uh, we become open or accessible to that descent not only of knowledge, but revelation... So by which god reveals himself to us, we show our earnestness in wanting to actually know him. So my summation or conclusion would be: Yes god exists. There is not only both evidence, but proof of god, but the evidence is this: You have to practice a spiritual science by which god will reveal himself to you, and then on an individual basis (can't make out) everyone can realize for themselves the existence of god.

Say what? If you follow this "spiritual science" you may or may not experience god (like all religions, the faith of Hare Krishna has also lost believers). This entire statement hinges on the-chicken-or-the-egg-type question of, seek and ye shall find. I myself meditate, not to become "closer" to a god, but to tame my own mind and learn to listen to my inner/subconscious self. I have not experienced god by practicing meditation. Swami goes on to state that the Hare Krishna method of "spiritual science" involves chanting, perhaps the chanting would cause god to reveal himself to me... But it doesn't change the fact that this "spiritual science" isn't science, it isn't reproducible. Which is an important factor in actual science, that one can publish findings about an experiment and someone else can reproduce those findings by setting up the same experiment.
An aside, god is rather inefficient, no? In that he only reveals himself to individuals, not groups of people, and only then to people who worship (my word, you'd probably say "seek") him the "correct" way.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

To the degree that we are ready to stop considering ourselves the center of the universe, stop being selfish and exploitive of this world, our bodies, other living beings; and to the degree that we are ready to respect and serve a higher power - and by extension, all other living beings - to that degree one has realized God. God realization actually has nothing to do with labeling yourself a theist or a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, whatever. It is a quality of consciousness.

God isn't inefficient at all! You're assuming He has something to prove to you - but God is infinitely greater than that. You want to insist that God fit under your microscope and adjust to fit under your science experiment, and you refuse to acknowledge God until He does so. But that's symptomatic of your egocentrism, your selfish desire for domination and control. God realization requires genuine humility - I am not the ultimate controller, I am lost, I am fallen, I am ignorant, I am dependent.

The real point is for you to fit under God's microscope, to prove your existence to Him, so to speak. God is the source of your intelligence, your method of science, the knowledge-aquiring senses and intelligence you have that allow you to do science, all the laws of nature that science tries to understand. You have to admit that you, nor any of the greatest scientists, have ever produced any of those things. You have to admit that higher powers than you have produced them. Do you expect that the source of everything has to reveal itself to you like that law of gravity? God reveals Himself according to His own sweet will, on His terms, in His time, in reciprocation for your genuine sincerity to know Him and have a relationship with Him. If you don't like that, ok, God gives you all freedom to reject Him - this world is an opportunity to live separately from God.

For souls determined not to recognize a supreme controller, He is revealed in the form of the frustration of your desires and your suffering in this world - and ultimately, death.

[festive1]

I fully acknowledge and own the fact that I am not the ultimate controller. I am very ignorant in some regards. I freely admit that I do not have all the answers. Furthermore, I reject anyone who claims to have all the answers, because this is an impossibility. I am dependent upon others. In fact, we all are, if we realize or accept this or not.
I do not have to prove my existence to a god. I do not have to prove my worthiness to a god. I do not have to subjugate myself to any authority which I do not view as legitimate, and an invisible, omnipotent, dictator certainly does not have legitimacy in my opinion.
I am not frustrated by the inherent natural order of the world. Rather I am frustrated by the man-made structures and institutions (capitalism, racism, and social hierarchy come to mind) that are imposed on society. My frustrations are with humanity, as humans tend to hold the individual in higher regard than the society at large. I would like to see a transcendence of the individual for something greater.
I will point out, that you, too, will one day die, like everyone else. To suggest your god will save you from this, is ludicrous.

[5thHorseman]

Dinesh D'Souza is a master of non sequiturs.