Is Religion the Problem?

D’Souza has described atheism as “the opiate of the morally corrupt,” and Hitchens refers to Christianity as “a wicked cult.”

Drawing swords from opposite sides of the issue, the two will explore the cases for and against organized religion, its role in human history, and its importance to future generations.

Stars of their respective sides, Hitchens and D’Souza have been known to draw numbers usually only seen at sporting events. Two titans of the religious spectrum clash in public debate at the University of Notre Dame.

Named one of “America’s most influential conservative thinkers” by The New York Times, D’Souza has been outspoken in his defense of religion, both in print – notably with publication of his bestselling book, What’s So Great about Christianity? – and in debates against non-believers around the globe.

Talks and Lectures You Might Also Like

The Religio-Industrial Comple...

From Islam to America

Does God Exist?

The Three Horsemen and One Ho...

wald0
The great Hitch wins once again. In reality i thought his performance somewhat off in this debate. For instance D’ Souza kept saying things like morality or the unconcious observer are not explained by evolution when in fact they are. They are explained by evolutionary psychology as of course they are not physical traits. D’ Souza tries to present them as phyical traits that should be explained by biological evoloution when he knows better. He then tries to evoke the fine tuning arguement saying if science has a better explanation- blah, blah, blah, So Hitch offers him Lawrence Krauss’ work as an explanation of fine tuning, multiple universes. so basically D’ Souza snickers and says you really have to go out on a limb to buy these hypothesis- imagine that, this guy believes in a two thousand year old carpenters divinity, that there is an omnipotent being in the sky watching us have sex, lie to our parents, masturbate, etc. and judging us accordingly- yet he thinks multiple universes are too large a leap of faith. I mean at least we have one example of a universe being created and existing presently, right? If there is one of anything it follows logically that at least the possibility of others existing is plausible, especially if that thing is a product of natural, on going processes. On the other hand we have not even one example of the super natural being validated, not one example of any god, and certainly not one example of the precise christian god this clown is so convinced exists. Yet he finds belief in this God easier than belief in other universes- now that my friend should show you just how indoctrinated this poor guy is. I miss Hitch already- sux we have to lose our friends, loved ones, heroes, etc. as life goes on. Hitch had a good ride though, if I do it half as well I will be pleased. D’ Souza should hang it up in my opinion, if this is the best theist have to offer theism will eventually defeat itself. I mean the guy had a hard time gaining a sympathetic ear while defending religion at Notre Dame, one of the biggest Catholic universities in the world.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Sébastien-Talbot-Vachon/1134112677 Sébastien Talbot-Vachon
D’Souza greatly simplifies the scientific perspective. He tries to disqualify several scientific theories such as dark matter, subcellular biology or evolution by identifying flaws in their logic. However, he completely ignores several other theories that have already compensated for their weaknesses like the theory of the multiverse, the hypothesis that the electromagnetic force is more important in the universe than previously thought or to recognize that a psychological and social point of view may give a better explaination on human behavior than the theory of evolution. On top of that, religion has never really stopped anyone from acting immorally. It is shown that people who believe in gods do not commit fewer crimes or immoral act than atheists. Religion is ineffective to guarantee morality. Religious peoples constantly repeat the same arguments even after it has been proven false. Those theist make it so simple for atheist. For example, D’Souza said that billions of people can not be wrong to believe in gods. This attitude is completely unscientific. Since almost everyone always thought it was the sun revolved around the earth. It was obvious when one looks at it, but science has proven that the entire humanity was wrong for hundreds of thousands of years. He claims to defend religion with reason and science when it is clear that this is not what he does. He says he is ready to reject religion if scientists prove conclusively that he is wrong, but he makes no effort to find such evidence. As if he did not want them to be found. This make him look like a fool because those evidences are already known by many and he believe things that have already been disproof.
thctimes
I cannot describe my issues with D’Souza in this video as well as the comments below but around 40 minutes in he sure has some cheap arguments for ‘one of the most influential conservative thinkers in the USA’.
“god did it”, “god did it” and “god did it”
And then smugly claim science has no awnser(s).
It seems a bit silly and i’d rather hear a “well it’s complicated. We don’t know yet but we’re working on it” any day of the week.
Dee Miller
I mourn the loss of Mr. Hitchens and am so grateful for this video. Never disappointed.
The_Outrigger
As a reasonable person, I question what I believe every day because I’m dumbstruck that so many cling to the superstitious. More so, I worry that I’m only SEEING the information that I’m looking for -so now I look for the best arguments from the other side.
This debate gives the theologist their BEST arguments and IT FALLS FLAT. It didn’t seem too difficult for Mr. Hitchens to hold the high ground, and he did an terrific job recalling facts and details.
Hitchens’ works enriched us. It was a purpose in life, he made for himself.
teresa sumrall
Simple research will show who pays D’Souza’s paycheck. Like all religious people, he talks a lot but says little. I would ask Mr. D’Souza the following question. Even if a God
does exist, why would higher consciousness care about what we have created and are creating? Human conceit has served a purpose in survival of the species. It must be difficult and painful for the religious to come into the 21st century, payback
for the torture they have inflicted on so many others.
May the intelligence and courageous example of Christopher Hitchens live on. When we stop focusing on a supernatural world, we will work to improve this world.