D’Sousa Is Being Honest For A Change

In his new Townhall.com article, Dinesh D’Souza has done something very unusual… He’s told the truth for a change.

In my debate with atheist Christopher Hitchens in New York last October he raised a point that I did not know how to answer. So I employed an old debating strategy: I ignored it and answered other issues.

Now, to be truthful, Dinesh D’Souza is a very intelligent individual. His rhetoric is fantastic and the intensity he applies to his arguments bring a breath of life into the Creationist fold. However, at the core, his actual arguments generally fall short.

As noted above from his own mouth, Dinesh likes to employ the “redefine the subject” tactic to debating. This tactic is to simply redefine and shift the point of the argument into something that he can argue against. Indeed, D’Souza does this on the larger scale as well, employing this method to generate new reincarnations of old arguments. Lately, D’Souza has taken a fancy to the classic “fine-tuned universe” argument which is nothing but the “Argument from Design” shifted from the biological to the cosmic scale. Basically, Since creationists can’t show that life forms on Earth are intelligently designed (indeed, they appear to be more un-intelligently than intelligently designed), they step back and say that it’s the universe itself that is intelligently designed. This makes one ask in exactly what other kind of universe would we be around to pose that question in the first place? We, as humans, apply numeric values to the ‘fine tuning’ variables of the universe. Who’s to say that these values aren’t the only way there is? Is it not possible that, like the speed of light, these values simply don’t have the luxury of fluctuating?

Back to the linked article above, D’Souza simply runs and hides behind the semantics of linguistics and redefinitions of the core argument yet again.

Via: Townhall.com

2 thoughts on “D’Sousa Is Being Honest For A Change

  1. Kevin Condon

    Reaching for a criticism, I think. Dinesh cleaned Hitchens’ clock, even without getting ALL the points. His Absentee God column on Townhall has shored up the weakest point in the Hitchens debate. Altogether, the debate was great, if you saw it. God showed up big by just using the classical arguments in philosophy, math and physics. Love it. It’s so unorthodox to be classical when all the simplistic arguments to reject God work just fine in any college class in America and certainly in ALL the message boards where the bumper sticker arguments happen.

  2. Christopher Sisk Post author

    I can agree with you that Dinesh appeared to wipe the floor with Hitchens but I must admit that I believe Hitchens to be a horrible debater and incredibly unprepared to deal with the living logical fallacy that is Dinesh D’Sousa. D’sousa’a theological giberish, intricate twisting of facts, definitions, and logic combined with his snarky and condescending wit make him an excellent debater. He just needs to get his facts straight and start debating the right side. You classical arguments in all branches hold up until you actually look at them and apply a reasonable level of scientific scrutiny. Aquinas’ proofs, ontological, biological, scriptural and Bayesian arguments have all been blown out of the water 100 times over by Epicurus, Russell, Hume, Kant all the way to current thinkers like Dennett and Dawkins. People just keep rehashing and interpreting the same old arguments in new context. It breathes new life into the arguments but doesn’t make them any truer.


Leave a Reply