When I first arrived at orientation and learned that I needed to satisfy two courses of math requirements, I opted for ""Quantitative Reasoning A."" The first few classes focused on logical discussion, specifically fallacy, in which the conclusions of an argument are deceptive and illogical. We studied fallacy methods such as the appeal to popularity, appeal to ignorance, false cause, personal attack and circular reasoning. Every method represents an effort to make a compelling argument despite a lack of reason or logic.
The debate held Thursday between Atheism and Christianity at the Memorial Union might as well have been straight out of the textbook.
Enter Dinesh D'Souza: Christian, social conservative, and author of multiple books including ""The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and its Responsibility for 9/11."" D'Souza began his speech by promising to argue solely on the basis of reason, making no appeal to Scripture in order to combat Atheism on its own ground. What followed, however, was nothing of the sort.
According to D'Souza, Christianity is the root of democracy. Furthermore, he claims that the morals of Western civilization, rooted in Athens and Jerusalem, are products of Christian values. Compassion, to D'Souza, did not exist in a world before Christianity. In addition, compassion did not exist in Greece and Rome, and still today, does not exist in Eastern, non-Christian cultures such as D'Souza's native India.
I think D'Souza needs to look at a timeline. How can Christianity claim responsibility for the moral foundation of democracy, while simultaneously denying the existence of those morals in ancient Greece? Socrates, Plato and Aristotle laid down the groundwork of democracy over 300 years before the birth of Jesus. Furthermore, to claim that compassion, one of our most basic human instincts, did not exist before the advent of Christianity is ludicrous and illogical to the point of hilarity. How D'Souza can suggest that human beings lacked sympathy for the suffering of others before Christianity boggles the mind. One must only look to the nurturing behaviors of a mother chimpanzee to her baby to see that compassion is a fundamental characteristic of social animals, not a construct of Christian values.
D'Souza went on to point out that Christianity makes people more altruistic, and that Atheists lack the basic human morality provided by the Bible. D'Souza also recognized the atrocities carried out in the name of God, but made sure to point out that these actions were a result of human nature, not the teachings of the church. In doing so, he attributes the good of human nature to Christianity, while freely dismissing its responsibility for the bad. In response to the wars and inquisitions instigated in the name of God, D'Souza points to their non-religion equivalent, claiming, ""Atheism has eroded a mountain of bodies and an ocean of blood.""
Dan Barker, representing Atheism, responded by pointing out the contradictions of the Bible, noting its support of slavery and demotion of woman as second-class citizens. In exemplifying the dangers of the Bible's literal word, Barker pointed to the case of a sick girl whose parents refused to take her to a doctor, instead relying on prayer and the healing powers of God. He connected the girl's eventual death with the superiority of reason over faith.
Despite the many valid criticisms of Christianity, Barker's use of an isolated incident ignores the millions of people who follow God's word as a moral guide, far from the extremity of his example. Churches often play a central role in bringing people together, celebrating holidays and encouraging a greater sense of community. The lessons of religion also serve as a strong source of motivation and inspiration to many, providing a guideline to living a good and healthy life. Barker's refusal to acknowledge its benefits lessens his argument, which at times was just as jaded and inaccurate as D'Souza's.
At the end of the day, both men missed the mark. Barker failed to recognize the potential for moral guidance via the Bible. And D'Souza misinterprets this guidance as solely a product of Christianity. The metaphorical stories and teachings of the church can provide valuable moral lessons because they are reflections of our basic social values. To claim that Western civilization and democracy are products of God is to ignore their pre-Christian origins, and falsely attributes human instinct to a singular church.
Ultimately, the polarized opinions of both were a result of the debate's central question: ""Would the world be better without Christianity? Or is Christianity a good force in the world?"" This question, and the choice to have an ultra-conservative Christian and a hardheaded Atheist participate, stunted any chance of a real, intelligent discussion on the matter. Both the religious and Atheist members of the crowd hooted and hollered for their respective teams, whose representatives butted heads without any attempt to reconcile and find common ground.
Such is the nature of our society. Who wants to see a moderate Catholic debate an Agnostic when we find so much more joy in the confrontation of two extremes? One must look no further than the current state of politics and the media to recognize that our culture thrives off the battle of opposing forces, despite our attempts to instigate understanding and agreement. When logic and reason are sacrificed as a result of such polarization, the benefits of debate and discussion are sadly lost.
Miles Kellerman is a sophomore with an undecided major. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
