The summary of the debate that follows, in chart form, is not an attempt to determine who won or lost the debate—or, much less, to settle the question of God—but, rather, an attempt to lay out the kinds of argument used by the debaters, and their consequent use of reason and evidence.

I've classified the arguments by the kind of rhetoric involved. Remember that in this context "scientific rhetoric" merely means that the argument is aimed at the listener's understanding of the question, and that "political rhetoric" merely means that the argument is aimed at the motivations of the listener for choosing one side or the other, rather than the question itself.

The arguments are condensed and paraphrased. In some cases, I've made explicit an argument which the speaker only implied. (For example, when Dennett shows the picture of a church turned museum, followed closely by a picture of the Vatican turned theme-park.)

The arguments here are also abbreviated. If you want an expanded version, you can go to the commentaries (the numbers at the left tell you which one), and from there you can find the which part of the video to go to, if you want to see the argument as presented by the debater.

I've classified each point in two other ways:

I've marked each as "sound" or "unsound".



I'm using these terms in a relatively informal sense. I call an point "unsound" if it is based on an obvious falsehood (as when D'Souza says that Dennett hasn't cited any sources), or simply fails to make sense (as when Dennett leaps from one church that has become a museum to an implied argument about all religion), or is based on a well-understood fallacy (as when D'Souza missapplies probability calculations when arguing about fine-tuning), or contains a definite flaw which the opponent later points out.



I call an argument "sound" when it makes general sense, is relevant to the point it's supposed to be relevant to, and the evidence provided for it is not clearly false. So, for example, I assume that Dennett is right when he cites well known sources about the growth or decline of certain religious denominations, and I assume D'Souza is right when he talks about Christianity spreading in certain parts of the world. (That argument, by the way, is marked "unsound", but not because I question his facts.) I've also marked some points as "adversarial".



By "adversarial" I mean that the purpose of the point is to divide the world into two camps, and make one camp seem desirable and the other seem undesirable in some respect. The division can be as small as the division between the two speakers—accusing the other speaker of being sneaky or dishonest—or it can be as large as western civilization vs. eastern, or religious vs. nonreligious.



The points marked "adversarial" are all examples of political rhetoric, since the attempt to paint one's own group as desirable, and the other as not, is a way of addressing motives, rather than the issue. But it is possible to make political arguments without dividing the world into desirable and undesirable camps, and so not all political arguments are adversarial.

Look the charts over. I'll discuss some of the patterns, and some implications, next time.

Dennett:

# Scientific Rhetoric Political Rhetoric Sound Unsound Adversarial 1 Religion is not growing in numbers. X 1 Religion does not necessarily produce "family values". X 3 There have been many different Gods throughout human history. The God D'Souza is talking about is only one of these. X 4 It's not true, therefore, that atheists are disagreeing with most of humanity, while Christians like D'Souza are agreeing with most of humanity. X 5 The Hagia Sophia is now a museum, so this is the potential fate of all churches. X X 6 Humans, and thus all their ideas, including religion, are a product of evolution. X 12 The fine-tuning argument doesn't prove anything, since, for all we know, there could be millions of universes that don't support life. X 12 The atheist regimes that committed atrocities had structures similar to religions. X 14 Natural Laws are generalizations about nature. Nature doesn't "obey" them. X 14 There are many possible explanations for the fine-tuning. God is not the only possibility. X 14 It isn't true that the lack of God implies that there are no moral standards. X



D'Souza:



