I’m always interested in hearing all sides of controversial topics. As topics go, it doesn’t get much more controversial than this. I find it truly amazing that in the 21st century you can have such diverse views on something as fundamental as the existence of God. This debate has raged on for thousands of years. There are obviously intelligent people on both sides of the debate, often sitting in the same room to discuss it, and it’s like they’re talking right past each other. I’m always slightly amused at how people on both sides of this debate can get so triggered by someone from the other side.

My experience has been that these debates are rarely held in good faith, but rather, each side tries to avoid the weakness in their own arguments while trying to trap the other side into a position that will
“prove” them wrong. Often these debates devolve into intellectually dishonest pursuits of victory rather than truth.

Richard Dawkins is a well known athiest, perhaps the most well-known of them all. He’s been part of the four horsemen of athiesm for quite some time. Ayaan Hirsi has an incredible background. Somali-born, and raised as a Muslim, she renounced the faith and became a central figure in the New Atheism movement. She later became friends with Richard Dawkins.

Recently Ayaan converted to Christianity. Obviously Dawkins was dismayed at the news of her conversion. I believe the following is the first time they’ve met in public to discuss her conversion. While listening to the discussion, I was reminded again why Jordan Peterson hit such a nerve and became so popular with his discussion of religion. He straddles the line where the two of them fundamentally clash and tries to reconcile scientific truth with spiritual truth. This is no small task.

Dawkins argues that it is preposterous that an educated person could believe the central beliefs of Christianity; the virgin birth, the resurrection, the miracles, the savagery of the Old Testament. Hirsi answers his criticisms by describing the meaninglessness and nihilism of a world view where there is no Creator. Dawkins says that the most important thing is truth, whether we like it or not. Hirsi responds by saying some truths may be beyond reason and can only be understood on a higher level.

It’s a fascinating discussion, or at least it was to me. I’ve long believed that material progress is optimized in societies where freedom of speech and religion, and the competition of ideas is not only tolerated, but encouraged and celebrated. It seems obvious to me that the same principle should apply to spiritual and religious progress. Only weak people with weak minds and weak ideas are afraid of considering and discussing ideas that they disagree with. People with confidence in their ideas and interested in the truth are never afraid of intellectually honest debate. The parable of the wheat and the tares somehow seems applicable here. Trying to uproot bad ideas by force or by somehow vilifying people who are honestly pursuing truth, even if they are mistaken seems like it would be more destructive than allowing God or nature to sort them out in the fullness of time as their fruits become obvious. After all, how could one know what is wheat and what are tares without becoming intimately familiar with both.

Typically Dawkins ridicules his opponents, but in this case his friendship with Hirsi causes him to reason with her which makes for a much more interesting discussion.

Anyway, here is their discussion: