Is the Bible True - Alex O'Connor vs Dinesh D'souza
Related
Media
https://youtu.be/UMKkX8qRHsw?t=770
Overview
I do not tend to use the clickbait formula "X destroys Y", but on this occasion I will happily say that Alex O'Connor destroys Dinesh D'Souza, and outclasses him in every conceivable way. D'Souza seems to have utterly underestimated O'Connor and under-prepared, if he prepared at all. He was uncharitable, Gish galloping, dismissive, sarcastic and rude, while asserting without foundation that O'Connor was doing all of those things. D'Souza took about 85 per cent of the talking time and delivered about 5 per cent of the content.
Great quotes
- "Well, now hold on a second. You can't keep moving the goalposts, especially if you're still going to miss..." - Alex O'Connor (at 1:12:30)
Notes
- O'Connor correctly identifies that D'Souza should go first, as he is the one arguing for the proposition. See Burden of proof.
- O'Connor correctly identifies that the question itself is badly formed. What does it mean for a book to be true? Literally, historically, allegorically, morally, theologically, metaphorically? D'Souza never settles on one, which lets him retreat from each in turn. See Motte-and-bailey fallacy.
- O'Connor works through Genesis and shows that it lacks both literal and allegorical coherence: read literally it is false, and read as allegory nobody can say what it is an allegory of. See Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy.
- O'Connor correctly identifies that the Bible is not a single work but a library, and names the genres within it. That point alone dissolves most of the question; see Noah's Flood and The Historicity of Jesus for what it does to the historical claims.
- D'Souza opens with cheap Ad Hominem and never really moves on from it. The contrast with his 2010 performance against Hitchens (The God Debate - Hitchens vs. D'Souza) is instructive: the manner is unchanged, and against a prepared opponent it is all that is left.