D'Souza Trounces Singer

Dinesh D'Souza smashes ants and declares himself a giant. D'Souza, who tends to declare himself the winner of debates with various atheists, is no doubt correct when it comes to his self-assessment against Peter Singer.

D'Souza ridiculously counts Singer as among "the most effective advocates of atheism" and "the best that the opposition has to offer." You've got to be kidding me. I know a lot of atheists personally, and not a single one takes Singer's views remotely seriously. Besides, Singer is not primarily an atheist, he is primarily a (bad) ethicist. That is, his main business is not disproving the existence of God, but concocting wild theories about how people should live.

Ah, but D'Souza asserts:

...I suggested that Singer was a perfect illustration of what you get when you reject God and attempt to construct ethics on a purely secular, Darwinian foundation. Singer’s atheism, I suggested, is the primary foundation of his advocacy of infanticide, euthanasia, and animal rights.

His assertion is ludicrous. What does Singer's bizarre utilitarianism have to do with evolutionary theory? D'Souza doesn't say in his article; the correct answer is nothing.

Atheism is not a positive philosophy. It does not, as D'Souza endlessly asserts, imply socialism, Singer's views, or any other particular idea. Atheism is a negative. It asserts that God (and the supernatural) does not exist.

D'Souza thinks that, absent religion, morality is impossible, but he is simply wrong. Aristotle formulated a non-religious, Eudaimonistic ethic long ago, and in the modern age Ayn Rand and her followers have revealed the foundation of morality in the nature of human life.

But D'Souza is interested in apologetics, not in actually refuting the "the best that the opposition has to offer," which he has never squarely faced.