Dinesh D'Souza- religious scholar

In a recent debate with the self-pronounced atheist Christopher Hitchens, Dinesh D'Souza flung himself into a worldly argument in an attempt to justify virtually every aspect of Christianity. His defense was formidable, as Hitchens' attack was relentless. From the beginning, one could sense D'Souza's immediate disadvantage as a theocratic scholar. He began by calling out and condemning a society that had conformed to contemporary social values rather than the Christian based morals that had guided people's lives for thousands of years. He clung to his faith in the heat of Hitchens' accusations that pertained to science, politics, and historical indications of religious immorality and ruthless behavior. It is almost impossible to deny the arguments of Mr. Hitchens, as their validity could simply be justified by "any person who could think." However, I couldn't help but respect the way D'Souza valiantly and credibly defended his position. With every Hitchens offensive, he found a way to counter the accusations by pointing out, ultimately, that his opponent's strongest arguments were purely circumstantial. Even in the scientific arena, Mr. D'Souza indicated the presence of scientific embodiments in aforementioned religious ideals. How could the electron know to be attracted to a proton? How are scientific laws justified? Were humans only coincidentally developed/placed upon this earth with a natural compatibility and knowledge of our surroundings? He provoked questions that certainly challenge atheist arguments on non-sensical aspects of theism. Science could be evidence of a greater and universal scientific mind. However, despite the hope that D'Souza laid out for us wishful thinkers, every part of his argument was grounded by a foundation defined by faith. If faith was absent, his arguments were simply irrelevant. In his mind, atheists were shutting out the evidence and effects of God and confining themselves to what appeared to be a rational and more appropriate belief system (especially in our modern world). But he seemed to be unaware that even though the idea and possibility of God is undeniable, that does necessarily correspond to absolute religious belief. He had the advantage of genuinely  believing in Christianity and God. Some of us, unfortunately,  do not.