The Problem With Atheist Debates?
It was the Atheists, Agnostics and Freethinkers student group at the University of Illinois that was approached to suggest someone to debate Dinesh D'Souza. I didn't know until now why they suggested me. In December one of them said he has been disappointed with the atheists who have debated recently:
Well, I'm a bit flattered that they suggested me.
I plan on living up to their expectations.
I'm having a fund raiser in the sidebar for out of pocket expenses which they will reimburse me for after the debate. It looks like we'll meet the goal but if you wish to donate after meeting the goal I would sure appreciate it.
I have always wondered why every single "Does God exist?" debate doesn't end with the atheist side dominating over the other. After all, there is little decent evidence for the existence to God, and just about everything that a theist can bring up has relatively easy and well documented responses. So why can't we easily win debates?...but the sad thing is that audiences are also largely influenced by the debaters' charisma as well.Then yesterday he posted an announcement about my upcoming debate with Dinesh and said:
So, what's the solution? Should we dumb down our argument to appeal to the common folk? Make ourselves more entertaining? I think that we have to find debaters that are likable and connectible to the common audience, regardless of belief. Dan Barker does a good job with this, but unfortunately it seems that most people agree that his debating skills are not on par with his intelligence.
So, are there atheists out there that have the charisma and the debating skills (which are seeming more and more to be intertwined?). Maybe our best option is to be more ridiculing; after all, we do think that their opinions are ridiculous, especially if we're talking about creationism. Isn't it silly to believe that people existed at the same time as dinosaurs? That everything we know about ancient history is simply wrong? That for some reason evolution works but only while things are really small (micro vs. macro evolution)? Maybe our best option is to make sure we get across how ridiculous the assertions people are making really are (in addition to why they are, of course). Maybe. Unless you have any better ideas.
Link.
Loftus does have some debating experience, but, unlike Barker, has yet to debate any of the "Christian big dogs", a category in which Dinesh D'Souza would be in....I see Loftus' lack of debating big Christians as a good thing; debating at U of I with a big Christian will be a great chance for him to move up in the debating world. And, while I haven't personally seen him debate, we at the U of I get the chance to add someone new to the atheist debating pool. And, as I have previously stated, I think we could use some fresh people in it. And from what I've heard about his debating style, he might live up to my expectations. It is quite exciting. Hope to see you there!
Link.
Well, I'm a bit flattered that they suggested me.
I plan on living up to their expectations.
I'm having a fund raiser in the sidebar for out of pocket expenses which they will reimburse me for after the debate. It looks like we'll meet the goal but if you wish to donate after meeting the goal I would sure appreciate it.
29 comments:
I donated, and I'm hoping I can get down there for this (Chicago suburbs). If I do, the first round of victory drinks is on me :)
John,
You will do well in this debate because you know the arguments and have responses. But it is telling, IMO, that atheists by and large lose these debates. I think the tide has turned philosophically and scientifically to the extent that too many things go in the theist column (before anyone gets defensive, I'm just trying to be objective).
Specifically, at least three things in the atheistic arsenal have failed and a fourth has taken a blow.
First, the failure of the Empirical Verificationist Principle. This seems to have ignited much enthusiasm among theistic philosophers in the 60's.
Second, the universe apparently has an ultimate beginning.
Third, the discovery of exquisite fine-tuning in the initial constants for intelligent life.
Fourth, while the Problem of Evil still packs a naturalistic wallop, it was dealt a strong blow by Plantinga in contemporary times.
I think the future of these debates must include the Mind/Body Problem. The debate there still seems to be 50/50 with no clear side emerging.
BTW, I'm tired of people saying these public debates are futile. The Craig debates alone have raised the bar significantly in quality and civility.
While personality and style can cloud content, public debates at least encapsulate the issues and encourage people to study.
The excitement for this debate is right up there with Carrier v. Craig. I've always wondered why "facts" do not win debates. I guess it doesn't help that the majority of the crowd, often times, is "them." Good luck. Hope there is audio/video after for the poor college students.
Kriss
The reason that Atheists lose debates is because the rules aren't sufficiently agreed upon before the debate. The first thing that needs to be established in debates like these would be "how do we tell what is true from what is false?"
As well, many one lined assertions from the theist side take quite a while to explain why the assertion makes no sense and is contradictory. Like "God is supernatural and above 'human' logic" take a loooooong time to rebut.
I thought atheists didn't do debates anymore because they don't get to truth.
Kevin the problem with these debates is usually when someone explains how one is wrong the other person ignores it and carries on, something you often do on paltalk.
For example:
#2 is incorrect. We have no idea if the universe had a beginning. We just know what we can observe so far.
#3 is wrong. Organic chemistry can exist without the weak force. Let alone changes to the existing forces.
#4 evil exists? Do you have some measurements of this evil thing?
I have no idea what #1 is but it likely isn't the reason why the jesus, muhammad, xenu and joseph smith, etc. stories aren't true.
It would be nice to see a debate with a Christian proving that the NT is actually a factual story.
I imagine the big problem will be pinning down the other side's claims.
"There is a physical entity that acts in the world like Yahweh from the bible," is false, and needs supporting evidence.
"God is a useful metaphor to me," is trivial; everyone believes in metaphors.
"Something probably created the universe, I choose to call that thing God," is just labeling the unknown 'God'.
Any one of these, clearly stated, would be entirely unconvincing. But, good apologists seem to use fuzzy language to blend the arguments together.
It's hard to explain, "You're calling the causes of the universe 'God'. And you're calling Yahweh 'God'. But this doesn't make them the same thing."
That said, I'm really looking forward to seeing how this debate goes. It will be nice to see trained speakers going at one another.
X said:
#3 is wrong. Organic chemistry can exist without the weak force. Let alone changes to the existing forces.
In the following link I have debunked the idea that the 'weakless universe' is an argument against fine-tuning:
http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm
I skimmed your link but I wouldn't say you debunked it. The fine tuning argument says if there is a TINY change its unlikely what we know as matter would exist, let alone life.
Chemistry and physics have shown that is incorrect by showing organic chemistry would still exist with a weakless universe. That is the point. That this is a possibility when theists claim a tiny change in one known existing force would not allow anything to exist shows how the fine tuning argument is wrong.
You seem to explain that matter and possible life would be different, that is not the same thing.
As for your objection #1, the reason that is brought up is wouldn't a fine tuned universe offer a little more space for living then it does now and wouldn't that space be a little bit less likely to kill that life?
We do need suns to heat up the atmosphere but what do all the stars in the Andromeda galaxy do for life on earth then? The point is all the extra stuff in the universe is not really fine tuned for our life.
Well, X, then you better thoroughly read my link, instead of just skimming it.
The problem with debates is because the complex issues at hand can't be dealt with in just a few short hours. And sometimes, the guy who wins is the guy who's answer looks best within the few soundbytes permitted.
Debates are surely useful, but their use is minimal.
I browsed through one of his books and was quite shocked. He presents patriarchy in general as warm and fuzzy.
He compares Saudi women not being allowed to drive to what it would be like if western women were not allowed to take out the garbage. He implies that all women would necessarily have someone else, ie a male, to drive/take out the garbage for them.
He also says that NO child would ever choose to have their parents divorce. This is a blatant falsehood. His books provide lots of examples of false statements.
Blogger Al Moritz said...
In the following link I have debunked the idea that the 'weakless universe' is an argument against fine-tuning:
The idea of a a person making the claim they debunked anything on the internet is ripe for abuse.
It consideration of extinct species, volcanoes, earthquakes, and various meteorites that strike our planet our solar system is anything but hospitable towards life.
Just from a causal observation of life on our planet, life is fined tuned to our solar system and not the other way around. In consideration of the varied forms of life from beneath the oceans, to the hottest and coldest parts of our planet.
If we had a actually catalog of planets we had visited about a 100 or so then one can start making some claims, but all we have is this one.
The state of our technology and the interest towards space exploration or should I say lack of it. Its pretty amazing that we know anything at all. We have two probes that have are leaving the solar system which are both over 30 years and starting to fail.
Debates like this only leave me to shrug my shoulders and say, move on folks nothing to see here.
I am pretty sure Craig could debate the issue whether or not the moon is made from green cheese. I am sure Craig would win. But people like Craig who are armchair scientists will never develop the technology to actually go to the moon and find out.
Why are debates lost?
Because people like Craig simply refuse to debate whether or not the Gospels are historically reliable?
You don't lose if you don't show up!
The whole "fine tuning" argument seems to me nothing more than "availability bias" (we gravitate to a known position when randomness and complexity overwhelm available data sources).
I'm sure Al believes what he believes and he believes he is being empirical on this but, any true scientist does not appeal to authority as the only data set for his null hypothesis (which Al does quite a lot of at his debunking the fine tuning arguments).
It is nothing more than the kind of sophistry Craig practices and does nothing to further our understanding of reality outside of a prettified "god of the gaps" argument.
Yes Al, I've read your paper and am unimpressed. I still believe Stenger presents a more valid objective reason for what we perceive as "fine tuned" constants.
You of course will tell me I am thick and don't understand your paper but, I will trust my experience over your theology.
An a priori argument in support of a theological presupposition is not science Al. You should know that.
Kevin the problem with these debates is usually when someone explains how one is wrong the other person ignores it and carries on, something you often do on paltalk.
If that's the case, and the opponent doesn't specifically point it out, whose fault is it?
Paltalk is an example of why formal, structured debates are important. Paltalk leaves little time for even basic rebuttal, and 15 people ahead of you on the mic throwing up their arguments.
I'm known on Paltalk for actually addressing what is asked of me and admitting when I don't know something. That's my goal anyway.
#2 is incorrect. We have no idea if the universe had a beginning. We just know what we can observe so far.
The evidence mounts constantly that the universe had a beginning. That's where the evidence is pointing and as such it goes in the theist column.
And there are philosophical arguments in addition to scientific ones, i.e. the impossibility of traversing an actual, concrete infinite by successive addition.
Employing science-of-the-gaps arguments still ignores where the evidence points.
#3 is wrong. Organic chemistry can exist without the weak force. Let alone changes to the existing forces.
First, British physicist P.C.W. Davies disagrees with you. In addition, there are appx. 50 such constants which must be fine-tuned to allow intelligent life in the universe. And their ratios to each other must be fine-tuned. This goes in the theist column.
#4 evil exists? Do you have some measurements of this evil thing?
KH> What sort of measurements do you suggest? And who said evil was a "thing"?
I have no idea what #1 is but it likely isn't the reason why the jesus, muhammad, xenu and joseph smith, etc. stories aren't true.
It would be nice to see a debate with a Christian proving that the NT is actually a factual story.
KH> Just address what I've said on Paltalk with you in the room many times. The NT docs have the earmarks of historicity, historical biography, corroboration, pass historical tests internally,externally, and biographically, etc. Again, this is where the evidence points.
Kevin
I've read what you've posted here before. A question and an observation.
Why do you conclude that inconclusive science remands theism?
I doubt you handle scientific data on a regular basis because all of your points fail to consider your confirmation bias and the confounding factors that inform your thesis relative to probable biblical historicity.
@ Kevin
Universe had a beginning?
Okay, again I think its a little early in the game to predict the universe had a beginning or always been here. A little early in the science of astronomical prediction considering that we can't even find potential asteroids that may hit our little blue marble.
Fine Tuning?
For the record we know of only one planet that has life, using that as a predictive model is quite absurd. Wouldn't you want to have a list of planets that we physically visited before you make that statement?
Using our planet as a example we find life in all habitable and inhabitable areas. In consideration of other factors as geological upheavals, past extinctions and the various dangers from space life seems more tuned to its environment than the environment is tuned for life.
We are talking about biology so a physicist's P.C.W. Davies point of view is a point a view. I would think a biologist would have more to say in this area. And again only using our planet as a model is misleading of the potential planets out in space that haven't been explored.
problem of evil?, No problem
Arguing from this point only is playing in the theist court. There isn't any thing called evil. Haiti isn't about evil only about plate tectonics, lack of infrastructure and lousy state management of resources.
Claiming that something is good or evil over simplifies the event into black and white categories which fail miserable to describe human behavior.
The NT docs have the earmarks of historicity, historical biography, corroboration, pass historical tests internally,externally, and biographically, etc. Again, this is where the evidence points.
The Bible is nothing more than a cultural artifact that is representative of particular historical, geographical, ethic viewpoint. The metaphors and analogies are only viable in the period they are written in. The bible like other cultural artifacts are but stepping stones to present society.
The OT was sufficient in the time of its writing to its geographical
location and its viewership. It should be carefully understood this is a part of our collective history and not part of the present. We live in a world that has many cultural viewpoints that made sense in their day but not in ours.
Christianity happened at the right place at the right time. Not because of any divine providence but of location.
Well said Jonathan.
KH> Just address what I've said on Paltalk with you in the room many times. The NT docs have the earmarks of historicity, historical biography, corroboration, pass historical tests internally,externally, and biographically, etc. Again, this is where the evidence points.
Kevin simply list your evidence that demonstrates what you just said:
- what contemporary corroboration?
- what contemporary archaeology?
- any non contemporary corroboration or archaeology?
Of those 3 what is your evidence that says the jesus account actually happened as the NT describes.
This is the start of how you determine what happened in the past, please do so for jesus.
Kevin H. writes:
the universe apparently has an ultimate beginning.
Uh, no. The Big Bang marks the earliest state of the universe we can currently make inferences about, not the "beginning" of the universe. Physics always tries to make the most parsimonious statement of its conclusions from the available facts.
Kevin H. writes:
I think the future of these debates must include the Mind/Body Problem. The debate there still seems to be 50/50 with no clear side emerging.
The current scientific thinking about the mind tends to support the idea of an illusory self, like the Buddhist concept of anatta. That pretty much destroys the primitive belief in "souls" which survive the death of the body.
BTW, the christians' embrace of scientific evidence in apologetics could backfire if the evidence turns out to support the claims of non-Abrahamic religions, like Buddhism.
The evolution of religion
Jared Diamond
The Evolution of Religions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOsOb0QRaQs
I think this video adds to the conversation.
I'm curious then, because if a number of people on here reject or have problems with the idea of a formal debate being the best way of deciding who is right or wrong on theism vs. atheism, then what alternative would anyone here suggest? Surely, you aren't going to tell me than mostly unknowns posting on an internet blog is a better way, would you? And yet, it seems like most of you would prefer that venue.
I think some of the problem is the moderator. Instead of just keeping time it would be nice if they were educated on the subject and pointed out when someone didn't answer or ignored a question or point.
I was thinking about a more effective way of debating theists than has thus far been effective.
I wonder if it wouldn’t be best to begin with the fact that human beings have a variety of underlying psychological mechanisms that can convince us that certain beliefs are true when they are really just byproducts of bias, distortion, wishful thinking, and so on.
If theists reject this contention, then they are forced into relativism, because they have eliminated the possibility that believing in X could be the wrong thing to do, including atheism and other beliefs about the divine that contradict their own.
If they accept this contention, then they have to consider what the most optimal way is ensure that our beliefs are grounded in solid evidence, and not byproducts of our underlying psychology.
I would then argue that the best method that has been devised, thus far, is the scientific method. It is not grounded in metaphysics or anything deeper than the human practice of framing a hypothesis (e.g. “Is it raining outside?”) and then LOOKING for evidence to support that hypothesis (e.g. “I hear the sounds of rain”), and making sure that the evidence is sound (e.g. “Maybe the sound is coming from the TV, and so I’ll just look outside to be sure”).
Science simply takes these basic principles of human inquiry and extends them with technology (e.g. telescopes, microscopes, etc.) and with protocols to minimize bias and distortion (e.g. eliminating confounding variables, randomization, blinding, statistical analysis, etc.). However, it is fundamentally rooted in things that we all do on a regular basis, and thus rejecting science would be akin to rejecting the most highly refined form of human inquiry, leaving us significantly limited in our ability to decide on the veracity of our beliefs.
Theism then has two options:
(1) It can apply these principles, and thus be forced to present evidence for its propositions that must be shown not to be result of alternative explanations, bias, distortion, wishful thinking, and so on. The problem is that all their evidence fails this standard of justification for a number of reasons.
(2) It can reject these principles, and thus be forced to ground its propositions on authority, hearsay, and personal experience, all of which are known to be weak justifications for one’s beliefs. After all, authority figures can lie to maintain their power; hearsay can be distorted and altered; and personal experience is not necessarily generalizable to others. And what we are left with if scientific principles are rejected is radical relativism, which I doubt the theist would embrace.
I think that presenting the issue in this way would make people realize that they must be very careful in terms of what they believe, because we ALL have the tendency to be deceiving ourselves, theists and atheists alike. And if it is important to know what is really going on in order to function properly in the world (e.g. “Is that medication really going to cure my disease, or is it nothing but placebo?”), then it is essential to follow the best method we have to figure out the true from the false.
That method is the application of critical thinking and analysis by using the rules of logic, avoiding fallacies, and seeking empirical evidence to support one’s beliefs. And do we follow this method, because it is grounded in metaphysical certitude and ontological harmony with the universe? No. We follow it, because it WORKS. It is imperfect and uncertain, but it is the BEST method we have thus far. If someone has an alternative, then I’d be open to hear about it, because nothing has been more successful than science in human history at uncovering how the world works. All the alternatives have been shown to be byproducts of bias, distortion and wishful thinking. I doubt ANYONE would want to knowingly ground their beliefs on those factors.
Any thoughts?
dguller, just in case someone's checking on this blog I can't reveal my hand. Good thoughts though.
Post a Comment