It takes some confidence to charge into this: Hitchens will be debating Jay Richards (of the Discovery Institute), with Ben Stein as “moderator”, in an event sponsored by the Stanford IDEA club. The creationists are stacking the deck against him rather thoroughly.
I’m not enthused about the idea — the only people who have anything to gain from this are the loons on the side of ignorance. But if there’s anyone who can pull it off, it’s a master of fiery rhetoric … or a comedian. The topic is purportedly “Atheism vs. Theism and the Scientific Evidence of Intelligent Design,” and since the creationists have no evidence, it’s got to be a tedious bore without someone on hand to skewer the fools.
Let’s hope there’s a video.
Ben Stein will be the “host”, not “moderator”, although the guy who will moderate seems like he might come with a bias, per his bio.
I have this feeling that Hitch will go full bore when dealing with this group. While I agree that little can be won, I do think it’s an opportunity to make them look really dumb in the vicious manner that Hitch is a master of.
I look forward to something as stabbing as “if you gave the man an enema he could have been buried in a shoebox” in relation to ID.
In other Hitchens news, which would be a more appropriate topic for MLK day? Perhaps noting a Republican presidential front-runner like Huckabee meeting publicly with the Council of Conservative Citizens (The decendants of the racist White Citizens Councils)? Perhaps mention how Lou Dobbs has also been pedelling “Azetlan” myths by using credited data from the same CCC? Or that Ron Paul, liberterian Wunderkind, is still heavily the favoured candidate of these sorts of groups? All some interesting notes in an America where open racism is becoming increasingly acceptable since Katrina.
Or perhaps it’s better to attack the Democratic candidates for playing into “Identity Politics”?
I’ll give you a hint: It’s in the WSJ Opinion pages.
Sadly, No! take on his point about Obama here.
Well, Hitch does have books and articles to sell. He can gain personally from it without doing much for “the cause” of either evolution or atheism. I also don’t think he’ll do much damage — but he might.
Hitchens, after all, isn’t a scientist. He’s liable to agree with things that shouldn’t be agreed with. Nothing horrible, but just enough to distort the picture slightly.
He’s slipped before (in my opinion). He had a debate with David Allen White about the impact of Christianity on Western Civilization. It was on Hugh Hewitt’s show. I blogged it here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/what-is-great-art-in-our-brave-new.html
Hitch agreed that art needed to be “transcendent” to be great and he couldn’t think of any “great art” about the Apollo Moon landings except Norman Mailer’s book.
OK, someone has to quickly get in there and start training Hitch on how to handle ID rhetoric. It is not his specialty no matter how well he can joke about its silliness. Also, when he is conditioned for the debate, make sure he is trained drunk, or he will not remember a single thing on the day of the debate…
Of course, it will help if first, Hithcens is sober.
Second, he doesn’ mouth off more support for Bush and Irag and killing more Muslims.
“Of course, it will help if first, Hithcens is sober.”
How the hell do you know? When has anyone even seen Hitchens sober? Hitchens is always drinking, from the time he achieves consciousness in the “morning,”… ’til he surrenders it back again to black.
Hitchens will hold his own, as usual. The art of rhetoric is an art of attack, and he is no stranger to that department.
On a related note, I believe that scientists are not so good at debating because we are trained more to defend than to attack. Creationists (who don’t have any real data to defend anyway) are far better in attack and appear more impressive.
Kriky! Well, as mentioned by others, if anyone can demolition them, Hitchens can. I still don’t like him, but he is someone who can dismantle others idiocy with ease when not totally drunk. Wish he were less of an asshole though. Oh well.
If anyone can handle a gish gallop, I guess it’s Hitchens with his famously brassy knolls.
If Hitch is in proper form (i.e.: sober yet grumpy) he’ll make a meal out of them.
It’s possible that it it will show up in video form on iTunesU on the Stanford page. It has commencement addresses and public-forum type things there. It’s hard to tell where it would end up though, because I don’t think such a biased debate would really fall under the ‘science’ category, but we’ll see.
This is the moderator.
As for the debate, who cares. Hitchens seems to enjoy these scrapes. Fine. He and the godbots can have some fum with there “combat”. Hitchens will get some good zingers in. The godbots will feel they are keeping the good fight for god, truth and righteousness. And it will be a huge nothing, like the debate against Distort D’Newsia.
Some people will get a few good laughs out of it.
Sorry a bit off-topic, PZ, but found through the ARN link in the OP:
Denyse O’Leary’s ID “predictions.”
Have a look, e.g., “Complete series of transitional fossils will not usually be found because most proposed series have never existed.”
I don’t know what to think about Hitch anymore. He still says idiotic things sometimes, and that debate against Dinette D’Setta didn’t go very well, did it? Naturally I hope he trounces them. But I’m still watching with concern.
I hate when people go on about Hitchens drinking, btw. Not my style of humour.
Oh man, nevermind. I’m waaay behind the curve:
O’Leary proves ID worthless
lol
This is one I’m definitely looking forward to. I’m a bit concerned, however. I doubt Hitchens knows that much about evolution. Although, perhaps I’ll be pleasantly surprised.
Ethical Atheist has it right. Hitchens knows how to debate historical issues, and some philosophical issues. He does debate very well when he cares to. One problem though…
HE DOESN’T KNOW SQUAT ABOUT BIOLOGY OR GEOLOGY!!
He will deeply fail if he is not trained for this…
It’s not really a matter of scientists being more apt to defend than attack, it’s that the creationists stack the deck in their favor. They always get to go first and their tactic is to rattle off a long list of “mistakes” science makes and demand that the scientist answer them. The scientist attempts to do so, within the time limit, which wastes all of his time for returning fire. Then, since the scientist doesn’t have time to completely answer every question, the creationist gets to say “see, they have no answers” and repeat the process ad nauseum.
It’s the scientist who is ready for these tactics that succeeds. They have to ignore the first volley and fire a broadside back at the creationists, putting them on the defensive.
He is giving them credibility. I mean Dinesh D’Souza is bad enough but at least he accepts evolution. Hitchens isn’t a scientist. This could go badly.
Cephus is also correct, as there are common tactics used that only someone who has debated creationists before can be prepared for. Hitchens has no knowledge of these debates tactics unless he himself has debated creationists from the point-of-view of a biologist. Since he is not a biologist, he will have no clue what is going on.
This Ben Stein:
http://i27.tinypic.com/2vjydg4.jpg
You don’t need to be a biologist to understand natural selection – it’s that simple. An idea as elegant can win any debate, even against long-planned high-grade sophistry. Hitch is a good debater; he’ll do fine.
All he needs to do is nail them on questions like ‘what use is half an eye?’ A question they may eschew but he could offer rhetorically so he can show exactly what use half an eye would be – or an eye half as good – in the land of the blind. Case closed and goodnight ID.
I think it is obvious that Ben Stein is either going to use this as publicity for his film, or perhaps even insert the footage into his film.
I think Hitch would do all right providing he doesn’t commit the mistake of going into the defensive (not likely with him). He isn’t going to be there to debate evolution as if there were two sides to the issue. Just as long as he doesn’t let them take him there.
Hitch can make me splutter angrily one day and have me fist-pumping the air in agreement when I read his same column the next. I admire that.
I think he’s quite right to go in and hit them hard and I’m fed up with people thinking they should tread lightly and not go for the jugular. When Ben Stein gives of himself to put this movie out and you’re not slavering your chops in anticipation of helping Stein demonstrate what a pillock he is then you’re not alive. No-one with a brain is looking at this confrontation and thinking “gosh, I had no idea that Christopher Hitchens was such an acerbic person, golly, that reflects badly on all atheist people.”
They’re thinking “I used to think that Ben Stein was kinda cool, I had no idea that he’s such a brainless moron”
Mildly OT, but I don’t trust anything that uses the phrase ‘all five continents’. Last time I counted, there were seven. Unless things have changed since I was in primary school, which is entirely possible.
Hey Ben
Did you ever think Ben stein is actually the ultimate capitalist rather than a “brainless moron”. After all, this movie will have both sides watching and debating, and all Stein will be doing is counting the cash.
“It’s the scientist who is ready for these tactics that succeeds. They have to ignore the first volley and fire a broadside back at the creationists, putting them on the defensive.” – Cephus
Exactly right. I believe that scientists feel an innate responsibility to defend against creationist claims and explain the science, point by point. We shouldn’t feel thus obliged. This weakens our position severely, given the limited time.
To be more effective, the debater must listen closely to the initial salvo and find weak points in it. Without hesitation, she must attack those weaknesses immediately and sharply.
Hitchens has great instincts for thinking and attacking on his feet. Even if he is not so strong in the biology I think he will still do well in this debate environment.
Well I think it has poptential fdor great fun, if it tracks to the title. That would be scientific evidence for ID. I think if they focus on the “evidence” for ID, Hitchens will have a field day. If they are actually going to be poking holes in ToE, Hitchens isn’t the right guy for defending, but given that opening to attack, it should be some kind of entertainment.
I hate when people go on about Hitchens drinking, btw. Not my style of humour.
It’s humor? Seems to me it’s an acknowledgement that he always seems to be drunk, even though he handles himself pretty well while drunk. Hey, Gene Roddenberry did good stuff and his colleagues say they never saw him sober, decade after decade, starting at 7 in the morning and going on til night. Some people can do that.
“Scientific evidence for ID”
is equivallent to
“Scientific evidence for God(s)”
is equivallent to
“Anything we, poor humans, don’t understand yet”
is equivallent to
“God of the Gaps Argument”
Not that there is anything new, it’s been going on for at least 50,000 years, except that these damn humans have this nasty tendency to fill the gaps.
One day, when most holes will be closed, we’ll call it the :
“God Of the Closing Holes Argument”, and we’ll all say
GOTCHA !
Maxi @ # 25, …five continents’. Last time I counted, there were seven. Unless things have changed since I was in primary school…
Were you/they counting Gondwanaland?
Well, I’m probably showing my age here, but not *quite* that much, I hope… :)
In Alabama in the 1960s, we were taught the following seven continents; I imagine they’re the ones Maxi is referring to:
North America
South America
Africa
Europe
Asia
Australia
Antarctica
Don’t forget the added twist that Hitchens has quit smoking! He’ll be cranky with a touch of nicotine withdrawl.
If anyone can pull this off its good ole Hitchen. He is Daniel going into the Lion’s Den and he is ready to give those Lions the smack down. Can’t while for the video.
Has anyone ever seen evidence for this “antarctica” of which you speak?
Blind faith, that is. Bloody neo-geographers and their mumbo-jumbo.
I’m so-so on this.
As we’ve all seen no matter how good the side of reason does, the Creationist boobs can throw out enough Kent Hovind styled bullshit filibuster style that it will be impossible to answer each and every claim they make. All that does is feed the Creationist audience into thinking that the scientist has lost, whether it is true or not. If Hitchens can get past trying to address the bullshitilobuster and get to addressing a few overall topics with his razor wit and get a few deep cuts at least it will be entertaining. Unfortunately there is never enough time to answer all of the lies, distortions and stupidity that we are likely to see being defecated and thrown on the wall from the ID side.
Sheesh. Editing is a good thing.
“Throw out enough of a Kent Hovind styled bullshit filibuster that…”
I don’t know – I would prefer Harris over Hitchens….I find that when Hitchens debates, he comes off sounding bored, drunk and dismissive. Wouldn’t it be better to get an actual biologist for this debate? They (DI) will certainly work as much psuedo-scientific jargon into their speech. Will Hitchens be able to adequately reply?
I’m just copying and pasting something I wrote elsewhere which I think is of relevance…
That Hitchens and Shermer recognize Dinesh’s rhetorical and debating skills as impressive, is a substantially different matter from acknowledging that there is substantial validity to his arguments.
Fish’s opinion, as a writer of opinions, is what it is. Opinions are like…
D’Souza is very skilled at persuasion. (read manipulation) That does make him a formidable debate opponent. However it certainly doesn’t imply anything substantial about the accuracy of his claims. D’Souza is a player, and getting rich off it.
Hitchens and Shermer ain’t got game – probably as a result of spending too much time searching for the truth, rather than practicing spinning it.
See, atheists don’t tend to get exposed to emotional manipulation in church every week, and therefore, don’t develop the skills that can result from that.
Atheists are too used to thinking of things in terms of rational explanations, and don’t realize the power that emotional manipulation has on the brains of us social primates. Unless an atheist has been a religious believer, they don’t understand the grip religions get into people at an emotional/subconscious level, and such atheists tend to find such human gullibility mystifying. But in failing to understand the ability of speakers such as D’Souza to manipulate the hearts and minds of people, naive atheists risk losing human rights as a result of this country’s slide towards theocracy.
Good point wonderer, the IDists and Creationist are good at winning the emotional points with their target audience. These debates rarely settle anything other than that the creationists are really good at rapid fire diarrhea of the mouth.
thalarctos, I guess I’m showing my age.
North America and South America are now treated as separate continents in much of Western Europe, India, China, and most native English-speaking countries, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand[citation needed]. Furthermore, the concept of two American continents is prevalent in much of Asia. However, in earlier times they were viewed as a single continent known as America or, to avoid ambiguity with the United States of America, as the Americas.
I do think it makes sense to split the Americas into two continents.
thalarctos @33
Thank you! I was taught in the early 90s, not that long ago!
Though I suppose if you merge the Americas and completely forget about Antarctica you would end up with 5 continents. A bit lazy if you ask me…
Back on topic, I do like Hitchens’ debating style. But he *isn’t* a trained biologist, so I’m not sure he could answer any question in sufficient depth. Though saying that, IDiots don’t ever listen anyway.
Yup, Hitchens could come badly unstuck here. I’ve never seen him challenged, or commented on, ‘irreducible complexity’, flagellum (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html), etc. Then again, he has an impressive recall of a vast range of information, so maybe there’s a good range of evolutionary biology in there as well?
Hitch takes on creationists, but
he needs a PR course first to shut
their stupid comments and whining
that their god did the designing.
I, A monkey’s uncle would know,
how to press the truth at this show,
but I fear that they would lynch me,
Shouting ”I ain’t just a damn MONKEY!”
(many many grovelling apologies to Cuttlefish, who OBVIOUSLY does this better.) :) I don’t know what got into me….but I DID have squid for lunch…
Wonderer #40,
“Atheists are too used to thinking of things in terms of rational explanations, and don’t realize the power that emotional manipulation has on the brains of us social primates. Unless an atheist has been a religious believer, they don’t understand the grip religions get into people at an emotional/subconscious level, and such atheists tend to find such human gullibility mystifying.”
Sorry, but that is bull**** !
a) an Atheist can understand very well the power of superstitious beliefs on human brains, without himself having ever felt its grip. If he can’t he’s an ignorant, and non rational.
b) the biggest problem that an Atheist has when debating a Theist, is in view, in assuming that his stance is more rational than the other. Which is not, because the only rational stance is to be Agnostic, ie the default position of Science.
“I don’t know if there are any Gods, so don’t you”, is a much more difficult rethorical starting point to counter for a Theist, because it puts the burden of proof on the Theist.
“There are no Gods”, makes it easier for the Theist to go into the God of the Gaps argument. However hard the Atheist will hammer the Teapot argument, or that the God hypothesis is not required, or that there is no scientific evidence, the Theist knows that most brains are not a blank state. We have evolved with superstitious beliefs, hence the debate is biased. And the burden of proof will be put of the Atheist. And he will reject it, but then the audience will be left to judge, and they both will have achieved nothing, the Atheists in the audience will remain Atheists, and the Theists in the audience will remain Theists, and it will have been a big waste of time, as always with this kind of debate.
Richards is a cosmological fine-tuning guy anyway.
I think the interesting angle here is that ID and theism are being debated on the same bill – even though we all know that ID has nothing whatsoever to do with religion (wink wink nudge nudge).
Throw out enough of a Kent Hovind styled bullshit filibuster
Agreed, but people like Hovind can be effectively countered by giving their arguments the respect and thoughtful consideration they deserve. For example, Ali G. did it.
Yes, as Mrs. Tilton says — or as I say anyway :) — the best way to counter someone like Hovind in a public debate is not to throw back facts at him but to simply say, “That’s a HUGE crock of BS” and then maybe throw some facts at the audience, or simply entertain them. Hitchens should at least be able to do the opener and the entertaining.
Though I suppose if you merge the Americas and completely forget about Antarctica you would end up with 5 continents. A bit lazy if you ask me…
No, you don’t ignore Antarctica, you merge Europe and Asia. If you look at a map it’s a single landmass, any division is cultural, not geographical. Merged Americas + Eurasia gives 5. Mid 70’s HS for me, it was 6… Eurasia and seperate Americas.
I find that when Hitchens debates, he comes off sounding bored, drunk and dismissive.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. ID is boring, and should be dismissed. It should be ridiculed all the way to the curb. I hope that Hitchens is on form for this, because I love a good savaging.
Debating with the delusional is a pointless endeavor.
“Debating with the delusional is a pointless endeavor.”
Not always. It helps to understand psychology, and have realistic goals though.
Graculus,
what about Britain, that’s not part of any continent is it ?
Sir Winston, “there’s a tempest on the Channel”, “oh well, now, the continent is isolated”
You know, I love a good debate. I’ve done them, sometimes against the advice of other science types, but I feel I’ve been successful because I was able to define the terms of debate. If you can do that, and you know your stuff, you should be able to carry the day, as Ken Miller has proved over and over.
But I would shrink from this invitation, because it’s not about science. The debate topic legitimizes, in fact proceeds from a dichotomy between atheism and theism, the latter of which is tied to ID. The presumption is that anti-ID = atheism. So, instead of pushing a scientific, evidence-based argument against non-science, you’re going to have a competition between different brands of non-science (atheism and theism). No matter how much evidence you present to buttress arguments against ID, it will be presumed to be in behalf of a belief system. Which, if I recall, pretty much plays into the true believer’s hands.
So, PZ, I agree. Hitchens’ equipment must be coated in an alloy of copper and zinc, for he presumes to debate creationists not from the high ground of science, but within the catacombs of belief.
I think it’s a worry, in fact. The positive aspect is that Hitchens isn’t going to let the IDiots drag him into the minutiae of their own delusions all to “debunk them” as too often happens on the blogs, and will instead tend to focus on the big picture. The negative is that he does not seem to understand ID and its claims very well (I could be wrong, but I fear I’m not), so that Richards might be able to score points on both faulty “evidence” and faulty interpretation of that “evidence.”
Hitchens needs to pound on all of the missing markers of design, such as purpose and rationality, and to note again and again that all of the complexity in biology that we see happens to be in the form of evolutionary complexity. On the cosmological side, he needs to focus primarily on the fact that an invisible and unknown “designer” has no apparent causal relationship with “fine-tuning”–and I expect Hitchens to do quite well on that score. It’s in biology that I think he could mess up and allow devious ID “arguments” to go unchallenged and to be counted as “victories” by the essentially clueless Richards.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Hitchens is a lousy debater. Those of us who already agree with him are inclined to credit him with more success than someone with a more ambivalent viewpoint would. He’s at his best when he’s on stage by himself, pontificating to a sympathetic audience.
He just doesn’t come off as quick and sharp, and certainly not warm and friendly, unlike many of the theists that he’s chosen to engage on radio shows across the US.
It’s the scientist who is ready for these tactics that succeeds. They have to ignore the first volley and fire a broadside back at the creationists, putting them on the defensive.
Yes!!! Like, “well, where’s your scientific evidence?” and “how does your theory explain anything, except to replace a big unknown with a bigger unknown?” etc. Letting creos nitpick at science is silly – scientists need to deny them a seat at the table until they come with some research and results worth talking about.
I would give a lot to see Hitch’s reaction to the banana argument.
negentropyeater #46
“Sorry, but that is bull**** !
a) an Atheist can understand very well the power of superstitious beliefs on human brains, without himself having ever felt its grip. If he can’t he’s an ignorant, and non rational.”
No apology necessary. My statement was a generalization and I don’t know to what extent it applies to you, but there’s a lot of truth to it. Everyone is ignorant and to some extent non rational. That’s somewhat my point. Even atheists tend to be ignorant of the extent to which their social primate nature influences their thoughts and actions on a subconscious level.
I’m not going to quibble the atheist/agnostic distinction. I find it’s easy enough to communicate to theists that strictly speaking I’m an agnostic, but I assign so little probability to the existence of God, that there’s no practical distinction between the terms. It’s just a label.
There is no man alive who has not, at one time or the other, felt the grip of superstitious belief. Overcoming it is an effort of will and courage.
You all seem to have the mistaken idea that those of faith cannot also be scientists. Is it so hard to accept men of science can also be men of God?
Don’t forget the added twist that Hitchens has quit smoking! He’ll be cranky with a touch of nicotine withdrawl.
Ouch! He should have waited ’til the day of the debate. My family actually asked me to start again on one of my attempts.
Greg Esres is correct. Hitchins is not the greatest debater. And Cephus is right about the tactics used. If you have a hour and a half to spare, here is a Hitchins-D’Souza debate.
http://www.tkc.edu/debate/
One could quit after a few minutes, it does dot get much better at any time.
Like I said earlier, Hitchins loves verbal conflict. He will get off a few zingers and have a few laughs. But nothing will come of it. There is no great battle to be won. And it is not won in this way.
But the good news is this and most of you out there already know this, the truths about evolution is not proven nor dis proven by some one’s rhetorical skills.
Hoxha @61,
Is it so hard to accept men of science can also be men of God?
Heh? Most of the people here are pretty hardcore atheists, but I don’t think I’ve ever read any of them claim that “men of science” cannot also be “men of God”.
Anyway, the point of this post isn’t that “men of God can’t be men of science”. It’s that the particular men of God in question, far from being men of science, are men of mindboggling idiocy.
All “creationism” and no fine-tuning points will be made? That’s about interpreting evidence, not finding it.
Hoxha wrote:
“men of God?” Well, that phrasing sure tells us where you stand.
Men of faith might, in rare instances, be scientists, but men of ID are anti-science whether they have science degrees or not.
They say everyone has a dream…
I had a dream last night that I was opening a restaurant and bar in a corner location of a strip mall currently occupied by a kinkos…
One scene involved Jacques Pepin serving a plate of black potatoes to Christopher Hitchens…
And I worried about if the margins were enough to make the dish work.
A rather smart individual said:
“”Hitchens and Shermer ain’t got game – probably as a result of spending too much time searching for the truth, rather than practicing spinning it.””
This, and everything else you said, was right on the money. For example, D. Dennett is respected by so many people for his logic and clear writing, but the last debate I saw of his went very poorly for him. Anyone thinking that being truthful, logical and bright is all you need, is basically a babe in the woods.
Mono Ape said:
“Then again, he has an impressive recall of a vast range of information, so maybe there’s a good range of evolutionary biology in there as well?”
Sad to say, “no” there is not.
Hitchens has expressed his lack of knowledge about science before, so this seems a little odd even for him to be debating Intelligent Design. On the other hand, perhaps he can get Dawkins to tutor him? :)
Big brass ones doesn’t come into it; Hitchens is bullet proof. As long as he chucks out a couple of good lines and makes some shocking claims (and he will) he keeps up his reputation for being entertainingly combative and the talk shows will keep inviting him back.
Wonderer,
I really wonder how you can put a probability of the existence of God, however small. Because I can’t and I sincerely doubt that anybody can make a rational argument in attempting to do so.
How do I know that ? Simple, If it existed, there would be at least some Scientific paper underlying it. And there’s none I know of. Even the brightest minds of our times, the Darwins, Einstein, Feynmann, Not(Ben Stein), have ever tried to publish such a paper. All we have are books trying to prove, or disprove the existence of God(s) and they have never passed peer review.
So here’s my question :
how can an Atheist (who In your definition puts a very small probability to the existence of God) make a rational argument against a Theist (who In your definition puts a very high probability to the existence of God), when the reality is such that there is simply, no evidence for either.
Putting doubt in the mind of a Theist is much easier to acieve than trying to convince him that you are making a more rational argument than him. Ounce people start doubting about the existence of God, you already have achieved your objective.
I’m really tired about this old, tired, unsuccesful idea that one should convince Theists that they are Wrong, and that being an Atheist is much more rational than being a Theist. It just doesn’t work.
Look, in Western Europe, where there is a very large proportion of Atheists and Agnostics, and where this developped in essentially 2 generations, you have clear evidence of how this “doubting process” has worked efficiently.
In the USA, you guys seem to be so obsessed with “being Right” and “showin he’s Wrong” that you seem to miss the futility of a debate between “Atheists” and “Theists” where you are trying to prove that your camp is more rational than the other. Whereas instead one should focus instead on the merits of doubt.
This technique enables you to find common ground with the reasoned Christian and start becoming efficient at swaying people to your side. I am not talking of the Hovinds and other total fundies, they are just lost cause and it is pointless to attempt in debating them, but with the educated ones, those who can understand, at least, some rational arguments.
If they don’t exist. You should make some.
“This technique enables you to find common ground with the reasoned Christian”
I am always hearing about these people. Where are they?
negentropyeater wrote:
Well, you start by asking for a definition of God.
If they’re weak on that definition, you remind them that they are Christian (or Muslim or whatever) and that this implies more definition than they are willing to make.
Once you’ve got that biblical definition — then you can start making arguments. You can’t really argue against deist speculations except by pointing out that they’re just speculations and not things you should be worshiping or building religions around.
Well, that’s exactly the comment I was hoping for. That’s the mess you’ve got yourself into, if there are none. And that just shows how polarized the debate has become. That’s what needs to change.
Aren’t there any highly educated, knowledgable, moderate Christians in the USA ?
Don’t tell me that, because I know it’s not true.
You might not agree with them, find some of their arguments dishonest, but if you focus on these aspects and are trying to show that you are more rational than them, my guess is that you are not trying to put yourself in the shoes of the moderate educated Theist who is observing the fight.
“how can an Atheist … make a rational argument against a Theist …, when the reality is such that there is simply, no evidence for either.” [parenthetical comments about probabilities removed]
Atheism does not require any evidence for it to be rational choice. The fact that there is no evidence for theism is what makes atheism the rational choice. Atheism is the null hypothesis, and with no evidence for the alternative hypothesis (theism), the rational thing to do is to not reject the null hypothesis. So, atheism is the rational choice until one is presented with some evidence to reject it.
negentropyeater wrote:
Name some.
Are you perhaps thinking of someone like Ken Miller? Or Francis Collins?
Please learn to be specific. What you consider reasonable may not seem very reasonable to me.
Norman,
so here’s a definition (amongst the hundreds one could invent) :
the creator of this universe, who intervenes from time to time to affect its evolution using physical means not yet discovered by us, with a specific purpose as to raise sufficient knowlege capable of discovering the scientific method used for its own creation.
Now, give me a probability that this is true or not true.
negentropyeater:
The points you raise are good ones, may I suggest though that in some way Western Europe IS more enlightened as regards religion (this is no slur on our american friends) because of the long history of struggle between vastly different but landlocked points of view?
Eventually, I would presume that inevitable change in views would result simply because of the closeness of varying peoples,integration and adoption of various parts of all the possible religions, to the point of making people realise ‘well, not ALL of this can be true, so why pick just one faith exclusively?’
I have no evidence of this, obviously, it’s just an idea. Really I would like to know how Europe appears to be more secular..or is this just an illusion from living here? Presumably there could be just as many agnostic/athiest/don’t cares on mainland USA, but the study has never been done?
Touching on the ‘reasonable Christian’ point…I have met a few, you can have fantastically moderate and reasoned debates with them, and there is no violence involved. And occasionally, very occasionally, you might convert one to athiesm, as i have…;)
Yes, that’s who I had in Mind…
I might even put people like Dinesh D’Souza. He’s a fundie, but an educated and intelligent one. I know Atheists hate him, find him dishonest (think about how educated moderate Theists view him), but it should be possible to find common grounds with him. Just it seems he has this inate ability to swing the debates into his favorite territory.
I shall assume you’re talking to me, negentropeater.
“Aren’t there any highly educated, knowledgable, moderate Christians in the USA ?”
A person who believes in the resurrection is in no reasonable sense of the word moderate. I might grant that a rather minimalist deist is some kind of religious moderate, not nobody who believes in miracles.
“You might not agree with them, find some of their arguments dishonest”
Outright stark raving mad, actually. Completely cracked. Diving into the deep end of an empty pool.
“but if you focus on these aspects and are trying to show that you are more rational than them, my guess is that you are not trying to put yourself in the shoes of the moderate educated Theist who is observing the fight.”
My feet are quite a bit too big for those tiny shoes. I see no reason to meet halfway someone who is simply wrong. Furthermore I see no way to do so and maintain my own integrity. It is ludicrous to suggest that 2+2=5 is a reasonable compromise between four and six.
Monkey’s Uncle,
One needs to understands more clearly the cultural divergence between the US and Europe, which happened essentially at the end of the 50s and during the 60s, where this “born Again” phenomena swayed within a few decades, 80 million people in the USA (and only a few million in Europe). There lies the majority of the fundies, the YECs and other lunatics.
Why did the Evangelical movement gain so much ground, so quickly, in essentially the more rural parts of America, and not in Europe ?
First, you have to remember Europe, at that same time, was much less liberal, than the USA. Some people view this success as a counter reaction to the more liberal trends in America. Than can be part of the explanation.
This also caused the begining of a religious polarization, carefully manipulated during decades by the neo conservative branch of the Republican party. One that reached its apotheose during the Bush 43 years.
I assume there will now be a backlash, one that should be taken advantage of. One has to reduce the polarization on religious issues. Free thinkers have nothing to gain from this, when it plays directly into the hand of the neo-conservatives, as it did during the last 4 decades.
Maybe European politicians were much more careful with this issue, as we have lived close hand the desastrous effects of religious polarization and Fascism. Well, in the end, we had much less religious polarization and now, we’re a bit more safe. Oh not that somebody will try to revive it (my French president Sarkozy seems to have some ideas), but we’re a bit safer.
negentropyeater wrote:
So, are you a deist or a Christian?
Like I said, you’re weak on that definition, as expected. Are you Christian (or Muslim or whatever) and does that not imply more definition than they are willing to make?
I can’t really argue against deist speculations except by pointing out that they’re just speculations and not things you should be worshiping or building religions around. That’s all you’ve given me — a deist speculation. You need to go farther to define God before we can estimate probabilities.
Do you think God is intelligent?
If so, what do you think intelligence is?
Do you think intelligence requires a non-physical aspect, like a soul?
Do you think human beings are where the evolution of intelligence ends?
negentropyeater said:
“I really wonder how you can put a probability of the existence of God, however small. Because I can’t and I sincerely doubt that anybody can make a rational argument in attempting to do so.”
You are taking me a bit too literally. We all (often to a large degree subconsciously) informally assign probabilities to things. I realize there’s a probability that a wheel will fall off my car when I drive home today. I informally assign it a higher probability than that God exists, but I still consider the probability that a wheel will fall off my car today to be very small.
“So here’s my question :
how can an Atheist (who In your definition puts a very small probability to the existence of God) make a rational argument against a Theist (who In your definition puts a very high probability to the existence of God), when the reality is such that there is simply, no evidence for either.”
It seems you are mistakenly assuming I advocate for presenting theists with rational arguments. As the saying goes, you can’t reason someone out of something they didn’t reason themselves into.
From the remainder of your comment, it seems we agree on a lot of things, so it looks to me like you are attacking a straw man to some degree.
For the last year I’ve been discussing things on a religious issues internet forum. When I first started posting, fundamentalist Christians clearly dominated the forum. One year later, atheists and moderate Christians dominate the forum. I have been able to significantly influence believers. Understanding relevant arguments has played a substantial role, but knowing how to psychologically game others plays a substantial role as well. Planting doubt is a big part of it, but having the psychological insight into how to plant doubt in believers doesn’t necessarily come naturally. Having been a believer gives a lot of insight into unravelling the beliefs of others.
The more intelligent believers can be ‘seduced’ into letting down their guard and discussing things as equals. This allows one to find out where the threads that hold the tapestry of belief together are knotted loosely, and with a slight tug, begin the unravelling process.
Samnell,
look I’m not going to try to defend the resurection, the virgin birth, the burning bush because I doubt it makes rational sense. I can understand that the Bible makes sense as an alegory, I’d be interested to hear how an educated Christian makes rational sense of that.
Why don’t THEY explain themselves ?
I tell you why, because now the debate has focused on one camp saying that religion is the worst nightmare we ever had, and the other one in delecting from it. And there goes to a nice deadlock.
negentropyeater wrote:
Is that, in your mind, the fault of atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris, or is it the fault of people like Osama bin Laden, George Bush, Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee?
Norman,
“So, are you a deist or a Christian?”
Don’t know if I’m a Deist, a Christian, an agnostic, or an Atheist.
I mean it’s simple, I don’t know. I’m skeptic but interested, with all of them.
All I know is what we know already. I make no ontological assumptions on the word “God”.
BTW, I’m 43 yold and never knew, still thinking about it. Maybe one day I’ll fix myself into one of these comfortable categories, maybe not.
But I adore talking about it, and disguising myself, like this, I learn more from people. With an Atheist, I’m an Atheist. With a Theist, a Theist. With a Deist, a Deist.
That’s the only way to remain objective.
But I definitely consider myself as a free thinker. Only I am not sure we’d agree on the definition of that word.
Mpnkey’s Uncle said:
“The points you raise are good ones, may I suggest though that in some way Western Europe IS more enlightened as regards religion (this is no slur on our american friends) because of the long history of struggle between vastly different but landlocked points of view?”
I think there’s some very good insight here. I recently said something along the lines of, “Self improvement is as easy as changing one’s point of view, and as hard as changing one’s point of view.” to an Orthodox Jew who’s very into working hard at being righteous.
Certainly my transformation from Christian to atheist had a lot to do with being exposed to different points of views. Religious meme-plexes have all kinds of mechanisms for preventing believers from being exposed to different points of view. Getting a believer to discuss the differences between our points of view from a mutually respectful position can have a huge impact. (BTW, it can take subtle insults to earn respect from an intelligent confident believer, and having the skill to apply insults that earn respect and then switch to that mutually respectful mode of relating is something I’ve found to be really useful.)
It’s the intelligent and sincere believers that I find most worth engaging. First off, if they aren’t effectively engaged, they speak with an influential voice of authority to less intelligent believers. Second, they are the ones who are actually easiest to influence. Ask the right questions and they’ll do the work themselves. In thinking about how to show themselves to be right, they find themselves to be wrong.
I’ve ‘helped’ a YEC with a Ph.D. in physics from MIT unravel his epistemology. I can’t say what his beliefs are now, but he stormed into a forum as the voice of authority, and then disappeared after I ‘aikido-ed’ his epistemological onslaught.
Whose fault is it ? Don’t know, don’t care. I can only see the effect. And we got to get out of it. Otherwise things are going to get nasty in the USA (prediction found into some coffee powder).
Did you watch the four horsemen on the Richarddawkins network ? What did you think of it ? And what about Enlightenment 2.0 ?
In the end, it won’t make any difference. The fundies are going to come away claiming victory no matter how badly they lose and in a couple of months, it’ll be forgotten. These debates never solve anything, it’s just a waste of time for all concerned.
Hitchens vs. Richards on “Atheism vs. Theism and the Scientific Evidence of Intelligent Design” is a very interesting situation.
As often pointed out, in one sense, creationists will “win” a debate on evolution simply by being on the stage. Evolution is the established mainstream. So, unless they are very, very bad indeed, they gain credibility for creationism. It is being treated seriously, as a respectable point of view, one of several. Evolution is not the only game in town. That’s a point they want to make, publicly.
The situation — ironically — is the same for atheism vs. theism. Believing in God is the established mainstream. So, unless the atheist is very, very bad indeed, they gain credibility for atheism just by being up on the stage. It is being treated seriously, as a respectable point of view, one of several. Theism is not the only game in town. That’s a point we want to make, publicly.
The Discovery Institute is probably licking its chops over another chance to link evolution with atheism. And Hitchens is licking his chops at a chance to link theism with pseudoscience. They will each be pointing at the other side saying “see what happens when you abandon common sense?”
The secret little trick is, Hitchens actually has science on his side. And the other side is wrong. Linking evolution to atheism is going to bite Christians back, hard. What’s a political problem now will become less and less so as time marches on and reality fails to confirm to wishes and votes. They can have the simple-minded folk and we hook on to the intellectuals. That’s not a bad trade, all in all.
I think Creationism might be God’s gift to us atheists — if there actually were a God, of course …
Graculus,
what about Britain, that’s not part of any continent is it ?
Well. it is for certain definitons of continent (involving shelves and stray bits), but we always called it an “island”.
There is no man alive who has not, at one time or the other, felt the grip of superstitious belief.
What about women? Children? Small furry animals from Alpha Centauri?
“look I’m not going to try to defend the resurection, the virgin birth, the burning bush because I doubt it makes rational sense. I can understand that the Bible makes sense as an alegory, I’d be interested to hear how an educated Christian makes rational sense of that.
Why don’t THEY explain themselves ?”
Because they don’t make rational sense of it. Indeed, they think it’s wrong to do so. But if they’re so frightened by Dawkins or Harris or whoever that they have some rationality but crush it in the name of loyalty to the greater faith tribe, then they absolutely deserve to be treated as utterly indistinguishable from the worst of the fundies.
Ben Stein has “published seven novels”?
Sweet, my sister (works @ Stanford) scored me tickets to this… So I’m going and dragging my 16 year old daughter along. I’m sure she’ll really enjoy it </sarcasm>
I wonder if I can sneak in a video camera, in case CNN doesn’t make their footage available…
Samnell,
“Because they don’t make rational sense of it. Indeed, they think it’s wrong to do so.”
Perfect, and you think they don’t have any doubt about it ? You think they never asked themselves the question ?
Just ask them.
There’s the difference with a fundie.
A fundie will be dishonest about his doubt.
A moderate will admit it, and explain how they deal with it.
And meanwhile, the audience is observing, and you are achieving your objective. You are helping some Theists, to admit their doubt. And that’s a very important step.
Paradoxically, the more the discussion is on Science, the more it seems to play in their favour so far(from a Theist observer point of view). They just need to focus on one evolved form of the God of The Gaps argument, and you get into trouble. You have to understand one thing, from a Theist point of view, who might consider himself educated, with a varnish of Scientific knowledge, why the existence of Gaps in our knowledge does not necessarily imply the existence of God(s) is far from obvious.
When Ben Stein says ” Science can’t explain how life started on earth”, he is right, and if he adds “this is evidence of God’s work”, the best reply, in my honest opinion, should be “maybe, but Science is about finding out, if he did, and how it happened”.
I expect it will be the usual – every time Hitchens is given any opportunity to speak, his opponent will get to reply, but not the other way around. It will not be about getting at the truth, it will be about trumpeting “We 4r3 teh WIN! Godiddit!”, and everything will be organized around that.
THEN it will be made into a heavily-edited video, which mostly consists of a loop of Hitchens saying “Yes, in fact [jumpcut] I do [jumpcut, different background] eat babies” and a lot of fart noises, followed by the creationists saying “Thus, Goddidit”
If he means “science hasn’t yet explained how life started”, he’s right. If he means “science is incapable of explaining how life started”, he’s most certainly wrong…
If he means “science hasn’t yet explained how life started”, he’s right. If he means “science is incapable of explaining how life started”, he’s most certainly wrong…
“Just ask them.
There’s the difference with a fundie.
A fundie will be dishonest about his doubt.
A moderate will admit it, and explain how they deal with it.”
I’ve known fundies who are happily, eagerly honest about their doubts. This is a part of their holy psychodrama. The more intense their doubts get, the greater the triumph of their faith.
“When Ben Stein says ” Science can’t explain how life started on earth”, he is right, and if he adds “this is evidence of God’s work”, the best reply, in my honest opinion, should be “maybe, but Science is about finding out, if he did, and how it happened”.”
You’ve been so open-minded with our hypothetical Ben Stein that your brains have fallen out and been heavily trod upon. The most generous that can be justified, and this is really, really pushing it, is “not presently, but it shall based on its track record and based on your god’s track record, he is superfluous to the process. It shall be just the same as if he did not exist. What does that tell you about him?”
I’ve known fundies who are happily, eagerly honest about their doubts. This is a part of their holy psychodrama. The more intense their doubts get, the greater the triumph of their faith.
There’s something about this off-hand remark that I find off-putting. For…
If there isn’t a real possibility of losing one’s faith, then it isn’t really doubt, so the fundies profession of doubt couldn’t be said to be truly honest.
If, on the other hand, there is a real possibility of losing one’s faith, then how can you fairly describe it as a ‘psychodrama’ in which, presumably, the ultimate triumph of faith is predestined?
What’s up, Marie Antoinette? If you’re trying to argue that fundies and moderate Christians are both prone to self-deception as part of their beliefs, you’ll get no argument from me. But if this is all you mean by ‘honesty’, you’re glossing over a very real distinction between fundies and moderates: one uses the Bible to evaluate evidence, and the other (deluded though she may be in other respects) uses evidence to evaluate the Bible. I cast my vote with the latter.
“But if this is all you mean by ‘honesty’, you’re glossing over a very real distinction between fundies and moderates: one uses the Bible to evaluate evidence, and the other (deluded though she may be in other respects) uses evidence to evaluate the Bible.”
That’s almost it. I think the distinction between fundies and moderates is not that one uses the Bible to evaluate evidence and the other the reverse. I think rather that fundies just use the Bible to evaluate evidence a bit more than moderates do. They both do it.
Does anyone know more about this event, i.e. where to get tickets? I live in the area and I desperately want to go.
Samnell: “I’ve known fundies who are happily, eagerly honest about their doubts. This is a part of their holy psychodrama. The more intense their doubts get, the greater the triumph of their faith.”
Mother Theresa springs to mind
Has anybody tried doubting a theist?
– I believe in God
— I don’t believe you. You want to… you want other people to think you do… you think it would be great if everyone did… but you don’t. Not really. You just hide it, compartmentalize, put your faith in a little box you daren’t open in case it turns out to be empty…
The fact that the ID crew are desperately scrabbling for evidence like demented crabs seems to indicate that they’re looking for some sort of crutch to lean their faltering faith on.
They may be stacking the deck, but I bet they won’t be watering Hitchens’ drinks. This is going to be a disaster.
I hate when people go on about Hitchens drinking, btw. Not my style of humour.
Then you get in touch with Mr. Hitchens and convince him to go into re-hab, after you convince him he has a problem with alchohol. Good Luck.
No, there is nothing funny about the process by which the brain goes from moist to wet.
Quite right, Mooser. It’s a tragedy, in fact, particularly when the afflicted mind is as dynamic as Hitch’s.
Darth Chimay, the linked web page says you can get tickets with your Stanford ID. Since my sister works there, she got me tickets. I’m hoping I don’t need the Stanford ID to actually get in the door, since it’s a 1.5 hour drive each way for me. Though I guess I do get to see my sister and have lunch with her, so it wouldn’t be a total loss :-)
Thanks Robert. I saw that, but I didn’t see any link to get tickets if you don’t have a Stanford ID, which would be me. Maybe I’ll just hang out at a nearby bar and see if Hitchens fuels up beforehand.
This may be a misstake. Hitchens is not a biologist, and they will invaribly come up with lots of nonsense with scientific-sounding foundations that he won’t be able to refute properly.
There should be a biologist there.
I hope Mr. Hitchens is dynamic, coherent, and maintains his cool. I’m sure it won’t be easy.
All this nonsensical crap about the existence of a god
can best be answered in simple terms by Gertrude Stein:
“There ain’t no answer.
There ain’t going to be any answer.
There never has been an answer.
That’s the answer”.
So let’s quit all this interminable bullshit in seeking
answers. That shoud be the final answer.
I disagree with all the people who say that this is a bad idea for Hitchens or that there should be a scientist there. Let’s have another look at the title of the debate:
“Atheism vs. Theism and the Scientific Evidence of Intelligent Design”
One way to look at this grammatically is that Atheism (with a capital A) is being pitted against everything after the “vs.” in the title. Add to that the people putting on the debate (an IDEA club), and the “host” (Ben Stein), and you have a situation that is just a big dog-and-pony show for the Christianists. They don’t give a shit about the real science and neither will the audience (largely trust fund kids and future right-wing think-tankers).
So I wouldn’t want a scientist going in there to lend any credibility to the pseudoscience or to meekly try to set the record straight on evolutionary biology. I’d much rather have someone like Hitchens come in there and go on the offensive and ridicule their dumb ideas and their dumb ways of thinking. Say what you will about Hitches, but I’ve never seen him lose his cool, and he certainly doesn’t bullshit. Hell, if we could get Penn Gilette to do the rounds in these sorts of debates, then I’d be all for that, too.