|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: On the usefulness of Christian debaters
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Perhaps we have some on the Ship? I'm curious about the usefulness of Christian vs Atheist debates. I can see the usefulness for a public forum for various sides of an issue or set of issues to explain their thinking, but I'm not entirely convinced debating is the best way to achieve that goal.
One of the reasons I doubt the usefulness is that both sides are frequently proselytising, rather than debating. One of the best-known Christian debaters, William Lane-Craig, has admitted that no evidence whatsoever would alter his Christian beliefs. He is clearly a talented debater, no doubt. His goals, however, are not really about the 'facts' or even about winning debates, but rather about evangelising under the guise of public debate.
I noted in my (near) decade of involvement in a prominent London evangelical church, that these debates garnered a fair amount of attention from preachers and well as congregants. These debates were offered as evidence of Christianity engaging with scientific thinking and evidence-based approaches. However, I also noted that the existence of such debates went almost entirely unnoticed in The Academy. In short, Christians would point to arguments made in debates as 'proof' of some aspect of the religion, but biologists or astronomers, for example, were not taking up time at conferences to consider if perhaps God was the answer to the source of some question or problem they were addressing.
Perhaps the mechanics of these debates will be discussed here, but to start with I'm wondering why some Christians, whose religion is based on faith, run the risk of this sort of entanglement where they deliberately avoid the role of faith (or at least place more emphasis on 'evidence'). The whole 'reasonable faith' movement seems contrary to Biblical teaching and to much subsequent teaching (from Luther to Rick Warren—with apologies to Lutherans for putting those two names in the same sentence!).
Disclosure: back in 'those days' mentioned above, I took heart in the successes of Christian debaters because in my mind the phenomenon seemed to create a bridge between my normal life as a scholar and my life as a Christian. Once I really started watching them and doing no small amount of follow-up reading, I changed sides. I was also dismayed by dirty tactics and subterfuge from WLC—by the way, I'm certainly not trying to suggest that I've found the right answer and believers have not, but merely giving some notion of where I am coming from on this topic.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Atheist v. Christian debate? Rubbish. As somebody famous once noted, "You cannot reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."
That's the nub of the problem, it seems to me. For all the centuries of Jesuitical (and other) attempts to foist the rigors of pure reason onto a Christian framework founded at its heart on the miraculous, these two qualities make poor yokemates. While not necessarily antithetical, the rational and magical elements of Christianity seem to me to appeal to very different sorts of people, develop different sorts of proselytizing tools, and set up different moral and spiritual aspirations, which is certainly one reason why Christianity has so many, many different subsets so frequently set tooth-and-claw against each other.
Much as I admire attempts to turn the faith into a kind of holistic, meets-all-aspirations endeavor, it seems not to have worked, at least as any sort of unifying force.
Meanwhile, atheism, whose emphasis on the empirical and rational seems to doom it to minority status so long as human beings retain some hold on their creative, emotive, and imaginative powers, seems thin and flat and bodiless by comparison. Frankly, atheism in its current most popular forms (I am in actuality an agnostic rather than an atheist) seems like sandy ground to me: insufficient nourishment for the human psyche.
Apparently, human beings need the ability to imagine improvements, however preposterous, on what reality hands them. They've created some sort of miraculous superstructure in every age and society we've learned about. Christianity is just one particularly wide-spread and long-running example of same. Islam's another.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Atheism wins hands down, no contest, up against the vast majority of Gods.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
How, Martin? Relatively few people actually subscribe to "real" atheism, once they hit any sort of foxhole. Plenty of people ignore religious faith on the straightaway, but that's only because they, like me, simply aren't convinced -- until their personal foxhole arrives. Then they leap to belief, make promises, swear to remain faithful, etc. etc., but that generally only lasts until the foxhole's filled in. Of course there are exceptions.
Many of us, alas, are cupboard-love sorts of creatures, and our belief in "reason" (to the extent we'd recognize it if it dropped into our morning mug-o-whatever) is every bit as wan and wobbly as our belief in death-defying, sin-defeating SuperJesus.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
Reckon the answer to the o/p is with those who find these debates useful and for what. WLC's debates showed you can make a case for a rational basis for theism in general and Christian belief in particular. Some people have come to faith, or come back to faith either by listening to a debate or being intrigued enough to do some more research.
The debate format itself gives a lie to the argument that theistic arguments aren't any good when challenged because all the rational arguments are with the atheists. Craig's demolition of the late Mr Hitchen's was one of the clearest examples of that one.
Debates are also good places to refine arguments. You get some of that with the more intelligent debates on these threads.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Oh yeah Porridge, we're nearly all wired for mindless superstition, truly except Dawkins (he has no polarization between his frontal lobes, which is most unusual), but the Gods of our fearful ignorance can't compete with their nullity.
[ 21. April 2015, 22:04: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Debates are to reasoning about religion what Prime Minister's Question Time is to reasoning about politics.
It is perfectly possible to have reasoned political beliefs. It is even possible to have a reasoned argument with another person about politics. Prime Minister's Question Time is not about reasoned argument; it is about scoring points off the other person.
I do believe that even if religious beliefs cannot be proven they can at least be shown to be intellectually defensible: internally coherent and compatible with sensible epistemic canons. If religion is not rational we cannot understand what we believe, nor can we live by it.
That's got nothing to do with who can score points off whom in a staged points scoring match.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Very good post, Dafyd. I find Craig risible really, but he has certainly mastered the art of, well, I'm not sure really. The Gish gallop, I spose.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Debates are to reasoning about religion what Prime Minister's Question Time is to reasoning about politics.
It is perfectly possible to have reasoned political beliefs. It is even possible to have a reasoned argument with another person about politics. Prime Minister's Question Time is not about reasoned argument; it is about scoring points off the other person.
I do believe that even if religious beliefs cannot be proven they can at least be shown to be intellectually defensible: internally coherent and compatible with sensible epistemic canons. If religion is not rational we cannot understand what we believe, nor can we live by it.
That's got nothing to do with who can score points off whom in a staged points scoring match.
I think there is a big difference between having an internally consistent and justifiable position and having a philosophy which is thought can have a strong objective rational position.
Too often these debates are people talking past each other - they are never going to agree because they share too little common ground. One side cannot say this then that then the other if the other side refuses to accept this, that or the other.
The problem with both sides of this kind of argument is that they tend to assume that their way of thinking is the only objectively true way to look at the problem, and thus tend to assume that the other side can be persuaded out of their delusion with a better argument.
But the problem is that the whole thing is not based on facts, but much more about perception. If two people perceived these things differently and/or interpret their perceptions differently, they're just not going to agree.
Hence they usually just turn into slagging matches, which is very unfortunate because they might learn something from each other if they struggled to see the problem as the other side saw it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Relatively few people actually subscribe to "real" atheism
"Real" atheism tends to be a term used by religious believers, whereas "real" Christianity is used by atheists (and Christians judging by SoF occasionally). "Real Scotchman" is of course a fallacy.
I feel no desire to debate God v atheism. I've read many argument one way or the other. I've never doubted that belief in God is as rational as not - just that arguments don't do it for me and at some deep level I don't feel that's how the world is.
If I can see a flaw, I'll reject the argument (but of course I'm more prone to see flaws in arguments I don't want to believe). If I can't see a flaw I'll assume it's because I'm not bright enough (and undoubtedly someone else will find one).
Truman White's Debates are also good places to refine arguments is true - with practice you'll be able to reject any argument you don't like and able to recognise that attempts to defeat yours are faulty.
We all seem to have a deep aversion to accepting that some people with whom we have much in common nonetheless have some beliefs which shock us with their difference from ours. I assume I have lots of false beliefs though I don't know which ones (and sometimes I do but won't own up). One of the reasons I follow SoF is to be reminded of that and experiment with seeing the world differently.
A couple of years back there was a thread on why people were Christians. Most, as far as I can remember, gave contact with some charismatic* believer(s) as the cause; some mentioned experiences they couldn't explain. I don't remember any who'd been argued into it.
* In the everyday sense of the word.
[ 22. April 2015, 09:15: Message edited by: que sais-je ]
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
I like your post Mr Cheesy. I'm slightly hesitant to focus on personalities, but as WLC has been brought up again; he's a skilled debater, but a shifty so-and-so. He'll do anything to proselytise (in fact, that's the only reason he debates). But picking up on Mr Cheesy's comments, I think the point about 'closed systems' is vital. In ordinary debates, the speakers are playing from the same deck; that is, the natural world. In these cases, those arguing against theism are only drawing from the natural world and the laws of science as well as predictions that can be made from that understanding. The theists, on the other hand, pick bits of the latter, but always have the 'magic' card to play. The 'magic' aspect cannot be defeated because of its unfalsifiability. Therefore those defending theism are very unlikely to concede ground in a public debate because they always have what seems to be the ace of spades up their sleeve. From my years in Charismania, you are instructed not to listen or think outside of the closed system; therefore, all of the stuff the secularists say at these debates that falls outside of the evangelical worldview is ignored. The best of these 'debates' was Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams. It was interesting and useful because it wasn't a debate—there was no point-scoring. There is also a pretty large spectrum of opponents to consider. I've noticed in the examples in the USA that (somehow) evolution is up for grabs as a topic of debate. That doesn't happen in the UK debates (as far as I'm aware).
I disagree that WLC carried out a 'demolition' of Christopher Hitchens. However, I don't think that Hitchens was ready for that kind of debater. WLC won on points, but that's the only way he can fight. He argues around the semantics of definitions (like, what constitutes 'evidence', and creates a platform for himself where anything can be evidence. He presents 'anything' and scores points). WLC does a brilliant job of stacking the deck in his favour, falsifying the claims of his opponents, misleadingly summarising the arguments of his opponents, smearing his opponents and so on. I followed his debates for several years before I learned about his behind-the-scenes behaviour and I allowed myself to listen to his opposition. WLC was soundly beaten by Bart Erhman and Sean Carroll. Although closer to a draw, WLC was exposed by Sam Harris for his dodgy morality of his articulated beliefs and weak moral arguments.
I'm aware that this is drifting toward analysis of debates (which might be fine), but my point is this: unlike most other debates, these types of debates are less useful because one side will inevitably rely on unfalsifiability.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I like your post Mr Cheesy. I'm slightly hesitant to focus on personalities, but as WLC has been brought up again; he's a skilled debater, but a shifty so-and-so. He'll do anything to proselytise (in fact, that's the only reason he debates). But picking up on Mr Cheesy's comments, I think the point about 'closed systems' is vital. In ordinary debates, the speakers are playing from the same deck; that is, the natural world. In these cases, those arguing against theism are only drawing from the natural world and the laws of science as well as predictions that can be made from that understanding. The theists, on the other hand, pick bits of the latter, but always have the 'magic' card to play. The 'magic' aspect cannot be defeated because of its unfalsifiability. Therefore those defending theism are very unlikely to concede ground in a public debate because they always have what seems to be the ace of spades up their sleeve. From my years in Charismania, you are instructed not to listen or think outside of the closed system; therefore, all of the stuff the secularists say at these debates that falls outside of the evangelical worldview is ignored.
Of course, one could also say the opposite. You seem to be arguing that the one side is right and the other wrong, I'm just saying that it is really an argument between people using different languages, where words and ideas are not necessarily held in common.
Also I don't think your characterisation of some guy's behaviour as 'shitty' is really fair. Going on what you say here, his objective is to convert his opponents. Well, presumably the objective of his opponents is to avoid being converted and to avoid the listeners from being converted. I'm not sure that is really a massive difference or that one is 'more shitty' than the other.
quote:
The best of these 'debates' was Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams. It was interesting and useful because it wasn't a debate—there was no point-scoring. There is also a pretty large spectrum of opponents to consider. I've noticed in the examples in the USA that (somehow) evolution is up for grabs as a topic of debate. That doesn't happen in the UK debates (as far as I'm aware).
Rowan Williams is a notoriously hard person to debate because he tends to listen for parts of other people's arguments to agree with. He did exactly the same with Ricky Gervais.
The truth is that it is extremely hard to have a full formal debate with someone who refuses to debate angrily and continually says he likes you and finds things about your position to praise. See also GK Chesterton.
quote:
I disagree that WLC carried out a 'demolition' of Christopher Hitchens. However, I don't think that Hitchens was ready for that kind of debater. WLC won on points, but that's the only way he can fight. He argues around the semantics of definitions (like, what constitutes 'evidence', and creates a platform for himself where anything can be evidence. He presents 'anything' and scores points). WLC does a brilliant job of stacking the deck in his favour, falsifying the claims of his opponents, misleadingly summarising the arguments of his opponents, smearing his opponents and so on. I followed his debates for several years before I learned about his behind-the-scenes behaviour and I allowed myself to listen to his opposition. WLC was soundly beaten by Bart Erhman and Sean Carroll. Although closer to a draw, WLC was exposed by Sam Harris for his dodgy morality of his articulated beliefs and weak moral arguments.
I'm not really fond of Hitchens, who seems to be of the 'I can think it, therefore it is' school of thinking. But I don't know anything about this debate.
Erhman is quite persuasive in text, but not great as an orator, I understand. And Erhman is only really effective if you accept several of his underlying assertions. Which can be fun if you are prepared to lower your guard long enough to see where these assumptions take you, but is not really something most Christian apologists are likely to do.
quote:
I'm aware that this is drifting toward analysis of debates (which might be fine), but my point is this: unlike most other debates, these types of debates are less useful because one side will inevitably rely on unfalsifiability.
K.
I think it is not about one side or the other side, the point is that the whole subject is unfalsifiable. That is the nature of the thing under discussion.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Well, I sort of am arguing that one side is better than the other in terms of debating traditions. One side is arguing for magic, the other is not. As I said in the post, that is not a level playing field. If, in a 'normal' debate, a speaker was accused of unfalsifiability, she or he would likely feel compelled to address that. The theist cannot, other than to say that they believe in magic. Again, as a criticism of the debating forum for this particular set of topics, it is unlikely to be productive for one side to argue for an unfalsifiable magic and other to be left to argue against an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It seems unsatisfactory all around.
Your last comment about Erhman is telling. You claim that 'Erhman is only really effective if you accept several of his underlying assertions.' That's how good arguments work or how bad arguments fail. The fact that you think that even considering the argument amounts to letting down one's guard only highlights my point. The Christian apologist in question is not generally even going to consider evidence outside of the parameters specified by their religion. That is intellectual dishonest and scarcely scholarly behaviour.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Well, I sort of am arguing that one side is better than the other in terms of debating traditions. One side is arguing for magic, the other is not. As I said in the post, that is not a level playing field. If, in a 'normal' debate, a speaker was accused of unfalsifiability, she or he would likely feel compelled to address that. The theist cannot, other than to say that they believe in magic. Again, as a criticism of the debating forum for this particular set of topics, it is unlikely to be productive for one side to argue for an unfalsifiable magic and other to be left to argue against an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It seems unsatisfactory all around.
I disagree, you are simply asserting that philosophy can be analysed with the tools of natural science. I don't think it can. Nothing against the tools of science, they're just not useful here.
And it isn't about the nature of the debate either, there have been philosophers having debating challenging ideas long before scientific methods came along - the difference was that they were not claiming that this was the only way to understand reality, but just a persuasive one. That is the way philosophical arguments work, because there is no way to prove objectively which is correct.
quote:
Your last comment about Erhman is telling. You claim that 'Erhman is only really effective if you accept several of his underlying assertions.' That's how good arguments work or how bad arguments fail. The fact that you think that even considering the argument amounts to letting down one's guard only highlights my point. The Christian apologist in question is not generally even going to consider evidence outside of the parameters specified by their religion. That is intellectual dishonest and scarcely scholarly behaviour.
K.
No, it isn't really.
Take two people talking about the best sports. One has the opinion that cricket is the best, another likes ice-hockey.
If the one likes ice-hockey for the speed and the other likes cricket for the delicate unfolding drama, there is no objective truth about which is better. They are judging the nature of sport on two different realities. That they cannot comprehend the other's perception is not an indication that the one is objectively right and the other is objectively wrong.
When we talk about religion and philosophy, the claim that there is a God is not something which can be objectively proven. So we are in the business of finding arguments to interrogate it that we find persuasive, but ultimately cannot be fully measured, analysed and decided upon.
And whilst all scientific knowledge is like this to a certain extent, clearly religion is in a class of its own given that many people have looked at exactly the same evidence and have come to different conclusions.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
In these cases, those arguing against theism are only drawing from the natural world and the laws of science as well as predictions that can be made from that understanding. The theists, on the other hand, pick bits of the latter, but always have the 'magic' card to play. The 'magic' aspect cannot be defeated because of its unfalsifiability. Therefore those defending theism are very unlikely to concede ground in a public debate because they always have what seems to be the ace of spades up their sleeve.
This statement is just sad bullshit. Whatever one might complain about in these apologetic duels, neither does the theistic side play "magic cards" regularly - because that would be simply self-defeating in these circumstances - nor is the atheistic side relying on "science only" (apologetics 101: scientism is not science). This sort of inane statement is exactly why such discussions rarely hold any interest beyond the clash of personalities. The entire debate is framed a priori in a ridiculously biased setting, if not by the debaters then by the listeners, and all that happens during the debate is boring point scoring that relies on confirmation bias.
As for the value of such exercises: atheists have been succeeding not because of their strength of argument, which generally is piss-poor, but simply because of the lazy "technology proves scientism" assumption of the apathetic masses, who will run after the high priests of the iPhone as much or as little as after those of the cross, crystal pyramids, Jupiter, or what have you. The idea that one can push back against that with such debates is of course silly. What these debates may occasionally do is to point out to your regular I-have-no-clue-but-Jesus-is-my-friend Christian that there are answers to the aggressive "I'm so much smarter than you" sales pitch of atheists beyond chewing your fingernails and singing Kumbaya under your breath.
For the most part though, these debates exist to produce mildly entertaining YouTube videos and sell a book or two to the undiscerning viewer.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
I expected better from you Ingo. I'll let you pick through your own post for the collection of logical fallacies.
Perhaps we'll need a separate thread, depending on how you answer this: do you think that the Christian faith relies on the supernatural for its truth claims?
K.
[ 22. April 2015, 10:57: Message edited by: Komensky ]
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Interesting points above about courtesy; the Russell/Copleston debate was noted for this, even going so far as offering to improve the other guy's arguments. But I suppose they were from another world really, posh people saying after you. Today you have to grrrrowl and sneer at your opponent, with a few exceptions.
Still available online, I think.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting points above about courtesy; the Russell/Copleston debate was noted for this, even going so far as offering to improve the other guy's arguments. But I suppose they were from another world really, posh people saying after you. Today you have to grrrrowl and sneer at your opponent, with a few exceptions.
Still available online, I think.
Thanks for that. I'll have a look.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I'll let you pick through your own post for the collection of logical fallacies.
Of course, because you cannot point to a single one...
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Perhaps we'll need a separate thread, depending on how you answer this: do you think that the Christian faith relies on the supernatural for its truth claims?
Christian faith by definition is supernatural. The doctrinal content of Christianity is however in part accessible to natural reasoning from observations. And the apologetic debates with atheists generally centre on issues that are so accessible, like for example the existence of (some kind of) higher being. Though where those debates veer into the moral realm, generally we just see clashes of assumptions and assertions, rather than anything resembling an argument. It is true that many Christians believe by supernatural faith also what is accessible by natural reason of their religion. But that just goes to show that one can hold the same truth by different mental means. And given the general weakness and fickleness of human reason, and its near absence in some individuals, it is a good thing that this is possible...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Thanks for answering. I do regret having mentioned that Christian debaters rely on the the subject of the supernatural—that's something for another thread. Mr Cheesy was right to point out the fundamental problems of the format and the unsatisfactory nature—for different reasons—for both sides. This is not the thread—nor probably even the website—to discuss the problems of demonstrating invisible magic.
What would be a better format for non-theists and theists to argue their cases?
K.
[ 22. April 2015, 11:36: Message edited by: Komensky ]
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
What would be a better format for non-theists and theists to argue their cases?
I think the problem is precisely in the arguing of their cases. It is the pleading in front of a public audience that generally makes for a useless discussion framework. The point scoring is part of the setup. I think personal discussions have a much greater chance to occur on a playing field intentionally kept level by both sides, and to focus on issues of actual interest (rather than greatest public impact), in particular if there is mutual sympathy and respect. A pint of beer tends to help... or a cup of tea. Basically, one needs to start relaxed rather than in battle-mode.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
For once, I agree with IngoB. And to be honest, I'd quite like to see a debater like GKC, Christian or atheist.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
What would be a better format for non-theists and theists to argue their cases?
I think the problem is precisely in the arguing of their cases. It is the pleading in front of a public audience that generally makes for a useless discussion framework. The point scoring is part of the setup. I think personal discussions have a much greater chance to occur on a playing field intentionally kept level by both sides, and to focus on issues of actual interest (rather than greatest public impact), in particular if there is mutual sympathy and respect. A pint of beer tends to help... or a cup of tea. Basically, one needs to start relaxed rather than in battle-mode.
Thanks. That's why I mentioned the Rowan Williams—Dawkins 'chat' is a better example, with less emphasis on confrontation. In the debate format, the tendency is for the audience to cheer for their own side, rather than consider carefully what is being said.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
And relaxation is hardly likely in actual debate, where one enters the field with the understanding that the debater you face will be pulling out all available rhetorical stops in an effort to demolish your position and persuade listeners of its incorrectness. That's what formal debate is supposed to be (not that we see much of this any more, at least here in the US).
If atheism had more of an actual position (as opposed to how it's often argued, as an "anti-position," and if theists could avoid arguing from "magic," debate might make sense / be viable.
In terms of proselytizing, though, Ingo's cup of tea and pint of beer is undoubtedly more effective.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Their use is that we can rest assured that cleverer people than us can do metaphysics and all we need is the faith that they have proved God.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Atheist v. Christian debate? Rubbish. As somebody famous once noted, "You cannot reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."
Super post! Having read the OP and groaned at the mention of the ghastly WLC, I read yours and all those slightly ruffled feathers were smoothed into place! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
In my opinion, the more debate the better, because it will show up more and more clearly where objective evidence lies.
(I haven't read other posts yet.)
P.S. Have read the OP again more slowly and see that your point of view is that of a non-believer!
[ 22. April 2015, 12:42: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
IANAP(hilosopher), but is it not a category mistake to apply standards of 'objective evidence' to matters of faith?
That's why, BTW, it's worth debating about the usefulness or beneficence, or otherwise, of Christianity, but not about its 'truth'.
[ 22. April 2015, 12:49: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
Keep coming back to who the audience is that the debater is aiming at. In an atheist/theist debate they're not generally trying to change each other's minds but:
a) providing arguments for their supporters to try out at home; and
b) convince undecided people to favour one view or t'other.
In the latter context, debates have their place for people who like to listen to debates and genuinely think about the arguments.
Anyone on these threads re-thought a position by listening to a theist/atheist debate?
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
Why is the tomb empty and whose explanation do you buy? Isn't that what it boils down to? It seems such a debate should take just a few minutes with both sides saying what they take on faith.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Why is the tomb empty and whose explanation do you buy? Isn't that what it boils down to? It seems such a debate should take just a few minutes with both sides saying what they take on faith.
Erm.. no.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
As somebody famous once noted, "You cannot reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."
I wonder a bit about this. We hold most of our beliefs about the natural world because we were taught them in school, not because we reasoned them for ourselves. Even if we justify this on the grounds that our teachers were properly educated and therefore trustworthy, that's still something of a post hoc rationalisation.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I wonder a bit about this. We hold most of our beliefs about the natural world because we were taught them in school, not because we reasoned them for ourselves. Even if we justify this on the grounds that our teachers were properly educated and therefore trustworthy, that's still something of a post hoc rationalisation.
I think you are making the same point: at High School we mostly take things on trust (from textbooks, teachers etc). So the 'learning' we engage in there is mostly not about reasoning.
Most people find they can fairly easily replace the things they learned at school with better and more reasoned evidence. But if those things are not exposed to any kind of challenge or time in thought, they tend to stick.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Such interesting posts to read and set the mind thinking. (Sorry that is not a complete sentence!)
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
As somebody famous once noted, "You cannot reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."
I wonder a bit about this. We hold most of our beliefs about the natural world because we were taught them in school, not because we reasoned them for ourselves. Even if we justify this on the grounds that our teachers were properly educated and therefore trustworthy, that's still something of a post hoc rationalisation.
That reminds me of the old saying that science can explain everything except the important things, and you could adapt that for rationality. My life hasn't been rationally planned; most of it, I sort of fell into or bumped up against.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
As somebody famous once noted, "You cannot reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."
I wonder a bit about this. We hold most of our beliefs about the natural world because we were taught them in school, not because we reasoned them for ourselves. Even if we justify this on the grounds that our teachers were properly educated and therefore trustworthy, that's still something of a post hoc rationalisation.
No, 'we' don't. We come to understand what we understand about the natural world through scientific enquiry and explanation. It is nothing of 'a post hoc rationalisation'—unless you learned bad science; which is certainly possible.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Why is the tomb empty and whose explanation do you buy? Isn't that what it boils down to? It seems such a debate should take just a few minutes with both sides saying what they take on faith.
Erm.. no.
Ok, a couple of seconds, then.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Meanwhile, atheism, whose emphasis on the empirical and rational seems to doom it to minority status so long as human beings retain some hold on their creative, emotive, and imaginative powers, seems thin and flat and bodiless by comparison.
Though not quite an atheist, I resent the Hell out of this statement. Well, the part about rational and creative being opposed.
And, as far as atheism, some people are atheists because they see an incompatibility between reason and faith. Some are because they simply do not believe in god(s). some are because their parents were. In short, the reasons people are atheist are as varied as those for people of faith.
And one can be very rational and be a person of faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
How, Martin? Relatively few people actually subscribe to "real" atheism, once they hit any sort of foxhole. Plenty of people ignore religious faith on the straightaway, but that's only because they, like me, simply aren't convinced -- until their personal foxhole arrives. Then they leap to belief, make promises, swear to remain faithful, etc. etc., but that generally only lasts until the foxhole's filled in. Of course there are exceptions.
And, IMO, this is a massive generalisation. And works mainly for those who once believed, but no longer do. And only a percentage of those.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
We come to understand what we understand about the natural world through scientific enquiry and explanation. It is nothing of 'a post hoc rationalisation'—unless you learned bad science; which is certainly possible.
Really? You're entirely self-taught? You've worked out the entirety of western physics, biology, and chemistry for yourself?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
IANAP(hilosopher), but is it not a category mistake to apply standards of 'objective evidence' to matters of faith?
That's why, BTW, it's worth debating about the usefulness or beneficence, or otherwise, of Christianity, but not about its 'truth'.
It depends upon what you mean by objective evidence. If you think that the only standards of objective evidence are those that you can put numbers on in a laboratory, then yes.
But physics is not the only standard of objectivity or truth: we can run from physics through chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, passing history, through cultural studies and arts criticism to philosophy and theology. Each tends with more or less ease towards truth as a goal with objectivity as a more or less distant ideal of procedure.
It is I think true that as Kierkegaard said, objective can never take you the final step to complete commitment. But that doesn't mean you should make that final step against the evidence.
Objective evidence can never decide whether you should love somebody, but it's still best not to ignore evidence that your potential beloved beat his previous wife.
I'm really not convinced that usefulness is in any way a clearer standard than truth anyway. After two thousand years of mass, claims that Christianity is beneficent seem as much a matter of faith as claims that the tomb was empty.
[ 22. April 2015, 18:55: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
We come to understand what we understand about the natural world through scientific enquiry and explanation. It is nothing of 'a post hoc rationalisation'—unless you learned bad science; which is certainly possible.
Really? You're entirely self-taught? You've worked out the entirety of western physics, biology, and chemistry for yourself?
No—that's why I mentioned 'being taught'.
K.
[ 22. April 2015, 19:04: Message edited by: Komensky ]
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Wouldn't the essential debate really be between atheism and theism? Christianity depends - ISTM - on an a priori subscription to theism. I don't see a debate on purely rational grounds at all, however; rather on an essentially aesthetic sense, and hence on psychological grounds rather than on empirical materialistic ones. This may, of course, necessitate some detour into linguistics.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Wouldn't the essential debate really be between atheism and theism? Christianity depends - ISTM - on an a priori subscription to theism. I don't see a debate on purely rational grounds at all, however; rather on an essentially aesthetic sense, and hence on psychological grounds rather than on empirical materialistic ones. This may, of course, necessitate some detour into linguistics.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
Good debates provide a sensible basis to frame theistic/atheistic questions. So we can get away from the sterile "you prove God exists/you prove he doesn't" to exploring the reasonable basis for theism.
I know more than a few people who gave up on New Atheism when they heard debates that showed that it's plain wrong to say that to believe in God you have to leave your brain at the door and rely on faith alone.
The best debates I've heard started from the position that both atheism and theism are views which can be reasonably held, and argued around which was the more plausible.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@Porrige
BTW, when you talk about atheism as a minority position, you have history on your side (always has been a minority view) and contemporary sociology (globally it's still a minority view and shrinking),
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I wonder a bit about this. We hold most of our beliefs about the natural world because we were taught them in school, not because we reasoned them for ourselves. Even if we justify this on the grounds that our teachers were properly educated and therefore trustworthy, that's still something of a post hoc rationalisation.
No, 'we' don't. We come to understand what we understand about the natural world through scientific enquiry and explanation. It is nothing of 'a post hoc rationalisation'—unless you learned bad science; which is certainly possible.
K.
I meant 'we' in the sense of the majority of readers of this website. I don't believe you thought up the valency of carbon atoms all by yourself, for example - it's true that someone used a process of scientific inquiry to derive it, but most of us have to take it on trust.
We are, in general, a lot closer to the Medieval argument from authority, than to the Enlightenment spirit of taking nothing for granted.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Specific example: I think most ordinary people would lose an argument with a creationist, precisely because creationists tend to have elaborate arguments to justify abandoning mainstream science, whereas most people tend to trust science and are content to know that science endorses evolution without knowing the specifics of why.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
No—that's why I mentioned 'being taught'.
I am not following this. Because I cannot see where you mentioned 'being taught'. Ricardus mentioned being 'taught' and you appeared to be disagreeing with what he said.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
How, Martin? Relatively few people actually subscribe to "real" atheism, once they hit any sort of foxhole. Plenty of people ignore religious faith on the straightaway, but that's only because they, like me, simply aren't convinced -- until their personal foxhole arrives. Then they leap to belief, make promises, swear to remain faithful, etc. etc., but that generally only lasts until the foxhole's filled in. Of course there are exceptions.
Many of us, alas, are cupboard-love sorts of creatures, and our belief in "reason" (to the extent we'd recognize it if it dropped into our morning mug-o-whatever) is every bit as wan and wobbly as our belief in death-defying, sin-defeating SuperJesus.
Accusing atheists of not holding to their belief seems unkind. I've been in the situation where the doctors told me I was more likely than not to die. It didn't put a dent in my atheism.
Why are you so sure that the majority of atheists hold your position of just being dilatory about getting around to believing in God.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Why are you so sure that the majority of atheists hold your position of just being dilatory about getting around to believing in God.
Interjecting. I didn't read Porridge as asserting a general dilatory mindset. I'm sure there are atheists and agnostics in foxholes whose minds are not changed by the threat of immediate death. But I suppose it may concentrate the minds of some agnostics, may produce some reflection in the minds of some agnostics. I suppose it depends on the strength of prior convictions, and what those convictions are.
I once heard a woman interviewed on TV. She found her toddler drowned in about a foot of water in a child's paddling pool in her back garden. (Apparently she was hanging out washing, and for a short time took her eye off the toddler who had been happily splashing around.) She said her previous faith was instantly replaced by a conviction that "there is no God". Traumatic experiences do not necessarily make for clear understanding of anything.
On the more general point, being the sort of person who remembers one-liners, I'm always prepared to give a reason for the hope that is in me. Sometimes that generates discussions, conversations.
But I'm not sure about the value of debates which become point-scoring affairs. Probably because they seem often enough to bring natural combativeness to the fore; a desire to win, rather than a willingness to engage in mutual exploration. Generosity, a willingness to see validity in other viewpoints, seems to get squeezed out.
[As we have daily proof here in the UK in the run up to the General Election.]
Late Edit: I think mr cheesy's sig, which I have just noticed, makes the point very well!
quote:
MR. SHAW: I cannot say that Mr. Chesterton has succeeded in forcing
a difference of opinion on me.
[ 23. April 2015, 08:24: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
