Posted on 01/04/2008 6:43:04 AM PST by Alex Murphy
I watched the movie "The Great Debaters" last night, and it helped me to understand why atheists are such bad debaters. The movie portrays four students from a little black college in Texas, and shows how, under the tutelage of their pugnacious coach, they went on to defeat Almighty Harvard. Denzel Washington, who plays the coach, says early in the movie that debate is a kind of bloodsport. It's great virtue is that it puts rival ideas up against each other, as argued by people who passionately espouse those ideas, and then it lets the truth emerge through a kind of gladiatorial elimination.
For about three years, it appeared as though the leading atheists were formidable debaters. But the reason was that Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens were selecting weak opponents and then generally giving them a public whipping. In one staged encounter, hardly a debate, Richard Dawkins ambushed televangelist Ted Haggard for a film Dawkins was making. Not only did Dawkins control the format, he also controlled what was shown on film. No wonder Dawkins got the better of that encounter. Harris took on pastor Rick Warren in Newsweek, where Harris made outrageous allegations and Warren basically said that Christians are nice people because they help AIDS victims in Africa. Again, this was hardly a fair fight. Hitchens promoted his book God Is Not Great by traipsing through the South taking on local pastors. Now your typical pastor is not used to debating a versatile and suave character like Hitchens. A few months ago Hitchens embarrassed theologian Alister McGrath in Washington D.C. One problem is that Hitchens has the Richard Burton accent and McGrath sounds like he just came in from shooting birds in the Scottish highlands. Another problem is that McGrath couldn't handle Hitchens' vitriolic accusations and came off looking conciliatory and weak.
Unlike the characters in "The Great Debaters," I was never part of a debate team. I got my debate practice through confronting critics of my various books. Mostly I learned by taking on such seasoned debaters as presidential candidate Walter Mondale, the literary scholar Stanley Fish, and a whole series of civil rights activists from Cornel West to Jesse Jackson. Prior to my debate with Hitchens, he described me as "one of the most formidable debaters on any topic." Richard Dawkins seems to agree: the great Haggard-slayer has somehow gotten cold feet when it comes to debating me. I guess he's afraid that I'll make him look as ridiculous as Haggard.
Then there's Sam Harris, who tells me that debate is not a very useful medium to arrive at the truth. He didn't seem to think that previously, but now it seems that he too is afraid of looking like a public fool. Harris wants to engage in a written debate, and I've agreed, but it should be noted that written debates allow each side to consult experts and therefore they don't reflect the true spirit of debate, which is the clash of ideas embodied in the most articulate representatives of those ideas. I've suggested to Harris a couple of weeks ago that we do both a written and an oral debate, and I'm waiting to hear his response.
Why are the atheists faring so badly in these debates? I think the main reason is that they are so arrogant. Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens really think that their position reflects pure reason and that my position reflects "blind faith." If this were really true they should win every single debate, for the same reason that a round-earth advocate should never lose to a flat-earth advocate. In reality there are good arguments on both sides, and I as a believer know this. I know it's hard to make the case for an invisible God and for an afterlife. In short, I know the strength of the argument on the other side. Leading atheists, however, simply do not expect to hear good counterarguments to their position. When they do, they have no idea how to answer them. So they either erupt into jejune name-calling (all to familiar to readers of this blog) or they slowly fall apart (witness what happened to Daniel Dennett).
In reality, I don't have to win debates against atheists; I merely have to draw. Just by coming out even, I defeat the atheist premise that atheism is the position based on reason and religion is the position based on unreason. Even a tie shows that both positions are reasonable. By defeating atheists in debate, however, I have totally exploded the atheist self-pretense. I have shown atheists to be the unreasonable ones, and this is why leading atheists like Dawkins and Harris are now going into hiding. But if these guys are scared to debate me, even in secular university settings where the audience is largely on their side, what does this say about them and about the soundness of their positions? Perhaps Dawkins and company should go and see "The Great Debaters." They might get some useful tips, and they might also get their nerve back.
Would you care for an honest debate? One without insult based on logic? I can show you how a rationalist arrives at a moral life. I will also be happy to quote scripture with you and explain the big bang.
Do you know what a soliton is?
You seem to labor under the delusion that because you are a "rationalist" you are incapable of the "crime" of insulting others. I'm sorry, but your intitial post on this forum was insulting. If by "a debate free of insult" you mean one where you are free to put down your "irrational" opponent from your lofty throne while your opponent can't say a word without "proving" what a "moron" he is, then no.
I would, however, like to understand how a "rationalist" arrives at a moral life--"morality" being defined strictly as submission to the decrees of the Creator, and not merely as doing good or avoiding doing harm for their own sake.
The only think I'd like to know about the "big bang" is what atheists believe caused it, and if nothing caused it, how is it explicable?
Define "Creator"
Douglas Wilson left Hitchens looking like something that just came out of the shredder.
Maybe atheists propose these ideas we describe and maybe logic means some of these things we think, but that doesn’t take away from my experience of them. To say something has no place maybe like saying the future maybe not important. Just because you can’t find an answer to a question doesn’t imply you should not attempt to do such. I’ve read Harris’ book and to be fair he makes valid points but they resemble to me the same erroneous conclusion that religious people come to in fundamentalism. He’s a materialist fundamentalist and anyone that doesn’t understand that this type of filter compares to religious fundamentalism doesn’t understand “belief systems” or BS for short. I learn much from him by reading his thoughts, but no more than if I were to read a great work of fiction, to think his symbols jotted down on paper are more real than the bibles doesn’t help me understand reality anymore than following the bible to understand reality. Why should words even matter if they serve only to lock me in a mental jail. Maybe reading these various people can help one figure out that nobody can claim to be expert in anything and that infinite possibilities abound, not limited by anything but our imaginations. I enjoy reading all POV so why would I not like hearing ideas that I am not supposed to read about? By saying something maybe not welcome maybe like saying I don’t like you or I hate you, If my beliefs are strong then nothing you say will matter, why would I fear the atheists in free republic? No, they don’t scare me and no I don’t care if you beleive in God but why do you insist I must follow you, that maybe why I am displeased with the notion of religion. By abdicating responsibility onto a leader we give away our ability to take responsibility for ourselves, that maybe what people like Harris are trying to communicate, that disempowerment can lead to insane actions in an attempt to reconcile discontinuity. Scientists can be accused of their own inquistions as well, in a honest world nobody gets fully out from under the blame, Harris either ignores this or doesn’t even have awareness of such matters. The same can be said for very religious people, some simply are unaware of the pain they cause others, because in their minds burning them at a stake maybe saving their souls, that’s not an improvement from injecting children with radiation, Harris doesn’t understand this yet.
Maybe atheists propose these ideas we describe and maybe logic means some of these things we think, but that doesn’t take away from my experience of them. To say something has no place maybe like saying the future maybe not important. Just because you can’t find an answer to a question doesn’t imply you should not attempt to do such. I’ve read Harris’ book and to be fair he makes valid points but they resemble to me the same erroneous conclusion that religious people come to in fundamentalism. He’s a materialist fundamentalist and anyone that doesn’t understand that this type of filter compares to religious fundamentalism doesn’t understand “belief systems” or BS for short. I learn much from him by reading his thoughts, but no more than if I were to read a great work of fiction, to think his symbols jotted down on paper are more real than the bibles doesn’t help me understand reality anymore than following the bible to understand reality. Why should words even matter if they serve only to lock me in a mental jail. Maybe reading these various people can help one figure out that nobody can claim to be expert in anything and that infinite possibilities abound, not limited by anything but our imaginations. I enjoy reading all POV so why would I not like hearing ideas that I am not supposed to read about? By saying something maybe not welcome maybe like saying I don’t like you or I hate you, If my beliefs are strong then nothing you say will matter, why would I fear the atheists in free republic? No, they don’t scare me and no I don’t care if you beleive in God but why do you insist I must follow you, that maybe why I am displeased with the notion of religion. By abdicating responsibility onto a leader we give away our ability to take responsibility for ourselves, that maybe what people like Harris are trying to communicate, that disempowerment can lead to insane actions in an attempt to reconcile discontinuity. Scientists can be accused of their own inquistions as well, in a honest world nobody gets fully out from under the blame, Harris either ignores this or doesn’t even have awareness of such matters. The same can be said for very religious people, some simply are unaware of the pain they cause others, because in their minds burning them at a stake maybe saving their souls, that’s not an improvement from injecting children with radiation, Harris doesn’t understand this yet.
Um . . . the creator of the universe? And if you're going to say "the word 'universe' includes everything in existence, including this theoretical creator, so He simply a part of this 'universe' that he allegedly 'created'" . . . we'll just call it by its Hebrew name: ha`olam. As a matter of fact, it may even be `olamim, since HaShem is sometimes called Ribbono Shel `Olam (singular) and sometimes Ribbon Kol-Ha`Olamim (plural).
How about the phrase "qoneh Shamayim va'Aretz, which literally means the "acquirer" or "purchaser" of the "universe." Meaning, HaShem "acquired" the heavens and the earth by creating them.
Is this the purpose of all this to demonstrate that logically there is no "creator of all that is" since G-d Himself would be a part of that and that therefore we're all following G-dless, rational morality whether we realize it or not? Or does your whole argument rest on the assertion that G-d being "the author of His own Existence" is no different than than the universe being the author of its own existence?
Please take time to answer my quetion about the big bang.
Since we are using the G-d convention and you are a zionist, does this mean we are restricting our description of the Creator to the G-d of Moses, the G-d of the Pentateuch?
We're talking about HaShem. Your question is somewhat loaded as it assumes higher critical assertions and implies that the G-d of Moses and "the Pentateuch" is not necessarily the G-d of Abraham, the Talmud, or the 'Acharonim.
I take it that you can't answer any of my questions until you can nail down what the "creator" is?
I don’t mean to treat your very deeply thought out words lightly, but paragraphs are your friend. They would make your post easier to read, digest, and respond to.
Dear friend,
I am simply trying to determine the tradition from which your understanding of the Creator is taken. It would seem obvious that you are jewish from your screen name, but as I mentioned, I too am a zionist, but not jewish.
Have you seen this?
I am simply trying to determine the tradition from which your understanding of the Creator is taken. It would seem obvious that you are jewish from your screen name, but as I mentioned, I too am a zionist, but not jewish.
I am a Noachide.
You said you would explain how "rationalists" arrive at morals and the Big Bang. With regard to the first I have asked you to do so. With regard to the second I have asked you (from the atheist perspective) what caused it, or, if nothing caused it, how is it explicable? In return you have done nothing but asked me to define "G-d." Is my answer to this question part of your answer to my own questions to you? Are you going to prove to me that (since a self-existent G-d is allegedly no more logical than a self-existent universe) I am in fact myself a "rationalist who doesn't realize it?" How would this answer jibe with your labeling such people as myself as "irrational?"
I have defined G-d as "Qoneh Shamayim va'Aretz," the "acquirer of Heaven and Earth."
Now, are you going to take this information and from it explain how "rationalists" such as yourself arrive at "morality" and explain the Big Bang, or are you not?
Obviously, one cannot "acquire" something that didn't already exist. In what sense can an entity that acquires an existing thing be called "Creator"?
I believe your name to be Derek, am I wrong?
Find a faith and hold onto it brother. Don’t agonize over the iota’s. My only point was that faith, not logic is G-d’s way. Logic will lead you away from faith.
He acquired them by creating them.
I believe your name to be Derek, am I wrong?
I'd answer that, but ever since that Clinton crony came on FR about eight or nine years ago and started screaming for everyone to reveal their identities (and I used to show my e-mail) I've made it a policy to never say what my name is or isn't.
Find a faith and hold onto it brother. Don’t agonize over the iota’s. My only point was that faith, not logic is G-d’s way. Logic will lead you away from faith.
Well . . . color me confused. Your first post was attacking religion and extolling the logic of atheism. Now you're against logical atheism and clinging like a little child to "faith" disconnected from objective reality? Man, that's "double truth" ever I ever heard it. I suppose your view of a good religious person is one who recites texts and performs rituals without believing in the facticity of the words he is reciting--sort of a ritual pantomime. This is the heart of Eliade's "myth and ritual" school of religion is it not? That the ritual preceded, and transcends, the "myth" which later grew up to explain it? I on the other hand regard a clergyman who recites words he doesn't believe merely because it's part of his ethno-cultural heritage to be a hypocrite. As Flannery O'Connor said, "if it's a symbol, the hell with it."
Next time you want to converse, perhaps I should ask you to define "morality," "good," and "evil."
Well, today's the short day. (And for some reason FR is loading very slowly on my computer today). Later!
There's a link to D'Souza's book and a podcast of him speaking on this topic at the link above.
I disagree.
From the earliest instant, when even time itself had just come into being, the symmetry of the creation event was broken, and nuclear strong and weak/electromagnetic forces somehow therein also gave rise to gravitation which, though exceptionally weak by the other three, nonetheless gradually coalesced their parts into various galactic types and structures.
As we live in one out of billions of those spiral galaxies, two thirds of the way out from its dense center between whirling arms which are relatively debris and dust free; where metals are fairly well concentrated, but rarer in the Milky Way’s outer reaches…. Where too, were we further in, we wouldn’t be able to see the universe outside.
That we live in the habitable zone of a single G2V star, in a system with a large outer planet to sweep up a considerable amount of debris that might otherwise be drawn to the inner solar system and collide with Earth.
That we have a magnetic field which protects us from too much cosmic and solar radiation, and allows us too – geometrically by the more distant stars – to navigate around our planet. That we have a moon massive enough to stabilize our planetary axis, giving us tides, the seasons, and which perhaps also couples gravitationally to assist plate tectonics in recycling our oceanic crust and mantle, yielding a balance of nitrogen/oxygen and carbon dioxide to our atmosphere. That the laws of physics at both the macro- and micro levels should be so fine tuned - and unified! - allowing these processes to be carried out at all.
That we are alive in such a system!
The odds of just these, even omitting myriad other "coincidences" make it seem - to me - somehow inconceivable that there isn’t God who – being God sets the values of good and evil, and cares that we should prefer that Good.
"If I knew God I’d be Him." Though I’ll take Pascal’s Bet that He’s there.
You are describing the Anthropic Principle. The odds of winning the powerball are two million to one before you play. After you win, the probability is 100%.
We have won the life lottery. We may be the only living things in the universe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.