A few days ago I debated Michael Shermer at the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Nashville. Shermer was his usual affable self and the mostly-Christian audience both liked him and treated him respectfully. I didn't feel bad about putting Shermer before a largely religious audience. The last time we debated I was in hostile territory at Cal Tech. The Cal Tech debate was sponsored by Shermer's Skeptics Society and most in the audience were on his side. The debate was moderated by Christian radio host Janet Parshall. She conducted it in a format similar to the presidential debates, in which the moderator poses questions to each side.
On July 12, a few months from now, I have a rematch with atheist Christopher Hitchens. This is in Las Vegas at the large libertarian annual conference called Freedom Fest. This is one of the liveliest political conferences in the country, and I invite readers of this blog, whatever your religious or political persuasion, to attend. Each year the libertarians have invited me to debate, and each year they tell me, "Well, next year we're going to find someone who can take you on." The first year I went I debated libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne. The next year, former Congressman Bob Barr. Last year, presidential contender Ron Paul. This time organizer Mark Skousen has decided to focus the main debate on the God v. atheism issue. So Hitchens and I will enter the arena. You can find out more information and sign up here.
April 25 I'll be debating the notorious Peter Singer at Biola University near Los Angeles. This is another event worth attending, although I also intend to post the debate on the web. When Singer was hired by Princeton University some years ago it caused a big stir. Singer is a champion not only of infanticide and euthanasia but also of animal rights! This may seem to be anomalous, even absurd, but Singer is an avid Darwinist who sees himself as following the logic of Darwinism to its unavoidable conclusion.
Man, Singer argues, is on a continuum with the animals. Unfortunately through the influence of Christianity man has raised himself onto a pedestal, invested himself with all kinds of bogus rights, such as the "right to life," and consigned beasts to a life of subordination to human interests. Singer argues that once we get rid of God we must accept our Darwinian position, and this means giving up the values that Christianity brought into the world. Ultimately human beings must be pulled down a notch, and animals raised up a notch, to restore the biological order of things. I've been reading Singer's books which are always thoughtful and eloquent; he is far superior to some of the new atheists who have gotten far more attention in the last couple of years. I look forward to taking him on next month.
Also in April: I'll be debating philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong April 21 at Dartmouth, where he teaches and where I attended. Our topic is whether it is possible to be good without God. On April 22 at Harvard I'll share the podium with Dan Barker. Barker is a former evangelical minister who is now an outspoken atheist. He is currently head of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a kind of atheist ACLU. We keep hearing from atheists that they are not a movement and that "atheism is not a belief system" but merely the denial of a belief in God. So isn't it interesting that we now have atheist books, atheist magazines, atheist conferences, atheist organizations, atheist Sunday schools, an atheist radio show, and so on? Quite clearly atheism has become an ideology and our atheist friends cannot escape criticism by inanely proclaiming that their position doesn't constitute a position. Perhaps one of these days these characters will stop living in denial and prove worthy of the rational realism that they claim to uphold.
Some atheists have emailed me asking me if I've accepted Sam Harris' offer to a written debate. A few months ago Harris proposed such a debate, and I agreed, but also proposed to Sam that we have an oral debate in the classic format. Written debates strike me as a bit wimpy, since both debaters can get advice and assistance from various experts. The advantage of a face-to-face encounter is that it compels each side to think on its feet and make its best case before a live audience. Having himself proposed the written debate, Harris hasn't responded to my counteroffer.
Given that Richard Dawkins has already wimped out, proving himself an intellectual invertebrate, I'm beginning to wonder whether some of the world's best-known atheists are losing the courage of their convictions. One of my former professors now calls me Joe Louis, in reference to the boxer who knocked out so many "bums of the month" that he eventually had trouble finding worthy opponents. Although modern atheism is very belligerent in its writings--angry missives issued from the security of academic offices--it seems that some of our leading advocates of unbelief are positively timorous when it comes to standing up and debating their core convictions.
Reader Comments ( Page 60 of 61)
886. bump
not-pboyfloyd at 12:47PM on Mar 23rd 2008
887. So, Jesse,
...I was right! In that one word, 'potential' is hidden an entire 'argument from awe'!
Perhaps even an entire argument from 'the awe of the improbability of the whole system"
You don't get to make a valid argument by 'nesting' logical fallacies, Jesse!
What are the odds of the universe? 1:1 (here we are)
What are the odds that it works the way it does? 1:1
(Look, listen, touch, smell etc.!!!)
I didn't even get NEAR your conclusion and what I felt was your misuse of the word 'cause'!
not-pboyfloyd at 1:02PM on Mar 23rd 2008
888.
not-pboyfloyd writes:
::...I was right! In that one word, 'potential' is hidden an entire 'argument from awe'!
No, I disagree. You're trying to make this an argument of probability, which it's not. Probability requires determinate conditions; it's what's inherent to the existence of those conditions that I'm considering.
::Perhaps even an entire argument from 'the awe of the improbability of the whole system"
I'm not talking about the odds of our universe existing with it's current characteristics. I'm talking about the fact that it has potential not to be what it is.
I know I answered the question for you, but since you're treating potential as some spooky, crazy thing, I am curious to know your actual answer: “Doesn’t water at room temperature have the potential to become ice if cooled, or steam if heated? And, taking it a step further, doesn’t it have the potential to cease to exist as the substance water?”
::You don't get to make a valid argument by 'nesting' logical fallacies, Jesse!
Before you get too wild with accusations, as articulate as they may be, let's be sure we're on the same page.
::I didn't even get NEAR your conclusion and what I felt was your misuse of the word 'cause'!
With due respect, I don't think you've quite approached ANYTHING I've said yet.
Thanks,
Jesse
Jesse at 5:05AM on Mar 24th 2008
889. Now, Jesse, I'm not trying to make 'wild accusations' here, I'm just trying to clarify what you mean by 'potential' here!
You say that I 'got it wrong'! Fine!
You ask, "“Doesn’t water at room temperature have the potential to become ice if cooled, or steam if heated?"
Well the 'water at room temperature' question is more complicated than it seems. Is the water in a sealed container, or in an open cup or glass or bathtub? How much water, how pure is the water etc.
It might seem that I am trying to quibble here but you'll notice that...
"1. A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time in the same way - a thing is or is not (principle of non-contradiction). Simplified: If a thing exists it doesn't not exist.
2. Existing things change - things have potential to be or not be."
... your proof moves smoothy from simple definition of the existence of any particular thing into this 'potential to be or not to be'.
But this entire part of your proof is unnecessary...
"Ultimately a denial of the "Cosmological Argument" entails either 1.) a denial of one or both undeniable premises by which we know anything at all and by which we actually live, or 2.) a denial of the conclusion(s), which simply combine(s) these premises.
1. A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time in the same way - a thing is or is not (principle of non-contradiction). Simplified: If a thing exists it doesn't not exist."
Jesse, look at all the definitions for thing!
"a special situation; "this thing has got to end"; "it is a remarkable thing"
an action; "how could you do such a thing?"
an artifact; "how does this thing work?"
an event; "a funny thing happened on the way to the..."
a statement regarded as an object; "to say the same thing in other terms"; "how can you say such a thing?"
any attribute or quality considered as having its own existence; "the thing I like about her is ..."
a special abstraction; "a thing of the spirit"; "things of the heart"
matter: a vaguely specified concern; "several matters to attend to"; "it is none of your affair"; "things are going well"
an entity that is not named specifically; "I couldn't tell what the thing was"
a special objective; "the thing is to stay in bounds"
a persistent illogical feeling of desire or aversion; "he has a thing about seafood"; "she has a thing about him"
a separate and self-contained entity"
Once again, you might imagine that I am quibbling here, because you are obviously talking about the last definition... but claiming that 'water' is a 'self-contained entity' seems disingenuous to me!
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't deliberately picking 'water' to mystify your already mysterious 'potential'.
Do you not see a problem using the substance water as 'a thing'?
not-pboyfloyd at 2:16PM on Mar 24th 2008
890. Jesse says, "A thing which has potential, which can be or not be at a particular moment, a.) cannot determine itself to be or not be at a particular moment (or it is violating premise 1, both being and not being at the same time in the same way);"
Recall premise 1, "If a thing exists it doesn't not exist."
The definition of 'a thing' is vague! (Using Jesse's own example, 'some water at room temperature' is, in fact, 'a thing'.
The definition of 'a thing' which "cannot determine itself to be or not be" brings to my mind all non-living, non-conscious things. I'm wondering if Jesse includes living, conscious, mobile things too?It's all left rather vague!
I'm wondering if a good summary of Jesse's proof would be, "The universe and how it works is unclear, there must be a God at the 'bottom' of all this messy unclarity!"?
Or is it more like Jesse's proof is vague and unclear reflecting the vagueness and unclarity of the universe, therefore Jesse's proof is as good as any other!
not-pboyfloyd at 3:23PM on Mar 24th 2008
891. I got it, I get it!
Jesse determines that things(which all have 'potential"... which seems totally beside the point) NEED 'determination', which is GOD!
Seems like Jesse was determined to prove God! A dab of 'potential' here, and a lick of lack of 'determination' there, "Voila!"
not-pboyfloyd at 3:42PM on Mar 24th 2008
892.
not-pboyfloyd, I wrote:
"Ultimately a denial of the "Cosmological Argument" entails either 1.) a denial of one or both undeniable premises by which we know anything at all and by which we actually live, or 2.) a denial of the conclusion(s), which simply combine(s) these premises.
You apparently accept the first premise: "1. A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time in the same way - a thing is or is not (principle of non-contradiction). Simplified: If a thing exists it doesn't not exist."
You are vague about the second: "2. Existing things change - things have potential to be or not be."
When I attempt to clarify the second premise by pointing to a simple and real example, asking you, for the second time, if the substance water has the potential to turn from a liquid to a solid or gas, and to not exist at all, you reply with a three post filibuster (mostly aimed at amusing yourself). If part of my charge is that the "Cosmological Argument" can only be denied by denying at least one of two premises "by which we know anything at all and by which we actually live", and you are defaulting on a simple question about the properties of water, then, well -- I think enough's been said...
Jesse at 5:13PM on Mar 24th 2008
893. Jesse, you say, "When I attempt to clarify the second premise by pointing to a simple and real example, asking you, for the second time, if the substance water has the potential to turn from a liquid to a solid or gas, and to not exist at all, you reply with a three post filibuster (mostly aimed at amusing yourself)."
Is water 'a thing', as per your, "2. Existing things.."?
Just to pick that point out of the 'old filibuster' there!
not-pboyfloyd at 5:29PM on Mar 24th 2008
894. ...or is that 'it', Jesse? Did I bring you to the point of claiming intellectual superiority because I'm not playing the 'game' as you think that I should? Because I'm 'defaulting'?
Is water a thing, Jesse, is it a specific thing!?
not-pboyfloyd at 5:46PM on Mar 24th 2008
895. Jesse, it seems to me that you ARE trying to claim that existence itself is like...
...let's say a single molecule of water(a thing). Simply because we could place that molecule of water(at room temperature) into a freezer(along with a sufficient amount of water to be reasonable here) where energy will flow out of it, or on a stove where energy will flow into it, OR we could split that molecule into Hydrogen and Oxygen using an electric current DOESN'T imbue that water molecule with 'potential'.(self-determining or otherwise)
not-pboyfloyd at 6:11PM on Mar 24th 2008
896. Hello not-pboyfloyd.
You write:
::Simply because we could place that molecule of water(at room temperature) into a freezer(along with a sufficient amount of water to be reasonable here) where energy will flow out of it, or on a stove where energy will flow into it, OR we could split that molecule into Hydrogen and Oxygen using an electric current DOESN'T imbue that water molecule with 'potential'
I opened up my copy of Aristotle for Everybody by Mortimer J. Adler and, skimming, stopped upon this sentence, "Another word for potentiality is 'can be'". The fact that you said "could" instead of "can" is of no consequence.
Jesse at 7:59PM on Mar 24th 2008
897. Okay Jesse, I'm not quibbling about 'could' or 'can' here.
I'm saying that 'Existence exists' is an overarching axiom.
'What' exists is the Universe(by which I mean everything that exists).
We all know how it works, so I don't want to get into a long boring list of how things just 'are'.
Simply saying that water can be frozen, boiled or separated into it's component elements by electrolysis doesn't tell us anything 'new' about existence itself, now.
Except for the electrolysis the molecules of water are still molecules of water. Did Aristotle understand this? Do YOU understand this?
Now, even WITH electrolysis there is no more hydrogen or oxygen in the Universe than there was before, is there?
I'd like to point out that I don't CARE what Aristotle said about 'potentiality'. So what if things can 'cease to exist' as THAT thing. Wood can burn to become ashes etc. So what?
These are well understood processes and no amount of 'word-magic' is going to make it that there needs to be any gods. No amount of natural determining factors or 'potentialities' or whatever else you want to call them are going to make gods necessary determinants/determiners.
"Things themselves don't determine, and 'nothing' doesn't determine.." blah blah!
not-pboyfloyd at 9:37PM on Mar 24th 2008
898. Hi Chris Aable,
"Yes, Michelle, the bible is "complicated". Within its pages is written that god "is not the author of confusion", and yet no text is more hotly debated even among the priests, preachers and religious scholars."
Yeah, well, I have this new thought that maybe God actually "blesses" lifestyles, choices that contridict each other because the people dont know or believe that its wrong. Or I think there is an ideal, but dern it I have this mother who actually believes its evil to be what I think it is. Its insane! She has this low self-esteem, mean, stubborn attitude and she thinks thats the ideal and accuses me of having demons for rebelling against it!!! Well anyway...
"honor thy father? What if your father is an O.J. Simpson, Adolf Hilter or Charles Manson."
I think totally think that what the Bible means is to honor them when they are being the right person. Of course you really dont know too much when youre a kid... so just obey um when theys right, or run away! He he.
"'do unto other as *I* would do on to myself'...
example of the twisted commands found in the bible for "others" may not like what I like. "
Eee... well, I think that Ive thought about this one and I think it means that you should... well I forgot all I thought... I think I wrote it down somewhere... but... I think it means that say, if someone was in a life or death situation, skared and that, that you should try to help them. General stuff. The ways all humans are alike...
"'four corners of the earth' and a 'sun that moves around the earth'. Ancient, simple, lies."
That four corners thing could very well be symbolic. And the sun thing, did you really quote that? ... it could be symbolic too.
Michelle at 10:32PM on Mar 24th 2008
899.
1. A pair of Kings cannot both be and not be at the same time in the same way - a thing is or is not (principle of non-contradiction). Simplified: If you have a pair of Kings, you do not NOT have a pair of Kings.
2. Existing Kings change - Kings have potential to be winning Kings or not be winning Kings.
3. A pair of Kings which has potential, which can be the winning hand or not be at a particular moment, needs a cause to determine whether it will be the winning hand or not *.
4. The cause itself (from #3) must not have potential to be or not be, otherwise it’s in the same undetermined state needing to be caused and cannot cause anything.
5. Since every pair of Kings with potential existing at a given hand of poker can be or not be the winning hand, then everything (any two random cards) with potential to be or not be the winning hand needs a cause at every moment of it’s existence.
6. Something exists which cannot not be, as the cause of existing winning hands which change -- the World Series of Poker.
*Something is self-evident when it’s opposite cannot be conceived. “Something which changes needs a cause”—this is self evident because it’s opposite -- nothing can cause something -- means the nature of nothing is to cause something, which is another way of saying nothing is something (we have to conceive of nothing as something (it’s nature is to cause)). Therefore we cannot conceive of nothing causing something without admitting it’s something. Thus it’s self evident that “the winningness of" any two random cards which changes every hand need a cause.”
Some people like to call this cause, the POKERGODS!
not-pboyfloyd at 3:53PM on Mar 27th 2008
900. ... is this proof of the POKERGODS? Or...
not-pboyfloyd at 3:59PM on Mar 27th 2008