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 61 of 61)
901. ... or am I just bluffing as hard as Jesse and Aristotle?
I was going to mention the change of subjects, from 'things' to 'potentials', to determining factors of those potentials, which I feel that is simply 'sleight-of-word'.
I still think that Jesse knows that he is 'fishing'(to use another poker term in a double-meaning kinda way) but I admit that it was 'good' bait! And it still is good bait, if you want to get caught!
not-pboyfloyd at 4:09PM on Mar 27th 2008
902. To not-pboyfloyd:
The "winningness", which is what Aristotle would call the "final cause", indeed proves a mind (efficient cause) imposing a set of rules (formal cause) within which "random" cards become "material causes" of the "winningness". You have indeed proven "pokergods" exist, which, being careful and strict in our definitions, is simply another term for "minds which conceive poker". So, even if we take your "random[ly]" introduced "World Series of Poker" and, trying to save its relevance, give it license to mean "pokergods"; still, pokergods themselves are part of the existing conditions -- all of which have potential!
Jesse
Jesse at 7:34PM on Mar 27th 2008
903. By WSOP I meant of course 'poker universe'.
I thought the poker analogy was great because the pair of Kings DO disappear(back into the pack) probably much like Aristotle believed that wood just disappeared(became completely non-existent) when burned!
Or did Aristotle have a crystal ball or a black mirror, like Nostradamus... to see modern scientific knowledge?
Does it tell you, in your Aristotle book what he thought of Astrology then?
not-pboyfloyd at 8:10PM on Mar 27th 2008
904. You, Jesse, are playing 'word-magic' games between 'existence as a thing' and 'existence OF a thing!'
Aristotle didn't know any better!
not-pboyfloyd at 8:13PM on Mar 27th 2008
905. ::You, Jesse, are playing 'word-magic' games between 'existence as a thing' and 'existence OF a thing!'
So when you say "existence is an overarching axiom" are you saying existence exists apart from things? Do you mean to say existence is the real substance of which what we call substances, like wood and water, are just modes or appearances? Are you a closet pantheist?
BTW, I think Aristotle understood that substances became other substances. He believed the universe of matter was eternal.
Jesse at 9:55PM on Mar 27th 2008
906. Jesse, you say, "So when you say "existence is an overarching axiom" are you saying existence exists apart from things?"
I'm saying that the concept of existence is basic.
Try thinking of there being no existence, no such thing... as in "In the beginning..." but if God existed to make the physical Universe HE still had to exist!
Christian philosophers seem to be saying that consciousness is more basic than existence in that the consciousness that is God created existence, but this is nonsense.
BTW, I think that you are being a bit disingenuous here when you say, "He believed the universe of matter was eternal."
Plato’s greatest pupil, Aristotle (384–322 BC), postulated that the universe is perfect; the Earth is the center of this perfect universe, and that everything in the universe revolves around the Earth. He believed the heavens were composed of 55 concentric, rotating crystalline spheres to which the stars and planets were attached. He also believed that the outermost sphere, the "Prime Mover," imparted motion to the sphere of stars just within, which in turn lent its motion to the next inner sphere, and so on from sphere to sphere until all the spheres were rotating.
I think that the word 'perfect' and 'eternal' are complimentary here because if the universe was perfect it would have to be eternal, now wouldn't it?
On the other hand it could be eternal while any notion of perfection be simply in the eye of the beholder, yes? Now that we've abandoned the notion of crystal spheres and all!
Anyway, I thought this, "'existence as a thing' and 'existence OF a thing!'", might be vague...
... what I mean to say is, for example you exist as a living thing, when you die you will exist, at least for a while as an ex-living thing, a dead thing, then your body will decompose and exist as 'whatever'.
Compare this to the existence OF you. When you die you will no longer exist, period.
Now I'm saying that you are 'playing' with these two notions with your potentialities deal.
In both cases you can talk about your potentiality but in one case the potentiality is slightly different from the other.
I think you are mixing the 'act of being'(there you are, no doubt! It doesn't even take any effort!) with your 'state of being'.(there you are and you better be breathing in and breathing out, eating etc. or you're gonna be in trouble!)
Can you at least see what I'm driving at, because you throw together these complicated notions of existence, potential, and determination and practically trip over God by 'accident' yes?
But 'no', you already had 'God' in mind!
Now, 'existence' is a complicated notion because I can imagine anything at all and it exists in my mind!
I'm hoping that you can see that the other two notions are just as complicated, just apply 'potential' to the imaginary(yet existing(in your imagination) thing!
So, lets straighten these concepts out. Existence exists is an overarching axiom. Identity exists, and 'not' existence 'identities'. Consciousness exists as individual consciousnesses and NOT any other combination like, "I think, therefore I am", because you have to 'be' before you could 'think' in the first place.
Religions tend to try to reverse the consciousness and existence priority precisely because it is a hypnosis technique that 'throws you off balance' and the notion of gods rebalances you, right?
not-pboyfloyd at 1:38AM on Mar 28th 2008
907. not-pboyfloyd, you bring up a lot of interesting topics but I want to try and zero in on the point at which I’m losing you. So let me back up. Earlier you wrote:
:: “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?”
Yes, I include all substances. An atom is a substance. A molecule is a substance. A plant is a substance. An animal is a substance. A human being is a substance.
And what is a substance? A substance is a thing, which exists in itself.
An apple exists in itself. A human being exists in itself. A human being eats an apple and part of it is subsumed by the human being, it becomes part of the human being and no longer remains an apple.
You raise the issue of an idea. A thought or an image produced by the human mind (being only part of knowledge) is part of the human substance.
Now, on to other things…
As I stated in the article on my blog, knowledge originates with the senses, and our sense knowledge reveals to us a world of things, or substances, which change. Sometimes there is substantial change – from apple to human --, sometimes there’s only modifications to substances – like a ripening apple. But the fascinating fact which has always baffled philosophers (and caused most of them to go wrong to one extreme or another – though not Aristotle, of course!) is that there is identity through change; that is our experience, like it or not, and it means "potential" exists..
Concerning potential, you could not understand anything unless it had potential; it’s part of your very understanding of things. Just think of any substance: what you know about it is what you bring to your momentary, particular experience of a substance. Take an acorn for example; if you are ignorant about what “potential” means, then you must claim that you have no idea what an acorn is (the very notion includes what it’s going to be). Most of us know it is bound to be an oak tree if conditions (other things) allow. Now take any given moment; all “conditions”, supporting other particular conditions; all of them have potential. In our experience, everything which exists does indeed exist, but is not being all it can be, is not fully existing. But something has to be fully existing. Something has to exist without potential. Why? I’ll give you at least three reasons. The first, as you’ve probably intimated, is that everything which has potential is dependent upon conditions for it’s particular mode of existence. Take the acorn; at a given moment all the right elements which allow it to grow are dependent upon other elements, and so on and on. But if nothing exists without potential, and all conditions are dependent, then they are also indeterminate. But the fact is they ARE determined, so there is a Condition without potential. Second, consider the very existence of the universe of conditions at a given moment. If, as we said, there were no Condition without potential, then all dependent thing, things with potential, would not exist; therefore, things with potential are dependent upon something which cannot not exist. Third, the fact that things do exist steadily, not randomly; that is, the fact that conditions are such that we can make sense of them, and even predict them, means there is order to the universe. The disturbing fact is, we can give no non-metaphysical reason why anything, thus everything – the entire universe of conditions -- should continue to exist the way it has; that is, we can give no reason why things don’t just start changing into other things, as in a nightmare. And since we can give no such reason, then science, and all practical living, is based on faith; we live hoping universal order to each and every future moment. I should qualify what I just said. You live on faith. I live by reason, for reason takes me to an all Good God, Whose ultimate abode is not a nightmare universe, but order, harmony, peace, beauty.
Jesse at 6:08AM on Mar 30th 2008
908. People aren't scared to debate you silly. It's just that they think you're a twat.
Love from the UK.
Dave at 7:04PM on Apr 4th 2008
909. I don't think they are really scared to debate, but they just know that they are morons and that you are able to disect everything they say and make them less credible. They are actually very smart! They know they cannot win. I am sure Hitchens will be there to debate you this summer, if he gets over that perpetual drunken stupor, that is!
Linda at 11:36PM on Apr 17th 2008
910. I attended the Singer/D'Souza debate last night, and I'm looking for comments from other attenders. I'm a theist, and I still think D'Souza got his hat handed to him, and revealed a rather nasty pugnacious side of himself to boot. The debate was supposed to argue the question of God's existence, but D'Souza chose instead to set up a sort of utilitarian argument by discussing how awful for society it would be if there were no God.
I liked big chunks of D'Souza's book, and I was disappointed with his performance in the debate. Singer, who is a whack job by the way, came off as far more charitable and kind than Dinesh.
Steve at 11:51AM on Apr 28th 2008
911. To #875 - Michael, Chris Aable's point went right over your head, although he was nice enough to make it as simple as possible. There is a great distinction between "belief" which is a matter of blind faith, and "knowing" which means one tests or observes and verifies evidence. You state that you "believe" in gravity and thus would not jump off a cliff. Chris goes further, stating that he "knows" that gravity is variable since jumping off a high cliff can get one killed.
More to the point, as he points out at www.mySpace.com/Aable , sincere "Christian" parents pray earnestly for their babies to be cured at cancer wards, and some "believers" such as Christian Scientists", pray for god to cure them, only to die slow and painful deaths. Many Mexican people who are Catholics try to cure their illness based on anccient superstitious "beliefs" instead of what is "known" in medical science.
If they learn to "know" and trust science over superstitious "belief", they can better their health and save their lives with self-reliance as opposed to reliance on prayer, which may be have temporary psychological benefits, but not permanent physical ones that anyone has proven. We only have to remember the billions of prayers on all sides of war who pray it to end and for their side to win, only to see war go on an on regardless.
lindaL at 11:43PM on Apr 30th 2008
912. "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"
So isn't it interesting that we now have sports books, sports magazines, sports conferences, sports organizations, sports radio shows and so on? Quite clearly sports has become an ideology.
And seriously, atheist sunday schools? I'm sure it exists somewhere, but I can't for the life of me imagine more than a handful of people going there. So I'll do you a favor. I will keep not judging all Christians because of a select few nutjobs, and you can refrain from judging atheism as a whole because a very small number of people go to atheist Sunday school?
Zabimaru at 9:42AM on Sep 3rd 2008