We've all heard of Black History Month, but have you heard about Atheist Bashing Week? It was Atheist Bashing Week for me as I did three debates over the past seven days with a new crop of leading atheists.
First on Monday April 21 I debated philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong at Dartmouth before a large crowd. The 500-seat auditorium was full so they used an overflow room, which had hundreds more watching on a big screen. This was a scholarly debate in which Sinnott-Armstrong distanced himself from what he portrayed as the crude atheism of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Against this village atheism, well represented among atheists who comment on this blog, Sinnott-Armstrong offered a more dignified atheism that he said recognizes the accomplishments of Christianity. In one revealing moment he event said schools and colleges should teach students that the crimes of Christianity, like the Inquisition and the Salem witch trials, pale before the crimes of atheist regimes like those of Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. Overall this was an elevated debate, one of the more high-toned ones I've participated in.
Then on Tuesday April 22 I debated Dan Barker of the Freedom from Religion Foundation at Harvard. Here the audience was smaller, because Harvard is launching into final exams. But the debate was very sharp and lively. We didn't do the traditional opening statements followed by rebuttals and cross-examination and so on. Rather, a student panel posed questions to both of us, and we each answered, with the other person than having a chance to reply. This format suits me very well, and I found myself being able to develop arguments about epistemology and science more fully than in other formats. Later the atheist students who organized the debate complimented me on my performance, and one said that I had made numerous arguments that he had never thought of, and that were compelling him to rethink (although not abandon) his atheism.
Finally on Friday April 25 I debated the controversial Princeton philosopher Peter Singer at Biola University. This was the biggest event, with more than 2,500 in attendance. Since Biola is a Christian campus, the majority of those present were believers, although atheists were represented too. The Christian students treated Singer extremely well, which is not always how theists are received when they show up on secular campuses. I went first and focused on Singer's extreme views, such as his proposal that parents be allowed to kill their children up to the age of 28 days. Singer also thinks America and the West can learn from non-Western societies, not to mention ancient Greece and Rome, where children were routinely killed at much higher ages. Oddly enough this champion of infanticide and euthanasia also favors animal rights!
If this seems like a strange combination, the apparent paradox is resolved when you discover Singer's logic. Singer argues that we human beings are Darwinian primates. We are on a continuum with the other animals. It is Christianity, Singer charges, that came into the world and elevated human beings on a pedestal. It is Christianity that proclaimed that man is in the image of God, and that creation is for man's benefit. These ideas gave rise to the special dignity of man and human rights and moral principles such as "It is wrong to deliberately take human life." Singer thinks that now that we know God is dead, we should get rid of these principles and replace them with utilitarian considerations more in keeping with our animal nature. In a sense Singer is taking up Nietzsche's challenge--to rid our civilization not only of the Christian God but also of Christian morality--and his homicidal conclusions, which many people find horrific, are only a working-out of his atheist logic.
Surprisingly Singer didn't want to talk about any of this during our debate. In a way I can see why: who wants to defend killing three-week old infants in the presence of a largely-Christian audience! Instead Singer wanted to argue about why a just God allows suffering in the world, not only the suffering of children but also of animals. I didn't want our debate to be like two ships passing in the night, so I happily engaged Singer on those issues. He is a lucid and gentlemanly debater, and he complimented me for eschewing Bible citations in favor of reason and logic and history and science in developing my arguments. I praised him for having the guts to come to a Christian campus and debate me, quite a contrast from the invertebrate Richard Dawkins who seems terrified to take me on even at his native Oxford.
All these debates will soon be up on the web. I have now debated six leading atheists--Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, Daniel Dennett, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Dan Barker, and Peter Singer. Hitchens and I already have a couple of rematches scheduled, and Singer has agreed to a second debate on the East Coast. I am also planning a debate next year with Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker. The mathematician John Allen Paulos, author of the new book Irreligion, has approached me about debating and we are looking for the appropriate venue. Over the next few years I am hoping to assemble the most extensive existing archive of "God v. Atheism" debates. Many churches are already showing these debates in order to educate and instruct believers. I wonder if atheist groups will have the confidence to air them at their conferences.
So far no takers though. And my challenges to Dawkins to step into the arena have only met with pathetic rationalization: "Richard is simply too busy and smart to debate you Dinesh." Busy doing what besides being caught with his pants down by Ben Stein? And I guess he's smart because he doesn't want to risk further embarassing himself and destroying his public reputation! Won't it be hilarious if the "party of faith" is unafraid of opposing arguments while the "party of reason" cannot withstand the arguments of its critics? This is what Henry James might describe as a most interesting turning of the screw.
Reader Comments ( Page 57 of 61)
841. I whole heartedly concur with your comments in 842 Brian37. Well said, and "he" isn't just Dinesh D'Sourza but a number of his daemon minions haunting his forum as well.
If I ever met them I might well get to like them. Certainly I'd continue to encourage them to deprogram themselves by taking up the No Belief No Faith Challenge for Life.
Peter at 2:42PM on May 2nd 2008
842. Peter - I've been away a while - you've been busy! I can see you are either battle-weary or have been battle-hardened in dealing with god freaks, at least on these boards, and just can't let go of so many of your assumptions about who you're dealing with, or their ideas. You hint at it - you do occasionally use phrases such as "all practical purposes" and "all realistic purposes" that indicate for a fleeting moment that you acknowledge the difference between accepting a preponderance of evidence and actual proof, but then that slips right back to the guarded place and you continue with your over-reaching generalizations.
You are sadly incorrect, but I do believe you when you say that you wish others to improve for their own sakes, so I will simply state that you seem to have over-deprogrammed, and could benefit from standing back and seeing that it's OK to say "For all practical purposes, God does not exist," which is correct, instead of "Science has proven God does not exist," which is not. One statement acknowledges that your position is, in fact, your position; the other makes a statement of fact about everyone's collective and common reality that is not fact. I get it, though. You see facts as whatever satisfies "all practical purposes". But, since some of us don't, and cling to the actual scientific principles of proof, they are simply no longer facts, because facts only exist as collective agreement. In fact (so to speak), you go so far as to assume that your fact of god not being possible is so universally accepted that it is the default condition by which hypotheses must be tested. Thus, you consider that I have the burden of proof if I say God is possible. In reality, the default condition is that the possibility of god is undetermined, thus, you have an identical burden of proof if you say god is not possible. I trust you are familiar with the typical difficulties in proving a negative.
You've spent a lot of time arguing this. I understand that it is important to you. I also understand, however, that your narrow-mindedness does not allow you to see your own narrow-mindedness, and, thus, you keep saying you get it, and understand what I'm saying, when you clearly don't. You behave not as someone trying to discover reality, but as a cult member who has some "secret" about it and will not allow doubt or challenges to enter. I appreciate committment, as I was just explaining to Botts earlier in the thread, and too many people have none, but if it is inflexible, well, it doesn't matter to me any, but you do yourself a disservice, I think.
Bullwinkle57 at 3:11PM on May 2nd 2008
843. Well Bullwinkle57 that's quite the breath taking posting of yours in 845. Wow. Unfortunately your off base by a wide mark.
Of course there is a difference between "a preponderance of evidence and actual proof". There of course is zero evidence for god, but that's not proof of the non-existence of god. This is as far as most thinkers go on this topic.
However, there is another step that is valid in science. That is the process of elimination by using other well known and tested aspects of nature. It is with these other laws of nature that the possibility of god can be eliminated to a probability of zero.
It's just that some want there to be a god or a possibility of a god. That's fine, you don't have to accept the reasoning above but that won't change the validity of that reasoning and how it correlates to reality.
I don't know what the "guarded and over-reaching generalizations" that you think I slip back into are but anyone who doesn't guard their thinking from the god delusions, beliefs and faith has a serious mental defect. At best they are deluded thinking their beliefs and faiths have anything to do with reality, at worst they are a massive danger to other living things and possibly the ecology of the planet.
I'm not sad about anything regarding this comment thread.
If anything I've got lots of deprogramming yet to do. Actually deprogramming is a constant conscious focus and unconscious set of skills that we must vigilantly use as our brains are belief and faith making machines. Your brain is making connections all the time. Many of these connections are "beliefs" and "faiths" that are unfounded. The key is in editing these mental connections in your thinking to eliminate all beliefs and faiths from undermining your connection to reality. Accepting a belief or a faith as true where there isn't any evidence can be highly dangerous at worst and polluting to your mental clarity at best.
I have no problem with the statement "For all practical purposes, God does not exist". I don't think it's 100% accurate since one can go much further but it's acceptable when discussing things with god freaks since one doesn't want to split hairs too much as that's a major distraction as we've seen in this thread.
I have no problem with the statement "Science has proven God does not exist". I don't think it's 100% accurate and while controversial it's not far from hitting the target.
A much better statement would be something like "Science has eliminated the possibility of any god existing since any god would violate the well tested known Laws of Nature" (such as, for example, The Speed of LIght). That would be a much more accurate statement. Very controversial for sure but much more accurate. Time will also show that the logic and science supporting this are quite solid. Yes, I do have confidence in this. I also accept all challenges to it as that will help refine this elimination and strengthen it - most likely.
The statement "Science has eliminated the possibility of any god existing since any god would violate the well tested known Laws of Nature" is a statement of fact about the one objective reality that we exist in. It isn't an opinion. It's a statement that is attempting to be as accurate as possible with regards to reality. Yes, it can be refined further with specific details about the "probability eliminations" proofs.
I DO NOT SEE FACTS AS WHATEVER SATISFIES "ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES". That's your own delusional belief about me.
You can cling to whatever you want.
The "much better statement" above follows scientific methods and standards of proofs. Combined with the example proofs in earlier comment postings that is clear.
I'm not interested in "collective agreement realities". That's the delusional realm of god freaks beliefs regarding god and many other things.
The statement "you go so far as to assume that your fact of god not being possible is so universally accepted that it is the default condition by which hypotheses must be tested" is again a false belief on your part. Clearly the above "much better statement" is controversial and whether or not it's universally accepted has no bearing upon it's accuracy and correlation to representing (as best as one can in language) reality.
Yes, if you say that god is possible you do have the burden of proof. That's a given with the scientific method.
I have shown statements of proof regarding the elimination of the possibility of god existing to be infinitely small and irrelevant probability as to be indistinguishable from zero. You might not accept said statements but I've shown the proofs - as have many others before me have done for the last thousands of years I might add; certainly with increasing accuracy as time goes on.
"The default condition is that the possibility of god is undetermined, thus, you have an identical burden of proof if you say god is not possible. I trust you are familiar with the typical difficulties in proving a negative." - Bullwinkle57
The problem in your thinking is that you get stuck at the point where you think that ti's simply a 50/50 probability that god could exist: "god might exist or god might not exist". Sure that seems 50/50 but then start to enumerate the barriers that god would need to break to have it even stay a 50/50 probability and the odds diminish rapidly towards zero that a god, by any definition that believers have, could exist. For example, what biology would any god need to have? Well, just there alone the probability would drop to zero as no god could have any biology in reality that would support omnipresence. It's using science to eliminate nonsense probabilities. It just so happens that god is one of those non-sense ideas that science can eliminate!
To test this "elimination of the possibility of god theory" you can explain how god can violate any of the many well tested known laws of nature. Be careful though that you don't let your own wishful thinking allow you to make silly statements that god is outside of reality. If god is outside of reality that means that god doesn't exist for the definition of reality is all that exists!
The time that I've spend is worth it to communicate with clarity to those who are belief stricken and faith stricken. Two very nasty mental disorders that have caused untold damage in human history. They could lead to our destruction as a species if religious leaders push the "nuclear button". As an aside be very worried since Bush and other religious nut jobs in a number of other countries have access to red buttons that really work.
Yes, you claim that I'm narrow minded yet it is I who has been the one attempting to clearly communicate the scientific method that I use to eliminate beliefs and faith.
If you mean to say that I'm narrow minded because I won't accept any beliefs or faith into my life then I'm guilty as charged. I do not and never would accept any beliefs about super natural beings or other such crap. If that makes me narrow minded, then yes I'll accept your assertion about that. To me it means that I'm a free thinking unbounded by the delusional limitations that belief and faith imprison one within. Yes, belief is a jail cell, as is faith. Free your mind from the limits of your beliefs and faiths.
If someone were to demonstrate that the "possibility of god" can't be completely eliminated by the process of scientific elimination when tested against the one objective reality using the known well tested laws of nature then I'd be the first to acknowledge that and adjust the statement "Science has eliminated the possibility of any god existing since any god would violate the well tested known Laws of Nature" so that it is more accurate. If I wouldn't do so then your false accusations against me might have some validity. However, no one has demonstrated any such flaws in the elimination of the possibility of god.
"You behave not as someone trying to discover reality, but as a cult member who has some "secret" about it and will not allow doubt or challenges to enter."
I really don't know what you are talking about because in my experience your assertion about that is off the wall and utter junk thinking. I'm not a member of any cult. I have no secret to offer those who give up religion. Sure I'd help them ground themselves in reality but there isn't anything secret about that. Your claim is false. It's a delusion you have. Maybe you should have asked me if that was the case before assuming it.
I actually think I do myself a big service by communicating in this forum. Thoughtful comments like yours are most certainly welcome even with their flaws as that allows me to clarify my communications so that more people can comprehend what I'm saying.
Unfortunately there are many others in this forum who while fairly objecting to what I have to say since it violates their delusional god fantasies fair to muster cogent arguments and resort to nasty name calling and other off topic ad hominem personal attacks. I do welcome their comments and arguments as long as they are cogent and lacking the nasty attacks. They have attempted to goad me into a irrational flame war but I was prepared for that and am generally immune to that gutter level of dialog. Certainly there was no need for them to call me an "asshole" no matter how descriptive I find that term as applied to myself. It's one thing for me to call myself an asshole and quite another for someone else to do it in a public form, however, be that as it may it's unlikely that they have the guts to apologize.
It's also unlikely - in my mind - that Dinesh D'Souza will apologize for his bigoted attack upon atheists with the title of his article "Bashing Atheists". I'd be pleasantly surprised if Dinesh D'Souza does apologize for that.
I must say Bullwinkle57 that at least you've attempted to muster your thoughts together into a cogent argument. I hope that his reply to your recent high quality comments will clarify any holes you might have seen and fill them for you.
Remember there is a difference between disagreeing with an argument and finding holes in it.
One of the reasons that people have a tough time dispelling the religious nonsense at church or in the bible is that much of it is well thought through so the con men who call themselves theologians can effectively counter the typical challenges that most people bring up. I know as I've seen this happen over and over again as I grew up.
The No Belief No Faith Challenge for Life. Live free from the dangers and warm comforting delusional benefits off belief and faith for a year, for the rest of your life.
Live long and prosper in peace.
Peter at 5:02PM on May 2nd 2008
844. I could choose to waste 30 minutes of my life explaining in detail why I am deeply offended by the title of this article.
Or I could tell you to go fuck yourself.
Jason at 5:17PM on May 2nd 2008
845. @843: Apparently, again you didn't get it. So I'm again compelled to make this rule tailor suited for that tiny brain of yours: Whenever you use the words "deluded," "delusional," "delusion," and "mind poo" to describe any person or ideas or beliefs of any other person, those same words and descriptions shall automatically refer solely and only to you and at the same you're automatically saying to yourself "I'm an asshole, I'm an asshole." OK? And that again is an absolute truth.
emendozajun at 5:58PM on May 2nd 2008
846. Peter - I can't bring myself to reply without stating that there is much in your texts that is irritating, because you are so firmly convinced that things that are inherently your opinion are facts of reality. The nature of facts just isn't as cut and dried as you approach it. Even the concept that there is only one objective reality is your opinion. So is the idea that anyone who doesn't think that is deluded. I could go on about how you learn things and how they change from not fact to fact in your mind, but, if they were part of reality before you knew, they were already fact, but you would have incorrectly said they weren't, and so on. I truly think you have a much more elevated concept of humanity's ability to perceive this universe that might be true. However, as I stated before, I appreciate committment, and will therefore choose to respect even the irritating nature of your expressions of it.
"Live long and prosper in peace." In this spirit, and of "Remember there is a difference between disagreeing with an argument and finding holes in it," I will take the opportunity to highlight points on which we agree.
"at worst they are a massive danger to other living things and possibly the ecology of the planet." Completely agree.
"Accepting a belief or a faith as true where there isn't any evidence can be highly dangerous at worst and polluting to your mental clarity at best." Completely agree.
"Yes, if you say that god is possible you do have the burden of proof. That's a given with the scientific method." Completely agree. (See next comment.)
"The problem in your thinking is that you get stuck at the point where you think that it's simply a 50/50 probability that god could exist" DANG. That's the same argument I had to make with Chris Hawk when his argument about evidentiality made the presumption of equal probability. I made the same mistake! Not intentionally, either, just a plain old logic fart.
"To test this "elimination of the possibility of god theory" you can explain how god can violate any of the many well tested known laws of nature. Be careful though that you don't let your own wishful thinking allow you to make silly statements that god is outside of reality. If god is outside of reality that means that god doesn't exist for the definition of reality is all that exists!" Completely agree. To clarify, my possibility argument did not propose that God is outside reality - then clearly a delusion - but that reality could conceivably contain things not physical, indetectable to humans, and capable of violating the physical laws we know.
"They could lead to our destruction as a species if religious leaders push the "nuclear button". As an aside be very worried since Bush and other religious nut jobs in a number of other countries have access to red buttons that really work." UBER-COMPLETELY AGREE.
"Unfortunately there are many others in this forum who while fairly objecting to what I have to say since it violates their delusional god fantasies fail to muster cogent arguments and resort to nasty name calling and other off topic ad hominem personal attacks." Completely agree.
"One of the reasons that people have a tough time dispelling the religious nonsense at church or in the bible is that much of it is well thought through so the con men who call themselves theologians can effectively counter the typical challenges that most people bring up." Completely agree - and they have had a head start on even the thousands of years of science you mentioned.
Well, the rest of your reply I either only partially agree with or see holes in. I realize that most of these agreement points aren't very germaine to the more technical argument, but, oh well. On to the next blog, I suppose. Live long and prosper, also.
Bullwinkle57 at 6:22PM on May 2nd 2008
847. emendozajun when you are done spewing dung verbage from your oral orifice I'll be ready to engage you in a substantive dialog. As the nuns used to threaten, wash your mouth out with some soap and gather together a cogent argument if you want to dialog for real.
Peter at 7:08PM on May 2nd 2008
848. Bullwinkle57 wrote about me: "you are so firmly convinced that things that are inherently your opinion are facts of reality".
Well thank you for your compliment. However, I'm not as convinced as you seem to paint. You see, as I wrote extensively in prior posts, I'm willing to change and adapt quite quickly if someone presents compelling evidence or counter evidence. However, so far no one has done so. What I am is confident that the core of my view correlates to reality since it's well tested with the laws of the universe.
Yes, facts usually are boringly cut and dry. The earth isn't flat. That's a fact. The best description of it is an oblate spheroid to within 100 meters having a diameter of 40,000 kilometers divided by pi. That's a pretty cut and dry fact with a statement of it's accuracy. For a more accurate description you'd need to refer to an up to date orbital gravity and geological map which is what nasa does. It's called science and it works because the world and universe is for the most part predictable, cut and dry and, well, boringly so.
Many people are deluded about a great many things. A delusion is a fixated notion on a "false belief". So it's not even an insult technically to call someone deluded. It's simply a statement of fact about their opinion, belief, or faith.
You state that your "possibility argument did not propose that God is outside reality - that clearly a delusion - but that reality could conceivably contain things not physical, indetectable to humans, and capable of violating the physical laws we know".
Well, sure it's possible the same way a billion dollars worth of gold appearing in my garage right now would be, but that doesn't mean that it has any correlation with reality. It's just mental masturbation until you have a way to test it it's simply more likely to be hogwash. There are so many possibilities - unlimited really - that people could make up on the spot that are just so much hogwash. It really takes a lot of work to come up with a hypothesis about reality that has any chance of being validated with testing.
The main point where we seem to differ is on the notion that you can just invent any possibly that is beyond human ability to test and assume that that is real. Clearly that is the door way that leads to fantasy land.
Worse it's the door way that the religious nut jobs use to get otherwise skeptical human beings to belief in the whackiest of theories like the existence of a god and jesus who rose from the dead after three days of his flesh rotting. The Zombie Jesus guys have it right. Ick.
Clearly one must use the scientific method and the well tested known laws of nature plus common sense to refute these nonsense possibilities and eliminate them from being taken seriously. Nature is much more wonderful and horrifying than any religious person has ever conceived of and it's such a waste of human beings life energies to spend their time believing the crap that religious con men theologians spew often with vehemence and hatred. They must be held accountable for the horrific tales they propagate and the crimes they and their followers commit against humanity.
I do thank you for taking the time to respond with cogent and thoughtful responses, and I mean that regardless of whether or what parts of what you agree or disagree with me on. It's refreshing to have an actual dialog here rather than having to battle the serpents of Dinesh D'Souza's delusional god folk daemon minions, if not Dinesh himself in guise. For the king likely travels among the sheepeople (that's a contraction of sheep and people, nice one) and the wolfs (me and you and a few others) as someone else.
Peter at 7:33PM on May 2nd 2008
849.
Peter
SHEEPLE is the contraction. No, you didn't coin the word.
However, you are right about there being no gods.
mac at 7:51PM on May 2nd 2008
850. "The Zombie Jesus guys have it right. Ick."
Stranger yet, in my opinion: the ritualistic cannibalism of communion. Love everybody, that I get. Oh, but if you really want to get into heaven, here, eat my flesh and drink my blood.
Um, excuse me?
Bullwinkle57 at 7:52PM on May 2nd 2008
851.
Bullwinkle
It's more Homoerotic than a Mapplethorpe exhibit.
mac at 8:07PM on May 2nd 2008
852. A religious war between two gods and their religious followers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TagemN7kkw.
There is a video which is evidence that the two gods exist, isn't that good enough for you?
Oh yes, it is. Which god do you support? Choose carefully as you might find yourself on the wrong side in the war amongst the two gods and their factions.
Peter at 8:07PM on May 2nd 2008
853. I stand completely corrected there is direct observed evidence for god and here is the video tape recording that proves it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL7FcvEydqg&feature=related.
Peter at 8:13PM on May 2nd 2008
854. "SHEEPLE is the contraction. No, you didn't coin the word. However, you are right about there being no gods."
Mac, thank you for the spelling correction. I heard the term for the first time earlier today and loved it and used it right away! Didn't know how to spell it so my guess was off. I stand corrected, well actually at the moment I'm sitting but you know what I mean...
So take that all of you who've said that I'm so narrow minded that I can't correct myself! Ha! HA! Take that.
Peter at 8:26PM on May 2nd 2008
855. @849: "The nature of facts just isn't as cut and dried as you approach it. Even the concept that there is only one objective reality is your opinion. So is the idea that anyone who doesn't think that is deluded." COMPLETELY AGREE
Truly one persistent flaw that Peter has in all his posts. A posture of blissful certainty and air of superiority and conservatism matching only that of Dinesh D'Souza.
"... - but that reality could conceivably contain things not physical, indetectable to humans, and capable of violating the physical laws we know.
COMPLETELY AGREE
Although I should further say that those "things" exist regardless of whether or not we conceive them. Peter acknowledges the possible existence of these "things" and the existence of laws not yet discovered and then proceed to preclude the possibilty of God. I find this inherently incoherent. He posits as basis God's lack of (physical) biology. But its wrong to seek physical evidence of that which is universally agreed, at least on this thread, is not physical. Our minds could make valid inferences of existing realities without any hope of ever seeing them manifest in our so called objective reality. There's whole world of laws out there that have existed even before anything began and will remain after our "objective reality" is completely finished.
I believe that God created these laws, and the all scientific laws that are well tested, proven and manifest in our so called objective reality.
And just because our minds cannot conceive of an "objective reality" other than one we currently perceive doesn't mean that such other reality doesn't exist.
emendozajun at 9:29PM on May 2nd 2008