Debating Atheism

[George H. Smith]

{I posted this earlier today on my newly created blog. But since I haven't figured out some of the bells and whistles on a blog, I decided to transfer this post here.)

On February 9 on the University of Illinois campus (Champaign), authors Dinesh D’Souza and John W. Loftus debated the question "Does the Christian God exist?”

I wasn't able to attend, but those freethinkers who did were generally unahappy with the outcome. This led to a discussion of debate tactics on Phil Ferguson's wesbite, "Skeptic Money."

Phil posed some questions to his readers. Here is how I responded late last night...

$$$

I would like to address some of Phil’s questions. (Again, I wasn’t able to attend the debate, so I my remarks are based on my own experiences.)

(1) “How would you have attacked Dinesh’s use of the ontological argument (aka the First cause argument)?”

The Ontological Argument is much different than the First Cause Argument (in whatever form).

In its classical form, as expressed by St. Anselm, the Ontological Argument was based on a Platonist (or Neo-Platonist) theory of forms, or ideas. According to this approach, the more abstract something is, the more real it is. Hence when Anselm posited a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, by “greater,” he meant more abstract and hence more real.

Descartes revised the Ontological Argument somewhat, but it still rested, if only implicitly, on the same epistemological assumption. Hence whenever I discuss these older versions of the Ontological Argument, I stress the implausible epistemological premise on which they were based. Kant’s famous refutation (“existence is not a predicate”) is also effective, but that gets into some very technical issues that are difficult, if not impossible, to explain briefly in a debate format. I devoted an entire chapter to these objections to the Ontological Argument in “Why Atheism?’ (Prometheus, 2001).

Of course, there are modern versions of the Ontological Argument, some of which are extremely complex. I don’t know which version D’Souza used, but I suspect it was one of the modern versions, since the traditional versions have been thoroughly discredited.

Ultimately, the only effective way to deal with the modern versions in a formal debate is not to get bogged down in details, but to focus on fundamentals. I have never encountered a version of the Ontological Argument, whether traditional or modern, that makes sense to a lay audience. Most people (including theists) will shake their heads, wondering what the hell the point is.

This is what makes the Ontological Argument, in any form, difficult to refute in detail. It is so full of unstated presuppositions and logical jumps that it can be difficult to know precisely what to say in a few words. What I have done in the past is to call attention to those presuppositions and logical gaps, and conclude that there isn’t much more to be said about it. A string of assertions does not constitute an argument. (I have also used the old joke about the Ontological Argument for the existence of Santa Claus, which begins, “Conceive of a being than which nothing jollier can be conceived.” That usually lightens the mood.)

(2) “What would you have said when he said all Atheist are whiners?”

I would have responded very sarcastically with something like, “Better to be an atheist whiner than a Christian moron. Now, would you like to dispense with the name calling and get serious, or would you like to continue with your childish game?”

(3) "How would you address the question of why do we care?"

I would say that I care because I would rather live in a society with rational people than irrational people. I would then ask D’Souza why he cares. Why does he bother to debate atheists?

(4) “Why don’t we just live our lives and leave the xtans alone?”

I would say something like: “Are you kidding? Christians been propagandizing their beliefs for over 2000 years. Evangelical Christians are the most obnoxious busybodies on the planet. Your question should be addressed to them, not to atheists.”

Ghs

[DavidMcK]

I noticed in Reason magazine that the next freedom conference in Las Vegas (I forget what they call it) stated that D'Souza would be debating an atheist...I thought it might be you but I guess not.

[9thdoctor]

I noticed in Reason magazine that the next freedom conference in Las Vegas (I forget what they call it) stated that D'Souza would be debating an atheist...I thought it might be you but I guess not.

There’s plenty of D’Souza debates on YouTube. I think the guy’s turned to fruitcake, I met him a long time ago.

<object width="384" height="313"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="384" height="313" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[syrakusos]

I just read d'Souza's What's So Great About America? It was a nice book, but not especially insightful or startling or provocative. I watched a debate on YouTube between d'Souza and Richard Dawkins. I was impressed or perhaps only amused at Dawkin's coming to life after drinking. Reminded me of the Philosopher's Drinking Song, actually.

As for "life after death," like "extra-sensory perception" the terms are not well-defined. All I know is that while perhaps not everyone transitiosn to another place after leaving this one, some manifestations seem to continue after the moment of mortality. If I tried to tell you, you wouldn't believe it, so I won't bother. All I know is what I know.

[galtgulch]

I just read d'Souza's What's So Great About America? It was a nice book, but not especially insightful or startling or provocative. I watched a debate on YouTube between d'Souza and Richard Dawkins. I was impressed or perhaps only amused at Dawkin's coming to life after drinking. Reminded me of the Philosopher's Drinking Song, actually.

As for "life after death," like "extra-sensory perception" the terms are not well-defined. All I know is that while perhaps not everyone transitiosn to another place after leaving this one, some manifestations seem to continue after the moment of mortality. If I tried to tell you, you wouldn't believe it, so I won't bother. All I know is what I know.

MM,

I am reading Richard Dawkins books and find him to be very rational and a credit to the scientific tradition in his defense of evolution in particular and science in general. I just wanted to chime in here because of your comment about Dawkins. I would not have the patience to debate the irrational creationists and am comforted to know that men of his caliber are up to the task. Given that polls show over 42% of the American population believe the universe is only 6000 years old and that evolution is just a theory is distressing and disheartening.

It is a question which form of irrationality is a greater threat to our future, the Islamic radicals or our very own Christian fundamentalists?

Just when the answers and antidotes were known it would be a shame if irrationality wins.

[George H. Smith]

It is a question which form of irrationality is a greater threat to our future, the Islamic radicals or our very own Christian fundamentalists?

There is no doubt in my mind that Islamic fundamentalism is the greater threat by far. More is involved here than the flagrant irrationalism that one also finds in Christian fundamentalism; many militant Muslims have no qualms about murdering dissenters, especially those who blaspheme the Islamic faith.

Of course, in earlier centuries a similar persecuting spirit was manifest among Christians as well, but there was a significant difference. Jesus is portrayed in the Gospels as nonviolent (for the most part), so it was always possible (and plausible) for Christian opponents of persecution to appeal to this ideal pacifistic image of their founding father. Mohammed, in contrast, engaged in military conquests.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

I just read d'Souza's What's So Great About America? It was a nice book, but not especially insightful or startling or provocative. I watched a debate on YouTube between d'Souza and Richard Dawkins. I was impressed or perhaps only amused at Dawkin's coming to life after drinking. Reminded me of the Philosopher's Drinking Song, actually.

If you watch the various debates on YouTube (and elsewhere) you’ll find that Hitchens is the most glib and ultimately effective debater. Dawkins just isn’t as slick. I don’t, however, recall seeing him debate D’Souza, I just tried a YouTube search and I don’t see a one on one between them.

Here’s his debate with James Lennox:

http://fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-length/164-the-dawkins-lennox-debate

This links to Dawkins program “Root of all Evil”, which includes his memorable tete a tete with Ted Haggard.

[Xray]

Galtgulch:Given that polls show over 42% of the American population believe the universe is only 6000 years old and that evolution is just a theory is distressing and disheartening.

42 % still believe that??

Reminds me of what I read in Bill Bryson's "A Walk in The Woods" (1997, pb. p. 145) when he mentioned the Nashville Tennessean informing its readers about the state of Tennessee

"being in the process of passing a law banning schools from teaching evolution.

Instead they were to be required to instruct that the Earth was created by God, in seven days, sometime before the turn of the century. The article reminded us that this was not a new issue in Tennessee.

The little town of Dayton - not far from where Katz and I now sat, as it happened - was the scene of the famous Scopes trial in 1925, when the state prosecuted a schoolteacher named John Thomas Scopes for rashly promulgating Darwinian hogwash. As nearly everyone knows, Clarence Darrow, for the defence, roundly humiliated Wiliam Jennings Bryan, for the prosecution, but what most people don't realize is that Darrow lost the case. Scopes was convicted and the law wasn't overturned in Tennessee until 1967. And now the state was about to bring the law back, proving conclusively that the danger for Tennesseans isn't so much that they may be descended from apes as that they may be overtaken by them."

It is a question which form of irrationality is a greater threat to our future, the Islamic radicals or our very own Christian fundamentalists?

There is no doubt in my mind that Islamic fundamentalism is the greater threat by far. More is involved here than the flagrant irrationalism that one also finds in Christian fundamentalism; many militant Muslims have no qualms about murdering dissenters, especially those who blaspheme the Islamic faith.

Ghs

It's definitely the greater threat in today's time.

There also exist attempts to introduce the sharia law in non-islamic countries.

GHS: {I posted this earlier today on my newly created blog. But since I haven't figured out some of the bells and whistles on a blog, I decided to transfer this post here.)

How can your blog be accessed? When I clicked on "blog" in your profile page, I got the message about an error in the database.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

GHS: {I posted this earlier today on my newly created blog. But since I haven't figured out some of the bells and whistles on a blog, I decided to transfer this post here.)

How can your blog be accessed? When I clicked on "blog" in your profile page, I got the message about an error in the database.

You will need to take that up with the gods who govern this particular universe. There is nothing currently on my blog, in any case.

Ghs

[Jerry Biggers]

It is a question which form of irrationality is a greater threat to our future, the Islamic radicals or our very own Christian fundamentalists?

There is no doubt in my mind that Islamic fundamentalism is the greater threat by far. More is involved here than the flagrant irrationalism that one also finds in Christian fundamentalism; many militant Muslims have no qualms about murdering dissenters, especially those who blaspheme the Islamic faith.

Of course, in earlier centuries a similar persecuting spirit was manifest among Christians as well, but there was a significant difference. Jesus is portrayed in the Gospels as nonviolent (for the most part), so it was always possible (and plausible) for Christian opponents of persecution to appeal to this ideal pacifistic image of their founding father. Mohammed, in contrast, engaged in military conquests.

Ghs

(The following post has been significantly re-worded from the version posted yesterday).

George,

I am interested in your estimate of what effect will Sarah Palin's religion (Pentecostal fundamentalism: Assembly of God) have on her electability.

And, assuming that she is electable, would you be concerned about what effect that sort of religious mindset would have on her rationality and decision-making process? Pentecostalists believe that they can (and do) directly communicate with God and personally receive messages from him through the "gift of speaking in tongues," which also requires another believer to possess the "gift of interpreting" the other's incoherent utterings (glossolalia) and translating it into English (or whatever language is spoken by the believers).

Personally, I believe that those who actively believe, practice, and participate in Pentecostal religious worship are exhibiting delusional behavior, are possibly actively hallucinating, and appear to be under the effect of sort of a "mass hysteria." From an atheist perspective, I don't see how it could be viewed otherwise. That being the case, I don't think that I want the Chief Executive to possibly be making decisions based on the "interpretation" of gobbledegook that she has just received in the Oval Office. For example, making decisions involving the use of nuclear weapons.

Based upon your study of religion and its effects, what do you think about this issue?

(Any other participants on OL concerned about this? Please join-in.).

Edited February 14, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[tjohnson]

I agree, it should be a requirement that heads of state reject all religion.

[syrakusos]

The Pew Charitable Trusts polls are the ones I rely on. Others are fine as well, of course.

http://pewforum.org/

But take any sample you want.

(2004)

Fully 92 percent of Americans say they believe in God, 85 percent in heaven and 82 percent in miracles, according to the latest FOX News poll.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99945,00.html

(2007)

PRINCETON, NJ -- About one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word. This percentage is slightly lower than several decades ago.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx

(2009)

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,303 adults surveyed online between November 2 and 11, 2009 by Harris Interactive.

The survey also finds that: 61% of adults believe in hell; 61% believe in the virgin birth (Jesus born of Mary); 60% believe in the devil; 42% believe in ghosts; 32% believe in UFOs; 26% believe in astrology; 23% believe in witches 20% believe in reincarnation – that they were once another person.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/pubs/Harris_Poll_2009_12_15.pdf

(2006)

Americans are not fond of atheists and trust them less than they do other groups. The depth of this distrust is a bit astonishing nonetheless...

Many of those interviewed saw atheists as cultural elitists, amoral materialists, or given to criminal behavior or drugs. She states, "Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good."

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1

[9thdoctor]

The Pew Charitable Trusts polls are the ones I rely on.

I, for one, am reflexively distrustful of polls…

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Selene]

Nice-never heard that one.

Sociology SONG LYRICS

by

Tom Lehrer

Strange

Is the change

They're trying to arrange

Today in sociology

Fanatics

In their attics

Are learning mathematics

Just for sociology

Persuasion

By equation

They all feel it's much more satisfactory

They, in an ivory steeple

Far away from all people

They do research in sociology

Guys

Who wrote lies

Now present them in disguise

A cinch in sociology

Attract

Quite abstract

Without one single fact

Disblended sociology

Birds

Who used words

Now all talk in terms of X and Y and Z

They can take one small matrix

And really do great tricks

All in the name of sociology

Joes

Who wrote prose

Now write algebra, who knows

It may be sociology

They're

Everywhere

Full of Sigma and Chi squared

And full of sociology

They consult

Sounding occult

Talking like a Mathematics PhD

They can snow all their clients

By calling it science

Although it's only sociology

[Xray]

I have watched quite a few controversial discussions about religion on TV in the recent years.

Often, these discussions don't arrive at root premises but stop halfway.

Endless debates are conducted about whether e. g. the Bible actually says this or that, what the Catholic church's position is on such and such issue, and so on.

When for example a muslim states in such discussions that genital mutilation is not mandated by the Koran, the issue in this believer's mind is not the act being abominable as such, but whether or not is ordered by the Koran which is regarded as the supreme authority as alleged "god's word".

(The horrifying implication of this argument is that if he Koran ordered it, then believer would condone it!).

Few critics of religion try to get the believer to directly answer questions like "If it were in your holy book, then you would accept it?"

Critics of religion often give believers far too much wiggle room. Instead of attacking the root premise as false and exposing the thinking error underlying the doctrine (and it IS a thinking error), they let themselves be led around in what I call the "believers maze". Believers love these discussions because they allow them to draw others into their world. to play by their rules without them realizing what is going on.

Often, those critics of religion don't seem to be aware of what is going on when they are welcome by the believer to quote passages of the believer's 'holy' books; they can quote to the believer what "one of the most influential Islamic scholars in the West" commented on a political issue, etc. - as long as the root premise is not attacked, it pretty much remains in the comfort zone of the believer's world.

That one can can offer quotes from those holy books on pretty much anything, that it's a 'take your pick' assortment of contradictory stuff written by different human individuals - all this does not bother the believer once he has successfully invited the critic to his maze and the invitation has been accepted.

Often lab rats are more clever than the critic because they at least look for an exit from the labyrinth they have been put in ...

Usually, representatives of various religions are present in these discussions, the wish of a "dialogue between religions" regarded as necessary in 'today's society'.

But every dialogue between religions claiming a god's will is a dialogue between fallacies.

Of course there also exist radical critics of religion who decline to enter the believer's maze at all. In these cases the representatives of the various beliefs often join forces and gang up on the 'evil atheist' critic.

As for the thinking error:

Suppose John Doe has been brought up with the doctrine "God's will is ...". As long as John accepts this statement as fact, he will feel certain about it and be convinced of it as truth.

If John starts checking the root premise, he will discover the thinking error:

Claiming "Something is the will of X" is stating this as fact.

A fact which in turn implies that the being having the will exists.

The impossibility of proving the existence of such being reveals the false premise: presenting a mere belief as fact.

Since the claim of will is based on this false premise, it collapses, thereby becoming null and void.

The beauty of checking premises: it can be done sine ira et studio, without getting embroiled in any believers' turf wars.

But since checking premises is always a radical act, going to the roots, problems can arise when the believers realize the dynamite contained for their belief if the premise is exposed as false.

This is why one e. g. can confront Creationists a hundred times with evidence of Evolution, they will mentally push it aside because it threatens their belief.

I was born into a denomination (catholic) although I was never really interested in religion.

The "atheist" was presented to us by the priests as the evil individual who dared to "challenge" God, to fight against God.

Something like the 'devil's disciple', so to speak.

Since the existence of God was naturally never called into question by the catholic ideologists, it led me to assume that the term "atheist" was an abbreviation of "anti-theist". Only many years later, when delving into the issue, I realized that the "a" in atheist is what is called "alpha privativum" in linguistics, meaning simply "absence of", "without" - like in a-gnostic, a(n)-algetic, etc.

So the a-theist is someone who lives his life without the idea of a god.

Atheists don't have to have to prove anything here since they never claimed existence of a god.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

So the a-theist is someone who lives his life without the idea of a god.

Atheists don't have to have to prove anything here since they never claimed existence of a god.

Oh, we all live with "the idea of a god." The atheist doesn't believe it is more than an idea while the theist does.

--Brant

get down on your knees and pray--on the very last day!

[Xray]

So the a-theist is someone who lives his life without the idea of a god.

Atheists don't have to have to prove anything here since they never claimed existence of a god.

Oh, we all live with "the idea of a god." The atheist doesn't believe it is more than an idea while the theist does.

That's correct. How you put it expresses it better.

[BaalChatzaf]

I agree, it should be a requirement that heads of state reject all religion.

Not in the U.S.. Freedom of religion and religious practice is guaranteed by the first amendment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

I agree, it should be a requirement that heads of state reject all religion.

Not in the U.S.. Freedom of religion and religious practice is guaranteed by the first amendment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Thank Almighty God for that!

Adam

[Xray]

I agree, it should be a requirement that heads of state reject all religion.

Not in the U.S.. Freedom of religion and religious practice is guaranteed by the first amendment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Thank Almighty God for that!

Adam

What about freedom from religious indoctrination via the state?

(boldig mine)

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html

Does a teacher who is an atheist have the right to refuse the pledge because of the "God" part?

Edited February 20, 2010 by Xray

[Xray]

I agree, it should be a requirement that heads of state reject all religion.

Ba'al Chatzaf:

Not in the U.S.. Freedom of religion and religious practice is guaranteed by the first amendment.

What about freedom from religious indoctrination via the state?

(bolding mine)

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html

Does a teacher who is an atheist have the right to refuse the pledge because of the "God" part?

[Selene]

I agree, it should be a requirement that heads of state reject all religion.

Ba'al Chatzaf:

Not in the U.S.. Freedom of religion and religious practice is guaranteed by the first amendment.

What about freedom from religious indoctrination via the state?

(bolding mine)

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." http://www.usconstit...sttop_reli.html

Does a teacher who is an atheist have the right to refuse the pledge because of the "God" part?

Of course, anyone has the right to refuse an oath!

[Xray]

I agree, it should be a requirement that heads of state reject all religion.

Ba'al Chatzaf:

Not in the U.S.. Freedom of religion and religious practice is guaranteed by the first amendment.

What about freedom from religious indoctrination via the state?

(bolding mine)

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." http://www.usconstit...sttop_reli.html

Does a teacher who is an atheist have the right to refuse the pledge because of the "God" part?

Of course, anyone has the right to refuse an oath!

But then what happens in the classroom with the teacher not making the oath? I suppose this 'ceremony' is directed by y the teacher, probably at the beginning of class.

[tjohnson]

I agree, it should be a requirement that heads of state reject all religion.

Not in the U.S.. Freedom of religion and religious practice is guaranteed by the first amendment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It is my opinion that heads of state should see the folly of religion. If they are not enlightened enough to see that then they shouldn't be running a country. This might be the case in a fictional enlightened country, not the US.

[BaalChatzaf]

It is my opinion that heads of state should see the folly of religion. If they are not enlightened enough to see that then they shouldn't be running a country. This might be the case in a fictional enlightened country, not the US.

Opinions don't count. Electoral majorities do.

Ba'al Chatzaf