No. As you indicated, atheists and theists tend to just talk past each other. I used to be an avid participant in the religious debate subreddits over at Reddit, until I realised two things:...
Do you think it's actually possible to have a genuine and reasonable debate between these two sides?
No. As you indicated, atheists and theists tend to just talk past each other. I used to be an avid participant in the religious debate subreddits over at Reddit, until I realised two things:
Everyone on both sides (including me!) is just repeating the same few arguments over and over again. They might dress those arguments up and present them in novel ways, but they're the same basic few arguments underneath. As I started saying to people there, "There's nothing new under the Sun." Most of the arguments on both sides were originally conceived centuries (even millennia) ago, and have merely been refined since then.
We don't even agree on the rules of the debate. For instance, we don't have a shared definition of "evidence", and we don't agree on what constitutes a valid argument.
I sometimes wonder whether a debate is possible. Here's an anecdote to illustrate this.
I was sitting in a park, having a friendly discussion about religion with an evangelical Christian acquaintance of mine. Finally the inevitable question came up: I asked him to show me proof of God. He pointed to a tree and said, "That tree is proof of God." That moment made me realise that there's no common ground for communication because we don't even share the same reality. (Of course, that didn't stop me ending up in the religious debate subreddits many years later, where I had that lesson confirmed again.)
Do you think there's productive room for discussion and debate about that incompatibility and how they're coming from entirely different directions? I've come to the same conclusion as you here...
Do you think there's productive room for discussion and debate about that incompatibility and how they're coming from entirely different directions? I've come to the same conclusion as you here for the most part, but I don't really know where honest discussion that is about that disconnect in the first place goes.
I imagine it's well covered in philosophy I haven't read and have only heard summarized, but that isn't near as accessible as a direct converastion between two people.
That depends what you mean by "productive". Sure, we can discuss the incompatibility, but I doubt we'll bridge it. I still think it's worthwhile having debates about religion, for two reasons. I...
Do you think there's productive room for discussion and debate about that incompatibility and how they're coming from entirely different directions?
That depends what you mean by "productive". Sure, we can discuss the incompatibility, but I doubt we'll bridge it.
I still think it's worthwhile having debates about religion, for two reasons.
I have seen some people on Reddit say that they've been influenced by debates they read there. The participants might not change their minds, but some members of the audience can and do.
It keeps one's debating skills honed, and helps one practise one's clear thinking skills. It's a good form of mental exercise, to keep one's wits sharpened.
Does there need to be a complete "solution"? Is it not a decent goal to try and underatand why others use the tools that they do to approach the question of god? It seems like internet religious...
Does there need to be a complete "solution"? Is it not a decent goal to try and underatand why others use the tools that they do to approach the question of god?
It seems like internet religious debate dodges this completely and they just work within the framework of whoever is more in control in the debate.
It surely is, but asking them why they believe what they do won't reveal anything useful. As others have said, you cannot use a rational framework to understand an irrational one. If you really...
Is it not a decent goal to try and understand why others use the tools that they do to approach the question of god?
It surely is, but asking them why they believe what they do won't reveal anything useful.
As others have said, you cannot use a rational framework to understand an irrational one.
If you really want to understand why people believe in religion, study evolution of ideas (memetics). Whether or not religion is true is irrelevant. All that matters is how good of a replicator it is -- and religion is a very good replicator. It's the informational equivalent of a virus and I think it'll continue to exist until a superior virus spreads itself.
I don't understand how this is a reply to my comments. The whole idea behind what I'm saying is not starting with the assumption that evidence and reasoning applied to that evidence are the source...
I don't understand how this is a reply to my comments. The whole idea behind what I'm saying is not starting with the assumption that evidence and reasoning applied to that evidence are the source of both parties' beliefs and also not having the conversation be about proving or disproving god.
I agree. It comes down to the atheist wanting to discuss the topic on their grounds, logic, proof, science and rules. And the theist wanting to discuss the topic on their grounds, feeling,...
I agree. It comes down to the atheist wanting to discuss the topic on their grounds, logic, proof, science and rules. And the theist wanting to discuss the topic on their grounds, feeling, emotion, sensations that they feel don't fit into logic. The atheist won't abandon the need for proof, and the theist won't abandon the need for faith.
I can't agree with that. Emotion isn't the primary tool that great theologians like C.S. Lewis (yes he wrote easy-to-read fiction, but his expositions are incredibly heavy) used to convey their...
It comes down to the atheist wanting to discuss the topic on their grounds, logic, proof, science and rules. And the theist wanting to discuss the topic on their grounds, feeling, emotion, sensations that they feel don't fit into logic.
I can't agree with that.
Emotion isn't the primary tool that great theologians like C.S. Lewis (yes he wrote easy-to-read fiction, but his expositions are incredibly heavy) used to convey their understanding of things. A short example of the blending of faith and logic, and how one does not mean you abandon the other:
If you choose to say, ‘God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,’ you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words, 'God can.' It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.” (C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain)
My own personal belief is founded not in the fact that I feel there is a god - I certainly haven't experienced any revelations or anything of that nature - but rather in the fact I believe there is a strong historical chain of evidence, leaving me to conclude that the most likely scenario is that a man, claiming to be divine, died, and was resurrected. It still takes a leap to accept that resurrection is possible, and that's where faith comes in, but it also took a leap to believe in the Higgs boson, at least before 2012. The evidence was there, but we weren't quite sure.
... Well this was more than I intended. The point is, theism doesn't rely solely on feelings, and neither is it necessary to discard all logic and thought. In fact, I would argue that is antithetical to the Abrahamic religions and Taoism, and that it is nonsensical to religions like Bhuddism.
You will always get groups that spring up, prizing their emotions over all else. I would argue that these are not true religions, as they don't allow you to be true to the reality they pretend to explain.
I'm not sure if setting the dichotomy of logic vs. feelings is truly the most honest and charitable interpretation of what divides atheists from theists. IMHO it really does come down to a...
I'm not sure if setting the dichotomy of logic vs. feelings is truly the most honest and charitable interpretation of what divides atheists from theists. IMHO it really does come down to a question of both faith, specifically in what you anchor your faith in order to understand the universe. Even in science there is no try promise of total, factual explanation of the universe:
Ultimately everyone has to have some kind of underlying faith in a base set of rules and principles, and whether or not those are 'correct' or logical may not be within our own human ability to know. Then again: all of this might simply be my own version of faith, and might not at all agree with what other people believe.
I never questioned my religious beliefs, or lack thereof. I've been an atheist my whole life, and never doubted that. I engaged in debates partly to try to convince people (until I realised I...
I think it's natural to age out of those debates as it's unhealthy to question your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) for years on end without reaching some sort of resolution
I never questioned my religious beliefs, or lack thereof. I've been an atheist my whole life, and never doubted that.
I engaged in debates partly to try to convince people (until I realised I couldn't) and partly for the mental exercise.
There's a decent documentary following the mail correspondence between the late Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson. They wrote to each other debating for a few years, then decided to get...
There's a decent documentary following the mail correspondence between the late Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson. They wrote to each other debating for a few years, then decided to get together in person and have a few public debates. I definitely fall on the Hitchens side and thought he easily won the discussions, but it was nice seeing the discourse elevated a bit from the usual emotive crap.
Edit: Thought I'd add to this after some thought to your question - there are ultimately two ways to debate a point, you can debate a person with the goal of convincing a third party audience, or you can debate a person with the goal of convincing them.
The latter is somewhat un-intuitive and requires a different approach than what you see in most online arguments. You can't simply directly counter points with facts and statements. This will convince the audience but the person across from you will shut down and do mental gymnastics to try and 'win' the discussion. You need to use Socratic questioning and a gentler approach in examining the basis of their assumptions without denigrating in order to have the other person logic their way to those conclusions themselves. Likewise you have to be open to following the thread questioning the predicates that make up your own beliefs.
Oftentimes the best outcome you can hope for is planting a seed with an idea that leads them to their own exploration of ideas. This is not the immediate gratification of asserting your intelligence over a person and 'winning' a debate in the eyes of a crowd, and it's rare to see people taking this approach when discussing polar viewpoints.
I think it’s only possible to have a productive debate on a topic if you can agree on certain assumptions that underpin the disagreement. If you can’t, you need to discuss those assumptions first....
I think it’s only possible to have a productive debate on a topic if you can agree on certain assumptions that underpin the disagreement. If you can’t, you need to discuss those assumptions first. An example of the problem that came up in that linked AMA was “There was something that caused the universe to exist, thus the Catholic god exists.” The number of steps of assumed agreement there was incredible.
Unfortunately, in talking about those assumptions there are likely to be points where there’s no potential for negotiation. If one side says “the Catholic God exists as written in the Bible”, and the other says “no he doesn’t”, what then?
Ultimately I think that the fundamental assumptions about the world are too different to be able to even agree upon the terms of the debate. There are two fundamentally incompatible Truths here.
Yes, agreement on certain assumptions and definitions is required. However, often the definitions and assumptions are the main points of contention. For example, the debate over the legality of...
Yes, agreement on certain assumptions and definitions is required. However, often the definitions and assumptions are the main points of contention. For example, the debate over the legality of same-sex marriage mostly boils down to the definition of "marriage" itself and whether same-sex marriage is a proper sub-category of a broader concept or an entirely distinct one. If you can agree on a definition, the debate is mostly over.
The problem with these debates is that they'll always favor the atheist side as that's the side that is the result of "debates". If you see a debate as an exercise in calmly exchanging rational...
The problem with these debates is that they'll always favor the atheist side as that's the side that is the result of "debates". If you see a debate as an exercise in calmly exchanging rational arguments based on facts, well, you'll end up with a discussion about the lack of evidence and Occam's razor. The theist's side is usually based on what it feels like to believe in god and how that can fill a certain void and potentially make people more compassionate. That's a debate about psychology and maybe sociology, not "theism". Any of the "evidence-based" arguments for theism coming from creationism just don't hold up to serious thought and thus will never be respected in a good debate. And that's why everyone is talking past each other. They're talking about different things.
It's kinda like letting astrologists debate astronomers. It's okay to believe what you want, as long as nobody is hurt, but it's not a fair debate.
There is a line in F. Scott Fitzgerald's "Tender is the Night" that discusses the Western Front in World War I and the appalling casualties for next to nothing. "You had to have a whole-souled...
There is a line in F. Scott Fitzgerald's "Tender is the Night" that discusses the Western Front in World War I and the appalling casualties for next to nothing.
"You had to have a whole-souled sentimental equipment going back further than you could remember. You had to remember Christmas, and postcards of the Crown Prince and his fiancée, and little cafés in Valence and beer gardens in Unter den Linden and weddings at the mairie, and going to the Derby, and your grandfather’s whiskers."
Now that's discussing the motivations of men going to war, not religion, but the same applies. It doesn't work to have an antiseptic debate on YouTube about atheism versus theism - atheism has already "won" by the mere fact that you're having a debate, and I say this as an atheist. Vanishingly few people would go off to their martyrdom based on who won a debate on the internet, and that's really the sort of commitment that religion (as opposed to a sort of bland "theism") demands. There is an entire cultural apparatus that is at once shared and profoundly intimate that sustains religion, and it has precious little to do with Bishop Barron regurgitating Thomas Aquinas. You are correct - it isn't a fair debate.
Why do you say debate is unfair to theists? Debate as an institution is fair by nature, and that is why most governments set up their lawmaking and judicial systems around it. It seems to make...
Why do you say debate is unfair to theists? Debate as an institution is fair by nature, and that is why most governments set up their lawmaking and judicial systems around it. It seems to make more sense that theism is wrong rather than the entire concept of debate.
It's like having a debate about whether 1+1=2 with one side arguing that "sometimes things are bigger than the sum of their parts". A debate only works with both sides agreeing on what the issue...
It's like having a debate about whether 1+1=2 with one side arguing that "sometimes things are bigger than the sum of their parts". A debate only works with both sides agreeing on what the issue is.
Something that might work is a debate about whether religion has a net positive impact on the world.
That isn't what I asked. I wanted to know why you thought that debates were unfair to theists. What you instead demonstrated were a side where one side failed to argue the debate subject. The...
That isn't what I asked. I wanted to know why you thought that debates were unfair to theists. What you instead demonstrated were a side where one side failed to argue the debate subject. The person arguing that 1+1=2 has millennia of evidence proving his point, and the other one is arguing a position with zero evidence, instead appealing to emotion. It's easy to tell who would win that debate, and it certainly isn't unfair to either of them.
It's unfair to make theists debate on territory that's inherently biassed against their premises. By requiring them to provide evidence for their claims, and argue using logic, and discounting...
It's unfair to make theists debate on territory that's inherently biassed against their premises. By requiring them to provide evidence for their claims, and argue using logic, and discounting faith and personal experience as valid support, we're handicapping them - which is unfair.
But discounting faith and personal experience is not something we do in a debate that is specific to theism and religion; we apply that standard to all topics. It's insane to make this exception...
But discounting faith and personal experience is not something we do in a debate that is specific to theism and religion; we apply that standard to all topics. It's insane to make this exception specifically for religion. Using the same standard you could just as easily justify even the worst horrors humanity can dream.
I never said or implied that discounting faith and personal experience is something we do only in religious debates. As you rightly say, we do this in all debates. However, the fact that we...
I never said or implied that discounting faith and personal experience is something we do only in religious debates. As you rightly say, we do this in all debates.
However, the fact that we discount faith and personal experience for all debates automatically means that we discount faith and personal experience for religious debates - which puts theist debaters at an instant disadvantage because they can't rely on one of the main supports for theism and religion.
We have a concept here in Australia called "indirect discrimination". It's where you don't deliberately or directly discriminate against a group of people, but your non-discriminatory policy has an unintended effect on one group of people more than on other groups of people. The classic example is putting stairs at the entrance to your building. Those stairs are there for everyone to use, freely and without exception. Your front door is open to all, and use of the stairs is not restricted in any way. You are not directly discriminating against anyone. However, your open, equal, and non-discriminatory stairs are indirectly discriminating against people who use wheelchairs. You have unintentionally restricted their access to your building. That's indirect discrimination.
Requiring people not to use faith and personal experience in debates indirectly discriminates against pro-theist debaters. We're applying the same rules to all debaters equally and non-discriminatorily, but that indirectly restricts the ability of theists to participate in debates.
I understand the concept of inderect discrimination but I do not accept that it applies in this situation. To borrow your example, if you provide better access to the differently abled, you are...
I understand the concept of inderect discrimination but I do not accept that it applies in this situation. To borrow your example, if you provide better access to the differently abled, you are giving them access to the same resources as everyone else. If you give theists access to an exemption from logic and reason, they get special powers separate from everything else. You could use that license to justify literally any position you could dream of. In practice, it gives them license to directly discriminate against other groups.
Can you not see the problems with this? If they get that benefit, they instantly win any debate. Intrafaith debates become impossible. We lose a layer of civility and rationality, and we crawl closer to authoritarianism.
It is infinately more unfair and discriminatory to give theism a license to ignore rationality rather than it is to hold it accountable.
Of course I can! Please do not mistake my statement that discounting faith and personal experience disadvantages theists in debates as an implied advocacy for changing our debating standards. I...
Can you not see the problems with this?
Of course I can!
Please do not mistake my statement that discounting faith and personal experience disadvantages theists in debates as an implied advocacy for changing our debating standards. I can acknowledge a situation as disadvantageous for some people without necessarily advocating to change it. Don't assume that I mean more than I'm actually writing.
I'm glad that we agree! I'm sorry for misinterpreting what you were trying to convey. When you brought up discrimination it seemed you were implying that the standards for debates needed to be...
I'm glad that we agree! I'm sorry for misinterpreting what you were trying to convey. When you brought up discrimination it seemed you were implying that the standards for debates needed to be "fixed".
But I just noticed that it was you who made the claims that debating theism wasn't really possible. After reading everything through that lens your argument made a little more sense.
I'm still not sure I 100% agree with your position, given that one of the major fields of theology involves rational defense of doctrine. But as haven't looked that far into apologetics, so I couldn't confidently argue that position.
Have a look at The World Would Be Better Off Without Religion it's an intelligence squared US debate. I saw it a while ago but my impression was that it was generally better than the standard...
Have a look at The World Would Be Better Off Without Religion it's an intelligence squared US debate. I saw it a while ago but my impression was that it was generally better than the standard religious debates. They also have other religion centric debates if you're interested.
Yeah, IQ2 is a fantastic source for debates... Their 2009 debate on the motion "The Catholic Church is a force for good" is a particularly impressive one, IMO. It features Stephen Fry (my favorite...
Yeah, IQ2 is a fantastic source for debates... Their 2009 debate on the motion "The Catholic Church is a force for good" is a particularly impressive one, IMO. It features Stephen Fry (my favorite person in the world) and Christopher Hitchens (RIP) vs. Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdecombe.
IMO, Hitchens was a pretty profoundly flawed man, as evidenced by his abundant vices (chain smoking, drinking and eating to excess, etc) as well as his unabashed support of the Iraq war and...
IMO, Hitchens was a pretty profoundly flawed man, as evidenced by his abundant vices (chain smoking, drinking and eating to excess, etc) as well as his unabashed support of the Iraq war and "enhanced interrogation" (that is until he got voluntarily waterboarded himself and admitted he was wrong about that). But love him or hate him there is absolutely no denying he was brilliant, a compelling writer/speaker and excellent debater.
Religious debates are rather pointless, in my opinion. Almost everybody has already made up their mind and won't be swayed for any reason. On top of that, they quickly devolve into shit-slinging...
Do you think it's actually possible to have a genuine and reasonable debate between these two sides?
Religious debates are rather pointless, in my opinion. Almost everybody has already made up their mind and won't be swayed for any reason. On top of that, they quickly devolve into shit-slinging matches once everybody gets frustrated with the other side refusing to acknowledge any of their points.
The theism/atheism argument is based around belief, and beliefs are generally impervious to outside influence. I mean, do you think there is any arrangement of words possible in any language that would sway Richard Dawkins?
Pretty much my thoughts. I think there is a lot of grandiose thinking on both sides that they will pull a statement out on the other and make them have a moment of sudden realization that their...
Religious debates are rather pointless, in my opinion. Almost everybody has already made up their mind and won't be swayed for any reason. On top of that, they quickly devolve into shit-slinging matches once everybody gets frustrated with the other side refusing to acknowledge any of their points.
Pretty much my thoughts. I think there is a lot of grandiose thinking on both sides that they will pull a statement out on the other and make them have a moment of sudden realization that their entire belief system is faulty but in reality that's never going to happen.
What you can have is a discussion where both sides can disagree but you still walk away with an understanding. I don't think being religious makes you less or worse of a person and I don't think being an atheist makes you bad either. The atheist and the theist both share this world and are responsible for it and their actions, and the best way they can take care of it and each other is to find ways to appreciate the others place in the world.
IMHO the lack of give comes mostly from the religious side. If an atheist changes his mind, he may be embarrassed or even ashamed for a while, but will adopt religion and live his life. If a...
IMHO the lack of give comes mostly from the religious side. If an atheist changes his mind, he may be embarrassed or even ashamed for a while, but will adopt religion and live his life. If a religious person changes their mind, they not only lose a slew of intangible goods (emotional support systems, the idea of an afterlife, etc.), But also likely tangible goods, since the person debating is usually someone invested in their religion. I don't know many people will abandon their careers just because they changed their mind.
To have a reasonable debate, a few things to line up, and they don't tend to come together, even when everyone involved thinks they have it. Leave emotion at the door. The people involved, and the...
To have a reasonable debate, a few things to line up, and they don't tend to come together, even when everyone involved thinks they have it.
Leave emotion at the door. The people involved, and the people watching on.
No actual convincing or progress is likely without doubt. You'll need another measure of success.
Religion vs Atheism is too broad. You'll need the scope to be rather narrow.
What constitutes evidence? You'll need to define it, and probably quite narrowly.
Benefit of the doubt. Each side needs to give the other leeway, rather than the usual debate tactics of ripping each other to ribbons... That leads back to the first point.
Not debate, per se, but some generally high quality conversation between various theistic/non-theistic perspectives can be found in a podcast called Unbelievable. The show is hosted by a...
Not debate, per se, but some generally high quality conversation between various theistic/non-theistic perspectives can be found in a podcast called Unbelievable. The show is hosted by a Christian, but the moderation is usually well balanced.
For a similar concept hosted by an atheist there is Dogma Debate. Despite the name, and the past pattern of using the term "versus" in show titles, this show also isn't really debates, but is also conversations. It is not quite up to the level of Unbelievable (in my opinion), but it can be good.
I typically say that I'm agnostic but in reality it's not quite that. I could go "full scientist" and consider the option that the universe has been big bang/crunching for eternity but that seems...
I typically say that I'm agnostic but in reality it's not quite that. I could go "full scientist" and consider the option that the universe has been big bang/crunching for eternity but that seems too boring unlikely to me. I personally believe that there is a god. However I don't believe that they care for us in any way. For all intents and purposes, there might as well not be a god because they don't interact with our world or make themselves known in any considerable way. I like this like that Bo Burnham has in a song of his that goes "there are a trillion aliens cooler than you, what makes you think I'd ever want to kick it with you?". Is the world a simulation made for research/fun? Probably? Is the world made by some fantastic 11th dimensional creature outside our capabilities of perception? who knows? Do they care to tell us what's right? It doesn't seem that way.
I'd be happy to debate/discuss this viewpoint with anyone interested. (My DMs are open too if you prefer.)
the reason I tend to identify with being agnostic is because while religion isn't a big factor in my life right now, if god came down (see jesus like situation) professed their godness today and...
the reason I tend to identify with being agnostic is because while religion isn't a big factor in my life right now, if god came down (see jesus like situation) professed their godness today and proved it through (magic) then I'd believe them. Or if they even came down and was like "so the universe is a simulation that we made to test ... " I'd be like "cool, hope you've gotten some good data" and move on. I'm living my life trying to be the best me I can be and unless they came down and said that I needed to change something about that in order to (insert after life task here) then even if I did find out there was a god it wouldn't affect me much. I mean I'd love to talk to them about other questions like: why, what else is out there, why is the speed of light so slow, can I have powers, etc. It would be very cool but not much would change. Something I learned as a kid was to not ask questions you aren't prepared to hear the answer to. So what would we change about society if we got a definitive answer? What if people didn't like the answer?
And atheists and theists (as opposed to agnostics) wouldn't?
the reason I tend to identify with being agnostic is because if god came down (see jesus like situation) professed their godness today and proved it through (magic) then I'd believe them.
And atheists and theists (as opposed to agnostics) wouldn't?
Even if I saw God come down, I'd still have doubts. After all, I could be tripping balls. IMO, the best way to test somebody's assertion that they're God is to kill them and see if they come back...
Even if I saw God come down, I'd still have doubts. After all, I could be tripping balls.
IMO, the best way to test somebody's assertion that they're God is to kill them and see if they come back on their own.
There are a number of claims about God and each of them would need their own demonstration. Someone resurrecting themself doesn't tell us anything about whether they are a good source of moral...
There are a number of claims about God and each of them would need their own demonstration. Someone resurrecting themself doesn't tell us anything about whether they are a good source of moral guidance, for example.
Check out Matt Dillahunty (from the Atheist experience) and Blake Giunta (a Christian apologist) debates. They did quite a few and are generally pretty good. Blake Giunta actually tries to make...
Check out Matt Dillahunty (from the Atheist experience) and Blake Giunta (a Christian apologist) debates. They did quite a few and are generally pretty good. Blake Giunta actually tries to make sound arguments, they listen to each other and are generally friendly and constructive.
Not really. Theists and atheists are just talking different languages. What is a perfectly reasonable and logical argument for one side is a completely crazy and invalid one for the other side. No...
Do you think it's actually possible to have a genuine and reasonable debate between these two sides?
Not really. Theists and atheists are just talking different languages. What is a perfectly reasonable and logical argument for one side is a completely crazy and invalid one for the other side.
No side is going to convince a person from the other side unless said person is already doubting his/her position.
Not always. I have seen people on Reddit say they've been influenced by debates they read there. Some people have even deconverted due to debates they read on Reddit. Debating religion is not...
It's an exercise in futility, in my opinion.
Not always. I have seen people on Reddit say they've been influenced by debates they read there. Some people have even deconverted due to debates they read on Reddit. Debating religion is not totally futile, but the effect isn't always immediately apparent.
I think another point some people might miss is that there are a lot of very outspoken theists or religious people who defend religion in part because it servers a foundational role for social...
I think another point some people might miss is that there are a lot of very outspoken theists or religious people who defend religion in part because it servers a foundational role for social organization, and therefore confers power. The pope and his cardinals are probably not going to be open to the idea that God might not exists, that would undermine the whole system on which they rely.
I don't know if he's even still alive anymore, but there used to be an old Jesuit priest (and isn't it always the Jesuits) who argued there was really no persuading an atheist, but that there...
I don't know if he's even still alive anymore, but there used to be an old Jesuit priest (and isn't it always the Jesuits) who argued there was really no persuading an atheist, but that there still was a good reason to try: you could use the opportunity to hone your own skill arguing and addressing weaknesses in your argument pointed out by the other person. I can't remember his name.
Anyway, for the most part debates across religious beliefs don't interest me. Dawkins is an ass; many priests are asses; and as you all have been noting, almost no one actually talks to each other in those debates but instead chooses to address the audience, the people who came forward looking to be swayed.
Ain't that the truth! There are times I'm actually ashamed to have him representing my "side". I wish he'd just shut up and go back to being a biology genius.
Dawkins is an ass
Ain't that the truth! There are times I'm actually ashamed to have him representing my "side". I wish he'd just shut up and go back to being a biology genius.
I think even his biology reputation is overrated. He had one good idea and book (which was as arrogantly written as any of his later arguments with theists) and that reshaped the way we think...
I think even his biology reputation is overrated. He had one good idea and book (which was as arrogantly written as any of his later arguments with theists) and that reshaped the way we think about evolution meaningfully, but outside of that we're looking at a popular biologist who hasn't advanced the field since the 1970s.
No. As you indicated, atheists and theists tend to just talk past each other. I used to be an avid participant in the religious debate subreddits over at Reddit, until I realised two things:
Everyone on both sides (including me!) is just repeating the same few arguments over and over again. They might dress those arguments up and present them in novel ways, but they're the same basic few arguments underneath. As I started saying to people there, "There's nothing new under the Sun." Most of the arguments on both sides were originally conceived centuries (even millennia) ago, and have merely been refined since then.
We don't even agree on the rules of the debate. For instance, we don't have a shared definition of "evidence", and we don't agree on what constitutes a valid argument.
I sometimes wonder whether a debate is possible. Here's an anecdote to illustrate this.
I was sitting in a park, having a friendly discussion about religion with an evangelical Christian acquaintance of mine. Finally the inevitable question came up: I asked him to show me proof of God. He pointed to a tree and said, "That tree is proof of God." That moment made me realise that there's no common ground for communication because we don't even share the same reality. (Of course, that didn't stop me ending up in the religious debate subreddits many years later, where I had that lesson confirmed again.)
Do you think there's productive room for discussion and debate about that incompatibility and how they're coming from entirely different directions? I've come to the same conclusion as you here for the most part, but I don't really know where honest discussion that is about that disconnect in the first place goes.
I imagine it's well covered in philosophy I haven't read and have only heard summarized, but that isn't near as accessible as a direct converastion between two people.
That depends what you mean by "productive". Sure, we can discuss the incompatibility, but I doubt we'll bridge it.
I still think it's worthwhile having debates about religion, for two reasons.
I have seen some people on Reddit say that they've been influenced by debates they read there. The participants might not change their minds, but some members of the audience can and do.
It keeps one's debating skills honed, and helps one practise one's clear thinking skills. It's a good form of mental exercise, to keep one's wits sharpened.
Does there need to be a complete "solution"? Is it not a decent goal to try and underatand why others use the tools that they do to approach the question of god?
It seems like internet religious debate dodges this completely and they just work within the framework of whoever is more in control in the debate.
It surely is, but asking them why they believe what they do won't reveal anything useful.
As others have said, you cannot use a rational framework to understand an irrational one.
If you really want to understand why people believe in religion, study evolution of ideas (memetics). Whether or not religion is true is irrelevant. All that matters is how good of a replicator it is -- and religion is a very good replicator. It's the informational equivalent of a virus and I think it'll continue to exist until a superior virus spreads itself.
I don't understand how this is a reply to my comments. The whole idea behind what I'm saying is not starting with the assumption that evidence and reasoning applied to that evidence are the source of both parties' beliefs and also not having the conversation be about proving or disproving god.
I agree. It comes down to the atheist wanting to discuss the topic on their grounds, logic, proof, science and rules. And the theist wanting to discuss the topic on their grounds, feeling, emotion, sensations that they feel don't fit into logic. The atheist won't abandon the need for proof, and the theist won't abandon the need for faith.
I can't agree with that.
Emotion isn't the primary tool that great theologians like C.S. Lewis (yes he wrote easy-to-read fiction, but his expositions are incredibly heavy) used to convey their understanding of things. A short example of the blending of faith and logic, and how one does not mean you abandon the other:
My own personal belief is founded not in the fact that I feel there is a god - I certainly haven't experienced any revelations or anything of that nature - but rather in the fact I believe there is a strong historical chain of evidence, leaving me to conclude that the most likely scenario is that a man, claiming to be divine, died, and was resurrected. It still takes a leap to accept that resurrection is possible, and that's where faith comes in, but it also took a leap to believe in the Higgs boson, at least before 2012. The evidence was there, but we weren't quite sure.
... Well this was more than I intended. The point is, theism doesn't rely solely on feelings, and neither is it necessary to discard all logic and thought. In fact, I would argue that is antithetical to the Abrahamic religions and Taoism, and that it is nonsensical to religions like Bhuddism.
You will always get groups that spring up, prizing their emotions over all else. I would argue that these are not true religions, as they don't allow you to be true to the reality they pretend to explain.
I'm not sure if setting the dichotomy of logic vs. feelings is truly the most honest and charitable interpretation of what divides atheists from theists. IMHO it really does come down to a question of both faith, specifically in what you anchor your faith in order to understand the universe. Even in science there is no try promise of total, factual explanation of the universe:
Ultimately everyone has to have some kind of underlying faith in a base set of rules and principles, and whether or not those are 'correct' or logical may not be within our own human ability to know. Then again: all of this might simply be my own version of faith, and might not at all agree with what other people believe.
I never questioned my religious beliefs, or lack thereof. I've been an atheist my whole life, and never doubted that.
I engaged in debates partly to try to convince people (until I realised I couldn't) and partly for the mental exercise.
There's a decent documentary following the mail correspondence between the late Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson. They wrote to each other debating for a few years, then decided to get together in person and have a few public debates. I definitely fall on the Hitchens side and thought he easily won the discussions, but it was nice seeing the discourse elevated a bit from the usual emotive crap.
It's called 'Collision' and you can find it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcUSpVH0Kmw
Edit: Thought I'd add to this after some thought to your question - there are ultimately two ways to debate a point, you can debate a person with the goal of convincing a third party audience, or you can debate a person with the goal of convincing them.
The latter is somewhat un-intuitive and requires a different approach than what you see in most online arguments. You can't simply directly counter points with facts and statements. This will convince the audience but the person across from you will shut down and do mental gymnastics to try and 'win' the discussion. You need to use Socratic questioning and a gentler approach in examining the basis of their assumptions without denigrating in order to have the other person logic their way to those conclusions themselves. Likewise you have to be open to following the thread questioning the predicates that make up your own beliefs.
Oftentimes the best outcome you can hope for is planting a seed with an idea that leads them to their own exploration of ideas. This is not the immediate gratification of asserting your intelligence over a person and 'winning' a debate in the eyes of a crowd, and it's rare to see people taking this approach when discussing polar viewpoints.
I think it’s only possible to have a productive debate on a topic if you can agree on certain assumptions that underpin the disagreement. If you can’t, you need to discuss those assumptions first. An example of the problem that came up in that linked AMA was “There was something that caused the universe to exist, thus the Catholic god exists.” The number of steps of assumed agreement there was incredible.
Unfortunately, in talking about those assumptions there are likely to be points where there’s no potential for negotiation. If one side says “the Catholic God exists as written in the Bible”, and the other says “no he doesn’t”, what then?
Ultimately I think that the fundamental assumptions about the world are too different to be able to even agree upon the terms of the debate. There are two fundamentally incompatible Truths here.
Yes, agreement on certain assumptions and definitions is required. However, often the definitions and assumptions are the main points of contention. For example, the debate over the legality of same-sex marriage mostly boils down to the definition of "marriage" itself and whether same-sex marriage is a proper sub-category of a broader concept or an entirely distinct one. If you can agree on a definition, the debate is mostly over.
The problem with these debates is that they'll always favor the atheist side as that's the side that is the result of "debates". If you see a debate as an exercise in calmly exchanging rational arguments based on facts, well, you'll end up with a discussion about the lack of evidence and Occam's razor. The theist's side is usually based on what it feels like to believe in god and how that can fill a certain void and potentially make people more compassionate. That's a debate about psychology and maybe sociology, not "theism". Any of the "evidence-based" arguments for theism coming from creationism just don't hold up to serious thought and thus will never be respected in a good debate. And that's why everyone is talking past each other. They're talking about different things.
It's kinda like letting astrologists debate astronomers. It's okay to believe what you want, as long as nobody is hurt, but it's not a fair debate.
There is a line in F. Scott Fitzgerald's "Tender is the Night" that discusses the Western Front in World War I and the appalling casualties for next to nothing.
"You had to have a whole-souled sentimental equipment going back further than you could remember. You had to remember Christmas, and postcards of the Crown Prince and his fiancée, and little cafés in Valence and beer gardens in Unter den Linden and weddings at the mairie, and going to the Derby, and your grandfather’s whiskers."
Now that's discussing the motivations of men going to war, not religion, but the same applies. It doesn't work to have an antiseptic debate on YouTube about atheism versus theism - atheism has already "won" by the mere fact that you're having a debate, and I say this as an atheist. Vanishingly few people would go off to their martyrdom based on who won a debate on the internet, and that's really the sort of commitment that religion (as opposed to a sort of bland "theism") demands. There is an entire cultural apparatus that is at once shared and profoundly intimate that sustains religion, and it has precious little to do with Bishop Barron regurgitating Thomas Aquinas. You are correct - it isn't a fair debate.
Why do you say debate is unfair to theists? Debate as an institution is fair by nature, and that is why most governments set up their lawmaking and judicial systems around it. It seems to make more sense that theism is wrong rather than the entire concept of debate.
It's like having a debate about whether 1+1=2 with one side arguing that "sometimes things are bigger than the sum of their parts". A debate only works with both sides agreeing on what the issue is.
Something that might work is a debate about whether religion has a net positive impact on the world.
That isn't what I asked. I wanted to know why you thought that debates were unfair to theists. What you instead demonstrated were a side where one side failed to argue the debate subject. The person arguing that 1+1=2 has millennia of evidence proving his point, and the other one is arguing a position with zero evidence, instead appealing to emotion. It's easy to tell who would win that debate, and it certainly isn't unfair to either of them.
It's unfair to make theists debate on territory that's inherently biassed against their premises. By requiring them to provide evidence for their claims, and argue using logic, and discounting faith and personal experience as valid support, we're handicapping them - which is unfair.
But discounting faith and personal experience is not something we do in a debate that is specific to theism and religion; we apply that standard to all topics. It's insane to make this exception specifically for religion. Using the same standard you could just as easily justify even the worst horrors humanity can dream.
I never said or implied that discounting faith and personal experience is something we do only in religious debates. As you rightly say, we do this in all debates.
However, the fact that we discount faith and personal experience for all debates automatically means that we discount faith and personal experience for religious debates - which puts theist debaters at an instant disadvantage because they can't rely on one of the main supports for theism and religion.
We have a concept here in Australia called "indirect discrimination". It's where you don't deliberately or directly discriminate against a group of people, but your non-discriminatory policy has an unintended effect on one group of people more than on other groups of people. The classic example is putting stairs at the entrance to your building. Those stairs are there for everyone to use, freely and without exception. Your front door is open to all, and use of the stairs is not restricted in any way. You are not directly discriminating against anyone. However, your open, equal, and non-discriminatory stairs are indirectly discriminating against people who use wheelchairs. You have unintentionally restricted their access to your building. That's indirect discrimination.
Requiring people not to use faith and personal experience in debates indirectly discriminates against pro-theist debaters. We're applying the same rules to all debaters equally and non-discriminatorily, but that indirectly restricts the ability of theists to participate in debates.
I understand the concept of inderect discrimination but I do not accept that it applies in this situation. To borrow your example, if you provide better access to the differently abled, you are giving them access to the same resources as everyone else. If you give theists access to an exemption from logic and reason, they get special powers separate from everything else. You could use that license to justify literally any position you could dream of. In practice, it gives them license to directly discriminate against other groups.
Can you not see the problems with this? If they get that benefit, they instantly win any debate. Intrafaith debates become impossible. We lose a layer of civility and rationality, and we crawl closer to authoritarianism.
It is infinately more unfair and discriminatory to give theism a license to ignore rationality rather than it is to hold it accountable.
Of course I can!
Please do not mistake my statement that discounting faith and personal experience disadvantages theists in debates as an implied advocacy for changing our debating standards. I can acknowledge a situation as disadvantageous for some people without necessarily advocating to change it. Don't assume that I mean more than I'm actually writing.
I'm glad that we agree! I'm sorry for misinterpreting what you were trying to convey. When you brought up discrimination it seemed you were implying that the standards for debates needed to be "fixed".
But I just noticed that it was you who made the claims that debating theism wasn't really possible. After reading everything through that lens your argument made a little more sense.
I'm still not sure I 100% agree with your position, given that one of the major fields of theology involves rational defense of doctrine. But as haven't looked that far into apologetics, so I couldn't confidently argue that position.
Have a look at The World Would Be Better Off Without Religion it's an intelligence squared US debate. I saw it a while ago but my impression was that it was generally better than the standard religious debates. They also have other religion centric debates if you're interested.
Yeah, IQ2 is a fantastic source for debates... Their 2009 debate on the motion "The Catholic Church is a force for good" is a particularly impressive one, IMO. It features Stephen Fry (my favorite person in the world) and Christopher Hitchens (RIP) vs. Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdecombe.
RIP Christopher Hitchens. I only 'discovered' him after his death...
IMO, Hitchens was a pretty profoundly flawed man, as evidenced by his abundant vices (chain smoking, drinking and eating to excess, etc) as well as his unabashed support of the Iraq war and "enhanced interrogation" (that is until he got voluntarily waterboarded himself and admitted he was wrong about that). But love him or hate him there is absolutely no denying he was brilliant, a compelling writer/speaker and excellent debater.
I only discovered Charles Darwin and George Orwell and John Stuart Mill after their deaths, so I understand.
Religious debates are rather pointless, in my opinion. Almost everybody has already made up their mind and won't be swayed for any reason. On top of that, they quickly devolve into shit-slinging matches once everybody gets frustrated with the other side refusing to acknowledge any of their points.
The theism/atheism argument is based around belief, and beliefs are generally impervious to outside influence. I mean, do you think there is any arrangement of words possible in any language that would sway Richard Dawkins?
Pretty much my thoughts. I think there is a lot of grandiose thinking on both sides that they will pull a statement out on the other and make them have a moment of sudden realization that their entire belief system is faulty but in reality that's never going to happen.
What you can have is a discussion where both sides can disagree but you still walk away with an understanding. I don't think being religious makes you less or worse of a person and I don't think being an atheist makes you bad either. The atheist and the theist both share this world and are responsible for it and their actions, and the best way they can take care of it and each other is to find ways to appreciate the others place in the world.
IMHO the lack of give comes mostly from the religious side. If an atheist changes his mind, he may be embarrassed or even ashamed for a while, but will adopt religion and live his life. If a religious person changes their mind, they not only lose a slew of intangible goods (emotional support systems, the idea of an afterlife, etc.), But also likely tangible goods, since the person debating is usually someone invested in their religion. I don't know many people will abandon their careers just because they changed their mind.
To have a reasonable debate, a few things to line up, and they don't tend to come together, even when everyone involved thinks they have it.
Not debate, per se, but some generally high quality conversation between various theistic/non-theistic perspectives can be found in a podcast called Unbelievable. The show is hosted by a Christian, but the moderation is usually well balanced.
For a similar concept hosted by an atheist there is Dogma Debate. Despite the name, and the past pattern of using the term "versus" in show titles, this show also isn't really debates, but is also conversations. It is not quite up to the level of Unbelievable (in my opinion), but it can be good.
I typically say that I'm agnostic but in reality it's not quite that. I could go "full scientist" and consider the option that the universe has been big bang/crunching for eternity but that seems too boring unlikely to me. I personally believe that there is a god. However I don't believe that they care for us in any way. For all intents and purposes, there might as well not be a god because they don't interact with our world or make themselves known in any considerable way. I like this like that Bo Burnham has in a song of his that goes "there are a trillion aliens cooler than you, what makes you think I'd ever want to kick it with you?". Is the world a simulation made for research/fun? Probably? Is the world made by some fantastic 11th dimensional creature outside our capabilities of perception? who knows? Do they care to tell us what's right? It doesn't seem that way.
I'd be happy to debate/discuss this viewpoint with anyone interested. (My DMs are open too if you prefer.)
the reason I tend to identify with being agnostic is because while religion isn't a big factor in my life right now, if god came down (see jesus like situation) professed their godness today and proved it through (magic) then I'd believe them. Or if they even came down and was like "so the universe is a simulation that we made to test ... " I'd be like "cool, hope you've gotten some good data" and move on. I'm living my life trying to be the best me I can be and unless they came down and said that I needed to change something about that in order to (insert after life task here) then even if I did find out there was a god it wouldn't affect me much. I mean I'd love to talk to them about other questions like: why, what else is out there, why is the speed of light so slow, can I have powers, etc. It would be very cool but not much would change. Something I learned as a kid was to not ask questions you aren't prepared to hear the answer to. So what would we change about society if we got a definitive answer? What if people didn't like the answer?
And atheists and theists (as opposed to agnostics) wouldn't?
well the the idea with theists is that they dont need any proof, they already believe.
Even if I saw God come down, I'd still have doubts. After all, I could be tripping balls.
IMO, the best way to test somebody's assertion that they're God is to kill them and see if they come back on their own.
There are a number of claims about God and each of them would need their own demonstration. Someone resurrecting themself doesn't tell us anything about whether they are a good source of moral guidance, for example.
There are a few conceivable reasons someone might come back from the dead that don't involve them being a deity.
Check out Matt Dillahunty (from the Atheist experience) and Blake Giunta (a Christian apologist) debates. They did quite a few and are generally pretty good. Blake Giunta actually tries to make sound arguments, they listen to each other and are generally friendly and constructive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R4DYhpvNzc
They even did a review of that particular debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGdFT77hHys
Not really. Theists and atheists are just talking different languages. What is a perfectly reasonable and logical argument for one side is a completely crazy and invalid one for the other side.
No side is going to convince a person from the other side unless said person is already doubting his/her position.
It's an exercise in futility, in my opinion.
Not always. I have seen people on Reddit say they've been influenced by debates they read there. Some people have even deconverted due to debates they read on Reddit. Debating religion is not totally futile, but the effect isn't always immediately apparent.
I think another point some people might miss is that there are a lot of very outspoken theists or religious people who defend religion in part because it servers a foundational role for social organization, and therefore confers power. The pope and his cardinals are probably not going to be open to the idea that God might not exists, that would undermine the whole system on which they rely.
Sean Carroll vs William Lane Craig - God and Cosmology is a very interesting debate from a scientific standpoint about this topic.
I don't know if he's even still alive anymore, but there used to be an old Jesuit priest (and isn't it always the Jesuits) who argued there was really no persuading an atheist, but that there still was a good reason to try: you could use the opportunity to hone your own skill arguing and addressing weaknesses in your argument pointed out by the other person. I can't remember his name.
Anyway, for the most part debates across religious beliefs don't interest me. Dawkins is an ass; many priests are asses; and as you all have been noting, almost no one actually talks to each other in those debates but instead chooses to address the audience, the people who came forward looking to be swayed.
Ain't that the truth! There are times I'm actually ashamed to have him representing my "side". I wish he'd just shut up and go back to being a biology genius.
I think even his biology reputation is overrated. He had one good idea and book (which was as arrogantly written as any of his later arguments with theists) and that reshaped the way we think about evolution meaningfully, but outside of that we're looking at a popular biologist who hasn't advanced the field since the 1970s.