This debate was part of the International Festival of Great Minds conference that took place in November 2010, at BUAP Benemerita Universidad Autónoma De Puebla on the theme of “The Origins of the Future — A Life Experience: Rebirth.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6tIee8FwX8
Notable for its fortuitous placing of Richard Dawkins against William Lane Craig — an opposition that Dawkins has hitherto vocally declined — this debate had probably the weirdest format I've ever seen. The participants gave their speeches in a boxing ring!
On the "No" side (the universe does not have a purpose) were Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins, and on the "Yes" side were Douglas Geivett, David Wolpe and William Lane Craig. Michio Kaku provided a kind of commentary towards the end, declaring both sides wrong.
Craig doesn't change; his style of debate doesn't vary from one event to another. As usual he restated the motion, declaring what his side believes, and (in a characteristic effort to erect a suitably inflammable straw man) what the other side believes, and stated what the other side must prove, and what his side would show. As usual he shifted the burden of proof, declaring that it was up to the other side to show that the universe does not have a purpose. Pardon me for being stubborn, but if I'm told that something I can't detect is in fact there despite my inability to detect it, I tend not to change my mind about its existence unless shown compelling evidence.
On the contrary (and as expected), Craig took the existence of a purpose to the universe as the default position. He did concede, however, that if God does not exist, then the universe does not have a purpose. Unfortunately for the legitimacy of his argument he took the flip side of that premise to be that if the universe does have a purpose, then the God of Biblical theism exists. For someone who claims to be a philosopher this false dilemma was a disingenuous tactic. In his usual manner Craig also ran through ten arguments for the existence of a Creator in one of his rebuttals, claiming they were persuasive when in fact they were nothing of the kind — all ten have been long since repeatedly refuted, but that doesn't stop him trotting them out on demand.
This particular debate format was bad enough that it tended to limit speeches to superficial point-scoring. The maximum time allowed for the six initial presentations was six minutes each, with subsequent rebuttals at less than two minutes — hardly enough time to refute even one fallacious argument for the existence of a deity, let alone ten.
Whether or not the universe has a purpose, I'm not sure what purpose this debate served. To my biased sensibilities the "No" side won hands down, but the whole affair was less than edifying. One good thing to come out of it, however, was further exposure of William Lane Craig's empty rhetoric.
Showing posts with label Michael Shermer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Shermer. Show all posts
Monday, 3 January 2011
Tuesday, 25 November 2008
What would it take to convince you that you're mistaken?
A critical test of anyone who appears to hold fundamental - or indeed fundamentalist - beliefs, is to ask the question, "What would it take to convince you that you're mistaken?" Someone who is convinced beyond reason that their beliefs are true will always reply to the effect that nothing would convince them. This is a sure sign of unreasonable fixed belief, and it's not worth anyone's time trying to argue them out of their position.
It's a question often asked of atheists, but Michael Shermer's flippant response, "A deposit of ten million dollars in a Swiss bank account under my name," doesn't count*.
For myself, the idea of a personal God who listens to your thoughts, answers your prayers, obsesses over what you do with your sexual organs and demands worship on pain of eternal banishment to some undefined unpleasantness, is absurd in the extreme and not worthy of consideration. I therefore find it hard to imagine anything that could convince me that such a God exists. Nevertheless, just because I can't imagine it, doesn't mean it's not a possibility, however remote. There's a chance I could be convinced of God's existence, but only if He convinced me Himself, in person, in a manner congruent with my reasonable standards for evidence. I will not, however, accept his petition from any third party.
The probability of such a petition is highly unlikely, I believe, but (as I've already indicated) not completely out of the question.
There is, however, an area where I would be more likely to accept the existence of some kind of intelligent creator - though this intelligence would bear little resemblance to the God of scripture.
If scientific analysis were to reveal that the Big Bang could not have been instigated by anything other than the creative will of some kind of intelligence, science might have to concede that the universe came about by other than natural processes. But speculation about what happened at, during, just before or just after the Big Bang appears to be mired in philosophy rather than science, with doubts about whether you can meaningfully say anything temporal or spacial about an event that brought both space and time into existence. (You might also question your definition of 'natural processes'.)
Similarly, if science were to show that the presence of information in DNA could not have originated naturally, the existence of some agency that inserted the information would have to be postulated. But we would have no reason to call that agent 'God'. Just because such an agent would likely be beyond our comprehension, we are not barred from speculating on its origins.
What applies to DNA also applies to the Big Bang. Calling the originator of the Big Bang 'God', or the originator of the information present in DNA 'God', simply stops all further speculation. It's an abdication of intellectual responsibility, not worthy of science, and should be deplored.
Science has yet to explain these things, but that doesn't mean the answer is "Goddidit."
There are many arguments for the existence of God, and the Argument from Design (also known as the teleological argument) is the least weak.
(*During a recent debate in Australia between John Lennox and Michael Shermer, the moderator asked Shermer, "What piece of evidence, formula, piece of reasoning, whatever ... what would cause you to believe in God?")
It's a question often asked of atheists, but Michael Shermer's flippant response, "A deposit of ten million dollars in a Swiss bank account under my name," doesn't count*.
For myself, the idea of a personal God who listens to your thoughts, answers your prayers, obsesses over what you do with your sexual organs and demands worship on pain of eternal banishment to some undefined unpleasantness, is absurd in the extreme and not worthy of consideration. I therefore find it hard to imagine anything that could convince me that such a God exists. Nevertheless, just because I can't imagine it, doesn't mean it's not a possibility, however remote. There's a chance I could be convinced of God's existence, but only if He convinced me Himself, in person, in a manner congruent with my reasonable standards for evidence. I will not, however, accept his petition from any third party.
The probability of such a petition is highly unlikely, I believe, but (as I've already indicated) not completely out of the question.
There is, however, an area where I would be more likely to accept the existence of some kind of intelligent creator - though this intelligence would bear little resemblance to the God of scripture.
If scientific analysis were to reveal that the Big Bang could not have been instigated by anything other than the creative will of some kind of intelligence, science might have to concede that the universe came about by other than natural processes. But speculation about what happened at, during, just before or just after the Big Bang appears to be mired in philosophy rather than science, with doubts about whether you can meaningfully say anything temporal or spacial about an event that brought both space and time into existence. (You might also question your definition of 'natural processes'.)
Similarly, if science were to show that the presence of information in DNA could not have originated naturally, the existence of some agency that inserted the information would have to be postulated. But we would have no reason to call that agent 'God'. Just because such an agent would likely be beyond our comprehension, we are not barred from speculating on its origins.
What applies to DNA also applies to the Big Bang. Calling the originator of the Big Bang 'God', or the originator of the information present in DNA 'God', simply stops all further speculation. It's an abdication of intellectual responsibility, not worthy of science, and should be deplored.
Science has yet to explain these things, but that doesn't mean the answer is "Goddidit."
There are many arguments for the existence of God, and the Argument from Design (also known as the teleological argument) is the least weak.
(*During a recent debate in Australia between John Lennox and Michael Shermer, the moderator asked Shermer, "What piece of evidence, formula, piece of reasoning, whatever ... what would cause you to believe in God?")
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
