Debate, or train crash? Matt Dillahunty vs Michael Egnor

Two hours, or more? Did I really want to watch a debate that long on the topic Does God Exist? Maybe I'd watch the first 20 minutes, and give up if it didn't seem to be going anywhere. In the event I watched the whole thing without a break (and slept in the next morning).

It started off amicably enough, though the production quality of this live-streamed YouTube video left a lot to be desired, both technically and from the moderating point of view.

Here's the video, hosted by the Theology Unleashed YouTube channel:

 

It was streamed live last September and has to date been viewed over 136,000 times, with over 8,000 comments. As far as I can tell (not having scrolled through all of them), the comments are overwhelmingly in favour of Matt Dillahunty, or against Michael Egnor. This will not be a surprise if you watch the video first.

Michael Egnor has blogged about the debate at the Discovery Institute and on Evolution News, though you'd be forgiven for thinking he was at a different debate in an alternative reality.

Matt Dillahunty has posted his own preliminary analysis of the debate on his own YouTube channel, with a promise of more in-depth analysis to come:

 

The most gobsmacking moment in the debate for me was when Michael Egnor claimed that the singularity at the Big Bang that began the universe was supernatural (therefore God). Less of a surprise (because one gets used to such shenanigans from the Discovery Institute) was Egnor's unwillingness to engage in proper debate, instead resorting to personal attacks on his interlocutor. Even less surprising, therefore, is Dillahunty's refusal to debate Egnor again.

The doom of rational interchange between believers and non-believers

This short thread illustrates why the Unbelievably Distilled Facebook group as a forum for rational discussion between believers and unbelievers is, in my opinion, pretty much doomed:

Paul Leffingwell

From another thread: "I'd be pissed about all of the unnecessary suffering he watched happen and did nothing..." My personal take on the problem of evil as an imaginative exercise. God's answer: "Did nothing? I endowed the entirety of Western Civilization with advanced medical technology, incredible excess wealth, leisure time in abundance and logistical ability to deliver any and all aid - food, shelter, clothing and medical to all parts of the world within 24 hours and the free will of everyone of my creations to choose to relentlessly and sacrificially do good as a lifestyle choice. What do you mean I did nothing? By the way, that hungry homeless guy with Hep C you ignored yesterday and the 'junk mail' you shredded asking for donations to build a well in an African village was my way of asking YOU what your answer was to the same question you asked me. Motes and beams, my son, motes and beams."

Like · · Unfollow Post · Thursday at 03:46 near Lawrence, KS

• 
  
• Seen by 29

  2 people like this.
• 

  Tom Tozer Like the guy in the flood sitting on his rooftop who waves away the guy in a boat and the rescue helicopter and then ask God why he let him die. "I sent a boat and a helicopter."

  Thursday at 04:55 · Like
• 

  Paul Jenkins "I sent a boat and a helicopter." Who sent the flood?

  Thursday at 12:27 · Like
• 

  Tom Tozer God did because he hates you.

  Thursday at 13:54 · Like
• 

  Paul Jenkins Figures.

  Thursday at 14:19 via mobile · Like
• 

  Paul Leffingwell -- is starting to wonder if the "Problem of Evil" is also "The Giant Excuse to Do Nothing But Complain"

  Thursday at 15:44 · Like

Time to refocus?

I've made a number of statements in the past concerning my opinion of theology, describing it variously as "wild speculation", "a cloudy, indistinct field of contemplation that isn't susceptible to rational discussion", "piffle" and "lies, damned lies, and theology". I've expressed my exasperation with certain kinds of believers. I've engaged with believers online, in the knowledge that I'm unlikely to sway their beliefs. I've even critiqued an entire book of apologetics, at length. What has all this achieved?

My initial reasons for engaging were set out some time ago, and were based on two questions:

1. How come so many people claim to believe patently crazy stuff?
2. What can we do to mitigate the influence of crazy beliefs on everyday life?

The first is of academic interest, and something that I'd like to resolve at some stage (I have a few ideas), but it doesn't directly impact me or mine (except those of mine who actively subscribe to such views). So there's no pressing need for me to pursue it, other than curiosity.

The second is of paramount importance. Where crazy beliefs inform actions they can have seriously detrimental effect on many aspects of life. Practices and policies derived from unsubstantiated dogma need to be challenged where they conflict with rationally desired outcomes. And though their derivation from dogma may be obvious, substantiation based on evidence is the only acceptable justification.

Pursuing No. 1 above can become tiresome. For example, I've reached my nonsense-tolerance limit as far as presuppositional apologetics is concerned, and I'll no longer engage with it in any but the most cursory way. PA is a minority belief within the broader theistic morass (indeed it appears to be an undesirable bedfellow to much of that morass) so ignoring it will be of little consequence. There are other aspects of the theistic morass that I will still address, but from now on only in the context of real world consequences.

I am resolved to shift my emphasis not just for the sake of my sanity but as a result of concerns surfacing during the past year and coming to a head right now. Any nominally vocal atheist today will be aware of the threatened schism within the "atheist movement" — with one group attempting to rebrand itself as Atheism Plus. How successful this will be remains unclear, but I support the impetus to take atheism beyond the dictionary definition in order to achieve progress in particular areas of concern.

Skepticule co-host Paul Baird, in a post entitled "The Looking Glass War between Theists and Atheists", points out that among all the arguments, debates etc., there isn't actually much difference between those on opposite sides of the divide:

It does seem to me that there is a thin line between atheism and theism and that it's wrong to make any sweeping judgements based on whether one believes in a god compared to whether one does not. There are smart atheists, there are smart theists, there are theists with mental health problems and there are atheists with mental health problems too. It's as though it's the subject that attracts them all. It's like trainspotting with gods. We're all standing at the end of the same platform with our notebooks.

Which makes me wonder what on earth we are doing there. His final paragraph sums up the practical implications of it all, providing some perspective:

I just don't have the level of of enthusiasm to do the debates, exchanges of views or the research to participate in areas outside of the immediate impact of English Social Christianity on English Public Policy as it immediately affects my life and the lives of those close to me.

In a comment to the Facebook syndication of the post, Professor Paul Braterman makes an implicit, practical suggestion:

Some of my best friends are Christians. I long since decided that debating the existence of God is not a fruitful exercise, and that whatever harm may come from such belief should be the subject of criticism in its own right.

An excellent strategy, and one I will endeavour to follow from now on.

Enjoying the cut-and-thrust of online debate

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong blogs, but I've been struck recently by what I consider serious impediments to rational discourse. Unfortunately I can't (or rather won't) link to examples because doing so would entirely defeat the point of this post. What I've seen are discussions carried out in the most acrimonious terms. Ad hominems à gogo is how I would characterize these arguments, and if we're talking about the theist-atheist divide (and in these cases that is what I'm talking about), both sides are guilty.

Personally, when I engage in online debate (in my case this is mostly written debate — in blog-comments or forums) I try to do so in a polite manner. I will occasionally draft a reply of biting invective, but I will delete it or moderate it before posting. I know there are people on both sides who relish the cut-and-thrust of the well-honed verbal barb, but such flourishes are unlikely to sway the opposition. In fact the opposition is hardly ever going to be swayed by even well-judged argumentation — so what's the point? The point is that the opposition is not the only consumer of the exchange. There may be onlookers in the background — lurkers — who could possibly be swayed by a polite but cogent argument.

These lurkers, however, are unlikely to give serious consideration to arguments couched in uncharitable terms. Appropriate gentle mockery is another matter, and implied ridicule can be effective, but insults and name-calling are counter-productive.

So here's my message to those engaging in rambunctious exchanges: have fun, enjoy yourselves — but don't kid yourselves. You're doing this for entertainment, and that's fine, but you're not going to make a difference to anybody else.

Online debate at Premier Christian Community

Since my repost of my comment in a Premier Christian Community discussion thread started by Todd Pitner I have joined in the subsequent discussion in response to Todd's questions posed to a user named LinearC (whose points, incidentally, I generally agree with).

Though I don't know why Todd posted the original questions (the reasons he gave in his opening post do not appear to be borne out by his subsequent comments), at the time I thought the discussion was interesting enough to pursue. I include (below) the post with which I responded to Todd's response to LinearC:

---

I appreciate these questions were directed at LinearC, however I'd like to share my own responses to them:

What kind of evidence would you be looking for to prove God exists?

I'm interested in any evidence that genuinely points to the existence of God, though I don't expect to find "proof". Proof isn't something we find in practical reality, only in mathematics.

If there is a God...and if He ultimately revealed Himself...and if He revealed that He purposely gave us all a free-will choice to accept or reject Him...could it be that you just are not acknowledging the general and special revelation that is before you every second of every day? Could it be that you're stepping all over His nature to deny His existence?

That's a lot of ifs. And no, and no. Revelation is a two-way affair. You may say that God has revealed himself (in scripture, in nature or wherever) but I see nothing of such a god. I see a collection of ancient texts, and I see nature. No "revelation".

Have you ever read the Book of John as if the account was true and Jesus was/is Who He claimed to be? Have you ever read JUST the red letters (to make it more time efficient for you)? Scripture opens the Door AFTER you knock. That's Biblical.

I admit I haven't. But then no-one has given me any cogent reason why I should regard any book of the Bible as anything other than literature. When I read the Bible, or any "scripture", I read it as literature, not as "holy writ".

Where did all the matter come from and, even more importantly in my mind, after the Big Bang when all that matter began to coalesce, where did the gravity come from to bring everything together in kum-bay-ya fashion? Assuming you weren't there to empirically verify, what do you BELIEVE? Or does "belief not really come into it?" Or is your "belief" selective? If so, why? What's your issue with the truth claims of the Bible?

I don't know where all the matter and gravity "came from". I'm vaguely aware of theoretical research by physicists such as Lawrence Krauss in these areas, and I understand they're making progress. I'm happy to leave it up to them — I'm not a physicist.

Did nature create itself? What do you BELIEVE?

I believe I don't know the answer to this question.

Life from non-life...tell me how the first cell evolved? Do you KNOW or do you have a BELIEF?

Sorry, I don't know. I'm not a specialist in origin-of-life studies either. But from what I've read about abiogenesis, it seems likely that life started with a self-replicating molecule of some kind, and I understand there are various theories about how that might have happened by natural processes.

Who or what is your ultimate authority of knowledge? Why do you BELIEVE what you believe? Where do you drop your anchor on knowledge? The scientific method? Why? Was the scientific method used to discover the scientific method?

One at a time please. Ultimate authority of knowledge? Doesn't exist. I believe what I believe because I have a reasonable body of evidence for those beliefs. The scientific method was not "discovered", it was invented, just like writing was invented. It's a tool, and on the whole it works — in as much as it's the best way we have of finding out what's true and what isn't.

Atheists seem chronically afflicted with the disease of yesbuts, “Yes I follow the evidence, but not when it points to God.” Having an allergy to God’s say-so, I submit all the misguided attempts to debunk Christianity succeed only in exposing the atheists need of it.

This is just wishful thinking. Atheists don't need to debunk Christianity, because Christianity assumes the existence of a god that atheists don't believe in.

Do you really understand what Christianity is all about? Tell me, what is the Gospel message? Why did Jesus become man, allegedly?

I don't see why I should need to know this stuff if I don't believe in a god in the first place. Reading the New Testament as literature is useful as a cultural reference — especially in Britain — but the "message" of Christianity is wide open to interpretation, as evidenced by the multitude of Christian sects throughout the world.

Do you deny Supernaturalism? You say, "Belief just doesn't come into it." Do you really believe that?

Not directed at me, but I'll answer anyway: Yes, I deny supernaturalism (if by supernaturalism is meant the belief in a reality that is "outside" of nature — not a very coherent definition, I admit, but I don't see how else one could define it).

I'm interested in debates about origins, about morality, about evidence — amongst other things. But I'm not much interested in theology, because theology assumes the existence of the thing it is supposed to be about, while I have yet to see any compelling evidence for the existence of that thing.

---

Go here to see Todd's response (and subsequent posts):
http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/xn/detail/2060181:Comment:384715