I’ve spent a lot of time contemplating the atheist/theist debates I’ve seen. There have been some very good moments for atheists, such as Christopher Hitchens’ trouncing of former Prime Minister Tony Blair in the opening salvo of their debate. But informally, there have been a lot of bad moments, too. It’s not so much that the atheists “lost,” but they also didn’t win. Even though most (or even all) of what they said was correct, they were not convincing. I believe I’ve identified two of the most common underlying problems with these discussions.
It’s a Problem With the Nets
Daniel Dennett famously invented the metaphor of a tennis match where one side plays with the net up and the other with the net down. This is nowhere more applicable than in a typical theist/atheist debate.
The questions posed by theists cover a wide, wide range of topics. They want to know how the universe came to exist. They want to know the chemistry of abiogenesis. They want to quibble over intricate points of evolutionary theory. They want to argue the genetics of homosexuality. They want to pinpoint the exact nature and origin of morality.
This is just the short list, of course. But it’s a good starting point. It also represents several human lifetimes worth of reading — just to stay current on any given day! It’s monumentally naive to expect one person to be able to adequately and accurately answer all a theist’s questions about every avenue of modern science.
Nevertheless, we’re all expected to know all the answers. And if we don’t, the theist goes away claiming victory.
The theist’s job is much easier:
- How did the universe come to exist? God did it.
- How did abiogenesis occur? God did it.
- What’s the mechanism behind descent with modification? God did it.
- What do we need to know about morality? God did it.
In more sophisticated circles, theologians will offer intricate analyses of scripture, and there are theists capable enough to trot out some facts and figures for the audience to mull over, but I have yet to see a genuine debate on equal footing, where science is argued with science. There just don’t seem to be any top notch evolutionary biologists willing to argue scientifically for an absolute morality, or cosmologists willing to talk about causality before the Big Bang.
While I’m on the subject, I’ve noticed a glaring difference between atheist conventions and theist conventions. It’s rare to nonexistent for a theist presenter to say “I don’t know.” They’re generally happy to answer questions on pretty much any scientific topic despite the fact that most theologians have had little to no training in any of the sciences they so blithely dismiss.
On the other hand, when scientists present at atheist conferences, I frequently find myself frustrated by audience members who insist on asking a biologist questions of cosmology and receiving a polite, “I’m sorry, that’s not my field. Next question, please.” Scientists generally know their limitations and are quick to admit them. (There’s usually someone in the front row who IS a scientist in that field. Presenters know better than to embarrass themselves.)
The harsh reality is that no single person has all the answers in intricate, precise scientific accuracy. This isn’t a fault with scientists, or atheist debaters. It’s a problem with how the debates are framed, and the expectations of the audience.
You’re Asking the Wrong Question!
The most glaring mistake I see in casual discussion is answering the wrong question. Or, more precisely, it’s when atheists answer a religionist’s question as asked, even though it’s loaded and doesn’t represent an accurate understanding of reality. Let me give you some examples:
- Q: What about the problem of infinite regress? There had to have been something to cause the big bang, right?
Of all the questions theists ask, this may be the most loaded. I’ve learned a quick way to illustrate this: I’m sorry, but there’s a problem with your question. The consensus among cosmologists is that matter/energy/space/time began to exist at the Big Bang. And you’re asking me a question about before the big bang, which doesn’t make any sense, since “before” is a question of time. So… until you can ask a coherent question, I don’t see how I could possibly answer you.
This may seem flippant or dismissive, but it’s not. It’s a real problem — If time did not exist before the Big Bang, how can we ask about anything before the Big Bang? If you ask a real cosmologist this question, you’re likely to get overwhelmed very quickly by a barrage of terms you’ve never heard. That’s because science is hard. It takes years to comprehend. And there’s no easy answer to this question.
A theist’s question of “before the big bang” and causality is based on a pre-scientific linear understanding of space/time. Yes, it’s an age-old and compelling question, but we’ve learned that reality is not as simple as a straight line. The truth is often counter-intuitive and human minds were not designed to intuitively grasp matter/energy/space/time.
Nevertheless, I’m not trying to settle an issue of cosmology. I’m illustrating the main reason why theist/atheist debates are not finding any middle ground. The questions theists are asking represent a fatally flawed view of reality. Unfortunately, it takes twenty minutes to give the painfully abbreviated explanation of how and why the questions are flawed. And when that’s over, all the theists in the room will nod smugly and think, “Yep… he didn’t answer the question. We WIN!!”
Here’s another example:
- What about morality? Science can’t give us an objective algorithm for morality. It can only describe our moral feelings, not prescribe our actions.
Here’s a good answer: Well, the problem is the assumption that there ought to be an objective algorithm for morality. Your question presumes that such a thing exists, even though moral philosophers have never been able to find one. You’re asking a question of “ought” while invoking the “ought-is” fallacy. That’s like… a “double ought-is.”
This answer is usually unsatisfying to a theist because they really, truly, deeply believe that there is and ought to be a real, quantifiable, objective prescription for good moral living. The reality is that there may not be. In fact, there probably isn’t. Even so, atheists spend hours upon hours tying themselves into knots trying to answer a question that isn’t based in reality. We don’t have to explain why science can’t give us the ultimate moral equation because nobody’s demonstrated that such an equation exists in the first place!
Two Universes
The fundamental problem is that religion and science live in two different universes. The theist world is much simpler in some ways. All questions have answers, and they’re easy to understand. Morality is straightforward and objective. Cause, effect, space, and time are linear and direct. Human desires and purposes are tiny mirrors of greater universal desires and purposes. There is real meaning in everything.
Unfortunately, science has shown us rather conclusively that many of these perceptions are wrong. The universe shows no signs of motivated intelligence or purpose. Morality is a complex system of conflicting evolutionary drives, with no apparent “ultimate purpose” and therefore no ultimate prescription for happiness. Or healthiness. Or greater good. In fact, there appears to be no way to pick one “ultimate goal” for the “ultimate prescription.”
Even so, educated scientists and philosophers continue to entertain theist questions and challenges, even when they are based on centuries old scientific illiteracy. It’s a catch-22 of the worst kind. Answer honestly and be accused of evasion and condescension. Play on the theist’s turf and get caught in the snares their questions create. Either way, the scientific atheist is perceived as the loser.
If there was ever a reason to insist on good science being taught in school, this is it. The debate between religion and science is one of the most important cultural discussions we’re having today. Unfortunately, when 90% of the audience is uninformed of the current state of cosmology and the “human” sciences, it’s an uphill battle. Education is and always has been the best antidote for religion. That applies not only to the answers, but the very questions we’re asking.
Well, the problem is the assumption that there ought to be an objective algorithm for morality.
Interestingly, the theists aren’t alone in supposing that to be the case. The “New Atheists” as a group seem largely committed to disputing any suggestion that morality might be relative. It’s a major theme of Harris’ most recent book, but also finds mention in Breaking the Spell and The God Delusion.
Posted by Aphaniptera | April 29, 2011, 1:27 pmActually, I was just discussing something almost identical with a family member. There are a number of factors in the theists’ favor with how theist/atheist debates are conducted. First, expanding beyond the” god did it” idea, even more theologically complex concepts are more familiar to the audience than the arguments that dispute them. This is a problem, because when speaking with someone who holds an idea, if they already have a relatively complete understanding of that idea, you simply need to reference their earlier learning on the subject. In contrast, explaining a new concept to another is difficult, and takes a great deal of time (just ask the average professor). So it is with theists who argue the same things that they preach from their pulpits every Sunday, — many members of the audience are likely to have some understanding of the theist’s point of view, so many subaspects of the idea can be mentioned, not explained. But the scientific knowledge and logical arguments refuting these ideas are less well known and complex, and in many cases require background knowledge. Your example that the question itself may require refinement before answering is spot on… in a case such as this, takes a great deal of time to explain why even the question is unsound.
For these reasons, it seems to me that all great atheistic debaters should never allow the debate to cover multiple aspects of the “existence of god” question in one debate. Each argument for and against the existence of god need to be explored in a way that is simply NOT possible the way that the debates are currently conducted. Watch a debate with WL Craig, and you will see how he uses this to his advantage: He lays out multiple arguments by talking five miles a minute, imbeds each argument with the names of philosophers who have discussed each argument ad nauseum, then declares victory when the atheist is still finishing their expose on the ridiculous premise of one or two of those arguments by pointing out that his opponent has not answered every aspect of every argument he put forth. Atheists need to refuse to debate under these conditions, and instead offer to consider each proof in one debate. In this way the carefully considered logical and scientific arguments can be displayed against their theological counterparts more fully…. Perhaps I am biased, but I think the atheists would be much more likely to “win “under such circumstances.
Posted by Wendy | April 29, 2011, 2:03 pmThanks, Aphaniptera.
I haven’t read Harris’ new book, but I have seen what you’re talking about in at least a limited capacity. Part of me wants to believe that some of these folks would rather find a way to explain things in ways theists will understand, as opposed to re-framing the whole debate and confusing everybody.
Realistically, I sort of doubt that’s the case. The desire for objective morality is not restricted to theists. The quest for an “ultimate moral paradigm” is tantalizing, and many people intuitively feel like there’s just got to be a simple way to frame morality.
Posted by Living Life Without a Net | April 29, 2011, 2:21 pmI agree, Wendy. The problem I’ve seen is that — big surprise — theists are typically not willing to engage on these terms. I suspect that most of them know at some level that they can’t hang with a real scientist on a single point for an hour of talking. That doesn’t mean they necessarily think they’re wrong, or that they’re lying. They — like much of their audience — dismiss the intricacies of science in favor of the “common sense” intuition that has served them so well from the pulpit.
Posted by Living Life Without a Net | April 29, 2011, 2:24 pm“They want to know how the universe came to exist.”
I must contest. I have never met an athiest who wants to know how the universe came into existence. They all claim that they already know.
It is not an honest sincere discussion in search of better evidence and answers.
Posted by Joe Black | April 30, 2011, 5:49 am*Oops, typo, I meant to say I have never met a theist who wants to know that.
Posted by Joe Black | April 30, 2011, 5:51 amI don’t believe it is requisite to be an expert in every field that you discuss or casually debate. An Astrophysicist is quite capable of expressing and exchanging at least his thoughts, ideas, deductions, conclusions and surmisings regarding other subjects.
IMO, honest and open minded debate is the best fashion in which to learn. If I am shown to be wrong in a certain view, then I am wiser than I was before.
Posted by Joe Black | April 30, 2011, 5:55 amAphaniptera,
I’d be interested to know what substantive point you’re making.
What does being an old, new, gnu, or boo! atheist have to do with an individual’s opinion on moral relativism?
Posted by SinSeeker | April 30, 2011, 6:47 amJoe, I’m curious which atheists you’ve met. I don’t know any off the top of my head who claim to know how the universe came into existence. Can you name any famous ones I might have heard of? Or are you just straw-manning this without actually knowing any?
I certainly don’t know. I’m about 99.9% sure scientists are right about the Big Bang happening, but as for what “caused” the big bang, or if we can even ask the question in terms of cause, I just don’t know.
Frankly, it’s not something I’m very concerned with. I’m interested in it from a science geek perspective, but I don’t lose any sleep over which theory is in the lead on any given day. I think most atheists I know feel about the same way.
Posted by Living Life Without a Net | April 30, 2011, 4:01 pmSure. But we’re not talking about astrophysicists casually discussing other subjects. We’re talking about the prevalent attitude among theists that (A) any atheist debater has to have the answer to every question or the theist wins, and (B) that theist debaters regularly comment on subjects for which they’ve had little to no training, and consider themselves equal participants in these discussions.
Posted by Living Life Without a Net | April 30, 2011, 4:18 pmAh. That makes a difference. Sorry I didn’t see this at first. But I guess I have to ask… you really haven’t met theists who argue for god based on their view of the beginnings of the universe??
Posted by Living Life Without a Net | April 30, 2011, 4:20 pm“But I guess I have to ask… you really haven’t met theists who argue for god based on their view of the beginnings of the universe??”
Have you ever met a fundamentalist? I have yet to meet a theist who does NOT argue for god based on their view of the beginnings of the universe??”
Posted by Joe Black | April 30, 2011, 10:08 pmTwo different subjects then. Officiated debates and mere conversation.
The only correct response to the question of big bang causality is… NO ONE knows, not theists nor anyone.
Actually, faith has no place in a scientific debate to begin with. Science requires scientific method. Case testing w/ repeating observable result.
Empirical evidence is requisite to even acquire status of hypothesis. “God did it” don’t count. Enter actual evidence into the contention, and it is no longer faith, or belief w/o evidence.
Whereas it is a logical impossibility to disprove the possibility of any contended god figment or anything for that matter; there is no credible evidence, critical examination, cognitive reasoning, objective rationality, subjective evaluation nor supported deduction that produces or provides a valid conclusion nor any reason whatsoever to believe that a god exists.
Posted by Joe Black | April 30, 2011, 10:16 pmFaith belief is not falsifiable, nor subject to contrary proposal nor peer review and contending. Therefore not science.
Posted by Joe Black | April 30, 2011, 10:18 pmDue to Scientific advance and discovery, hermeneutic apologists have altered private interpretation to complete status of non literal, symbolic, ambiguous, arbitrary, metaphorical, parabolic, adjustable, situationally changeable by choice and necessity and rendered scripture to nothing more than meaningless poetry.
Posted by Joe Black | April 30, 2011, 10:27 pmAh… Thanks for the clarifications, Joe. I think your original atheist/theist typo just had me turned in six directions. And yes. To pretty much everything you’ve said.
Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 1, 2011, 4:26 pmWell, of course — this blog is pretty much a platitude-spouting, circle-jerk echo-chamber…
Posted by CB | May 3, 2011, 8:30 pmGeez, CB… you’ve got a point. I hadn’t thought about that… If I do agree with someone who happens to have reached the same conclusion as me, I should disagree. That way, I don’t look like I’m agreeing. Because that would mean we’re wrong…
Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 3, 2011, 10:25 pmYes, and it appears that you do not…but, by all means, don’t let me stop you from agreeing with the platitudes…
I never said that, never suggested it, never hinted at it; your utterly irrational response comes as no surprise.
And I am not wrong.
Posted by CB | May 3, 2011, 10:58 pmDamn, now we’re a fucking church. I’m out dis bitch.
Posted by Alex Hardman | May 4, 2011, 10:47 amWait… wait!!
Don’t go yet… You see, I disagree with you. I don’t think this is a church. Therefore, I’m right since I’m not participating in an echo chamber circle jerk. So you can stay. But only if you think it’s a church.
I kind of like how this logic works. It’s fun.
Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 4, 2011, 11:34 amI’m confused and have questions that I’m afraid to ask. Doesn’t that make it a church again?
OMFSM, this religion shit is too confusing. I like my logic and reason better. We need to invent a word for a scientific version of a church…
Posted by Alex Hardman | May 4, 2011, 12:12 pmYou’re proving my point for me, guys. Way to go!
Posted by CB | May 4, 2011, 11:14 pmYour point was that you make no sense and are intellectually dishonest? Thanks for clearing that up, we thought we were just having a bit of fun at your expense but I’m glad to have been helpful.
You’re welcome.
Posted by Alex Hardman | May 5, 2011, 8:28 amWrong again, chief. But keep pegging that irony meter, by all means…
Posted by CB | May 5, 2011, 1:49 pmThe question isn’t whether there was a cause that existed temporally prior to the universe. The question is whether anything stood in causal relation to the universe. If not, then the big bang happened uncaused, and I don’t think any skeptic wants to bite that bullet. Certainly not me.
The problem with the debates isn’t that the rules aren’t fair. The rules are fair. In my opinion, there are two problems, and the biggest one is that atheists are suddenly being confronted with arguments that they never heard of. That nobody ever heard of. I had certainly never heard of William Lane Craig, or Plantinga, or any of the theist philosophers when I was a theist, and neither have the majority of theists. By sparking debate on the subject, the new atheists have drawn out the apologists that Christians have traditionally regarded with complete apathy, or anti-intellectual disdain.
We’re used to arguing against fideists and science denialists. Against people like CB. Against this new strain of theism–which isn’t really new, of course, but it is new to most people–which doesn’t deny science, and which respects rationality, we need better arguments.
The second problem is that, in most cases, the theist is only defending the most general, least controversial aspects of theism. They don’t argue for biblical inerrancy, eternal damnation, or particularism, which are, of course, some of the favorite targets of criticism for atheists.
Or if they are arguing one of those topics, the debate is framed in such a way that the existence of God is already taken for granted, and for a philosopher, having an omnipotent, omniscient agent at your disposal gives you quite a lot of leverage to use in showing the logical compatibility of things that otherwise seems completely at odds.
Ultimately, whatever the reason, I do agree that we’re seeing a problem in these debates, I just don’t think we can say that the rules aren’t fair. They are, but we just need to do a better job making our case. That, or reclassify as deists.
Posted by Ian | May 5, 2011, 11:06 pmYou’re a liar, Ian. I am neither a fideist nor a science denialist. If you believe I am either one, then I simply call into question your ability to read and comprehend my arguments. Your misguided beliefs are ultimately irrelevant, of course, but if your going to publicly slap labels on me, you’d better be prepared to back it up, bitch.
Posted by CB | May 6, 2011, 10:06 amKettle… Knock knock, it’s pot…
Posted by Alex Hardman | May 6, 2011, 11:38 amWell, Ian, as to your first point, I think you’re mistaken. Plantinga and Craig are less well known, and less referenced by everyday Christians, but their ideas aren’t new. The introduction of evolution and abiogenesis are new elements in the Christian side of things, as are things like… oh, what the hell is that guy’s name… who thought there was some sort of ether… the guy who bucked general relativity and lost…
(By the way, did you see that NASA basically proved the truth of gravity dimples as predicted by GR?)
But anyway, these scientific findings have been incorporated into the most sophisticated theologies, but the theologies haven’t really changed. They still distill down to one of the basic fallacies — their god still explains nothing, only renames ignorance.
Where a lot of atheists get lost is in arguing above the level of that fallacy. When they do that, they sometimes look pretty bad. Craig’s cosmology doesn’t make sense, but it takes a serious cosmologist to explain it. THAT’s the real problem, and it falls into the first thing I said. You can’t expect every atheist to understand the intricacies of cosmology. However, you can expect them to understand that (A) cosmology doesn’t prove or disprove god either way, and (B) the most intricate theologies are still basic fallacies.
Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 6, 2011, 12:55 pmKindly point out where I have lied. I have demonstrated that I do not “deny science”, yet Ian claimed I did exactly that. Nowhere have I claimed that theism requires faith only, yet again, Ian implied that I was a fideist.
Kindly point out where I have done the equivalent.
Or just stick with your childish IKYABWAI nonsense.
Posted by CB | May 6, 2011, 2:29 pmI like to watch atheist/theist debates because it’s entertaining how each side use the same flaws but only see it on the other person.
I usually just plead the 4th rather than making positive claims, I just evaluate the other sides claims.
I took physics, so I know what’s required to prove a physics claim.
I took stats, so I know what’s required to show a statistical claim.
I don’t do research in either so I try not to make positive claims on either.
The best words that can come out of a debater’s mouth is “I don’t know.”
Until either side will say that about what they’re debating [they can say that about OTHER things, but not about what they think they're right about], I don’t think either will get any leverage in a debate.
Posted by cptpineapple | May 6, 2011, 3:03 pmWhile Plantinga and Craig don’t have new ideas, they do have new arguments, and more importantly, discoveries in cosmology over the last hundred years have been very kind to theism. Science killed the steady state theory, dealt serious damage to the cyclic theory, and gave theism a shiny new teleological argument. All of this increases the probability of theism…and correspondingly decreases the probability of atheism.
As for Craig’s neo-Lorentzian interpretation of relativity, the verdict is still out on the A-theory vs. the B-theory of time. Yeah, physicists like the B-theory, but it has problems of its own such that it isn’t clearly better than the A-theory. How does it explain the anisotropy of time? The temporal becoming of the subjective contents of consciousness?
I think a version of the A-theory where spacetime is curved into the fourth dimension, but not extruded into the fourth dimension–where events are not identical in terms of one universal moment of time, but which are coincident with certain objective features of the universe, such as rate of expansion–that’s plausible enough that you can’t defeat the Kalam on the basis of the superiority of the B-theory.
One of the best objections to the Kalam I’ve come across was your criticism that God lacks a positive ontology. The Kalam is really telling us what the cause of the universe isn’t, rather than what it is.
But other than the “not-this” characteristics–timeless, spaceless, immaterial–the Kalam does present plausible reasons to suppose that the cause of the universe is eternal, and that it has a kind of causal efficacy for acting as a first cause. So it does provide something of a positive ontology.
No, but the issue is not proof, but probability. How probable they show the existence of God to be is a good question, but it depends a great deal on our response to their arguments, and I think there’s plenty of room to improve in that department.
Posted by Ian | May 6, 2011, 4:48 pmwhy should we think god will be within our imagination? he creates us at the same time he may be bigger than our imagination or even the universe. science?science is what, god gives us to invent or discover the things to live luxury and lively.if god given the goat or cat brain even big elephant brain we cant invent anything,so god gives us the worthful living brain then only we discover tv,ac,fridge,car or anything.how can we search god through science.we dont need anyones proof. its a belief more than anything.science is what that god gives us.we cant prove through science.because science is bigger than human but least to god. who is god? who makes the hole in your lungs through nose.
why should we think god should realizable to human brain.dont try to bring in your thoughts.just try to feel.
dont think about what god will give,think about what god gave to us.- the soul.the spirit the body etc…
Posted by george | July 21, 2011, 5:35 amwhat god gives to us in our whole life?
ans is – everything and anything, anything you can see or seeing cabability.everything.what we eat,what we drink,how we walk,everthing.god gives everything.anything – read bhavatgita we can learn something.we can understand something.
if you want to understand god,first you should empty your cup(mind).first fix neutral(mind).
anybody ask proof is a joke.anybody ask proof then everybody say go and watch both of your eyes in mirror.(do you think eyes and brain can develope from evolution.)
God is Almighty.
Posted by george | July 21, 2011, 5:55 am