Formal debates

I was a stalwart of my high school's debating team, and at another phase of my life I was a fairly well-regarded courtroom advocate. However, my school never did win a big competition while I was involved - the best we ever managed was to win our local zone, consisting of only four schools. Nor did I ever become a barrister, as I planned at one point, and thus really test my courtroom skills.

Still, public debating is not something that intrinsically scares me. I can do it. On the other other hand, I don't claim to be Zeus's gift to it. I'd feel some trepidation if I had to do it very often, or if I had to face a world class opponent like Christopher Hitchens or William Lane Craig. But, yeah, it's something that I can sorta do. :)

Today, I popped down to Sydney to have my very first formal debate of a kind that has become so popular lately. I.e., the (New?) Atheist versus Christian sort of debate. I'd never debated in this kind of format before, or on such a topic. It was very interesting.

Hitchens, in particular, does a lot of these debates, and yesterday I was commenting on the one that Dan Barker did last year against Cardinal George Pell. It was, once again, an interesting experience adapting to a version of the format.

My opponent was Dr Michael Jensen, an evangelical Anglican priest who lectures on Christian doctrine at Moore College (a high-status theological college here in Australia). He's an experienced advocate for his brand of Christianity, but that doesn't mean that he's any more experienced than I am in this sort of formal debate. I should also say that Michael seemed like a nice guy, and of course I'm pretty comfortable around evangelical Christians. The topic was "It's time to leave God behind." As you may have guessed, I spoke for the affirmative.

The debate was a lot of fun - though I should say immediately that my arguments were put in all seriousness, and with due regard to some of the solemn aspects of such things as the Problem of Evil. Furthermore, it was a useful exercise for me preparing my argument and strategy. It may stand me in good stead as I work with Udo to plan our new book. I also believe that I made points that should get Christians to think very carefully about their view of the world (the debate was jointly arranged by the Christian Union and the Atheist League at Macquarie University - the Zeus Club and the Friends of Old Thor were not involved). Is Christianity really intellectually tenable?

My challenge for the theists/Christians in the audience (they were probably the majority of the 150 to 200 people) used my own adaptation of John Loftus's "outsider test". I asked them to examine why they believe what they do; whether they think their reasons should be persuasive to a rational outsider who doesn't already believe anything of the kind; and whether, if not, they can, in all intellectual honesty, go on justifying it to themselves. I put some brief (but, I think, strong) arguments as to why they can infer that there's no plausible reason to believe in the existence of God; why there are powerful reasons not to; and why the Bible, the church, and the God-concept are merely human constructs. I do think I gave them a lot to dwell on, and I hope that some went away keen to sort it out in their minds.

For those who are wondering, the debate was not video recorded, though an audio recording of most of it will probably be available soon on one or the both of the student associations' websites.

It's not up to me to say a lot more about how it went. I did enjoy the experience, which suggests that I didn't feel beaten up or anything of the kind. I hope the attendees found it entertaining and intellectually stimulating.  My sincere thanks to the Christian Union and the Atheist League for inviting me.

But the nagging issue in my mind is just how valuable these debates are. I wonder whether anyone much changes their minds as a result. I guess some people do in at least superficial ways (there's evidence for this), but do they have any deeper impact? Or is it really too much like a beauty competition? I'm interested in this general question. Discuss.

Dan Barker vs. George Pell

I'm just having a look at this debate from last year. Dan Barker certainly put up a more impressive performance than George Pell, but fine - Pell doesn't have to have the sort of personality that wins people over in debate. These kinds of debates don't necessarily prove a great deal. They're largely beauty contests. An articulate, physically attractive, well-coached actor would "win" such a debate each time.

That said, Pell certainly resorts to a lot of obfuscating and fillibustering. It's not a lot of fun to watch. He doesn't have a talent for this kind of debate. He's no William Lane Craig - though he did have a pretty good support squad there.

More importantly, however, I'm amazed that he simply denies that Antony Flew ended up becoming a kind of deist rather than a full-fledged theist, and that he relies on the title of Flew's book - There Is A God - as evidence. Yes, a deist is also going to say "There is a God [of sorts]" (leaving aside the fact that titles are chosen largely on commercial grounds and don't necessarily give much indication of the detailed thesis).

Flew believed what he believed, and you just have to accept it. You don't get to make up your own facts.

I have a contract!

I've just signed the contract for the new 50 Great Myths About Atheism book that Udo and I are writing. We're still planning the detail of how it will all work, but this will segue quite soon into some intensive wordcount-producing activity.

The Rob Bell does-anyone-go-to-Hell controversy

H/T to Marshall for drawing this controversy to my attention. Fascinating, those theological debates.

Currently reading - Philosophers Without Gods, ed. Louise M. Antony

As I said in a comment yesterday, this book would make a nice companion volume to 50 Voices of Disbelief. When Udo and I started work on the latter, Philosophers Without Gods had been published very recently and was, I believe, only available in hardback. I, at least, have only just got to it, with the publication of a paperback edition last year.

It contains twenty pieces, to our fifty, so they are longer on average. All of them are by professional philosophers. But most of these essays would have fitted quite nicely into our book, and some of the essays in our book would have fitted well over there (the ones by professional philosophers, naturally enough).

I do like the fact that the book doesn't have a party line. Some of the authors are even regretful at not being able to accept a theistic picture of the world - though that's certainly not the case with the majority of them. Some individual essays are very good, indeed, and maybe there will be time to come back to one or two of them. But whether I manage that or not, it's nice to catch up with this book.

Simon Blackburn on respect

"I may respect your gardening by just letting you get on with it. Or, I may respect it by admiring it and regarding it as a superior way to garden. The word seems to span a spectrum from simply not interfering, passing by on the other side, through admiration, right up to reverence and deference. This makes it uniquely well placed for ideological purposes. People may start out by insisting on respect in the minimal sense, and in a generally liberal world they may not find it too difficult to obtain it. But then what we might call 'respect creep' sets in, where the request for minimal toleration turns into a demand for more substantial respect, such as fellow-feeling, or esteem, and finally deference and reverence. In the limit, unless you let me take over your mind and your life, you are not showing proper respect for my religious or ideological convictions."

Sunday supervillainy - Thor movie trailer

This trailer has been around for quite a while now, but hey - it's still a bit of fun. Something to look forward to at the movies in May. The villains include the Destroyer, which looks suitably threatening in the trailer and this image.

A.C. Grayling on drug prohibition

This piece by Anthony Grayling dates from 2002, but I've only just come across it. Well worth reading. He puts the arguments for individual liberty very clearly and succinctly.

H/T Tauriq Moosa.

The evil and hypocrisy of the Vatican - again

If you were in doubt as to what vile people are in control of the Roman Catholic Church, look no further. Here we have a Vatican hierarch, Silvano Tomasi, complaining that poor, dear homophobes get "vilified" for their homophobia. More specifically, this Silvano dude complains as follows:

When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature ... they are stigmatised, and worse -- they are vilified, and prosecuted.These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances.

The most important thing about this is its one small grain of truth: you should not be prosecuted for expressing such evil views as that engaging in consensual homosexual conduct makes you a "sinnner", or "emotionally disordered", or whatever else these bastards want to say. Freedom of speech should enable you to say, quite legally, all sorts of ugly, vicious things.

Freedom of speech also should enable others to point out that these are, in fact, ugly vicious things ... and that only a vile person would say such things. When you say these things, it shows your true character.

Silvano wants his cronies to have freedom of speech. Fine. I agree. But he doesn't want the rest of us to have it. He's not only vile - he's a hypocrite, like the rest of his kind.

ToC for Midnight Echo # 6

Voila!

• “Out Hunting for Teeth” by Joanne Anderton
• “Trawling the Void” by Alan Baxter
• “Silver-Clean” by Jenny Blackford
• “Graveyard Orbit” by Shane Jiraiya Cummings
• “More Matter, Less Art” by Stephen Dedman
• “Seeds” by Mark Farrugia
• “Earth Worms” by Cody Goodfellow
• “The Wanderer in the Darkness” by Andrew J McKiernan
• “Dead Low” by Cat Sparks
• “Surgeon Scalpelfingers” by Helen Stubbs