Affirmative: Blondie vs Negative: Metacrock
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:09 pm
Christian thought in the 21st century
http://www.doxa.ws/forum/
this is a new thread on carm that you need to read.blondie wrote:Atheism, the lack of belief in any orthodox understanding of God or gods, is the most intellectually honest position a person can have in the 21st century.
That’s inadequate. First of all any religion is orthodox to itself, all religions have Orthodox branches. He has to show there’s one world Orthodoxy if he’s going to argue that different views of God contradict. Otherwise he’s just confusing differences in view with real contradictions. They are not all speaking the same langue so saying things differently is to be expected. I mean that metaphorically as well as literally.What is an orthodox religion?
Religions are organizations that often include a creation myth, moral codes, rituals and methods for communicating with the “divine,” some sort of holy text or “revealed truth,” and a cultural legend or epic.
Elsewhere I have argued for reading James' treatment of mysticism in the Varieties as an example of the unity thesis in mysticism (Hood, 2003). The unity thesis is the view that both within and outside of the great faith traditions, is an experience that is essentially identical, regardless of interpretation. James put the issue thusly:
In Hinduism, in Neoplatonism, in Sufism, in Christian Mysticism, in Whitmanism, we find the same recurring note, so that there is about mystical utterances an eternal unanimity which ought to make a critic stop and think, and which brings it about that the mystical classics have, as has been said, neither birthday nor native land. Perpetually telling of the unity of man with God, their speech antedate language, and they do not grow old (James, 1902/1985, p. 332, emphasis mine)
The above quote clearly hints at two of the basic assumptions of those who support the unity thesis. First, it implies that a distinction can be made between experience and its interpretation. Second, it suggests that for at least some linguistic descriptions, an underlying uniform experience cuts across language differences (Hood, 2003, 2006). This position has been most systematically developed by Stace (1961) under the rubric of the common core thesis and is the basis of the most commonly used empirical measure of mysticism, the Mysticism Scale which has been used in numerous studies for more than a quarter of a century (Hood, 1975, 1997).(http://www.journal-fuer-psychologie.de/ ... 08-04.html)
The craze for precision assumes we are making up our response to the divine. He seems to assume if we are making it up anyway we can make It more precise. WE are not making it up so we can’t do that. He can only go by what we understand, we don’t’ understand much because it’s not about understanding it’s about experiencing.self-identified atheists. Few, if any, atheists claim to be able to prove a negative, particularly if the negative in the nonexistence of a vague or undefined entity with vague and undefined supernatural powers. Atheists embrace their title in order to reclaim a pejorative. This is often seen as a civil rights issue. In many parts of America atheists face open discrimination for being honest and vocal about their religious position.
(1) This is contradicted by the evidence I just gave above (notice he has no evidence). There are specific ideas and experiences (which are more important) that he is not taking into account.Atheism, as understood by the majority of us that self-identify as such, is simply the lack of belief in any (G)od. But what is a (G)od? The word may refer to any number of things. (G)od can be used to describe anything from an idolized person, like a movie or sports star, to something that is omnipotent, omnipresent,
omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Atheist certainly believe in Brad Pitt, but they don’t see compelling evidence for something that knows everything, is everywhere, is all “good,” and can do anything.
To avoid confusion I will not use the word (G)od to describe “something” with all of these characteristics but will refer to it as X.
Logically X cannot exist as the properties are contradictory as pointed out by Epicurus and countless others.
If X were omnipotent it could defy logic. The Hindu Brahman might defy logic but it is not an orthodox (G)od. Brahman might be understood as the “ultimate reality.” Both the Hindu guru and the atheist believe in ultimate reality but the atheist will not call ultimate reality Brahman, nor will he claim to have unwarranted knowledge of its nature. There is a tremendous amount of baggage that comes with the word Brahman, though much less than the word (G)od.
Any X that cannot defy logic is not omnipotent.
Being everywhere does not mean being everything. That is a fallacy. The wrong force for example is everywhere where matter is but that doesn’t mean I am the strong force.To be omnipresent is to be everywhere and thus everything, or possibly the substrate for everything. A more precise word for this would be ether. Few, if anyone, would define (G)od as ether, but is (G)od everything?
A pantheist might say (G)od is everything. But an atheist will just use the word everything because it is less confusing. The (G)od of the pantheist is usually understood to be indifferent to the human condition. It also lacks sentience. It is not omnibenevolent nor omniscient.
Again he does not define orthodoxy and he cant’ establish what this means. It’s not orthodox for non Muslims. It’s only orthodox in the tradition that uses the cultural constructs of the filter that make that concept. So what does that mean for the others that they are dishonest? No how does that follow? They are all just following the tradition they are given and its’ shaped by the constructs of that culture that are used to make the ineffable effable.Allah is orthodox and understood to be X by its believers. But to believe in Allah is to believe that the Koran is its divine revelation. For the sake of brevity I will just state that the atheist is justified in lacking the belief that the Koran is of supernatural origins.
He doesn’t something interesting there in trying to relate (badly) Christian concepts to Hindu meaning he really undermines his own his own argument when he almost says doctrine of Christ’s deity is just another version of the aviator. Of course he get’s the Christian doctrine wrong in that it’s not analogous.Worshipers of Christ feel justified in rejecting all of the Hindu (G)od-men (with the exception of Christ itself) so the atheist can be said to be equally justified in doing so.
Christ is understood by its followers to be the avatar of the more abstract Jewish (G)od YHWH. It also has many similarities to other (G)od-men from the time and place of its origins. Christians certainly would object to Jesus being labeled as an avatar but the atheist sees this as a fair and clear description.
Today there are numerous understandings of the (G)od-man Jesus and there have been many more throughout that religion’s history. The different versions of Christ are arguably more numerous than the (G)ods of the Greco-Roman pantheon, of which it is the sole survivor. Though most of these varied understandings of Christ’s nature have it as being a continuation of YHWH.
that might be an interesting debate in itself. It proves nothing of his case except that he’s just putting a spin in things to make it appear that to disagree with his outlook is dishonest in and of itself. That’s all a matter his framing it in terms that flatter his understanding.An objective look at the archeological evidence and the writings of the followers of YHWH clearly show it to have evolved from a not atypical Canaanite (G)od into something more like X.
As Christians feel justified in dismissing YHWH as understood by its followers, the atheist can be equally justified in doing so.
As the worshipers of Allah feel justified in lacking belief in Christ the atheist is also justified in rejecting it.
The atheist is justified and intellectually honest in the rejecting of all orthodox understandings of (G)od.
I just showed you above.But how does the intellectually honest person of any persuasion go about understanding the deep questions concerning the universe and the nature of man?
He’s sawing off the limb that he’s crawled out on. His view is no less arrogant to claim understanding than the religious believer’s view.To be intellectually honest one must admit that there are untold mysteries beyond human understanding. One my ask, “why are we here?” But first one must ask if this is even a rational question. Is there is any purpose at all?
Framing the question I a different light does not mean those who bring to it other perspectives and found in it other answers are intellectually dishonest.One may ask, “where did the universe come from?” But before this we must first ask if it came from anywhere. Is this even a rational question? We should be humble enough to accept that these answers may still be far beyond us. The various orthodox religions provide different answers to these questions. The atheist finds them far from compelling.
He’s going to try to list several things that relate to each other from one tradition to another. That’s going to establish a standard. He inslcudes God arguemtns.What is an orthodox religion?
Religions are organizations that often include a creation myth, moral codes, rituals and methods for communicating with the “divine,” some sort of holy text or “revealed truth,” and a cultural legend or epic.
Religious people often claim there are ways of acquiring information, including answers to the mysteries of life and the universe, that are different from our standard sources of evidence. These include communication with the “divine,” revealed truth, and rhetoric.
This is just an opinion, and clearly not well read opining.notice he doesn’t use any philosopher to back it up. Had he been willing to debate my God arguments he would surely learn different. He wasn’t willing to face that. I think it’s telling that he wasn’t.The classic arguments for the existence of (G)od are based on rhetoric and there are equally compelling rhetorical counter arguments. So it is safe to assume rhetoric is not a useful way of arriving at satisfactory conclusions.
Does he mean internally contradictory to themselves? OR does he mean they contradict each other? That’ makes a difference.The various revealed truths of the orthodox religions, the Vedas, the Koran, the Bible, etc. are contradictory and habitually avoid justification and thus demand incredulity.
(1) no basis to that statement at all. Notice uses no documentation at all.Prayer, meditation, mystical experience, and other methods of directly communicating with the “divine” have been performed by atheists and found lacking.
He has no basis upon which to argue that. He offers no evidence. All he’s really done is set up expectations based upon fundamentalist inerrancy. When it didn’t meet those expectations he decided it was a failure. That’s because it’s not about inerrancy or verbal plenary inspiration. That’sthe false idea, not the idea of experiencing the divine.Revealed truth, rhetoric, and communicating with the “divine” have continually failed as a means of discovering information about the natural world. Claims about discoveries of any non-natural order have been unconvincing, contradictory, and often incoherent.
That is a totally unsupported statement. I’ve demonstrated with much evidence that Lorudes miracle are well documented and supported by the best medical evidence. he offers you no evidence of any kind. He doesn’t quote anyone, he has no studies no sources he says that totally out of his own opinion. I have tons of evidence to quote.So how does one find answers to life’s most profound questions?
Origins are best explained by physicists, biologists, and chemists who have a proven track record for success, objectively reliable methods, and convincing, though tentative, theories.
Questions of why are arguably meaningless.
Evidence for revealed truth or direct communication with the “divine,” such as the supposed miracles at Lourdes, or the supernatural stunts of gurus and prophets have been tested and proven to be far from convincing.
The paradox of human miracle assessment is that the only way to discern whether a phenomenon is supernatural is by having trained rationalists testify that it outstrips their training. Since most wonders admitted by the modern church are medical cures, it consults with doctors. Di Ruberto has access to a pool of 60 - "We've got all the medical branches covered," says his colleague, Dr. Ennio Ensoli - and assigns each purported miracle to two specialists on the vanquished ailment.
They apply criteria established in the 1700s by Pope Benedict XIV: among them, that the disease was serious; that there was objective proof of its existence; that other treatments failed; and that the cure was rapid and lasting. Any one can be a stumbling block. Pain, explains Ensoli, means little: "Someone might say he feels bad, but how do you measure that?" Leukemia remissions are not considered until they have lasted a decade. A cure attributable to human effort, however prayed for, is insufficient. "Sometimes we have cases that you could call exceptional, but that's not enough." says Ensoli. "Exceptional doesn't mean inexplicable."
"Inexplicable," or inspiegabile, is the happy label that Di Ruberto, the doctors and several other clerics in the Vatican's "medical conference" give to a case if it survives their scrutiny. It then passes to a panel of theologians, who must determine whether the inexplicable resulted from prayer. If so, the miracle is usually approved by a caucus of Cardinals and the Pope.
Some find the process all too rigorous. Says Father Paolino Rossi, whose job, in effect, is lobbying for would-be saints from his own Capuchin order: "It's pretty disappointing when you work for years and years and then see the miracle get rejected." But others suggest it could be stricter still.
There is another major miracle-validating body in the Catholic world: the International Medical Committee for the shrine at Lourdes. Since miracles at Lourdes are all ascribed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary, it is not caught up in the saint-making process, which some believe the Pope has running overtime. Roger Pilon, the head of Lourdes' committee, notes that he and his colleagues have not approved a miracle since 1989, while the Vatican recommended 12 in 1994 alone. "Are we too severe?" he wonders out loud. "Are they really using the same criteria?"
three problems:In order to attempt to find the answers to life’s great mysteries we should use the same proven methods we use to answer simpler questions. The scientific method, objective analysis, observation, and measurement have served us well and will certainly continue to do so in the future.
Clear language is vital. All terms must be defined and not merely substituted with equally fuzzy words. Questions must be stated clearly and a hypothesis must be proposed and tested as objectively as possible. One must start with a question and honestly look for answers, not start with an answer and try to rationalize it.
That makes no sense at all. That’s like saying if chemistry solves chemical problems then it must also be used for math problems. It’s only logical to use the methods that works for the issue.All propositions must be treated equally. If a method or argument can explain a phenomenon, any other phenomenon that that argument or method can be used for is equally valid.
That’s answered by Motlmann in Theology of hope. We can’t use category like miracle as part of historical fact. That doesn’t’ make them dishonest ti makes them tenets of faith so they can’t be facts. They don’t have to be discarded historical reality is nto totalizing. We can preserve the category of “what we don’t know in history.” As Motlmann calls the category, “history making.” Its not a historical fact but the belief shaped history so it’s history making.The historical method presupposes that the natural world functioned in the past the same as it does today. There can never be historical evidence for nature deviating from its course.
By demanding clear language, objective measuring and observation, and equal treatment of all hypothesis no evidence for any orthodox understanding of (G)od has risen to the level one would expect of anything worth believing in.
The most intellectually honest position to take regarding any hypothesis concerning a phenomenon that isn’t supported by reasonable evidence is lack of belief.
Again so much ambiguity as to what he means by “Orthodox” that it’s a meaningless comment. His position is not rock sold on honesty when it denies the basis or views other than science, asserts question begging positions on evidence that counts against his position and uses no evidence to back anything up.Thus the most intellectually honest position to take concerning any orthodox understandings of (G)od is lack of belief until a clear hypothesis is formulated, an experiment conducted, reproduced, and shown to make predictions.
that’s actually it’s formal sense.“Though I spent my entire opening argument explaining what I mean when I say orthodox and intellectually honest, Metacrock still seems confused on these terms.
To summarize, I am using the word orthodox in its less formal sense of being within an established religious tradition”.
that makes no sense at all. He says he’s Using It in theThis is not to be confused with Orthodox (with a capital O) as in Orthodox Christianity or Orthodox Judaism.
That’s even more confused because he never actually defined what it means. He says it means no simply honest but also intellectual. I got that when it says “intellectually honest.” I think we all know what intellectual honesty is and it’s not refusing to read a single study or a chapter about the studies when both have been provided in terms of the chapter on line and the source of the studies, over a hundred times; then you claim that you did read a study you never give the title or the author to prove that you did.The last section of my opening argument I laid out what it means to be intellectually honest. To clarify for Metacrock’s sake, I don’t mean simply honest, but also intellectual. By intellectual I mean curious and using rigorous and proven means of acquiring information.
I never implied that theists are dishonest. Thus the title of the debate “Atheism, the lack of belief in any orthodox understanding of God or gods, is the most intellectually honest position a person can have in the 21st century.”
Ironic he should say that. This format is specifically designed for evidence. This is the same format of Policy debate used by both National Forensic league (high school debate) and National Debate Tournament (college debate). Thousands students every single week end all year long lug around heavy files filled with evidence and quote hundreds of quotes in every debate tournament. In those debates one must document every single thing said.As far as my lack of sources I might suggest that an intellectually honest person might check into my claims. I didn’t feel the need to cite sources in this format
I dismissed the Lourdes miracles out of hand not only because, on the surface, they are patently absurd, but also because I have looked into the subject and found the evidence far from convincing. To illustrate this point I can simply go to JSTOR and search all of the academic journals that have information on Lourdes. Not surprising there is nothing for decades. Why? Because the proposition is so outrageous no academic journal would risk their reputation by doing serious scholarly research into the subject. The British Medical Journal soundly dismissed the “miracles” in 1910. The most resent article about Lourdes from that same journal from 1957 states, “the evidence for anything “miraculous” in the popular sense is extremely meager” and calls it, “a lot of nonsense.”
Yes I’ve never heard that before. I had no idea that scientists would be skeptics. Thanks for telling me that. Of course I have to tell him why that’s not proof that there’s no God or no miracle. Of course look at what he’s sloughing off in his refusal to answer the argument (he substitutes abuse for an answer).It is sort of embarrassing to have to point this out to someone who claims to be a scholar. It is as if my opponent is totally unfamiliar with how research is done in fields other than theology.
This is a good example of complete intellectual dishonesty. These can’t possibly be answered by science because they are out of it’s domain. Science has business even pretending to talk about such things. That’s not even good scientific attitude to hope that it can. But the totally dishonest science worship crowd in atheist circles thinks science can do anything.Origins are best explained by physicists, biologists, and chemists who have a proven track record for success, objectively reliable methods, and convincing, though tentative, theories.
This is statement is not born out because he says they are disproved but has presented no actual disproof. He has no docs to that effect. He doesn’t quote from his 1910 article and that was before x-rays were in general medical use and most scientific medical equipment that we have today was unknown. So how much did that article recall have to evaluate? Probably all it really did was just cast doubt through refusal to investigate.Questions of why are arguably meaningless.
Evidence for revealed truth or direct communication with the “divine,” such as the supposed miracles at Lourdes, or the supernatural stunts of gurus and prophets have been tested and proven to be far from convincing.
Honesty is comparative. If one is more or less honest. Than another. The only way to prove that atheism is ‘the most intellectually honest” position is to compare it to others. I said in the first one it’s only fair to compare it to theism. If we want to take the topic literally the way he worded it then he loses right now. He says atheism is the most intellectually honest position and it’s not. There are clearly other positions more honest such global warming. That’s much better proved than atheism. It’s cleary more fair to compare atheism to belief in God not all positons on everything. I was giving him a break by taking his badly worded topic in a “better” sense.Metacrock sets up the straw man argument that I “must prove that belief in God is intellectually dishonest.” I will simply dismiss this. I don’t believe this, and have never stated such. I do believe it is less intellectually honest than the atheist position.
Metacrock also constantly switches back and forth between orthodox and Orthodox, which as a good faith measure I will accept as a typographical error and not an attempt at deception.
Next my opponent launched into a defense of the orthodox Hindu doctrine that all religions are basically ways of arriving at the same goal. An educated, and intellectually honest, understanding of this dogma acknowledges that it is not limited to religious practice but also includes such things as yoga and science. Metacrock seems to fundamentally misunderstand basic Hinduism. Furthermore, his attempt to co-opt this doctrine into his own unique version of Christianity only supports my position. He is not arguing for an orthodox understanding of (G)od and not being as intellectually honest as the typical defender of atheism, who would not dance around calling a spade a spade.
That’s what I said about them that to modern Hindus gods are energies. Don’t forget Vedanta which sees God as the void, and the human soul as a microcosm of God. These are not straw and they are new fangled made up stuff it’s just a matter some little thing called “learning” which I think our friend is just discovering and hasn’t quite got the hang of. I’m usre he will.The Supreme is enshrined in the hearts of all He alone is the Supreme Reality. So renounce and rejoice in Him and covet not.
In the Vedas, we find nowhere any such mention which may be concluded to show that Hinduism believes in more Gods than one. Vedas, Upanishads and all other authorized scriptures clearly speak of One God and the only God that permeates the universe. He is the Supreme Being – Yajurveda (XLI) says, ”By one supreme Ruler is the universe pervaded. Even every world in the whole circle of nature, He is the True God... For Him, O Man, covet not unjustly the wealth of any creature existing. Renounce all that is unjust and enjoy pure delight, true spiritual happiness.”
Of course it’s of great importance, talk about intellectual dishonesty, it’s a direct disprove of his only argument. He says that religions are not talking about the same reality, I show that they are. I show there is one reality behind all traditions (that’s proved by the same experiences and the same concepts documented in several ways such as what Newberg says) he tries to say this is some really stupid thing but let’s see if he has any skill in refutation. It doesn’t bode well that he can’t see the obvious importance of it.Next Metacrock feels the need to spell out his theory of religion. As this debate concerns orthodox understandings of (G)od it is of no issue.
Nope, never said that. Didn’t say anything like it. It’s a totally different concept than the one I used. My concept is that they are made different by filtering through cultural constructs. It’s not the religion that are the same but the reality behind them, yet that is beyond understand and beyond speaking.Metacrock claims that all religions fit within one mold.
(1) offers no evidence to that effct. He has no standar or criteria by which to judge it.As stated above, this is basic Hinduism, but that orthodox religious tradition allows for atheism to also “fit within that mold” and is clearly a more sophisticated philosophy than what Metacrock is trying to champion.
I must say, he has violated the agreement not to insult. Yes of course that’s an insult and it was calculated to be so. I am a trained scholar, an academic Ph.D . Candidate I ran a journal and yes, I know you think theology is BS but my Ph.D. work was in a secular field in a state university in history of ideas. Of this might not be an insult to everyone but it is to me, and he knows that. He’s doing it on purpose.Next my opponent puts forth his argument for peak experience and once again supports my argument by demonstrating a level of scholarship that may pass in theology but doesn’t come close to what one would expected in other disciplines. Basically Metacrock believes that peak experiences and the new science of brain scanning are arguments for the existence of some sort of (G)od.
Yea that’s real fair and scholarly lay down a heavily insulating statement designed to wound and tear personally at me because of my past and to destroy a reputation I care about as a scholar, then to imply that he has all massive stuff that I’ve done wrong but he’s not going to give it. Not enough time. So great that it can’t be given quickly. Yea that’s really keeping the agreement isn’t it?There are too many problems with Metacrocks hypothesis to warrant a lengthy rebuttal but I will respond with a few choice quotes from a book that summarizes the state of “neurotheology,”
Where God and Science Meet: The neurology of religious experience by Patrick McNamara. In doing so I will make it clear that Metacrock is cherry picking his information and being less than intellectually honest.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr= ... ng&f=false
Basically all we can say for sure is that certain religious practices correlate with blood flow in the brain. McNamara writes, “the strongest statement that can be made from the results from brain imaging studies are correlational not causal.”
Unlike Metacrock’s wild and unsupported claims about the findings of this research, the most casual look into the subject will find it very sober and well within the bounds of what one would expect from serious scientific research.
I agree. That Is not any kind of contradiction to my argument. This entire line of argument means is that Blondie doesn’t pay attention (no offense—like all truly great scholars he doesn’t bother to know what his opponent thinks).McNamara states that, “such studies…can legitimately make statements about the human experience or perception, not about the specific objects experienced,”
That’s not what I claim either. We have several arguments but let’s just go with the two major ones: very different, the Hood article about reaction to mystical experience and the universality of it. That has nothing to do with brain chemistry as a proof. It’s in the same book as Mc but not the same thing that he’s dealing with. The other is Newberg (who may be in there too I can’t remember, I don’t own the book it’s been two years or ore since I saw it). I used that book in my book so I have some material form it stored but not the whole book. It’s also in three big volumes, a lot there.and “ just because the brain activity patterns of those Christians corroborated their belief that they were in a personal relationship with God (as Jesus Christ), this does not lead to the conclusion that the brain imaging findings prove that these Christians were in fact in such a relationship.”
He’s dancing on the edge of the insult agreement. This is a totally unnecessary false accusation. Again he characterizes something I wrote a whole book about as “unwarranted.” He presnts no evidence. He has no proof of any kind. He doesn’t’ even quote McNamara which is not valid. It’s warranted with 200 studies and five years of research.Metacrock’s outrageous claims based in this research are far from warranted.
unfortunately real scholars know better than to base their claims on ‘expectations.” What one would expect a “serious scientist” to say and what they do say are different things. One would not expect a serious scientist to say Qm particles don’t’ have causes or at least there was a time when that was the case. So you can’t use your ideological exceptions and documentation.His conclusions and speculations are wholly dissimilar to what one would expect from serious scientists or intellectually honest researchers.
there are no activities that result in it. Those are all triggers they are not causes. The cause of the thing is not in the trigger. We know this because there people who have them with no triggers. There are many different triggers.One of the first questions I would ask is how do the brain scans of religious practitioners compare to nonreligious activities that result in peak experience?
I have looked at it. How does he know I haven’t? He has not read my book. He hasn’t really read much of anything I’ve written. He doesn’t know what I say, he doesn’t even know what my arguments are about.Possibly a musician when he or she is “in the zone.” If chanting can get you there what about singing or dancing? McNamara also makes this point and writes that such experiments have yet to be done. It seem as though the more intellectually honest a person is the more they would look at the overall state of this new field of research rather than jumping to wild conclusions about the nature of man and the universe without justification.
That is a totally unjustified statement which he has no documented back and no basis in fact to make. We have discussed this on the board before.My opponent’s observations that these peak experience sometimes result in possibly beneficial mental states are more reasonably understood as a product of evolution than as evidence of some sort of supernatural agency.
If there's a genetic disposition to the idea of God that's a pretty good reason to believe God had to put it there. Could a gene or a Spandrels really develop based upon an imaginary being in the sky? Or even based upon the ground of being? There would require ideas implanted in the gene structure, if they were false ideas that would be even more remarkable.
Either it's cultural in which case it shouldn't be universal or it's genetic in which case the geentic structure of an idea must be explained.
Problems:From O'Connor article above.
Evolutionary scientists have suggested that belief in God, which is a common trait found in human societies around the world and throughout history, may be built into the brain's complex electrical circuitry as a Darwinian adaptation to encourage co-operation between individuals.
"Religion Is Not an Adaptation" 159
Lee A. Kirkpatrick
In Where God and Science Meet
ed Patrick McNamara
Preager
Finally, perhaps the biggest problem with religion-as-adaptation theories
is that, in virtually every example I have encountered, it seems clear that a
much simpler design could solve the (presumed) adaptive problem at least
as well as religion. Natural selection is a very conservative process that,
starting from the existing design, fashions new adaptations by changing as
little as necessary. Simpler designs are more evolvable designs. Consider, for
example, suggestions that religious beliefs are adaptive because they provide
relief from anxiety or other psychological benefi ts. In addition to other problems
outlined previously as to how religion could represent an adaptation
designed to produce such effects, it seems obvious that a much simpler way
for natural selection to reduce anxiety would be to simply tweak a parameter
of the anxiety system or mechanism to make it quantitatively less reactive
in response to threats or to simply recalibrate it to produce consistently
lower levels. Such a minor change in an existing anxiety system would be far
easier—and thus more likely—for natural selection to produce than all the
complex systems and mechanisms (not to mention group-level phenomena)
required to produce anxiety-reducing religion.
Several problems with that statement:Metacrock continued to preach his unorthodox version of (G)od as a “transcendental signifier” and “ground of being.” Vague metaphysical terms are relative to this debate if they are part of an orthodox tradition, which he failed to, or didn’t attempt to, establish. Saussurean linguistics are irrelevant in a defense of any kind of orthodox understanding of (G)od.
The intellectually honest person would try to figure out what I’m really arguing because I said no such thing. I said nothing about any kind of scientific defense.My opponent’s argument seems to be a scientific verification of orthodox Hinduism, which he, himself, masks as liberal Christianity. The briefest look into the science he presented shows nothing that would warrant such a claim. The intellectually honest person should look at this data and find it woefully lacking as supporting evidence for his hypothesis.
It’s not a rebuttal it’s a constructive speech. That sounds like nit picking but it’s not. I’ll be making a real rebuttal in a minute. That is a short speech in which no new arguments can be made, but one may extend upon the old arguments in defense of them.Thus, if anything, Metacrock’s rebuttal
(1) what he’s calling “orthodx” is not only unclear but contradicts the basics of theology.I dealth with this extensively in my first speech and in my 1NR I will go back and show what he did not answer.only solidifies my affirmation. He refuses to present an orthodox understanding of (G)od and does a poor job of rationalizing why any intellectually honest person would accept the Hindu understanding of “(G)od” he promotes: a concept of “(G)od” that when understood in an orthodox sense is totally in line with atheism.
(1) part of that is actually his inability to make a clear argument. He never rally made clear what he’s saying about orthodoxy. Is it a universal standard that all religions come up to? Is it that each demonetization is orthodox to itself? Is it a standard in each major religion he never says and it makes a difference but none of those really make sense.As illustrated by Metacrock’s inability to make a compelling case for belief in any orthodox understanding of (G)od, the intellectually honest person must lack belief in such an entity.
What is an orthodox religion?
Religions are organizations that often include a creation myth, moral codes, rituals and methods for communicating with the “divine,” some sort of holy text or “revealed truth,” and a cultural legend or epic.
Religious people often claim there are ways of acquiring information, including answers to the mysteries of life and the universe, that are different from our standard sources of evidence. These include communication with the “divine,” revealed truth, and rhetoric.[/qote]
Instead of taking it systematically he just goes by what he has seem himself of religious people saying, but he understands that through the lens of fundamentalist Christianity.
He’s going to try to list several things that relate to each other from one tradition to another. That’s going to establish a standard. He inslcudes God arguemtns.The classic arguments for the existence of (G)od are based on rhetoric and there are equally compelling rhetorical counter arguments. So it is safe to assume rhetoric is not a useful way of arriving at satisfactory conclusions.
The various revealed truths of the orthodox religions, the Vedas, the Koran, the Bible, etc. are contradictory and habitually avoid justification and thus demand incredulity.
Prayer, meditation, mystical experience, and other methods of directly communicating with the “divine” have been performed by atheists and found lacking.
We can’t argue about a statement the terms of which are never clearly defined.My opponent seems determined to go through the entire debate without ever addressing the topic at hand. If Metacrock did not want to argue against the affirmative, “Atheism, the lack of belief in any orthodox understanding of God or gods, is the most intellectually honest position a person can have in the 21st century,” he should have not agreed to the subject.
That is nothing short of a lie. I’m not saying this to insult him, It’s obvious he is lying about what I’ve said all he has to dos is go back and look at my words. HE BROKEN THE AGREEMENT OF HO INULT NOT ME> I CALL UPON THE JUDGE TO MAKE RULING I have said nothing that can be construed as ad hom.So far he has just tossed out ad hominems, gone off on wild tangents, and fixated on the never-declared rules and format of the debate itself.
He has refused to champion any orthodox understanding of (G)od but has rather decided to spend his time preaching his own unique brand of religion.
I am defining orthodox as, “being within an established religious tradition.” I don’t know how I could make it clearer than that. I spent most of my opening argument clarifying what is and isn’t orthodox in my opinion. He even seemed to be confused when I clearly spelled out that I’m not using the term as a proper title of a religion like Ethiopian Orthodox or Orthodox Judaism. It is a common word and I chose to put it in the title of the debate because I realize how easy it would be for anyone to redefine (G)od in some unorthodox way such as “nature” or “everything.”
Metacrock could have chosen to champion any number of orthodox understandings of (G)od, many of which have elaborate scholarship and rationalizations. I wanted to challenge myself by going far out on a limb and saying atheism would be more intellectually honest than any of them, but at this point I guess that debate will have to wait for another day.
My opponent even claimed to have trouble with the term “intellectually honest” yet turned right around and stated, “I think we all know what intellectual honesty is.”
I don’t believe I can state it clearer than I did before so I will repeat: “I don’t mean simply honest, but also intellectual. By intellectual I mean curious and using rigorous and proven means of acquiring information.”
Metacrock has devoted his entire argument to preaching his liberal version of Christianity, which I don’t consider orthodox. If he wanted to establish his version of (G)od as orthodox he should have done so rather than getting caught up in dubious claims of faith healing.
My opponent seems to be arguing against a straw man of his on construction. He has continually accused me of being unread and seems to believe my understanding of religion is limited a fundamentalist version of Christianity.
As Metacrock has not presented an orthodox understanding of (G)od for me to make an argument for the intellectual honesty of lacking a belief in,
I will take the rest of my time here to address the tangents he has brought up simply for my own amusement and restate the case for my affirmation in my closing remarks.
DEBATE POLICY
Though Metacrock has repeatedly called me dishonest I would like to note that we never agreed on any debate format. There are many different debate formats and no debate is necessarily limited to any of them. People are free to create their own and do so all the time.
He seems to imagine we are in his high school debating class. I would note that these rules insisted on appear never to have been used in this forum before.
LOURDES MIRACLES
I was hoping this exchange would be an excuse for me to look into some of the subtle arguments of something like Sufism, which I would consider orthodox though may Muslim’s would not. Rather I get a peek into Metacrock’s argument for faith healing at Lourdes.
As I stated earlier, these sorts of claims are little embarrassing and I have never come across faith healing debates in academic circles. I don’t consider believing in the healing properties of the water at Lourdes dishonest, but I certainly wouldn’t call them intellectual.
Though I seriously doubted I would find anything confirming these 67 supposed miracles I did look into the claims. I have read that statistically, given that five million pilgrims visit the shrine each year, one is no more likely to spontaneously recover from an illness by going to Lourdes than by not going.
To explain why academic journals don’t publish article about Lourdes Metacrock had to resort to a conspiracy theory.
He claimed these journals have “ideological” and “political motivations” for not writing articles about the supernatural. I would never say conspiracies don’t occur, but to just plug in the holes of your argument with them rather than providing evidence has all the tell tale signs or pseudoscience and isn’t something one would expect from an intellectually honest person who wanted to find real answers.
Metacrock cites himself, a journalist, and the Catholic Church on the subject. I did the sort of research any intellectually honest person would do. I checked JSTOR. I might not have written a term paper on the subject but I did look into this excellent source for academic journals and didn’t see anything to suggest any serious, objective scholar considered the miracles real.
The Virgin Mary at LaSalette and Lourdes: Whom Did the Children See?
Michael P. Carroll
How Does Autodialogue Work? Miracles of Meaning Maintenance and Circumvention Strategies
Ingrid E. Josephs, Jaan Valsiner
Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Mar., 1998), pp. 68-82
Miracles and Theism
Leon Pearl
Religious Studies, Vol. 24, No. 4 (1988), pp. 483-495
Daniel L. Pals
Reviewed work(s): Miracles and the Modern Religious Imagination by Robert Bruce Mullin
Church History, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Sep., 1999), pp. 743-745
Divine Healing
A. E. Sawday
The British Medical Journal, Vol. 1, No. 4977 (May 26, 1956), p. 1240
A Lourdes Case
Francis Izard
The British Medical Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2599 (Oct. 22, 1910), p. 1289
The Catholic Church And The Lourdes Cures
Francis Aidan Gasquet
The British Medical Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2590 (Aug. 20, 1910), pp. 465-467
The Catholic Church And The Lourdes Cures
Henry H. Sturge
The British Medical Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2596 (Oct. 1, 1910), p. 1003
A Lourdes "Cure"
The British Medical Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2597 (Oct. 8, 1910), p. 1086
Miracles
Malcolm L. Diamond
Religious Studies, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Sep., 1973), pp. 307-324
Though I found nothing that would suggest any medical professionals believed in the miracles of Lourdes I did discover that study of the Lourdes phenomenon led to useful science in the development of theories of the placebo effect, which is a much more sober and yet still very controversial.
Prayer versus Placebo:
Some Diagnostic Reflections as a Preliminary to a Prescriptive Agenda
Anne Harrington
Department for the History of Science
Harvard University
“[J]ournalist Norman Cousins described a remarkable cure -- one that his doctors would have deemed impossible -- in the pages of The New England Journal of Medicine. He did not ascribe the cure to the grace of God, however. Prayer had played no role in it. What had cured him, he believed, was the power of his own mind; and, most important of all perhaps, a strong conviction in the possibility of his own cure. Was it really possible that positive attitude itself could produce dramatic healing in this way? Was there any prior evidence? In asking these questions, Cousins invoked the object lesson of Lourdes. But then he suggested that the apparently miraculous healing seen there were neither more nor less miraculous than his own, and that perhaps there was a common explanation for them all: not the power of faith, but the power of the placebo effect.”
Prof. Willem Betz from the Free University of Brussels finds the whole thing “disturbing” and notes that one is much more likely to die in route to the shrine than be cured.
Etienne Vermeersch, former Vice-Rector of Ghent University notes that no one who is missing an arm returns from Lourdes with two arms.
http://translate.google.com/translate?s ... 3Dgn2pdd21
No one is claiming that the Catholic Church doesn’t maintain that 67 miracles have occurred, though Metacrock prefers the anecdotal number 7000. Miracle stories are common and extraordinary claims far from uncommon.
http://www.bfro.net/GDB/#usa
Given that the evidence for the Lourdes miracles is very suspect, the intellectually honest person is obligated to lack belief in the healing powers of the waters until they are recognized by the medical community.
Besides, Metacrock seems to believe these dubious healings are support for his liberal Christian theology when they would actually be evidence orthodox Catholic dogma and apparitions of the Virgin Mary, which are a dime a dozen.
INTELLECTUAL HONESTY
I have made it clear that I do not think theists are necessarily dishonest and do not believe Metacrock is dishonest.
I believe he is being less than intellectually honest when he does research to support his religious theories and cherry picks supporting information and ignores contrary information that should negate his hypothesis.
I only bring this up because Metacrock tried to call foul when I said his scholarship was “unwarranted” and “demonstrat(ed) a level of scholarship that may pass in theology but doesn’t come close to what one would expected in other disciplines.”
I believe this is fair, particularly when Metacrock accused me of “bad schoarlarship” (sic) and “complete intellectual dishonesty.” I just think it is amusing to point out the hypocrisy.
SCIENCE
Science is just a method of measuring things and figuring out how the world works. When I stated before that, “Origins are best explained by physicists, biologists, and chemists who have a proven track record for success, objectively reliable methods, and convincing, though tentative, theories,” and “questions of why are arguably meaningless.” Metacrock created another straw man by claiming I said “He argues that science is able to settle and umpire all questoni (sic) including the big one’s that totall (sic) out of its domain about why we are here and what life is about.” As I stated before, I don’t believe Metacrock represents all theists and I would never accuse the average theist of resorting to these sorts of mischaracterizations. What I do believe is that by using clear language and proven strategies for gathering information belief in the various orthodox understandings of (G)od is unwarranted.
HINDUISM
Because Metacrock refused to defend any orthodox understanding of (G)od and insisted that all religions are somehow one and the same I classified his beliefs as Hinduism. This orthodox religion, or more correctly collection of religions, accepts all religions as fundamentally the same. A Hindu understanding of (G)od would admittedly be difficult to challenge as less intellectually honest than atheism.
Though Metacrock believes I am unread and am only aware of Christian fundamentalism I am actually very familiar with Hinduism.
I have read enough Hindu philosophy and holy texts to know that there is no monolithic idea of Hinduism. I am aware that Hindu “theologians” contradict each other constantly and anyone who listens to one Yogi and thinks they understand Hinduism is woefully unfamiliar with the subject. Metacrock’s understanding of that religion seems to be limited to the specific beliefs of a friend of his who has told him that the “Hindus gods are energies.”
Not being satisfied with regaling me with a condescending and grossly inadequate primer on a subject that I have taught at university, Metacrock felt the needed to tell me that this is a “little thing called ‘learning,’ which I think [Blondie] is just discovering and hasn’t quite got the hang of.”
METACROCK’S THEOLOGY
After accusing me of “intellectual dishonesty,” Metacrtock decided he needed to p reach his unique version of religion again. It can fairly be classified as one of many varieties of liberal Christianity and is a much newer version of that religion than the equally unorthodox fundamentalism he seems to be obsessed with. Metacrock embraces the universality of Hinduism as do many new age understandings of religion and bases much of his theology on the work of Paul Tillich who reduced the Christian idea of (G)od to the impersonal concept of “the Ground of Being,” or “Being Itself.”
Though every version of orthodox Christianity that I am aware of believes in a personal (G)od, Metacrock chooses to embrace a new age philosophy that uses the language of Christianity to reconcile itself with 20th century thought.
Metacrock also listed a group of theologians who he claims, without support, agree with his 20th century version of (G)od. This could actually be relevant to the debate but he provides no supporting data.
Augustine, after he had experienced all the implications of ancient skepticism, gave a classical answer to the problem of the two absolutes: they coincide in the nature of truth. Veritas is presupposed in ever philosophical argument; and veritas is God. You cannot deny truth as such because you could do it only in the name of truth, thus establishing truth. And if you establish truth you affirm God. “Where I have found the truth there I have found my God, the truth itself,” Augustine says. The question of the two Ultimates is solved in such a way that the religious Ultimate is presupposed in every philosophical question, including the question of God. God is the presupposition of the question of God. This is the ontological solution of the problem of the philosophy of religion. God can never be reached if he is the object of a question and not its basis.
I find it hard to believe Martin Luther or Thomas Aquinas would agree with Metacrock’s idea of (G)od. [/qutoe]
why would you find that hard to believe? I have a masters degree in the field why wouldn’t I know something about it? It’s not as though Martin Luther agreed with me personally. The point is Blondie doesn’t know theology and I do!
Tillich history of Christian theology 247
Luther was one of Tillich’s heroes, he was Lutheran, so it’s only natural that he would his major idea in Luther’s work. Perhaps he’s reading it in, but it does show us what Tillich believed, whether or not it shows us what Luther thought. Tillich believed that Luther had one of the most profound conceptions of God in human history. Tillich quotes Luther:
Luther Denies everything which could make God finite, or a being beside others. ‘Nothing is so small, God is even smaller. Nothing is so Large God is even larger.’ ‘He is an unspeakable being, above and outside everything we can name and think. Who knows what this is, which is called-- God?’ ‘It is beyond body, beyond spirit, beyond everything we can see, hear and think.’ He makes the great statement that God is nearer to all creatures then they are to themselves.
‘God has found a way that his own divine essence can be completely in all creatures, and in everyone especially, deeper, more internally, more present than the creature is to itself an at the same time and at the same time no where and can’t be comprehended by anyone so that he embraces all things and is within them. God is at the same time in every piece of sand totally, and nevertheless in all above all and out of all creatures.’
Tillich continues:
In these formulae the only conflict between theistic and pantheistic tendencies is solved; they show the greatness of God, the inescapability of his presence, and at the same time his absolute transcendence. I would say very dogmatically that any doctrine of God that leaves out one of these elements does not really speak of God but of something less than God. (emphasis mine).
I’m sure any imaginative person could cherry pick quotes but that would not be intellectually honest. All new religions imagine themselves to have long and noble histories by co-opting older traditions.
He’s poisoning the well. Anything I say in answer must be wrong because I’m bad. I’m just (read with sarcastic nasal twang) “cherry picking.” What does this guy know abou tit? Does he know the field. No. He’s never read a major theologian. I have a Masters in the field. I know what the field says. He has no reason to assume that I’m not careful as a scholar. What we have seen in this debate he doesn’t even understand the articles he reads.
INSULTS
Next my opponent continues his conversation with the straw man he has constructed by imagining I am only familiar with fundamentalist Christianity.
that is not an insult sweetie that is a straight forward commentary on the state of your lack of knowledge. If it was an insult I would say you are stupid. As it Is I’m just saying you are not well read and you are not careful.
He still can’t fathom the term orthodox though I think almost any dictionary definition would do. I can’t imagine he would fain ignorance, but one has to wonder why he agreed to the debate in the first place.
what I understand of orthodox is not the issue. The issue is what he understands and what he argues and what he proves.
(1) hes’ been nothing but muddled about what he’s arguing.
(2) He’s cling to this one issue throughout this speech and totally ignored what most of my first speech was about because it was this issue and it did clarify my posting and he never answered it and that’s why he has lost. Too late now. New in rebuttals.
He elaborated on his straw man.
M: “he thinks religion is about communicating through holy books”
that is just what he said. I quoted his speech.
M: “That’s his model of religion that’s just the American fundamentalist mentality,which is probably the only religion he’s ever studied. He has not studied Hinudism, he’s just compared what little he’s read of it as though it were American protestant fundamentalism.”
sigh.
Go head and sigh that is not an argument. I read Bhagavad-Gita in high school. I was reading the Uponishods the summer I graduated from high school. I don’t find the things you say about Hinduism impressive. I quoted an expert which has not responded to.
M: “I talk about the universality of all religion being in the need to define the human problematic and to mediate transformation. He does not even touch that/s that’s the orthodoxy not the communication in holy books and all that stuff. He doesn’t even mention it!”
Blondie: I tried to let him defend Hinduism as an orthodox religion that believes in the universality of all religions. He chose to stick to liberal Christianity. All orthodox versions of that religion I am aware of believe in exclusivity. If Metacrock wants to make a case for universalism that he could rationalize as orthodox somehow that would be fine, but he seems to prefer to go off on random tangents.
He’s totally ignoring my quote from the Hindu expert, see 2NC
by Dr. R. K. Lahri
http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Cont ... leID=1241The Supreme is enshrined in the hearts of all He alone is the Supreme Reality. So renounce and rejoice in Him and covet not.
In the Vedas, we find nowhere any such mention which may be concluded to show that Hinduism believes in more Gods than one. Vedas, Upanishads and all other authorized scriptures clearly speak of One God and the only God that permeates the universe. He is the Supreme Being – Yajurveda (XLI) says, ”By one supreme Ruler is the universe pervaded. Even every world in the whole circle of nature, He is the True God... For Him, O Man, covet not unjustly the wealth of any creature existing. Renounce all that is unjust and enjoy pure delight, true spiritual happiness.”
What do you suppose this guy means when he says “Hinduism doesn’t believe I more God’s than one/” obviously he has to mean they are all different aspects of the same one. That’ the arguments I made.
It doesn’t matter if I’m wrong because he never connects that belief to dishonesty. He never demonstrates why believing that is dishonest. He never connects lack of Orthodoxy to dishonesty.
M: I ground the universality in brain function ala Newberg and in mystical experience and the reaction to it ala Hood. He says nothing at all about that. He totally ignores and misses my entire response and my counter theory about how to understand orthodoxy.
[Blondie](5) It’s too late for him to do that because it’s now rebuttals and those will be new arguments.
sorry doing it right is just part of debate. New argument in rebuttals is a no no. I pointed that several times.”
this guys a big confussed about what’s going on. He’s probably not read my whole speech way back in the 1NC my first speech. I have done just that in every speech I made. I’ve argued that from the very first speech I’ve mentioned it every single time he has talked about this issue in this debate. Every time I was referring back to my firs speech. This just shows that he doesn’t read the while speech (another treat of true scholarship)
After a thousand non-sequiturs and red herrings Metacrock has yet to even give a definition for his unorthodox definition of orthodoxy, provide any understanding of (G)od that fits into that orthodoxy much less prove why it is more reasonable to believe in it than not.
Here he repeats himself again, we went through song and dance 14 times above, I’m going to say the same things again. This is why he lost, he clings to this one issue like grim death because he doesn’t know what to say to my other stuff that he never answered from the first speech.
guess wht’s missing here guys? McNamara! He totally ignores the McNamara book hoping I’ll forget it because he embarrassed himself so badly.
(1) He didn’t understand what it was about, he thought it was about mystical experience when it was about the kind of research newberg does
(2) He didn’t understand that distinction anyway
(3) He didn’t get that it was an anthology with differing views
(4) He didn’t connect his attacks to the major issues I do
(5) The major one is that Hood is in the third volume of McNamara and he there publishes the article about the universal nature of religious experience. That establishes the pass for Orthodoxy because it means they are all relating to the same reality behind all the faiths. He doesn’t argue about that, he doesn’t say a word about it and it disproves the only argument he has!
(6) That in and of itself is reason enough to say he lost the debate and he totally buries the issue.
Metacrock, opens his rebuttal by reestablishing his straw man of me as a fundamentalist Christian. Then he moves into a grade school lesson in comparative religion designed to educate the straw man.
He has done nothing to disprove the charge. Look at the basic argument he makes. I have to have orthodoxy to spunge off of or my God can’t be held. Who ever thought of such a idea? It’s absurd. Orthodoxy means (I said this in the fist speech and he dropped never answered it) that within a traditions one is in line with the tradition. How does that work on an inter-faith basis? He never gave criteria. That in self loses him the debate because it means his major argument is detached form the issues.
After claiming that I am arguing that the various holy books of the world’s religions are supposed to be inerrant he claimed that I am wrong about this. Of course many Christians believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and certainly many Muslims believe in the inerrancy of the Koran, but this has nothing to do with my argument. If Metacrock was arguing for the (G)od of Islam then possibly inerrancy might be an issue, but I don’t consider fundamentalist Christianity orthodox, though I do believe it is possible to make a case for it.
I quoted his argument from his speech.
Next he has trouble with my calling prayer, chanting, and meditation communication with the divine. He also now starts referring to what I have called peak experiences as mystical experiences. This only confuses the issue. By calling peak experiences mystical he can ignore my observations about comparisons to musicians and the fact that atheists have these experiences too.
I never said that. He totally mis understands the issues.
I myself, as have countless atheists, have prayed and participated in various religious rituals and found the experience lacking. Admittedly many, including myself, see benefits in yoga and meditation but I hardly see this as being an argument for Metacrock’s case, whatever that might be.
Anecdotal. Proves nothing, it can’t outweigh a huge body of empirical studies, but it’s also new in rebottles.
I and many other atheists have had peak experiences. Personally I recognized it as what it was, realized how someone ignorant of the nature of the phenomenon might define it within a certain cultural construct such as religion. I even recognized that I was defining it within the construct of my own atheism. I don’t see how this can be used as an argument for any orthodox understanding of (G)od.
he does not have a score on the M scale to prove that. Even if it’s true It’s just anecdotal. You cant’ base a conclusion on one guy.
He’s real unbiased isn’t’ he? He’s only trying to prove I’m an idiot because he hates me because I’ showed up his arrogance on the regular boards. He wouldn’t admit I’m right if he experienced my rights in his alleged mystical experience and knew I was right. He’s totally biased and what he experienced proves nothing. Look I’m not appealing to my experiences. I’m not saying ‘I experienced this.” I’m willing to use object scientific evidence.
After a few more insults my opponent concluded his rebuttal with:
I did not insult him. I pointed out his flaws of scholarship as he died to do for me. He did it in a way that is insulting and he knows it.
Meta:“what is most crucial to remember Is that even if I’m wrong about what I’m saying that doesn’t make me dishonest. He has failed to prove that religious belief is dishonest. That means he has not proved that atheist is the most honest.”
Blondie: As I have repeatedly stated. I don’t consider Metacrock dishonest though that has nothing to do with the debate. He has yet to produce any argument that belief in any of the many orthodox understandings of (G)od are more intellectually honest than lack of belief.
QuantumTroll wrote:Thanks to both of you for finishing the debate civilly
In this post I'll try to summarize my take on the arguments in this debate and announce a "winner", if there is to be such. If I say something you disagree with, kindly go ahead and complain and maybe we'll all learn something.
1. Blondie argued that weak atheism (i.e. a lack of belief in an established religion or faith) is more intellectually honest than any belief in an established religion because such a belief requires a leap of faith. Leaps of faith are not quite intellectually honest and should be minimized.
2. Metacrock's counterpoints centered around two main elements.
a. Orthodox religions can be considered in a more liberal light than Blondie admits.
b. Phenomena like peak experiences and unexplained miracles (e.g. at Lourdes) are indications of some sort of spirituality.
Taken together, these counterpoints mean that the leap of faith required for theists aren't as large, and perhaps that a leap of faith is required even for atheists [I don't recall actually seeing this last conclusion, but it was at least implied].
Did I get this about right? I know I'm skipping a lot of stuff, but this seems to me to be the core of your positions.
Assuming my summary is correct, I'd say you both did well as debaters, but for what it's worth I'd call Blondie the winner of the debate. My motivation follows:
I accept Blondie's argument that belief in an orthodox religion requires a leap of faith. This argument was very well-supported, and you'll find few theists who will disagree. By delimiting the debate topic to orthodox religions, we're no longer talking about Metacrock's personal faith or pantheism, panentheism, and similarly liberal beliefs. Metacrock's counterpoint (2a) is aimed directly at reframing the debate, allowing more liberal beliefs with less of a leap of faith into the discussion. I'm no expert, but I'm inclined to stick with Blondie's original intention and only consider more orthodox beliefs because they're huge and important schools of thought even in the 21st century.
Metacrock's other counterpoint about peak experiences, mysticism, and miracles would be a great point to bring up if the debate had been framed differently, but here it misses the mark. Whereas it might be natural and highly intellectually honest to believe that something fantastic lies behind these sorts phenomena, it's a substantial leap of faith to go all the way to specific tradition involving e.g. scriptures and holy trinities.
In short, Blondie wins the debate because it wasn't about the thing that Metacrock perhaps wanted it to be about.