Wolpe & Hitchens Debate "God"

I'm quite interested in these intelligent design vs. evolution, god or no god discussions, although Hitchens is too obnoxious for his own good at times. I hope to catch it in some fashion later on.

Sam Harris is my favorite debater for this kind of stuff, but in the videos I've seen he's always paired against Reza Aslan, who (in those videos, at least - I don't know of the guy beyond that) is maddeningly slippery in a way that doesn't lead to anything interesting.

I found a video of Hitchens and Wolpe. If it's not what Eileen saw, well, it seems to be pretty good, anyway.

These guys are not philosophers, not good ones anyway. Here is, I think, a better example of good argumentation on the subject.

The biggest problem, of course, is that it's never really clear what the question is: Does God exist? If so, is that a good thing? Either way, is it a good thing that people believe in him? and a dozen more questions, and since there are so many, either man can slide over to another when his opponent scores a point on the current topic. It is kinda fun to watch, IMO, although I wish Hitchens were a bit drunker.

By the way, I learned a word from Hitchens in this video. "Invigilate" - never heard that one before.

When Rabbi Wolpe made the comment about God not being terrifying, I think Hitchens missed an opportunity to really knock him out.

If I was Hitchens, I would have gave an example of someone struggling with their faith. Weighing the evidence of the existence of God along with the fear that not believing in that God (that everyone you know believes in) will banish you to infinite damnation.

Religion and its harbingers put fear into people because if they don't live the lives and use the values so put forth to them, they'll burn in Hell for eternity. Someone questioning religion might say that it's an arresting thought to think that if I have pre-marital sex that I'll burn in Hell, so I won't do it.

What could Wolpe say to that?

This is my favorite Hitchens "debate." It's absurd, because the DJ thinks that Hitchens, by accepting his hypothetical that God exists, will agree that God is good, but Hitchens does not, and the DJ can't, or won't, process this. Hitchens makes jokes about North Korea and St. Paul, gets progressively angry (but ultimately unruffled), and always reminds the host that he's following his hypothetical. It's a crystallization of all his endless arguing with pastors on his book tour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZB0lLIcXIA

And this is my least favorite. The moderator puts forth an emotional appeal about Christianity helping its worshippers and himself in his own life, and then asks "What hope can antitheism give to people?" Hitchens talks about religion's negative effects and then makes an emotional appeal about the problem of evil. I wish he had just coldly said "it doesn't have to."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLL7k4K6XCI

My main assertion is that "I can grant the possibility that there MIGHT be some higher power behind it all, but the Judeo-Christian notion of God is bollocks."

Jesus, Friel's face by itself makes me want to punch him.

Another thing that bugs me about Hitchens and especially Sam Harris is their insistence that Islam is fundamentally more violent than Christianity. They may be right (in terms of the amount of precepts forbidding or promoting violence), but there seems to be no noting on their part of the U.S. currently being a country where people of Muslim descent are thrown in jail without trial. And where our wars have drawn on some prejudices and fears for their support. I know they've read the Koran, and could probably quote from it as well as they can from King James, but in the context of current U.S. wars, they dovetail with hawks in not seeming to be aware of moderate Middle Easterners.

In that Aslan debate, while Sam Harris was right throughout, and always in complete control, it seemed like the everyone there, including the audience and the moderator, without exactly saying so, wanted him to make a concession to this idea.

Yes, our Christians do need to kill more people. But they mostly won't, because they have been too exposed to the outside world.

It isn't only that they aren't aware of moderate Middle-Easterners, but that they believe everybody Arab is religious. We read the word "arab" far less than "muslim" in the papers.

But it could also be that Christians aren't very threatened here. In the Middle-East we have raped children in front of their parents. I say "We" so people feel dirty and want to indict those people like Bush for letting this go unpunished.

How about ‘the Jewish faith doesn’t believe in hell,’ for starters?

He might follow up by pointing out the virtual kaliedoscope of religions that do not feature eternal punishment, and by distinguishing those religions which do by illustrating, through fact and example, the differing beliefs of, say, a Red Letter Christian from the Midwest and an Evangelical Baptist from the South.

But that would require folks like Hitchens to accept 'nuance' as more than 'moral relativism.'

I am tired of this lowest common denominator critiquing of 'religion.' No one awards a medal to a runner that can outrace someone who's walking. And no one should award respect to a person that conflates all of religion through history with a single form of Christianity.

Not to mention Hitchens’ utter silence when it comes to a secular economic system which arguably promotes a vicious form of social Darwinism and near-fundamental inequality which, in-and-of-itself, creates possibilities of violence, his blind championing of the notion of secular 'progress' without bothering to analyze, in any way, what this 'progress' is or does, and his outright complicity in mass violence, by way of his jingoistic boosterism during the Iraq war - a conflict that has resulted in the slaughter of thousands upon thousands of civilian middle-easterners, not to mention the American soldiers who bravely offer their lives for what they assume will be righteous causes (but they’re probably ‘religious,’ so I guess that’s alright). Hitchens advocated for this war. He fought for it in debate and on the page.

Ah, secular compassion. How advanced you are.

I personally believe in evolutionary science, however, I'm starting to get worried about something. I realized that a lot of evolutionary scientists are starting to get just as dogmatic as some religions.

For example, I don't understand why the debate is somehow always: "invest in evolution and science or believe in God". What does evolution have to do with a higher power ? What does intelligent design have to do with a higher power either ? I don't think either one really proves or disproves a God or higher power.

However, what scares me is that I feel that any sort of attack on evolution, or critique is seen as religiously motivated, or a conspiracy. I don't care how great the theory is, it is still a conclusion that we've reached from observation. Personally, I'm 100 percent sure it is valid, and there is no real debate, but I do think man evolving from ape, while plausible, is not a fully cooked, sealed and proven notion that can never be questioned. There should at least be some scientifically credible alternative theories, instead of religiously motivated ones. The establishment of evolution as a concept, is a landmark and there really is little use in questioning it, however, how we evolved and where and from what, in my opinion, should still be open to debate.

My point is, the problem isn't whether you believe in God, evolution, creationism, etc. It's whether or not you're approaching these theories as a close minded, dogmatic fundamentalist or an open minded intellectual.

Another point I'd like to make. Why are people accusing Islam of promoting violence, like violence is an absolute evil ? Shouldn't the issue be where Islam promotes that violence, why and against whom ?

I mean in that sense, shouldn't we just dismantle our army because it promotes violence ? Maybe take down any Krav Maga or martial arts training centers ? Maybe throw Tyson and Ali in jail...I mean they do promote violence don't they ?

If one studies the context of the Quran, the point was that, "Muslims" were being guided by God throughout their daily affairs. The verses in the Quran are merely transcriptions of whatever divine advice was supposedly given regarding the specific circumstances. Among these circumstances was being constantly battled against by opposing tribes. Therefore, the idea that they'd have a code of conduct in war, and some strategies is not so far fetched.

As someone that's traveled to and studied the Middle East and its politics, language and religion, Hitchens irks me. I recall his attack for example that the Quran might not have even been in Arabic, but a form of Syrian Aramaic, which would change the idea of having virgins in heaven, as the word used for virgins would actually mean "dates" (the fruit). What bothers me about this, is that the word "virgin" isn't even used in the verses he's referring to. What the verse meant was that one has partners in heaven. If the word meant "dates", then the sentence describing these "partners" as having large eyes and being pure of human waste would make no sense.

I do not advocate orthodox religions, nor do I support organized religions, but when someone like Hitchens and Harris start gunning for them, displaying the exact same bias and fundamentalism that plagues these religions I get annoyed.

First of all, you're right that it's bad when emotions, protecting your threatened "territory," etc., get involved, but

Evolution does have something to do with a higher power - if you think of a higher power as a scientific hypothesis that actually explains things. (If you think that God sits back and lets things happen, or can't be detected ever, etc., then you're in a different ballpark.) This is something Richard Dawkins talks about a lot, unsurprisingly, and his argument goes like this: William Paley, who used the famous watchmaker analogy to say that life's complex designs needed a designer, was right when he said that. Some kind of god actually was the best theory at the time. And since life actually is amazing enough to demand an explanation, then it was reasonable to believe in God. Then Darwin came along with a better explanation - so now God isn't disproven, but he is sort of unnecessary, if you're thinking in those terms. So that's how they're related in one important way.

But here is where I get hung up - the notion that a scientific hypothesis is 'better' than God is patently ludicrious. The idea that it is somehow more 'advanced' to put trust in a set of numbers over any conception of divinity is not very rational. Neither of these two concepts has any inherent meaning outside ourselves. It's the meaning we project onto them that matters.

Why is it that people like Dawkins and Hitchens can explicitly advocate for outright war against what is essentially all of Islam for 'rational' purposes, when 'Islam' is very clearly, when compared and held up to political and social and economic factors, not a simple root problem at all? How is it that a self-proclaimed rational man can argue without any caveat whatsoever against a religion that is, with no exaggeration, in large part responsible for the math he uses and the words he writes? In what rational realm is such utter surety ever taken seriously, much less the scientific realm?

Iterative cult of rationality - despite the fact that the contemporary global paradigm is built upon patently unsustainable practice, this is rarely ever called into question. From a resource development perspective, it is absurd to suggest that the entirety of the third world can be brought to first world living standards without destroying any possibility for sustainable civilization, and yet this is the fundamental tenet of globalization in the form of 'unlimited economic growth.' Because our structures are seen as rational, they are not easily questioned - there is the prevalent risk (popular tactic) of being branded conspiratorial, uninformed or simply ignorant.

The explicit goal of scientific rationalism - to describe the structure of reality as independent from 'culture' - is being sorely tested now. Quantum nonlocality suggests that reality is , at its most basic level, impossible to describe objectively. Science is left with a growing number of untestable conjectures - such as superstrings, dark matter, 'alternate universes' - as the rationalist parameters break down.

Science is a many edged blade. By unlocking the Nitrogen cycle in the early 20th century, agriculture was made vastly more efficient, setting the stage for a massive population boom. That population boom has had massive consequences, both in forming the foundation for the modern civilization, and in overburdening the planets resources to the point of collapse. Agricultural runoff is poisoning the oceans. The idea that further technological advance can remedy these problems without giving rise to even greater problems is deeply counter-intuitive and frankly irrational. But this should not be mentioned, or you are seen as an enemy of science and progress.

The totality of the sciences is an astonishing cultural legacy, and worthy of recognition as one of humanity's saving graces. But it is not comprehensive, it is not total, and it cannot replace parallel cultural legacies that address issues that rationality is simply unequipped to handle. Descriptions are not reasons.

That's the problem with this approach. You cannot apply scientific terminology to non-scientific fields. Its like trying to create a scientific definition of what constitutes 'art.' The language and symbology of science is particular and largely peculiar to science.

This is a silly thing to say.

More to the point, I think Hitchens is a hell of an entertaining writer, but blaming religion for the evils of the world is as useless as blaming science, or art, or sex. Human institutions, whatever form they may take, have a near infinite capacity for evil. Hitchens realizes this, its clear in his writing, but its so easy to get the religious quarters riled up I suppose that it proves an irresistible target (especially for a natural contrarian).

Hitchens would have then been in the unenviable position of defending the idea that humanity has no need for hope. Atheism is most prevalent in countries that have most effectively minimized mortality. If you are given the benefit of a Scandinavian welfare state, then hope may not be all that important to you. Unfortunately, there are a few billion people who lack that benefit. Hitchens would have to argue that the negative effects of religion would outweigh the prospect of hope for this population. Unfortunately, since there is no evidence that eradicating religion improves things to any degree (hello Lenin & Mao!), this would be a pretty hard point to make. By admitting antitheism has no need to offer hope, that pretty much explains the enduring appeal of religion. Going with the problem of evil was probably the smarter move, but by no means a definitive argument.

I don't buy into the idea that religion somehow offers hope that athiesm does not. While religions may offer "hope" (eternal salvation, a power that can answer prayers), they also simultaneously offer an equal amount of dread (eternal punishment, a power that can punish you). Athiesm on the other hand offers you freedom. It implies that you can do whatever you want on this Earth and you will only be accountable to yourself and society.

There is an appeal to both. Also, I find that Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris tend to focus on the metaphysics involved in religion as opposed to the religion itself. If you look at the teachings of Buddha, Jesus or Muhammed, the emphasis was never on heaven, hell or Nirvana but the best way to lead your life. That is why, I never understood why people couldn't measure the effectiveness of a religion. If someone seems to lead a richer fuller life because they avoided adultery, sloth and murder, or meditated 5 times a day, then that religion is obviously working for them. I find that it's a small minority that ever follow the dogmatic, fundamentalism of an orthodox religion and have it fill up their entire life. Most people simply internalize the teachings and apply it to their daily life.

As for Dawkins. Dawkins primary argument against God and the watchmaker/747 theory seems to boil down to this: "People think that if something is complex it must be made by something more complex. Like God. Essentially, they're shooting themselves in the foot because something would have had to create it. God is the ultimate B-747"

I have to disagree with this because I feel Dawkins is still thinking within the prisim of evolutionary biology. Meaning if an ultimate power exists, then this power wouldn't be a God over everything, but a God of biology only. It also indicates to me that Dawkins sees all religions as no different than the Judeo-Christian ideologies found in the west (Christianity in the East can also differ). For example, in more Eastern philosophies and religions, for example, the Quran, there is the concept of "Allah". "Allah" is also the same word used to describe God by the Coptics in Egypt.

With "Allah", the idea is that there is a single ultimate point from which everything originated. That point is in itself conscious but not in the anthropomorphic sense of the word. The point is, if everything originated from this point then why would it just stop at biology ? Isn't time a concept that would also need to originate from somewhere ? What about beginnings, endings, the finite and infinity ? Aren't these also concepts in themselves ? If the originator of these concepts made them then why would he have to be bound by them ? As human beings we cannot comprehend anything outside of our reference points. I believe that sense we've never observed anything operate outside of a beginning or an end or time, we cannot possibly believe it could exist.

This isn't an argument for God or anything, I'm simply pointing how I believe the concept could be explained in the most logical possible manner.

I believe the current Athiestic trend is healthy for us in the long run as I believe it is simply the purging of all the fossilized dogma that has made it all the way to our century. Eventually, I believe science will reach a more agnostic middle and maybe even accept the idea of a higher power as a plausible theory.

There is no 'atheist' trend - unfortunately, fundamentalism is seeing a much more measurable surge. A lot of this can be attributed to the failures of secular nation-states in attending their populations (most apparently, of course, in the Middle East). Fossilization of dogma is by no means limited to religion.

Jesse, I didn't say anything about God being somehow less worthy than a scientific hypothesis; it was more "if you think about God as a scientific hypothesis, then here's what happens."

One thing we often skip is that most (maybe all) of these argument start with "if." If you want justify something in a scientific way, or you want to make physical claims, then you should probably use scientific methods. And there are a bunch of other examples but you know what I mean.

If you just say "I think God exists, and he's 100% outside of all science, math, and philosophy," then we probably don't have much to talk about. By definition, no one can disprove that; at most they could point out that it's (again, by definition) unnecessary. Once God is claimed to be affecting people or events, though, then we can start saying that the other guy's ideas are leading to the end of civilization. Or whatever.

I think it works so well, there's pretty much no point in having an alternative unless your worldview absolutely requires a deity be explicitly involved in the process in some manner. And I've never understood why that's such a deal breaker for some people.

If God didn't tinker with a few measly DNA molecules here and there or if life came about from nonliving precursors without him jiggering together some chemicals then, what, he's not worth believing in? That's pathetic.

What does make god worth believing in then? Is the term "God" synonymous with "higher power"? If not, what are the differences?

My point is, the only other alternative theory available is creationism. Which isn't really from the scientific community at all. What I meant is that if we are to approach it scientifically then we'd also have to examine the alternatives to that theory to make sure it's solid. What if we didn't evolve directly from a common ancestor between us and apes ? How would we ever find out if no one is even considering the notion ? It has nothing to do with God or creationism, or anti-evolutionary thinking.

However, like you said "I think it works so well". Yes, it works well, and I'm not denying it, or saying that it's false, I'm saying that there exist a long string of scientific theories that have "worked well" despite being false, and the only reason we didn't question them sooner is due to dogma and politics creeping into the scientific world. I just feel we're allowed to question almost anything in science. There are no absolutes except when it comes to evolutionary science. Again I completely endorse it, but I feel "belief in evolution" is starting to take on an air of importance that is undeserved. I'm sure the problem traces back to the subtle war we are still experiencing between church and state. I understand the frustration, it's a theory that's coming under scrutiny from a majority of Christian fundamentalists and creationists who would jump on any chance to disprove it all together. Obviously publishing something like "evolutionary scientists re-think human-ape connection" would be cause for a field day in Christian/religious circles. To deny that our certainty in human-ape evolution is purely scientific and not politically motivated at all is inaccurate in my humble opinion.

I can guarantee you that not ONE scientist can present a counter argument to Human-ape evolution and not be shot down as a conspiracy theorist. I mean you have to understand, there are people whose livelihood is actually at stake if this theory were ever to crumble. I refuse to believe it's not a political issue just as much as it is a scientific issue.

I want to live in a world with scientists who are open to anything and any possibility that can be proven scientifically, objectivity would reign supreme (yes I know how impossible that is - but we can try our best). So when I sense that there are tons of academics in the community will to jump on and destroy any thing counter-intuitive regarding a particular subject I'm plagued with the same sense of dread I get when Ann Coulter's on television.

Why do we have to be "evolutionists" or "creationists" or any other such label that implies coming to a conclusion before examining evidence ? Can't we just be sensible, ADAPTABLE people who make up our minds the best we can regarding whatever evidence is available to us ?

Human-Ape evolution is a conclusion drawn from the scientific study of many individuals, not a starting point. A scientist could propose human life spontaneously arose but their research would show them to be wrong. The earth ain't flat and species do change over time. If god does exist, evolution is the tool he used to create life.

Since I don't believe and because of my particular reasons for not believing, I'd say nothing. But my issue there isn't what makes God worthy of belief but what makes him unworthy.

If I were a believer, I don't know why I would need to think God got his hands personally dirty with amino acids to reassure me that he's there. I wouldn't need to think he's holding atoms together or making every raindrop before they fell.

I misread the intent of your post, then. My fault, James. I was under the impression that you were using the Dawkins quote to say that God was useful before we had science, and now God is sort of useless, because we have science. That's a reductivist notion of both science and God that I can't get behind.

I think that's fairer, and a position I can essentially agree with. I don't think that having a belief in an interventionist God necessarily indicates that anyone is leading us toward Civilization's End, since there are a number of Christians, to use one example, who believe Evolution to be God's handiwork evidenced.

Where I might arbitrarily draw the line: when the beliefs of a given religion impugn on the individual freedoms of another person with differing beliefs. Friom what I understand, this is essentially Dawkins' position when it comes to his own, self-created humanistic religion. Essentially: do no harm.

If you believe God is working in the world through you, and you use that belief to advocate for the poor, or to run a soup kitchen, or to work for the release of prisoners of conscience, then I value and honor that belief. It you use that belief to subjugate your fellow man and to externalize your 'sin' so that self-reflection and empathetic compassion become impossible, then I find no worth to it.