I commented elsewhere that watching this video was akin to watching a pair of blind people trying to duel with pistols at twenty paces.

I really do like Hitchens. He's opposed to almost everything I stand for, but there's something about his brash eloquence that makes it a real pleasure to listen to him talk. I wanted to see him do well, but he didn't.

Even so, he still won the debate, and I think even Turek recognizes this. Turek acknowledges Hitchens' victory in a very subtle way--he starts out the debate saying that the evidence leans toward the existence of God as the most probable case, but abandons this toward the end. Rather, he closes by saying that even though there are a number of reasons that seem to indicate God's improbability, he could exist anyway.

Even so, every argument Turek makes has a relatively simple response.

For instance, in response to Turek's claim that "one cannot derive an ought from an is," Hitchens should have put the smack down on Turek. He should have said, "Okay, in that case, the existence of God cannot be the source of morality. The question of whether God exists is an "is." The existence of morality is an "ought." If you cannot derive an ought from an is, you cannot derive morality from the existence of God."

>> ^shuac:
Finer points on the existence of god is more Dawkins' strong suit, not Hitchens'. Hitchens is more the anti-religion guy. This should have been a debate with Dawkins.


You'd want Daniel Dennett. The apologist is the natural prey of the philosopher. It would be child's play for a philosopher of Dennett's caliber to unmask Turek's arguments for the sophistical illusions they are.

Nah. Dawkins really isn't all that good at that kind of thing, even though he makes it out to be a specialty of his.

His main argument against the existence of God, as found in the God Delusion, boils down to the claim that God cannot be the explanation for complexity in the world because then his complexity, too, would require an explanation beyond him.

This fails for two reasons.

First, there is no reason to think that God is complex. A number of theologians, in fact, have provided arguments for the claim that God is absolutely simple and without parts. This does not contradict the claim that God is the designer or creator. Examples abound of complex things coming out of simple things. To be a proponent of evolution is to assert that, indeed, complexity can arise from simplicity. Dawkins' argument simply does not follow logically.

Second, even if the argument did work, its consequence could be evaded by positing a maximally (perhaps infinitely) complex God. A maximally complex God cannot have been designed even under Dawkins' rules. To say that a maximally complex God had to have been designed by something more complex is to say that there is something more complex than something there can't be anything more complex than. Which is a flat out impossibility.

HadouKen24, why?

I read her Wikipedia entry and the only thing I could see that was really contreversial was her views on homosexuals. Ironically I guess she shares the view of many religions on gays.

About not having to prove a negative, I think Richard Dawkins really drives this point home in his lectures and the book "The God Delusion", I have him to thank for not counting myself an agnostic anymore, and I will recommend his book to anyone.

It is apparent that Zonbie is operating under the supposition that hate is wrong. From whence does he derive that concept? To rephrase it in the declarative: Zonbie should herein form a logical basis for his ethical/moral standards (e.g., hate is bad) from The God Delusion or any other source.

Please note, that merely questioning an idea does not necessarily indicate disagreement with that idea. The purpose of this comment is to draw attention to necessary foundational elements, often unconsciously assumed, in making a determination of right versus wrong.

Wow, now I feel foolish!

New daily routine: Drink coffee THEN post to videosift!

Thanks...

In reply to this comment by charliem:
Its a parody.
Dawkins made a short documentary about the audacity of religion, titled, 'God Delusion'. In it he travelled the world and spoke to regional theistic leaders, Sen. Ted Haggard was one of those that he spoke to in the US.

Here ya go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uokV7UdGW_s&feature=related

Its a parody.
Dawkins made a short documentary about the audacity of religion, titled, 'God Delusion'. In it he travelled the world and spoke to regional theistic leaders, Sen. Ted Haggard was one of those that he spoke to in the US.

Here ya go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uokV7UdGW_s&feature=related

In reply to this comment by garmachi:
Okay, seriously...

1. Who is this Haggard guy?
2. What does Dawkins hope to accomplish by staging a supposedly serious interview with this guy?

I am an atheist and I used to have a tremendous respect for Dawkins (back when writing was his medium of choice - his books are brilliant and lack the perceived air of condescension most listeners get when they hear his voice.) But, I fear that he is well on his way to becoming the Maury Povich of atheism.

This was just ridiculous.

For the record, I did laugh.

2) I don't believe in evolution. OK, I agree in general, but does it explain what it aims to accurately and completely? I very much doubt it. In fact I'd be amazed if the original work wasn't mostly discredited by now, just like much of Newton's work, Einstein's work and so on. Darwin's work was certainly a big step in the evolution of knowledge

Why wonder when you can know? I would bet dollars to donuts you don't even understand how evolution works. Reading a wikipedia article on evolution and believing you understand the theory is like.....reading a wikipedia article on quantum mechanics and believing you understand the theory. And no, high school biology does not give a sufficient explanation of the theory...

Atheist attack pack:
How evolution began: "Richard Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker"
How evolution proceeded, in theory: "Richard Dawkins: The Selfish Gene"
How evolution proceeded, with empirical examples: "Richard Dawkins: Ancestor's Tale"
Why you don't have to be afraid of evolution: "Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion"
How religion began, and proceeded: "Daniel Dennett: Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon"
Why you shouldn't believe in religion: "Sam Harris: Letter to a Christian Nation"

If your religion/current beliefs on evolution can survive that reading list......hats off to your level of conviction/faith/denial.

Idiot = stupid person (just so we're clear), and my point was that I would rather have a leader that didn't believe in blatant falsehoods, which can be, as close as possible, proved.

You have to think your examples through - if you are a doctor and still believe in allah/god whoever, then the person is kidding himself, because his (or her) work directly contradicts his beliefs. If religion was kept completely separate from questions of science and reason (such as medicine, education) then I would have no trouble with it - the bad thing about it is that religion always encroaches on these and other fields. This is why religion in general is bad for the general populous. If it were a completely personal thing, I would have no apparent problem with it, but it's usually not.

I'm not sure there is such a thing has hard-wired beliefs, because I think all beliefs can be challenged. But I understand what you're getting at with that.

"I understand it's the truth and all, but if you really want to be a successful person, not just someone who lurks 24/7 on internet discussion boards, you must know when to use this truth and when not to."
You keep coming back to this and it is really not important in this context and is a thinly veiled attack on me. We're not discussing the complexities of social interaction; I know that I shouldn't confront religious people carrying the God Delusion like some sort of Atheist preacher, because that would be foolish and accomplish nothing. Gradual steps is the way to go, and that's why someone like Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Daniel Dennett take a more "political" way of introducing atheism to religious people.

Berticus got my vote, because he is right. chilaxe covers the evolutionary reasons for emotions and there are biological and chemical explanations too. Just because something is hard to explain, doesn't mean that it can't be explained.

I like it how you automatically assume that everyone who doesn't believe in evolution is an idiot. Maybe the person is very intelligent if you evaluate all the factors that have effected him in his life. It's all relative. You have to understand what society the person comes from. For example, let's say you are raised in a muslim family, all your life from early childhood you are forced to believe in Allah, now you have finished university with red diploma, you have become a very good doctor, you earn a lot of money, but...you still believe in Allah. Okay, that is just an example. I wouldn't automatically say that the person is an idiot. Maybe he didn't read "The God delusion"? Maybe he didn't even have a chance to question Allah in his teens? And now, when he is all grown up, these beliefs are hardwired in his brain. Even if a person believes in falsehood, but it in no way damages his life or lives around him, I don't see the problem.

I understand it's the truth and all, but if you really want to be a successful person, not just someone who lurks 24/7 on internet discussion boards, you must know when to use this truth and when not to. For example, I can not see how the girl in the video could make others "suffer" from her beliefs. She just said she doesn't believe it, she acknowledged that it is possible. If it goes only far as that, I don't see why the guy had to be such a nerd about it. Of course, it is different when we speak about politicians and people of power whose judgement could be affected by such beliefs. That is a different story, but I am talking about everyday life.

I don't see why berticus got the vote, because science still hasn't explained the meaning and origin of everything. It might explain it with the LHC in august, but it haven't done so yet. So you can't say it can explain everything until there is proof.

"As the pivotal intellect in the breaking of the German Enigma codes, Turing arguably made a greater contribution to defeating the Nazis than Eisenhower or Churchill. Thanks to Turing and his 'Ultra' colleagues at Bletchley Park, Allied generals in the field were consistently, over long periods of the war, privy to details German plans before the German generals had time to implement them. After the war, when Turing's role was no longer top secret, he should have been knighted and feted as a saviour of his nation. Instead, this gentle, stammering, eccentric genius was destroyed, for a 'crime', committed in private, which harmed nobody. Once again, the unmistakable trademark of the faith-based moralizer is to care passionately about what other people do (or even think) in private." -- The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins.

>> ^snoozedoctor:
I'm impressed by the amount of vitriol against religion on the Sift. I guess many of you haven't had the good fortune to be involved in moderate, religious activism.

Actually, I was raised in a rather moderate/liberal branch of UCC.

People here act as if the two are mutually exclusive, whereas they most certainly are not, Einstein being a notable example (not necessarily ascribing to an organized faith, but rather belief in a supreme diety.)

Read the first chapter of the God Delusion. Einstein did not beleive in a personal god. Maybe you could describe his beliefs as pantheism, which definitely does not include the idea of prayer. As Carl Sagan said, it makes no sense to pray to the law of gravity.


Same with Brian Greene of string theory.

String Theory should be regarded as a pseudoscience until such time as it actually makes a testable prediction that differs from the standard model. String Theory reminds me of taking a beautiful formula and splitting it up into a fourier series.

Greene is a demagogue, getting so enthusiastic about popularizing an idea before there's actually any evidence for it.

The people I worship with wear blue jeans, we play loud rock and roll music and we actively provide charity to Rwanda.

I'll bet that a lot of members of the Flat Earth Society do too. If a larger percentage of Flat Earth Society members help Rwanda than the general public, does that justify promoting the belief that the Earth is flat? No. You have to distinguish between the sugar-coating and the bullshit at the core.

When you lump Christians, Muslims, Buddists, etc. into the same mold you display all the prejudice you rail against. Sorry, but true.

Buddhism is an agnostic philosophy, not really a religion.

The core problem that all religions posess is a reliance on faith, which is an epistemological vulnerability.

The core teachings of Buddhism recognize (even exaggerate) tentativeness of all knowledge, unlike the dogmas of almost every other religion.

Just a note, if you do not subscribe to any particular religion or belief, you are an atheist. I would strongly urge you to read The God Delusion. I thought much the same way as you, calling myself an agnostic and feeling that religion did have some benefits. Dawkins makes an overwhelming case for religion doing much more harm than good, but even if having delusions was beneficial, they're still delusions. If we were able to rid the world of these fantasies, there is no doubt in my mind we could find other highly effective methods for drug-dependence rehabilitation and family/community bonding. I feel clear-headed about the whole subject at last, and I hope it can do the same for you. Even if it doesn't, you'll have a better understanding of us atheists.


In reply to this comment by Shepppard:
Just because you think that religion is stupid and pointless, doesn't mean it is.

Where it may not make sense in some aspects, and it is definitely bias in it's views, for millions of people it brings hope into their lives. I've got friends who were addicts, who sobered up because of a religion, they believe that God/Christ/whoever in the religion helped them through it... That doesn't seem pointless to me.

It brings people closer around holidays, and makes most church goers into a community.

I, for one, don't go to chruch, nor do I believe in any one given religion, I'm not an Athiest.. more of an Agnostic, but I don't think anything that brings people together, or brings them hope, is truly pointless.

>> ^AceOfKidneys:
Its not any worse then anything any religon does today. Anyway you take it any religion is stupid and pointless, and we would be healthier, happier, NON-NUKED, human beings.

Are you sure you didn't mean semantics instead of syntax? Okay, that was a dig. The truth is I wasn't angry at you - there's no reason to be angry on a silly blog page. Sorry if it sounded like an attack - it probably was to some degree, so I apologize.

You're right, it was irreducible complexity I was thinking of. Richard Dawkins explains irreducible complexity in his book The God Delusion as a creationist way of disassembling biological adaptation based on a "jackpot or nothing" fallacy. Either a wing flies or not. Either an eye sees or not. All or nothing. In other words (and to continue to paraphrase Dawkins) it's like a large bank combination. If a burglar spins that tumbler, there is a chance he could luckily and randomly hit the correct combination, though the odds are stacked against him greatly. That's the jackpot or nothing fallacy that creationists term irreducible complexity. They claim evolutionist's explain biological adaptation as randomly spinning the combination lock and coming up with the winning combination for every species.

But, imagine if it was more as a "you're getting warmer, you're getting colder" type of process. Imagine that burglar (here we go with Dakwins again) spinning the tumbler and as he gets closer to the correct number bits of money fall out. The burglar would easily be able to hone in on the right combination in no time. Your explanation could be that God gave that burglar the nudge, or in this case, the bits of money. I think it has more to do with what you conceded earlier by saying "selected by advantage to the organism". The bits of money falling from the combination lock, in this analogy, would be triggers the species would find advantageous to the survival of its species.

I do believe genes mutate randomly and that there's no intelligence behind biological adaptation from a genetic perspective. So, here I agree with you. I think it's arguing semantics (not syntax to say I was wrong in pointing out evolution as not being random, because I was speaking about creationists' deploying the "jackpot or nothing" argument, not that genes mutate with an intelligence or not. My point was it's not random like the combination lock, and I think you know that's what I meant, right?

I do know (or I believe I know) species pick mates based on what's best for survival. If a species lives in an extremely frigid environment, they would probably be more attracted to a furrier mate than one with less fur. Though, if that same species were in a tropical environment, the opposite would probably be true. Still, through this selection process, it is clear to me biological adaptation is not random but instead a very calculated process. The wing didn't appear overnight by chance (randomly), it was carefully selected, most likely.

And, I'm both atheist and agnostic. I tend to believe there is absolutely no personal god or no intelligent creator, and I'd say I'm about as close to believing that as any human is possible of knowing anything. I remain agnostic only because I cannot absolutely disprove the presence of a Abrahamic God anymore than I can disprove there's a tea cup orbiting the Sun right now. But, I'll save you that tangent.

I'm not quite sure what to make of your theist/atheist knowledge philosophy just yet. I think I'll need more of an explanation to understand exactly what you mean by that. That was the part in particular that sounds like doublespeak, but I don't think I can say that without sounding offensive, so I'll wait to hear more of an explanation from you, if you would offer one. Anyhow, I really enjoyed reading your rant, Doc_M. I like a nice dose of cold philosophy every now and again.

Something tells me this guy read Dawkins' God Delusion. LOL @ 5:47. Bzzzt!

>> ^FishBulb:
I am an atheist but I have trouble with the argument that a universe with a god would be an entirely different kind of universe than one with a god. What are you comparing it too? Creationists believe in literal design but isn't it possible that a god could create the rules and then simply let things run?

In the book he distinguishes between deists (what you are describing) and theists in that theists believe God is actively involved with life on earth (prayer answering, miracles, etc). The point he makes about the differing universes is that religious people want to use God as an explanation for all the complexity around us without acknowledging how complex God Himself would have to be and how He got that way. Religions get that as a "freebie" where the sciences explain things through evolution and natural processes.

His books are quite fascinating. I highly recommend The Blind Watchmaker, because in it, he does an excellent job of explaining precisely how it is possible for life to arrive at its current state of complexity without any interference from a "Supreme Being." Also, because it isn't as preachy or blatantly anti-god as The God Delusion is.