Lots of debates.....
Lennox vs Hitchins in the Usher Hall this summer. Dawkins vs Lennox last year. And various others. The web and blog response to such events (it's a while since I actually attended any of them) is interesting. The believers on both sides line up behind their favourite, contrasting his (it usually is a he) calm disposal of all the opposing arguments. Frequently there are claims that the format, or the chair, is biased. That the structure is against their man etc. Lots of frustration on both sides. I suppose debates will keep happening because of the perceived entertainment value/the importance of the issues/passion of the protagonists. On one level it is healthy, I suppose. Arguments are aired (though no one ever appears to hear anything new). There is perhaps occasionally some engagement. I'm not sure anyone is ever persuaded on the basis of the debate (though votes are often taken). Maybe just turning up is useful as showing there is an argument to be had.
The problem is that a debate is about winning an argument. Debate can be a way at getting at the truth of a proposition. But truth is often lost in the fog of war. And in the heat of battle perhaps the majority on either side of the issue are incapable of hearing what is said, even if they are listening. Even within science (and these debates are fundamentally not about science at all), Kuhn argued that two rival camps, proposing different scientific hypotheses as explanations of the same phenomena, can't even agree often on what the evidence is. They just don't "see" things (including the evidence for experiments) the same way. This issue of "incommensurability", although a bit postmodern for my taste, and not the whole story, is certainly an interesting one. And if it applies in science, bastion of intellectual rigour, logic and rationality, what must it mean for other areas of intellectual effort? Including debates on the existence of God?
Is there a better way? I'm all for quiet study! You want to know whether God exists (by God I mean the Living God who, it is claimed, is revealed in the pages of the Bible)? Read a bit (say one of the Gospels), and ask Him to show Himself. To be fair, perhaps you should read one of the anti-God polemics that have inspired some of the recent debates, as well. I'm not sure what you would ask of whom in that case!
Lennox vs Hitchins in the Usher Hall this summer. Dawkins vs Lennox last year. And various others. The web and blog response to such events (it's a while since I actually attended any of them) is interesting. The believers on both sides line up behind their favourite, contrasting his (it usually is a he) calm disposal of all the opposing arguments. Frequently there are claims that the format, or the chair, is biased. That the structure is against their man etc. Lots of frustration on both sides. I suppose debates will keep happening because of the perceived entertainment value/the importance of the issues/passion of the protagonists. On one level it is healthy, I suppose. Arguments are aired (though no one ever appears to hear anything new). There is perhaps occasionally some engagement. I'm not sure anyone is ever persuaded on the basis of the debate (though votes are often taken). Maybe just turning up is useful as showing there is an argument to be had.
The problem is that a debate is about winning an argument. Debate can be a way at getting at the truth of a proposition. But truth is often lost in the fog of war. And in the heat of battle perhaps the majority on either side of the issue are incapable of hearing what is said, even if they are listening. Even within science (and these debates are fundamentally not about science at all), Kuhn argued that two rival camps, proposing different scientific hypotheses as explanations of the same phenomena, can't even agree often on what the evidence is. They just don't "see" things (including the evidence for experiments) the same way. This issue of "incommensurability", although a bit postmodern for my taste, and not the whole story, is certainly an interesting one. And if it applies in science, bastion of intellectual rigour, logic and rationality, what must it mean for other areas of intellectual effort? Including debates on the existence of God?
Is there a better way? I'm all for quiet study! You want to know whether God exists (by God I mean the Living God who, it is claimed, is revealed in the pages of the Bible)? Read a bit (say one of the Gospels), and ask Him to show Himself. To be fair, perhaps you should read one of the anti-God polemics that have inspired some of the recent debates, as well. I'm not sure what you would ask of whom in that case!
posted by Paul at 1:14 PM
0 comments
