Richard Dawkins, Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer debated William Lane Craig, Douglas Geivett, David Wolpe on the topic “Does the Universe Have a Purpose?” on Mexican television on 13 November 2010. This is the english version:
Tags: David Wolpe · Debates · Douglas Geivett · Matt Ridley · Michael Shermer · Richard Dawkins · William Lane Craig30 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Today's New Atheists proclaim themselves our culture's party of reason. It is a claim they cannot sustain. Reason is the New Atheists' weakness, not their strength and in fact, the Christian faith is a far better place to look for True Reason. Making their case accessible to the first-time inquirer as well as the serious student, this top-flight team of writers presents a sound defense and a strong introduction to the true reason uniquely found in Christianity.
The book begins by examining foundational philosophical approaches to the Bible as well as the methodological challenges those philosophies create for interpreting the Bible. It then addresses textual and historical challenges and how to deal with them. Finally it looks at ethical, scientific, and theological challenges demonstrating the Bible's moral integrity in relationship to contemporary moral emphases.
Many philosophers have considered the strengths and weaknesses of a virtue-centered approach to moral theory. Much less attention has been given to how such an approach bears on issues in applied ethics. The essays in this volume apply a virtue-centered perspective to a variety of contemporary moral issues.
The challenge of a seemingly genocidal God who commands ruthless warfare has bewildered Bible readers for generations. A range of expert contributors engage in a multidisciplinary approach that considers this issue from a variety of perspectives: biblical, ethical, philosophical and theological.
The nineteen essays here raise classical philosophical questions in fresh ways, address contemporary challenges for the church, and will deepen the thinking of the next generation of apologists. Packed with dynamic topical discussions and informed by the latest scholarship.
While New Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others proclaim loudly their rationality, clear thinking, and incontrovertible scientific arguments, others are beginning to wonder how genuinely rational they are. Have they proved anything? Have they argued convincingly? Have they pinpointed any real challenges to the credibility of Christian faith?
This was too short for anything to really get going, and the responses from the non-debaters were canned and useless.
My favorite part was when Dawkins said that Craig was being irrational and appealing to emotion. What makes that funny was that Ridley had argued against theism from evil, and Dawkins had made no arguments whatsoever outside of asserting that purpose can be created by the individual. Craig had offered 10 arguments with only one (existentialist argument) having to do with an appeal to emotion or experience. What a strange response by Dawkins!
It’s even funnier that Dawkins rants and rails against theism which he sees as a human creation to answer society ills that we have grown beyond, but he thinks we must create our own purpose and not resign ourselves to nihilism. From his perspective, if he were to be consistent (which he’s not), he would admit that rejecting theistic purpose for self-created purpose is trading one delusion for another. This would also be true of morality as well, since he has claimed that there is no good and evil in the universe, but suggests elsewhere that we should live like there is (I guess we should delude ourselves in this regard from his perspective as well).
Sadly, I really do think he believes he is the rational one in these discussions despite his incoherence on these points and his total inability to engage theistic arguments, which seems almost incomprehensible for such an intelligent individual.
The overall tone of the atheist side was harsh and fundamentalist. It seems like they could have used someone with a philosophical background as well…perhaps someone like Paul Draper who has a weaker yet more rational stance.
Craig laid out two simple contentions:
1. If God doesn’t exist, the universe doesn’t have a purpose
2. if God does exist, then the universe does have a purpose
It’s an interesting combo, because it allowed them to argue both ways…from purpose to God…and from God to purpose…without affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent. They denied the consequent of 1. in support of God’s existence (fine tuning, etc.). Then they also offered other arguments for God’s existence by way of 2. to support the fact that the universe has a purpose.
And yet the atheists kept complaining about how God’s existence was being brought up in a debate about the universe having a purpose. Sheesh, talk about missing the point. Regardless of if 1 and 2 are precisely true once broken down, they were a pretty slick little setup for the debate. Haha, as if Craig’s debating skills were in question!
Ridley’s only “argument” against 1 was to say that humans can still find purpose by way of existentialism…but that isn’t even relevant to a purpose in the universe. Geivett responded by pointing out that it’s probably not even compatible with physical determinism either.
Overall, it seems like the philosophers deconstructed naturalism, while Wolpe gave some compelling emotional appeals (especially to post-moderns). The atheists indignantly refused to listen. A good debate for convincing the average person that theism is more rational than the new atheists would have them believe.
Someone has made. a version of just WLC’s talk.
Craig laid out two simple contentions:
1. If God doesn’t exist, the universe doesn’t have a purpose
2. if God does exist, then the universe does have a purpose
I buy #1, but 2 doesn’t necessarily follow and also speaks nothing about human purpose.
Ryan,
I think that’s a fair admission from an atheistic perspective, since some would argue that there remains a telos to the universe. I also think that a proper distinction would need to be made in the second premise between general theism and Christian theism (the latter clearly imbues the universe with purpose).
Mads,
The link you provided doesn’t work.
Ryan,
I agree that 2 doesn’t follow from 1, and is not precise enough to be useful.
It does seem that on a materialist view of persons we should affirm this conditional:
If the universe has no purpose, then persons have no purpose
Would you agree? Now I’m not rejecting that (given materialism) one can’t experience a pleasant stream of neuron reactions they might call “purpose.” But on that account of purpose, isn’t it on par with saying “humans have migraines?”
Which is an interesting point, because it shows that any meaningful definition of purpose will probably already favor a non-materialist position. I’m not quite sure though, just thinking out loud.
If the universe has no purpose, then persons have no purpose. Would you agree?
Yes, but only if you threw the word “objective” twice into your sentence above.
I think it’s fair to say that purpose, as we find it in life, is subjective and can only be compared to a migrane in the same way consciousness could be compared to a migrane.
Ryan,
Thanks for admitting that in an atheistic worldview purpose is subjective. I agree.
You do not resign yourself to nihilism though, and I’d be interested in knowing how you determine the purpose that you self-create? If it is truly subjective, how do you separate it from the experience and existence of others?
Furthermore, since from your worldview, purpose (and I would assume “meaning”) are self-created ideals, would you also agree that it is somewhat irrational (though definitely pragmatic and existential) to order your life around such subjective meaning and purpose?
I find these existential types of questions much more interesting than even the more analytical questions that we spend our times arguing about. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
I think the term “self-created” is not entirely accurate. We have society and our biology helping to create much of what we see as purpose/meaning.
Although subjective, it’s still transcendent. Transcendent in that it’s beyond the individual to a certain degree.
It seems to me that many theists don’t see the important point that even though we (atheists) recognize where our mean/purpose/morality comes from, we are very much still bound to it. Society and biology are pretty powerful…
First of all, who said that purpose is such a big thing? And having a purpose is a very relative question. Craig did made the false dilemma between “good” and “evil” and did not understand that our morals about what is good and bad has nothing to do with the entire universe. The universe doesn’t recognize good and evil. The point of the atheists was that good, evil, emotions, beliefs and finding purposes are part of the nature of our mind. The universe has a pattern of events and laws happening, but not a purpose. This argument is very good and pleasurable. Having your personal goals has nothing to do with the universe. Finding relations between this two is apophenia. This is characteristic for the Buddhism and other “karma” religions. I believe you didn’t really understand the argument of the atheists right? xD
Ryan,
I agree that biology and society are huge factors, and I can see that in your perspective even if we realize that these urges are somewhat illusory that it would be immensely difficult to transcend them (since they seem somewhat transcendent in themselves).
Good point Ryan, and one which I wish some popular new atheists would take note of when they reduce their “deconversion” down to a purely rational process.
Kaku’s speech was utterly nonsensical. His claim that both were wrong amounted to the denial of the law of the excluded middle. Consider the follow schematization of Kaku’s statement.
God exists = a false proposition
God does not exist = a false proposition
I’m sorry, but that simply doesn’t work! now he did seem to imply that the proposition God exists is unfalsifiable, but this does nothing to show that this proposition is false, only that we cannot determine its truth value. But such a statement is simply false! God is falsifiable if there is something self refuting about his inherent nature.
Dawkins completely failed to grasp Craig’s point with respect to the intuition of purpose and Shermer confused ontology with epistemology. Being an intuitionist, Craig and myself hold that certain intuitions are presumed until shown false. For example, the belief that other minds exist is an intuition presumed until otherwise proven. Now I see no reason to suppose that it’s any different when it comes to the intuition that purpose exists. Hence it also is presumed until otherwise proven. For Shermer to claim that atheists can perceive purpose suffers from the same problem that the epistemic complaint against the moral argument does, that is, it confuses ontology with epistemology. That, as a naturalist, I could perceive purpose does nothing to mitigate the fact that naturalism is incompatible with there being any objective purpose. That naturalists can perceive purpose illustrates only the fact that some people can hold contradictory ideas in their heads.
Andrew, I think Kaku’s point may have been something more like this…
“YHWH exists = a false proposition”
“Anything that could be broadly classified as a God does not exist = a false proposition”
Obviously he didn’t say that, but he really is too smart of have meant it how you paraphrased it.
Wasn’t his point that both sides were claiming 100% certainty and he was somewhere in betweeen? I think that’s the point he was making whether he said it like that or not.
I’m not sure about Kaku either. I took his point to be that the debate will always remain undecidable because it can’t be solved by science.
Here is a brief interview where Kaku seemes to tentatively affirm the god of Spinoza.
http://www.kirstensanford.com/2009/04/30/michio-kaku-on-god/
Ryan the question is not can humans make purpose. The question is does the Universe have a purpose.
That is a different question.
Matt; the question posed by David was “If the universe has no purpose, then persons have no purpose. Would you agree?”
Ryan,
I won’t answer for Matt of course, but I would agree that we could be biologically (and culturally) shaped to believe that there is individual purpose in a purposeless universe, but that it is ultimately illusory.
That’s part of why I struggle with Dawkins railing against belief in God as an evolutionary byproduct that must be rejected, but at the same time claiming that we should live as though there is an absolute morality and transcendent purpose to human progress. He’s also notorious for intentionally side stepping and ignoring the conclusions of his materialism toward free will (see for instance how this article at Psychology Today showed the inconsistencies in his thinking)
All of these are illusory beyond subjective experience from his perspective. You may feel that there is a purpose, or act as though there is an objective morality, but there’s not, because there is nothing above the individual and his society to sustain such transcendentals.
BTW, I know you do not affirm objectives as you have already stated, but Dawkins want to affirm them and critique historical and contemporary persons, cultures and beliefs based on these illusory (or at best subjective) transcendentals.
@Ryan,
I’m not particularly impressed by your appeal to Kaku’s intelligence. Kaku may be a good astro-physicist (even though I disagree with his conclusions there also), but if his statements in this video are anything to go by, he’s a quack when it comes to philosophy.
A cursory glance at what Kaku said in the video doesn’t permit us to construe his statements as you have. He simply says “on one side we have my esteemed colleagues who are 100% certain that the universe is pointless, meaningless and that there is no God. On the other side, we have another group that is 100% certain that the universe has a point, has a meaning and there is a God. One sides right, one sides wrong, right? my personal point of view is…they’re both wrong…”
Also, I have to agree with the person who said that Dawkins was the most obnoxious in the debate. But Matt Ridley is not far behind him. I find that “obnoxiousness” (if that’s a word) seems to come in spades when it comes to certain British atheists. Consider: Richard Dawkins (hugely obnoxious), Peter Atkins (even more obnoxious than Dawkins), Matt Ridley (obnoxiousness amply demonstrated by the video), Stephen Laws, and I could name many more.
@Andrew
I’m not sure that Dawkins was obnoxious, but I think his dismissal of asking “why” questions made him look close-minded. I didn’t have an issue with Ridley and Shermer never comes across in a positive light in terms of having an appealing personality.
There are much more appealing atheists out there, but the conference was going for the name-value of Dawkins.
You are absolutely right in regards to Atkins and Law though. Neither seem to be able to think beyond their personal arguments (and unable to understand the many, many critiques against them). Their appearances on Unbelievable are some of the most embarrassing from the atheist position.
Kyle; I think it may appear ultimately illusory because you expect more? It’s kinda like thinking about what’s the universe is expanding “into” or what was “before” the big bang.
We think there has to be “something” the universe is expanding into the same way we think there has to be some layer of morality above the societal level, because well, there are multiple societies and they tend disagree sometimes and someone has to be right.
I don’t really follow Dawkins, I’ll have to rewatch the speech and comment on his claim that we should live as though there is an absolute morality and transcendent purpose to human progress.
I think it might be, sort of like I’d said, things can be absolute from our perspective (in the fish tank) but not from the perspective of the universe (looking into the fish tank).
@Kyle,
Oh i’m certain that there are more appealing atheists out there! Paul Draper is one!
But Dawkins’ rejection of “why” questions is to me equatable with obnoxiousness. He just completely failed to grasp the intuitionistic epistemology that the theists were using throughout the debate. He completely fails to so much as consider something apart from his own dogmatic, closed minded, counter-scientific and irrational point of view.
In my view, the conference would have been a lot better if they hadn’t cheapened it with Dawkins. They would have done a whole hell of a lot better if they’d put on a real debate between two philosophical heavy weights say Alvin Plantinga and Paul Draper. It would have been so much more enlightening, so much more intelligently argued and the acrid atmosphere would have been non existent.
@Ryan
He doesn’t make that claim in this debate, but does do it elsewhere (for instance in The God Delusion). His views on free will, morality and purpose can be found in lots of places online as well.
Dr. Geivett just posted a lengthy article about the debate on his blog:
http://douggeivett.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/shermer-ridley-and-dawkins-vs-craig-wolpe-and-geivett-retrospective-on-the-debate/
Ryan, the phrase “persons have no purpose” is ambigious. In one sense the inference is correct in another it is not.
[…] MandM […]
“That naturalists can perceive purpose illustrates only the fact that some people can hold contradictory ideas in their heads.”
and which naturalist said we can perceive purpose? they said there is no purpose, so there’s nothing to perceive
all the atheists were arguing was that even though there is no purpose to the Universe or life bestowed upon by God, we can still construct all sorts of purposes for our lives and set our own goals. I mean that’s what it means to be a free agent, right? Otherwise we would be tools.
Andrew, Plantinga and Draper have an online debate here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_draper/intro2.html
I agree that its considerably more insightful than anything Dawkins has written. It also quite nicely explains the differences in their respective positions.
all the atheists were arguing was that even though there is no purpose to the Universe or life bestowed upon by God, we can still construct all sorts of purposes for our lives and set our own goals. I mean that’s what it means to be a free agent, right? Otherwise we would be tools.
I see so we can choose and set our own goals, one what basis does one do this, presumably by appealing to various goals and purposes this serves. But the problem is we know need goals before we can construct them to begin with.