[Update added below. Further update: here’s the video.]
I’m participating this afternoon in an intriguing event here at Caltech:
Affirming the proposition will be Skeptics Society president Michael Shermer and myself, while negating it will be conservative author Dinesh D’Souza and MIT nuclear engineer Ian Hutchinson. We’ll go back and forth for about two hours, after which Sam Harris will give a talk about his most recent book, Free Will.
Festivities begin at 2pm Pacific time (5pm Eastern). I hadn’t previously mentioned the debate here on the blog, because tickets sold out pretty quickly, and it didn’t seem right to taunt people by mentioning an event they couldn’t come see. But the Skeptics folks have been working hard to set up live-streaming video of the event, and it looks like they’ve succeeded! So you should be able to watch all the fun live on YouTube — and feel free to leave comments here.
[Live-streaming didn’t work, but here’s the video.]
I’ll come back when it’s all over and add some post-debate thoughts.
Update after the debate: first off, very sorry that the live stream didn’t seem to work for many people. (Although the YouTube comments are occasionally funny.) That’s just what sometimes unfortunately happens when you try something new. Pretty sure that video will eventually be available, I’ll link when it appears.
Also I deleted a bunch of comments about string theory from people who don’t take instructions well.
As for the debate, it’s very hard to judge when up on the stage, but I hope there were some enlightening moments. I’m not sure it worked well as a “debate.” I tried to engage a bit with what Ian and Dinesh were saying, but I didn’t feel that they reciprocated — although they might make the same claim about our side. I’m thinking that four people is just too much to have in a debate; it could have been more direct confrontation if there had only been two, with twice as much time for each little speech.
I don’t think I did a very good job in the cross-examinations, but hopefully the actual speeches came across clearly.
The audience was pretty clearly biased toward us from the beginning. Which is great in some sense (go forces of reason!) but I’d actually like to do something similar before an audience that was tilted the other way, or (best of all) completely uncommitted at the start. Preaching to the choir is fun, but doesn’t really change the world.
We had a great crowd, and I very much appreciate everyone who braved the not-that-great-by-Southern-California-standards weather. Would love to hear reactions from people who were actually there.
Peter, it seems you want to make a point about theology which is fine, but it is certainly no refutation of Plantinga’s statement re. the basis of knowledge. You are assuming (irrationally) exactly what Plantinga is refuting, that there is no truth or knowledge except that found by science. Hence, you are a ideological naturalist and would find no sense in searching for truth/knowledge except that observed by our senses (enhanced by technology). You obviously are going to keep looking under that streetlight. I do not think you will find much that is truly meaningful under said light. Useful, yes; meaningful, no.
Sean,
I was at the debate and thought you were, by far, the best of the four. I only knew of Shermer and D’Souza coming into the debate, and semi knew what to expect from them. I really enjoyed your largely scientific approach, even though I am also a fan of the more anti-theist rhetoric from Dawkins and Hitchens.
Ian seemed to be unwilling to be intellectually honest in the cross examination. You came off as open to whatever was coming at you, and I promise this didn’t come off as weak or giving in to their point. D’Souza was annoying and rude as ever, and used pretty language to cover up logical fallacies. Ethnicity aside, I’ve always found him to be the Christian Deepak Chopra in his debate tactics.
Again, great job. You’ve got a new fan and I plan to check out your books sometime this year.
– Nick
Jim at #51, thanks for explaining where I am going wrong.
But I think H.L. Mencken sums it up for me:
“Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing.”
I’d like to read where that “other way of knowing” has led to anything useful though.
Oh well, back to living with all the useful stuff and using my brain to define the meaningful.
Glad to hear that people enjoyed it, thanks for the kind comments. I do think events like this are worth doing, but we can always work to find ways to improve them.
I was there. My guess is that the video isn’t up because D’souza and Hutchinson are embarrassed by their performance – mostly just Hutchinson’s though. I mean that in all seriousness.
Shermer and Carrolll did pretty well with what they were given. There were some very good moments, but mostly the debate sort of lagged and danced around the topic without ever penetrating too far. Damn Hutchinson looked out of place. He stated that his favorite reason for believing Christianity is the historical account of Jesus. Carroll asked him why this is so convincing and Hutchinson stated “I’m not a historian.”
Fuck.
By now we have to admit that scientists have displaced clergy as observers of the universe and teachers about how it works. A more interesting question would be “What is the proper role for Religion now that Science is working pretty well?”
Charles,
The proper role for religion is for it to fall into obscurity with other intellectually dishonest practices, so that people who care more about purely subjective claims than the world around them don’t have a major platform or power.
Four people in a debate should be fine. Several years ago, Christopher Hitchens — in some of the finest work I ever saw him do — was half of a debating duo that trounced the opposition in a debate in Britain. The topic was “Is the Catholic church a force for good?” Before the debate, the majority of the audience thought Yes, and when it was over, an even greater majority switched to No. I’m pretty sure the debate is still on YouTube.
As to my general thoughts of D’Souza……..they are better left unsaid.
Nick,
That may be true of the church, but spiritual contemplation is a legitimate thing — provided you don’t go around trying to convince everyone else that what you thought up is “right”. There is a role to be filled when people confront questions for which there is no final answer. e.g. “why am I here?” is a tough one for many. A guide would be nice to have around. I know a lot of people who are tragically cut off from the exhilirating sense of wonder that some of us can get from contemplating cosmology. To me, that’s the tragedy of this “science vs. religion” debate. It isn’t a fair fight. I would rather just see the clergy reinvent themselves to find other ways to nurture lost souls. No shortage of those.
-C
Pingback: The Great Debate: Science vs. Religion | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine
Pingback: Current Events In Science Today | Living History