The debate kicked off with Richard Harries speaking for the motion; I like Harries in the same way I like an old pair of shoes or a faithful old Labrador, he is clearly a very gentle, thoughtful person but like an old dog he seemed unable to learn new tricks. His argument boiled down to an appeal to tradition, those nasty “new atheists” are just nasty because they don’t believe what we all do, I mean, look at the poetry, the music, the churches. He went on to dither about the “the grand perhaps”; it’s all about the mystery, apparently.
Next up was Grayling, a thoughtful, gentle man, softly spoken but armed with a fearsome armoury of knowledge on philosophy, general history and the history of religion. Grayling struggled against the drumming of the rain falling on the tin roof of the sports hall at Wellington; it seemed for a moment like someone didn’t want the man to be heard, celestial censorship perhaps? However this only added to the gravitas of his words he came across as a voice of steadfast calm and rationality against the tired and oh so predictable Atlantic depression of religious indignation.
Then we had Moore, I think he lost the debate for his side within the first few minutes, an awfully misjudged ad-hominem attack on Dawkins; Godwin’s law was invoked by Moore comparing Dawkins to a prison guard shooting people caught in the spotlight of science; he just came across as an oafish bullying Christian, arrogant, self assured and intellectually out gunned.
Dawkins gained the podium to a standing ovation; clearly there were a lot of fans in tonight! He was sharp, on form, quick witted and didn’t stoop to the Ad hominem that his opponents did. It was interesting to contrast the style of Dawkins and Grayling, they say exactly the same thing but Grayling does it in a softer less frantic manner which I think made him man of the match tonight. No particularly new arguments from the big D, but as ever he was clear and concise about what he thinks. Harries did make one fairly fundamental blunder, accusing RD of being fundamental in saying that God definitely does not exist, this would be true if Dawkins actually says this, however as he pointed out there is a whole chapter devoted to this question in the God Delusion explaining why he doesn't say it.
Then came the questions from the floor, most were good, most were aimed at the Atheist camp, Grayling was particularly coherent and amusing, Harries was pleasant but not as convincing, Dawkins was passionate as ever but Moore seemed disinterested and petulant by this stage. In the end the votes were counted and the motion was opposed by 1070 votes to 363; surprising for sleepy, conservative Crowthorne on a blustery Sunday night.
16 comments:
Excellent analysis, but what was the motion?
CB, It was "Atheism is the new fundamentalism"; its funny how things seemed to switch 180 degrees over the course of the debate; the real fundamentalist views emerging from the Christian sophistry being peddled.
I loved every minute of this debate. It was thrilling to hear them speak. Charles Moore was the worst one on the panel, I thought.
Hey E, you are right about Moore, I thought Grayling outshone all of them though, so calm and reasonable, I'd hate to argue with him!
Sounds like the dice was loaded from the start.
Frankly I'm appalled by the divisive and intellectually dishonest nature of the way the debate was structured - axiomatic debates are fun for all because they provide self-affirmation for anyone who participates, but all they do is confirm pre-existing prejudices - as this reports illuminates.
And until 'atheists' can start defining themselves by what ther are, rather than by what they are not, such motions will remain so devalued as to be worthless.
So it wasn't a serious exercise, and I'm sorry to have to dismiss it as and evening of middle-class complacency.
Is that statement iconoclastic enough to stir the embers?
Or should I ask instead how many abstentions there were and what you think that demonstrated?
OP, a few thousand people would disagree with you about that.
Oh OJ, it was a wonderful evening! I've never been to a debate before so the back and forth as they argued was -- well -- heavenly!
I don't know if anyone was really paying attention to the motion -- we just wanted to hear them speak.
I know pantomime season is all good knockabout fun, but I can't see that any new ground was broached, so how was the debate advanced?
It's still one side saying 'oh yes it is' and the other saying 'oh no it isn't' and never the twain shall meet.
So how many abstentions were there?
The fewer there were, the more imperative it is that their voice is heard.
OP, why don't you watch it on Youtube before making these petulant unsupported assertions and casting your "judgement"?
As for abstentions, the numbers are on the picture.
This may not be a debate that is particularly interesting or relevant in your view, however there are a lot of people (as evidenced by the attendance for this event and others) for whom it is both interesting and important and this represented "new ground" in terms of their understanding of the topic. I was there, I spoke with several people about this, or did I imagine that OP?
Using terms like "worthless" and "complacent" simply reflect on your own arrogance and prejudice IMO; you seem blinkered to such a degree that you miss both the point and the mood.
Are you serious, Steve?
Firstly you need to pay closer attention, as you make a false characterisation of my comment.
Secondly I am disappointed in the level of rigour involved and I am highly dubious about the practicalities of sustaining any debating position based on the number of logical fallacies presented here.
False dichotomies, suppressed correlatives, negative proofs, historical fallacies, distribution fallacies, bare assertions, cherry picking, bad comparisons, argumentum ad populum, appeal to authority, wishful thinking, style over substance, setting up straw men and making hasty generalisations... and that's not even counting your cognitive biases.
The whole box of dodgy tricks were on display - and you expect to avoid answering further questions??!
Wonderful. Who says we don't have kangaroo courts? And who says nobody enjoys a lynching any more?
OP, Yes, I'm happy to be shown to be wrong and I am serious, are you?
How do you expect anyone to answer specific accusations when you haven't actually referred to any specific point, it's just smoke, where's the fire?
Why didn't you say "argument x is a historical fallacy because y", or "you mis-characterise my point because z"; these things may be self evident to you OP but I am genuinely struggling to see what you're on about?
And "cognitive bias", please.. pot, kettle? show me someone devoid of cognitive bias (including you!) and I'll show you Yoda!
My, that's some nerve I've touched!
I refer you back to your earlier comments.
I'd also like you to explain the disparitoes in the voting sums.
But more importantly can you expain the apparent incoherence that the 'atheists' were voting against the motion, which clearly pleases you.
It strikes me as highly suspect that the atheist camp can claim a basis in science when supporters deny rigorous adherence to any fundamental principles (such as those embodied in the scientfic method) - as the motion claimed.
Surely Dawkins and Grayling should have logically agreed with Harries and Moore on the motion, but disagreed on the political connotations.
Consequently I can only deduce that the evening was nothing more than an exercise in point-scoring (which does seem to be borne out on the evidence of the videos).
I guess tickets to the tennis at the o2 were harder to come by.
OK, I can concur that Dawkins and Grayling were the better debaters, but it does defeat any point they wish to make if they are arguing an incorrect position.
In fact winning the debate, rather than reaching an agreement does in my view completely undermine their basic argument against religions as it proposes themselves as gods among men - and the idolatry their actions encourage simply highlights the contradiction represented by their intellectual position: as the leading faces of a global atheist movement, surely they are supporting the cult of celebrity (and please don't insult anyone with a denial that they trade very healthily on their celebrity status)!
All of which means Dawkins and Grayling are either intellectually dishonest or strategically naive.
And in conclusion therefore, unless you are prepared to withdraw, it looks increasingly like you are incorrect in self-describing as an 'atheist'.
OP, not really, I'm just frustrated because we're not really "connecting" well on this. I am interested in what you have to say (as always) because you come at this from a very different perspective than me and you tend to make me question my views, but you’re going all "GW" on me here, in the sense of being slippery and evasive, answering a point by making a different one etc. or at least that's what it feels like to me.
Again you make accusations of them/me not being rational/scientific, but you are not specific, what do you expect me to do, just shrug my shoulders and agree with you when I genuinely don’t?
The evening was about several things, you seem to have missed the point somewhat in your zeal to pour scorn on it. The critical elements you have missed IMO were,
- First and foremost it was about promoting a school, (coincidently which I have an interest in because I’m evaluating it and one of my motivations for attending)
- It was about raising awareness of a set of ideas and arguments which are highly topical; this part was a major success, the debate was very well publicised and ranked highly on the social networks here and in the USA, I’m in the internet surveillance business, I know it was.
- It gave people outside of London a chance to listen to some public intellectuals, get some books signed and spend a pleasant evening thinking about something other than "I'm a celebrity get me out of here".
- It provided an educational opportunity for people not versed in this debate, I have heard all of these arguments before but I still learnt something, for example I was not aware of the link between Christianity and Stoicism, something interesting for me to look into.
- It sells a few more books for all concerned, again, so what, they are all smart guys who write books people want to read, I don't begrudge them that, do you?
And yes, if you are comparing this debate to the Copenhagen climate talks then sure it was trivial, but so what, I have been speaking to local people all week who really enjoyed it (even those that weren’t there) and it has framed conversations for me that otherwise would never have happened, we all took away different things, some I'm sure took away nothing.
As for the points you make, well, I thank you for them but can only concede that you have made your objections to Hitchens, Dawkins, Grayling et al passionately if not clearly. I continue to suggest that these objections are largely unfounded, I have to conclude this because you will not engage with specific points, I don’t know why, could be jealousy, could be existing allegiances, could be distrust, it could be a genuine counter argument who knows, you seem focused on the process and not the content and I am more interested in the latter.
You seem to want to construct this straw man of me as some kind of unquestioning Dawkins fan-boy. OK, I concede am a "fan" of all of them, and I own a few of the books (shock horror!) but I don't buy into everything they say, for example I thought Dawkins defence of the Stalin-Atheism link was questionable to say the least, and he continues to come across as overly pedantic, the Theists should have made much more of that. Having said that, I would struggle to point to anything he or Grayling said and say "that is wrong because...", something that was trivial to do on the theist side.
Oh and "disparitoes", I guess some people voted with their feet? :)
Seriously, who knows, probably because the pre & post debate voting was optional, I don't know I wasn't in charge...
Oh, I accept those are fair points and I didn't mean to suggest the evening was worthless as a whole, on the contrary, only that the specific manner in which the event was constructed around the particular motion was.
Anyway, you'll have to let me come back at this later as I'm a bit busy...
OP, of course.
This was the first ever debate I have attended and as it’s a passion of Steve’s I thought it would be good to go.
The whole debate was extremely interesting. A C Grayling was amazing. He was articulate, thorough in his answers and passionate without being arrogant. Richard Harries came across a very nice man and again I enjoyed hearing his arguments.
The only disappointing fact for me was that I was left with the impression that the majority of people who attended were already Atheists, in which case it does make it one-sided. Maybe a lot of believers aren’t open enough to other possibilities, which I think is very sad.
Post a Comment