A Hitch in Hitchens: Arguments From the Turek-Hitchens Debate

[rudyhenkel]

EDIT:  I will no longer be responding to challenges to my arguments from anonymous posters.  If you want me to take you seriously, take 30 seconds to create a free account.

I apologize for the delay on this second part, but I do have a job and such.  This is something I do out of a personal desire.

If you have not seen the precusor to this post, you

Comments

[yen_san]

Holy tits, you're still alive! Long time no chat, old friend - let me know what you're up to sometime!

[rudyhenkel]

Yes, I decided to reboot my livejournal to new purpose. I'll send you a message, as perhaps this post is not the ideal arena for a casual conversation =D

Turek on Mathematics

[anonymous]

Hi Rudy. I believe Turek was trying to say the mere existence of Mathematics is evidence for a creator god. What he fails to realize is that numbers and Mathematics aren't natural things but inventions of humans. Numbers weren't really "discovered" either. They were invented as a means of representing objects. It is no secret why our number system is base ten.

- James

Re: Turek on Mathematics

[rudyhenkel]

I think your comment is a sufficient rebuttal of this argument then, unless anyone disagrees. Thanks.

[ext_121905]

I agree with many of your points, and I think you were fair.

One point on which I do disagree is Hitchens's morality bit. He played a very careful game here: name him one moral act that a theist but not an atheist can do, and name him one immoral thing an atheist is very unlikely to do that a theist might. Though it could be said the switch in phrasing is a strength, as it draws attention to the fact that there are immoral actions atheists could do and don't but that religious people do, it really does little to demonstrate differences in morality between believers and non-believers. Only properly sampled research on moral attitudes and behaviors (which I am sure has been done, but a very quick search didn't bring up for me) could do that effectively

[ext_121905]

I really appreciate that you pointed that out. I don't think debates should ever be over "who is better and who is worse" because that has nothing to do with whether or not there is a God and as you said only turns into a pointless debate. Besides it is an ad hominem fallacy argument which are void in formal debates. I would rather debate the scientific evidence and logical evidence rather than who built more hospitals or who killed more people in the past in the name of religion or not in the name of religion

[rudyhenkel]

I've addressed the points you brought up. I'm afraid I don't care to purchase Mr. Turek's book, as I have yet to hear a point in it even vaguely convincing. I will be happy to address any further arguments, or weaknesses in my arguments, you would like to bring up.

[rudyhenkel]

Thanks for the insight. I've edited that section to reflect some of your points.

Great analysis!

[anonymous]

Hey, I don't have an account, but this is Nicole here. Thanks for the link back to my article! I love your analysis of both arguments. I, too, was disappointed, at the lack of scientific rebuttals from Hitchens, but it seemed in my 30 second chat with him after the debate that he had heard it enough times to be sick of it. Maybe that's where we need new blood such as ourselves to stand up against these arguments?

I realized in thinking about it later how much Hitchens may have turned off the theistic audience, too, from his standpoint on "monotheism as servility," but I think it needs to be said. Many may be turned off, yet there are certainly a few, I would hope, in whom that planted a little seed. I think it would have when I was religious.

I'll have to check out some of his other debate videos. Thanks!

Re: Great analysis!

[rudyhenkel]

Thank you very much. =D

I have no problem with the potential offensiveness of his monotheism=servility argument. My objection is that, in this debate, he sometimes brought it up when it wasn't relevant to the question being asked.

It did seem that he was sick of the same old arguments but, despite my admiration of him, I have little sympathy. He is not doing this pro bono, this is his job (or one of his jobs, at least.) He was paid at least several thousand dollars to do this event (I heard 7,000 from one source, but I am unsure of its accuracy.) In my mind, he thus had an obligation to give his best effort, and I don't think he did.

Now, I don't want to jump on him too harshly, because it is possible that some outside event influenced his poor performance. However, being sick of Christian apologists is not sufficient excuse.

[aerynne]

So what would cause you to change your mind?

[rudyhenkel]

You know, I started thinking about that shortly after typing that, and it's a difficult question. In many seemingly obvious answers, such as an "angel of the lord" appearing before you, you have to ask the question: "Which is more likely, that an all powerful creator has singled me out for a special visitation by an angel, or that I'm developing some sort of mental condition?" Statistically, the later is far more likely

[aerynne]

I'm not really certain what I believe, so it's hard to say what it would take to make me change my mind. :) I'm interested that you might change your mind based on "miracles"--after all, there are plenty of things that a reasonably intelligent person in, say, a third world country might not be able to explain by other causes. There are also things that I do not have the knowledge or training to be able to explain, such as quantum physics. I can put my trust in people who do have that knowledge and training to explain it accurately, but after all, Ptolemy had an explanation for his readings of the movements of the stars--extra little loops in their orbits--and while he turned out to be wrong (the readings made sense if you calculated the sun as the center of the solar system), we can't necessarily assume that all the explanations we currently have access to are correct.

And of course you recognize that picture, having taken it!

[rudyhenkel]

*nods* The point about miracles is a valid one. The idea I assume you are getting at is that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Still, if I saw something that I regarded to be a miracle, I would feel at least obliged to investigate further.

Naturally it's possible that there is a logical argument that would convince me of the existence of a god. I cannot conceive of any such argument, of course, but I cannot demonstrate that it is impossible. As it is, I will have to stand by my current reasoning, which is that there is no good reason to believe in the existence of any such being.

My real beef, though, is not with all of those who do believe, but more with those who claim to have proof of their belief.