Christopher Hitchens and William Dembski met for a debate yesterday morning at Prestonwood Christian Academy in Plano, Texas.
As it happens, PCA used to be the church of our good friend LRA.
According to the PCA website, a video will be available on Nov. 22nd. For now, you can read a live-blog of the event from MikeTheInfidel.
Just judging from Mike’s notes, Dembski reminds me of that kid in high school who would write about the only thing they knew and try to adapt that to whatever the assignment required. The debate was over the existence of God, but Dempski seems to have spent almost all his time talking about Intelligent Design, and then weakly connected that to theism. Hitchens could have shut him down with a few of the questions from the British Centre for Science Education’s Questions for Prof. Behe.
Really? Goddammit! If I had known that Hitch was going to be speaking in Plano would have gone. I spend a good deal of time in Plano as I have an old college buddy that lives there that I frequently visit.
Apparently the debate was heavily skewed against him time-wise, as well as Dumbski being allowed to read a prepared text for his closing remarks and the program booklet being a piece of Christian propoganda. Meh. I’d rather see the Hitch debate on neutral ground.
Intellectually, I agree it would be much better to see these things on neutral ground… but there is something satisfying about demolishing the opposition on their own turf when they have every advantage. Unfortunately I’m not sure these debates are particularly constructive – who comes away having changed their mind?
“Dembski complains that Hitchens, a non-scientist, doesn’t provide a full, detailed explanation of the evolution of the eye.”
I’d counter with the request for a full detailed explanation for the story of Genesis. Names of origial author, and the names of the transcribers from antiquity and now? Oh you can’t, poof its all lies.
Can’t wait for it to be available to all peeps. Hitch is my fav of the 4 guys wi/horses.
Kriss
Aw! Thanks for the shout out, Vorjack! I’m a “good friend.” Yay, me!!!!
:P
LOL!
“you two are .. good friends? But I thought we would be .. good friends..”
In the same manner (forgive me) John C is friends?
Actually, like 90% of the things I say, it is a Zapp Brannigan quote.
Rock breaks scissors. But paper covers rock, and scissors cut paper! Kiff, we have a conundrum. Search them for paper… and bring me a rock
If we hit that bull’s eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
Men, you’re lucky men. Soon, you’ll all be fighting for your planet. Many of you will be dying for your planet. A few of you will be put through a fine mesh screen for your planet. They will be the luckiest of all.
I could do this all day…
Hmmm…. I probably shouldn’t mention the fact that I had a nickname when I was a kid: Lela.
LOL!
Way to dirty up a perfectly innocent comment, Ty.
:P
Oh, and Sunny– despite his flaws, and whatever controversy he causes, I happen to like John C.
:D
(burns LRA in effigy)
You don’t understand how to use the reply button, do you……?
Dembski has to insist the Intelligent Design Creationism is science, and is not religion. That’s a tough sell when you’ve authored a book entitled Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology
“According to the PCA website, a video will be available on Nov. 22nd. For now, you can read a live-blog of the event from MikeTheInfidel.”
Heh, sounds exactly like what I posted in the I Blame Anne Rice comments before I signed up.
Dembski is known for having numerous errors in his work and evading questions. Having Hitchens debate Dembski is rather like having Cicero debate Sarah Palin. I’m sure the only reason Dembski agreed to the debate was because he was in friendly territory.
Four days for the footage to be released by the church? How heavily edited is that going to be, do we think? Raw footage could have gone up the same day – I am expecting dishonesty here.
Dishonesty? From a Christian school? Could it happen?
It’s more likely than you think….
Your forgot to switch on your irony detector :p
Or maybe he was rephrasing it to:
I watched it live (yay timezones!) Dembski spoke like a moron. Hitchens was Hitchens. I’m not sure why he has a reputation as a combative anti-theist; I assume that’s code for articulate.
That’s what they say about Dawkins. Apparently he’s some sort of aggressive, drooling monster… which of course means he speaks very clearly, candidly and often eloquently of the subject at hand. Being better at presenting your argument (which does not reflect the value of the argument) seems to be cheating in the eyes of many theists… unless it’s one of their charismatic preachers yelling over a befuddled atheist.
Oh, yes. Even theists who I regard as otherwise sensible and level-headed (my future sister in law springs to mind) dismiss Dawkins as being shrill, rude, arrogant, agressive – but it’s all complete crap. I don’t believe anybody who truly thinks that has ever heard him speak, and certainly not with a dispassionate ear.
He calmly and politely asks questions that theists cannot answer and gives them answers to their own questions which he cannot counter – but you know how it is: Don’t like the message but can’t disprove it? Attack the messanger. Perhaps that’s why so many politicians are religious. Same tactic, different playing field.
I suppose I am lucky that my girlfriend, while a deist, actually quite likes him rather than finding him overly aggressive. She introduced me to this little gem, which she finds hilarious in his calm British accent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZuowNcuGsc&feature=player_embedded
This was the first time that I heard Christopher Hitchens speak in person. I was simply amazed at his intelligence, erudition, humor and patience. He was clearly in a class of his own. If any believer was not swayed in some small way by his clear, rational and brilliant arugument then they are very sad creatures indeed and I pity them. I’m very proud that by whatever means of genetics or environment that I’ve developed the same realization of the human reality as Mr. Hitchens.
You Tube already has the debates up
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=D1B974AFCBF41420&ref=nf
Part 1 – an intro from PBA plugging their “study guide” and an explanation from the moderator that the audience should write down any questions and the PBA staff will choose which one to ask. Hmmmmmmmm………
Part one is a total WTF. THis debate is about training the students to be impervious atheist arguments in the future.
Yeah I found that one part creepy to nine parts funny. It’s a bit… odd to be so open about using Mr. Hitchens as a training tool. It kind of reminds me of how to train your dragon, it’s like they’ve captured an atheist and let it loose in front of the children so they can observe how to deal with one.
I have watched both opening argumens and the ten minute rebuttals, and so far it appears that unfortunately for these children, their teacher is fighting the dragon with only the air of a wooden sword. His argument has largely been “Hitchens does not believe Jesus exists, which is wrong”, despite it not being particularly relevant and no evidence being presented to show that Jesus did in fact exist. The other thrust of the argument has been variations on the theme of irreducible complexity, which of course Hitchens blasts to smithereens, but I just have the feeling that on some other blog somewhere there’s a Christian writing about how Hitchens got owned in the very same debate we’re watching.
That should of course be only the aiD of a wooden sword, not air.
The videos are no longer available. I get the message “video removed by user”. :(
Can I get a transcription of this?
As these are quite likely the last months of Hitchens’ life, I wish he would selectively travel to comfortable and attractive locations. Not Plano.
damn i was in Dallas yesterday and didn’t know this was happening??!
Good debate. I ended up watching it on youtube and Dembski’s introduction strikes me as slightly undercut and insulting towards Hitchens.
Steve Williams….”rational and brilliant arugument then they are very sad creatures indeed and I pity them.”
.
If you want to act like the debate and conversation is about making knowledge available and allowing people to make their own decision….then calling people ‘very sad creatures’ for not agreeing or being swayed seems to contradict. Regardless of what you choose to believe, their are brilliant people on both sides of the aisle. I listened to Hitchens here and was not swayed. You inferring anyone with an opinion different or disagreeing with Hitchens is again a ‘very sad creature’ shows the arrogance and single-minded thinking many atheists accuse Christians of being. I do find many Christians to be condemning/close minded and ignorant toward atheists and arguments…but I find just as many atheists condemning and close-minded towards Christians. I feel this is ignored by many atheist in these conversations. Just a small observation on your claim that anyone with the audacity not to be swayed by Hitchens was a sad creature deserving your pity.
“You inferring anyone with an opinion different or disagreeing with Hitchens is again a ‘very sad creature’ shows the arrogance and single-minded thinking many atheists accuse Christians of being.”
How does *one* person here saying that show “the arrogance and single-minded thinking *many* atheists accuse Christians of being.”?
I find atheists tend to be condemning toward Christians because the atheists’ arguments involve facts and the Christians’ arguments do not. You can argue that calling anyone not swayed by Hitchens a sad creature isn’t going to help any, but you have to understand the frustration atheists feel because NOTHING they say is going to help any. People not swayed by rational argument made their mind up before the argument began.
“… because the atheists’ arguments involve facts and the Christians’ arguments do not.”
Well not always true but I see your point. The one type of believer I do “look down on” is the one who cannot or will not admit how much he bases the “truth” of his religion on pure and utter faith. This will generally involve a seriously large amount of logic twisting as the chosen holy text is the word of god so by definition is true (of course a believer in a different holy text does get this advantage), this also leads to the rather strange situation where the passages from a holy text are used to bolster an argument even though the other person places no authority on the holy text. The latter is somewhat like the probability of an American using the US Constitution to bolster his argument when the issue at hand has no connection to the US tends to one.
Jabster…good point. It was just consistent with the flow of the whole thread. Where Dembski is a ‘moron’ like people said. etc….maybe i should have directed it to the general attitude of some posting, instead of Steve Williams alone.
JohnWhite…”People not swayed by rational argument made their mind up before the argument began.” I don’t do that as a Believer. I’ve heard certain aguments that made me think and research myself. Not with this Hitchens debate however. ” but you have to understand the frustration atheists feel because NOTHING they say is going to help any” This I don’t understand. Why is it frustrating to you that I believe in Christ? When you get ‘frustrated’ that people don’t follow in line with your beliefs doesn’t that fit in with many atheist frustration with the Church? And their view that the Church doesn’t except outsiders, are intolerant of differing views, etc…
Not meaning to get into a huge debate or anything…just kind of a passerby on lunch break.
I don’t think the frustration is with someone who believes in Christ but it certainly is when the claim is that Jesus is the son of god and the stories of his life, as described in the Bible, are a history fact and there’s hard evidence to support it. Now if you really to turn the frustration level up to 11 then just get a creationist to put forward his reasoning as to why evolution is untrue and follow up with that’s why we must teach the controversy …
p.s. The reply button is at the bottom of the post to make it easier to follow a thread … ;-)
Sorry about the reply. I don’t see very well. Literally. Well, as far as accuracy of the life of Jesus in the New Testament….Im confident in it. Especially considering some things we consider as historical fact in mainstream history that doesnt have as much historical support as the New Testament. You may have seen the information on this link before and probably have a rebuttal but it is interesting and something I think overlooked by many atheist. On another note…I hear a lot about ‘proof’ on the thread and in the website…and the way some people present their argument with ‘proof’ being the END ALL argument…where is your proof their is no God? Isnt that belief that there is no God still in a way a leap of faith? Countless scientist will admit they cant ‘prove’ there is no God..yet by in a way, ‘faith’ is where atheist get the beleif that God does not exist. Anyways, no Im rambling and won’t be able to be on here much longer. I’ll def check back to read and try to reply but might be much later. here is the link below comparing the new testament.
http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
I need to work on my ‘their’ and ‘there’….just further proof all of us believers are backwoods morons. ;)
“I need to work on my ‘their’ and ‘there’….”
You should see of the posts I make!
“Especially considering some things we consider as historical fact in mainstream history that doesnt have as much historical support as the New Testament.”
If you’re going to ask me to believe that the son of god walked on this Earth performing miracles then you going to need a lot better evidence than just the Bible to back it up especially when there are so many falsehoods in that text.
“where is your proof their is no God?”
Now this is a problematic as it’s no better than saying where is the proof that my cat isn’t a space alien from Mars on a spying mission therefore my cat is a space alien from Mars on a spying mission. You may say that’s totally different from the concept of the Christian god but they are both equally supported by the same level of evidence. What makes the concept of god so special that it’s what seems like the only time that the “you can’t prove it doesn’t exist” so therefore it does exist is considered a valid argument?
“I’ll def check back to read and try to reply but might be much later.”
Hope to see you soon …
God is an imaginary concept, invisible buIIshlt answer to anything you want. We are not the ones who imagined this god is real, we hear stories about him all the time and say, “they’re not true.” If you feel he is more than imaginary, fictional character, that is your mission to provide the evidence. If you could do it, you would do it, nobody has. That is exactly why he’s not so dog-damned obvious that we are in denial to say he doesn’t exist. All you have are feelings. Somebody told you and you chose to think it was true, but you have no proof, you didn’t get it proven to you. I don’t know why that is so hard to explain to theists, that there is not some container in which god exists or doesn’t exist – that we have to point to the spot and show that it’s empty the same way we could point to a bathtub and show you where the water should be but it’s not.
You choose to believe the imaginary being is real. If he were real, you could prove he exists, because it would have been proven to you. What happened then, is you were just convinced to go on what they had, you seem to think this “faith” is a good quality to have because you decided that proof wasn’t necessary. Tell you, proof is necessary for some people. Otherwise, you have no argument.
Please tell me you don’t think this is a serious argument…
Jake–
Just remember that ‘there’ is a place word, like ‘here’. ‘Here’ and ‘there’ are spelled similarly. Notice that ‘there’ has the word ‘here’ in it!
:D Hope that helps!
It’s not “proof” that we’re after actually, it’s evidence. We actually don’t need “evidence” for the non-existence of supernatural beings or gods because we’re not making a claim. The burden of proof falls upon the claimant.
Theists claim the existence of something, therefore they also need to provide the evidence for their claim. Thus far, there is absolutely no compelling evidence for any kind of supernatural or god-like entities, so we assume that none exist. Also, when we say “evidence”, we don’t mean “personal anecdotes”. We mean testable, falsifiable, repeatable data that provide predictions for further testing. In the entirety of human history, that evidence has never once surfaced.
To quote Micheal ruse: If “God exists” is a religious claim (and it surely is), why then is “God does not exist” not a religious claim? And if Creationism implies God exists and cannot therefore be taught, why then should science which implies God does not exist be taught?
The truth is the central question of importance is: exactly how / where did the information contained on the spine of sugar and phosphates originate. What origin do we know of/ operations now in effect that produce massive ammounts of specified complex files within folders within folders within superfolders archive of heirerarchical information.. What is the cause of Information contained in DNA. 4 character digital/machine code??
You see, changing words sometimes help to understand where the problem is. Let’s try: Aliens abducted me is a signal of crazyness, but Aliens don’t abducted me isn’t.
Yes… I can see a patron there. The default point is not having faith and his conclusion is that god doesn’t exist. It’s not a religious statement, but an statement about lack of religion.
Let’s try again: Santa Claus exist (aren’t you a little grown up to believe that?)
Santa claus doesn’t exist (yeah, obviously).
“why then should science which implies God does not exist be taught?”
Science is about fact. If any science would imply that God doesn’t exist (wich by the way, that’s not true) it would still be “true” (yeah, definitions of truth aside) wether you like it or not. You may like blue cats but that doesn’t make them real. The fact is that God is not science, as magic isn’t science. We can’t prove or disprove them, we don’t have evidences of them, and then the reasonable assumption is that magic doesn’t exist.
About your last paragraph… you are discussing there abyogenesis, wich scientifics are trying to solve now. The central question of importance some centuries ago was the origin of man, and scientists proved not to be God, they proved that we are animals. You moved God to the origin of life. Right. No problem. When the origin of life is guessed you are going to move it to the origin of matter. Ok. It is the God of holes: there will always be some question that science can’t solve and you can say: “unknown? then goddidit”. It provides no information and it hasn’t any use but if you are happy with that…
It’s not “proof” that we’re after actually, it’s evidence. We actually don’t need “evidence” for the non-existence of supernatural beings or gods because we’re not making a claim. The burden of proof falls upon the claimant.
.
Isn’t it a ‘claim’ that there is no God? Heck, One could argue the tilt of the earth’s axis and the support in sustaining human life is ‘evidence’ of a God…(just an example, which im sure you disagree with)
But my main point i guess is your claming something just like a believer in God is claiming something. You do not have certifiable, testable, repeatable data that God does not exist. You ask christians to dismiss their beliefs based on your opinion they cant prove it….yet as an atheist you cant continue to be atheist under the same scrunity. You cannot prove God does not exist.
Exactly right. I cannot prove that God does not exist. Not because he does exist, but because it is impossible to prove a negative. In much the same way that you cannot prove that flying pink unicorns don’t exist.
All is fine and dandy and then along comes a believer and says that God exists. So we say: prove it. Please. If you can prove it, then we may become believers.
By the way, the tilt of the Earth’s axis can be proven. The “fact” that it’s really God holding it at an angle cannot.
“Isn’t it a ‘claim’ that there is no God?”
Scientifically speaking, no. We merely claim that universe exists and we exist within it. No more, no less. Theists claim a reason or motivating force for this existence, but provide nothing to back up the claim. We are not making a claim, we are waiting for your side to show us the evidence.
“One could argue the tilt of the earth’s axis and the support in sustaining human life is ‘evidence’ of a God…(just an example, which im sure you disagree with)”
You’re right that I disagree with you. That’s the anthropocentric fallacy. The universe is a rather large place, it was bound to happen somewhere. And we humans adapted to fit the environment, not the other way around; so if the Earth’s tilt was a little bit off, we simply would have evolved to compensate.
But again I reiterate, the burden of proof is not ours. At all. Let me try an example to show you what I mean. Do you have an invisible unicorn in your back yard? How do you know that you don’t? What if I told you that I believe there’s one in your back yard? You technically have no “proof” that there’s not. Does that mean that your “claim” and my claim about the existence of invisible unicorns is equal? Are you even making a claim concerning the presence of our mythical beastie? It’s the exact same scenario with the existence of god.
Burden-of-proof is a concept that most theists have a problem with (as evidenced by yourself). We are NOT claiming that something doesn’t exist, just as you aren’t “claiming” that the invisible unicorn doesn’t exist. We are merely awaiting theists to show us ANYTHING to back up their idea.
Through the natural processes of freezing and thawing, the tarmac surface of a road cracks, erodes and breaks down, eventually forming a shallow depression. One day it rains, and the depression fills with water, forming a puddle.
“My goodness,” thinks the puddle, “Look how perfectly I fit in this world in which I live – surely this depression in the road must have been made especially just for me by a benevolent, loving creator!”
Think hard enough and you might get it.
Custador..’Think hard enough and you might get it.’I havent said one insulting thing to anyone on here, other than point out ‘bc i dont agree with Hitchens Im not a sad creature’ …Im just having a conversation. I feel like if most people had a debate/conversation like Jabster had with me, it wouldnt be with such animosity, etc, its fine to diagree……… And as for your example….Im sorry but in my opinion there are too many things about this world that scream creator, bigger than your ‘road/puddle’ example. And I understand the valid points on, “you cant prove that there are no unicorns” in referencing my argument above…However…theres not much about the world that screams ‘somewhere there are unicorns.’ But there are things out there to me that scream to me that there is a God. The earths axis was just one of many things I find amazing and believe a creator is behind…Not a creator holding it together…but a creator that designed it as so. And you will call me ignorant for giving the credit to God….but like some have accused Christians of being…Im not trying to be dishonest in doing so. To me without a God the concept of beauty, the love you have for a child, wife, etc. are all meaningless or just chemical reactions in my brain…to which i disagree. You don’t have to be spiteful towards me b/c that is what I believe.
So like I said I do understand your points…but I still hold to the premise that you ask Christians to deny a belief b/c they cannot prove it to you, while you essentially do the same thing. Your example about unicorns is relevant, but still doesnt take away from you asking Christians to abandon their faith b/c of the burden of proof, according to you. As far as Jesus goes…what type of measurable proof could even be offered 2,000 years ago, do you want video evidence? Your claim for the need of proof of that, according to you, is virtually impossible..so i should abandon my beliefs b/c of it? What I find believable…is that a religion took hold out of nowhere under intense persecution. Yes people have died for beliefs that werent true in history…but not people who knew they werent true. Christ’s disciples all died for a cause that they would have known true or not…they either saw jesus rise or they didnt. and if they didnt…they wouldnt be dying for him. anyways…Im sure there is plenty to disagree with and like i said above im just kind of a passerby, somehow got here from a news story link…sorry to get people worked up…i didnt think my first post would ever even be read, was just kind of bored at work. hope you all have a good one.
you asking Christians to abandon their faith
Who’s asking christians or any believers to abandon their faith?
We just want you to stop flying planes into buildings, passing laws restricting peoples rights, shielding pedophiles, interfering with the teaching of science, and denigrating the morality non-believers because of the farie tales written and re-written down in your various books.
You were convinced by Dembski’s arguments and thought that he won?
You’re dumber than you look.
You’re a lying for jeebus scumbag, the Nilsson model exist, if you think it’s wrong somehow then go ahead and explain why you think so.
Since Dawkins is a biologist I don’t think that his opinion on cosmology really matter. Creationist love trowing numbers around can you specify in what units are your order numbers are, are we talking 10^123 pink bunnies, and how was this number determined?
Ah – the dozen posts o’ absolute crap, bullshit and lies on the same thread got our protagonist marked as spam, sorry. It was his claim to be a college biology lecturer that tipped the balance.
Maybe he’s a professor at the university that gave Kent Hovind his doctorate.