Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Feb 5, 2013 in Uncategorized | 20 comments

Dawkins loses Cambridge debate?

Liveleak reported that Richard Dawkins lost a debate to the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams:

The debate motion that “religion has no place in the 21st Century” was well-defeated at the event held in front of an audience of about 800 people, mostly students, at the Cambridge Union Society’s chambers, according to the U.K.’s Independent newspaper.

Dawkins lost the debate by 324 votes to 136, as he failed to convince the house that religion has no place.

Here’s the video.

http://youtu.be/WDyDFxnvh50

Far from “losing”, the debate strikes me as a huge win for Dawkins and for atheism. Namely, this is because the deck was stacked so decidedly in favor of religion that the very topic is embarrassing to theists all by itself. Not, does god exist? Not, is religion a force for good? Not even, Was Jesus God? Instead, it’s Does religion have a place in the 21st century? What a devastating thing to be asked of anyone! Should you (religion) even exist in our century? The audience ultimately agrees to this incredibly weak proposition that religion should not be immediately stamped into the dust. Well, theists, take what small victories you may. This is certainly among those.

  • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

    Love your take. Great point.

  • donsevers

    Why did Dawkins agree to this topic?? ‘Religion’ is too big a word. Saying it has no place means wiping out UU churches along with jihadist madrasas.

    • http://www.www.skepticink.com/incredulous Edward Clint

      I’m not entirely sure I consider UU a religion. But, that is a lengthy debate all its own.

  • http://www.theaunicornist.com Mike D

    Aren’t the audiences in these things usually pretty stacked one way or another? Hitch resoundingly defeated some Bishop a couple years back by audience vote, but the audience was probably stacked with his fans.

    Besides, the truth or falsity of a proposition isn’t determined by vote. And as far as assessing the performance of the debaters, a more interesting vote to ask than “who won” would be to ask how many people changed their mind.

    • http://www.www.skepticink.com/incredulous Edward Clint

      The IQ^2 debates offer some evidence that audiences are indeed swayed by debates. In the debate which I think you are referring to, here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DsWyG2-hfc showed that of 678 people initially supporting the motion “The catholic church is a force for good”, 410 defected from that position after the debate. The number of “undecided” went from 346 to 34.

      Thus, it seems that the outcome is not determined merely by who shows up (though, that’s clearly a factor).

      I certainly hope that no one mistakes the outcome of a vote as relevant to the truth or falsity of the proposition.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    “religion has no place in the 21st Century”

    Well, isn’t the dustbin considered a place?

  • http://www.facebook.com/gojaejin Jeremy J. Goard

    Doesn’t this speak to a problem with structuring debates around assent/dissent from a “proposition”, when the phenomenon is gradient or has many gradient elements?

    A sports argument between Andy who thinks, say, that “the Packers are way better than the Niners”, and Becky who thinks that “the Niners are way better than the Packers” is potentially interesting; an argument between someone who assents to the first proposition and someone who dissents because “the Packers are clearly quite a bit better, but not *way* better” is not interesting at all.

    • http://www.www.skepticink.com/incredulous Edward Clint

      I imagine the topic was chosen because it is controversial. Agreeing with it is not terribly meaningful, but the fact of the question being raised is pretty incendiary to the religious members of the community. I do agree that many better, yet still grab-y, titles might have been chosen instead.

    • MosesZD

      Packers lost to the 49ers twice this season. 49ers had a better record. 49ers got the biggest share of the losers trophy. Answer, for 2012 is ‘no.’
      What the answer is next year depends on next year.
      I wish religion was so easy…

  • MosesZD

    Of course it has a place. They have some really nice building in some parts of the world… ;) And there’s a lot of history (for good and bad) involved, as well. There are even some sub-sects of many religions that are fairly benign.
    Should it have a role in public policy? No.

  • An Ardent Skeptic

    My view from the cheap seats:

    It isn’t a weak question because it goes to the very heart of why religion is still going strong in the 21st century. Dawkins didn’t lose the debate to Rowan Williams. He lost it to Douglas Murray, the atheist who made the case for religion that I would have made.

    Religion is more than just belief in gods. It’s a social structure that provides support and solace for it’s members, and gives them a sense of belonging and self-worth. Internet social networks, which were advocated as a way of connecting with others, are not a good substitute for this. And most atheists don’t fully understand it, and haven’t proposed any real solutions for replacing it.

    • http://www.www.skepticink.com/incredulous Edward Clint

      It isn’t clear to me that the “support and solace” is any more likely to a given member than alienation, pathological inducement to guilt/fear/self-loathing/ignorance, and criminal harm such as sexual abuse. Many people who are ex-theists or even clergy have spoken up on just how badly their churches treated them the moment it was to their advantage to do so (ask John Loftus, for example).

      From a broader cultural standpoint, we must try to sum all the goods and bads of a thing; to compare communities that do not have it to see if anything vital is missing. Well, I’ve lived among highly secularized people (Germany, Denmark). I neither saw nor am aware of any evidence some great burden or ill was placed on them for their lack of religion. Religion might have served an important purpose in the past, but it does not seem necessary now.

      • An Ardent Skeptic

        What are the names of the janitors who clean the building in which you work? If you know their names, what else do you know about them? What’s the name of the person who delivers your mail or your UPS packages? If you know their names, what else do you know about them? What are the names of the cashiers at the grocery store you frequent most often? If you know their names, what else do you know about them?

        People do bad things and it doesn’t take religion to make them bad. People do good things and it doesn’t take religion to make them good. But statistically we know that it is the more poorly educated that tend to be the most religious. They slog through life doing the menial tasks that most of us take for granted. We live off of their backs. Worse, we often make them feel insignificant. Is it no wonder that after spending their lives doing these jobs they hope for a better life after death. Church is a place they can go and not feel like a lesser human being and it provides them with hope for a better future. Is their hope misguided? Sure. But I’m not going to be the one who takes away their pleasure in this life and their hope for a better life without concerning myself about making their lives seem more worthwhile in the here and now.

        Why is this my view from the cheap seats? Because I’m one of those lesser human beings – a poorly educated woman who has worked some pretty menial jobs. And, I have been made to feel like a lesser human being by people like Paul Kurtz because I lack a “fully developed intellect”. The proof of this is that I didn’t share his tastes in music and the arts. He issued commandments from on high:

        Thou shalt speak out against the banalities and vulgarities of so much of pop culture.

        Thou shalt not be amused by “The Aristocrats” or “Survivor”

        Thou shalt speak out against the brash violence in movies and on television and in books and computer games.

        Thou shalt not gamble.

        Thou shalt point out excessive focus on promiscuity.

        Thou must take action to curtail people’s behavior for immediate gratification without moderation, particularly their use of cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol. (That pretty much makes Christopher Hitchens not a fully developed intellect as well.)

        Thou shalt restore an appreciation for family values and concern thyself with the high divorce rate.

        We’re seeing tribalism in the atheist and skeptic communities. If you aren’t in 100% agreement with what constitutes sexism you are publicly shamed. We have people in these communities who are afraid to speak out about this for fear they will be tarnished as sexists, misogynists, etc. Upskirt photo man was deemed guilty without evidence and did not come to TAM last year because he felt he would no longer be welcome. Justin Vacula doesn’t deserve a position with the Secular Coalition because he dared to question some of the goings on in the atheist and skeptic communities. And, we have “leaders” who are grabbing and groping and sexually harassing women in our communities apparently. Perhaps the world doesn’t need the atheist and skeptic communities either.

        • http://www.www.skepticink.com/incredulous Edward Clint

          You have made a empirical claims (1) that poorly-educated people are less religious because of their education, and (2) that religion is a salve for that group of people.

          I do not accept either of these, and your personal experience, a data set of 1, does not compel acceptance. A problem with (1) is that other factors like SES and wealth disparity can be drivers of both level of education and belief. For example, in secular societies like Sweden, the uneducated may not be significantly more religious than other segments. (2) is even more problematic. Religion is a great emotional burden for many people, regardless of why they joined a church. Some gay people have taken their own life because they thought that god hates fags. Others have been molested or ostracized by clergy. Still others have lost close friends and family for not being the correct kind of religion/belief. Many believers will politically vote against their own interests thanks in part to their religious beliefs.

          While I agree with you we can and should consider what benefits might exist for religion for some people, we must consider the negatives- all negatives- as well.

          In addition to believing the net negatives override the positives, it is demonstrably true that all of the positives can be separated from religion and had without it.

          • An Ardent Skeptic

            My claim is based on the data available about religious belief in regards to education and income levels in the U.S. Lack of education correlates with lower income and higher religious affiliation.

            http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf#page=61

            It is true, however, that this is US-centric, and may not generally apply everywhere.

            My main point, though, was that you seem to be making the claim that the negatives of religion disappear when religion is removed, but all the positives remain. It is an argument I hear quite a lot, and I think it is based on the unfounded assumption that religion itself is the root cause of the negatives (often coupled with dismissal of the fact that religious belief is a positive experience for some).

            All negative and positive human behavior will remain whether religion is around or not. We’ll just have different excuses given for that negative and positive behavior. Humans always find ways of passing judgement on their fellow human beings, forming in/out groups, etc. We’re seeing this now in the atheist community despite the lack of religion.

          • http://www.www.skepticink.com/incredulous Edward Clint

            “My main point, though, was that you seem to be making the claim that the negatives of religion disappear when religion is removed, but all the positives remain. It is an argument I hear quite a lot, and I think it is based on the unfounded assumption that religion itself is the root cause of the negatives”

            Perhaps it is because you hear this argument often that you believe I am making it. I am not. I do not believe nor have I said that religion is the root cause of any negatives. I think it merely makes negatives endemic to society worse; it gives opportunity to frauds and monsters which they might not have (such as church-related tax fraud and pedophiles). It can exacerbate and crystallize social problems by tying them to dogma- such as the persecution of women and LGBT folks, slowing good social progress.

            I have not said that when the negatives of religion are removed, the positive will remain. I made a different claim, ” it is demonstrably true that all of the positives can be separated from religion and had without it.” Note, CAN not WILL. An irreligious social and political landscape can be great or horrible. In several secular societies, the irreligious people, of whatever level of education, don’t seem to need the positive effects you speak of because their society has afforded them better alternatives than ancient nonsense and once-a-week chanting.

            “All negative and positive human behavior will remain whether religion is around or not”

            Your fatalism is discordant with the improvements the world has seen over the course of human history. Rates of violence in many parts of the world have plummeted dramatically. Quality and length of life has skyrocketed. The “moral sphere” has enlarged enormously to include entire classes of beings never before given a moment’s consideration, such as children and animals. The future is actually pretty bright, but only if you take all of recorded human history as an indicator.

          • An Ardent Skeptic

            I don’t think it’s fatalist to recognize that human nature has both good and bad sides. And I’m not convinced that in the absence of religion, the negatives endemic to society would not have happened, or would have been lessened. After all, football has given opportunities for monsters, too (remember Penn State?).

            Yes, life in general, for more people, has improved over time. And that’s a good thing. The advance of technology that has relieved more people of having to struggle just for their daily existence has, I believe, been the primary driver for these improvements.

            What isn’t clear to me is that a decline in religious belief is anything more than a correlation with these improvements. And that focusing on religion itself, rather than accelerating the actual cause of improvements to human well-being — technology, economic and political freedom — seems misplaced.

            I agree with you that religion can be associated with negative things, and that irreligion can be associated with positive things. The converse is true as well, though. Perhaps it’s because religion has been around for so long, and has been so institutionalized, that we don’t always see the forest for the trees.

          • http://www.www.skepticink.com/incredulous Edward Clint

            “After all, football has given opportunities for monsters, too (remember Penn State?).”

            Oh but there’s a difference there. Penn State is a public entity. It is subject to publicly-imposed reforms and oversight which can protect our people. Churches are special private entities which are not amenable to any such protections from the public. They may claim religious freedom and continue hiding and protecting monsters as long as they like. Paterno was forced to resign whereas a man who is known to have protected pedophiles became pope with absolutely nothing to stop him.

            “And that focusing on religion itself, rather than accelerating the actual cause of improvements to human well-being — technology, economic and political freedom — seems misplaced.”

            I don’t criticize religion because I think that will, in itself, lead to any substantial decrease in religiosity which may or may not lead to positive changes in society. I criticize religion because it’s required of any honest person who lives in a highly religious society. I care what the truth is, and I think it’s important to have quality public discourse about important topics. These things might be a means to good ends, but certainly they are good ends in themselves.

          • An Ardent Skeptic

            I criticize religion, too. I don’t like it, and never have despite my devoutly religious upbringing. I never understood it as it always seemed completely illogical.

            But I don’t judge things based on the extremes. I see that for some people, religion brings peace and a sense of well-being, and it does not prevent these people from being liberal-minded towards others and working towards a better world for all of us.

            I do have a problem with focusing only on the negative aspects of something and stating that that something is the cause. Religion is a human construction and, therefore, a reflection of basic human nature. To ignore that is counterproductive because it narrows our focus, and inaccurately points to solutions for problems which are far more complex to solve.

            I have a feeling we will never agree on this issue. I think we probably come from very different perspectives. A lack of empathy for others is at the heart of most ugly human behavior, IMO. Religion is just one of countless excuses people use to justify their bad behavior. I’ve had to listen to scores of other non-religious excuses.

  • http://BitchSpot.JadeDragonOnline.com Cephus

    I’m surprised that Dawkins agreed to such a topic when it’s really not one open to rational debate, only to subjective opinion. For those who still hold to religious beliefs in the 21st century, sure, they’re going to think that religion has a place. I’m sure that sexists and racists in the 21st century are equally convinced that their particular beliefs are still valid. Does snake-handling and poison-drinking have a place in the 21st century? Some people certainly think so, even though it does tend to kill them. The debate could have been 8 words total, Williams could have stood up and said “in my opinion, yes” and Dawkins could have stood up and said “in my opinion, no” and cleared the room.

    If they’re going to debate, they need to come up with topics that go beyond someone’s opinion.