Response to debate to prove God
Posted by Mandi on May 17th, 2007 . Filed under: Atheism, Christianity, Evolution/Creation, God, Media and Culture, Religion .Matt has posted a great response to the recent “debate” between Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort (“The Way of the Master”) and Brian and Kelly (of the “Rational Response Squad”).
I didn’t watch the whole thing (Matt’s got the youtube links), because I got very frustrated very early in. I didn’t even see the atheist responses. I got frustrated with Ray, who was preaching, and Kirk, who gave his testimony as “proof.”
Don’t get me wrong. I think what both of them had to say was worth hearing–just not in the context that they were in. They told everyone that they could scientifically prove the existence of God apart from faith, and then spoke of faith and feelings.
I think they deliberately mislead people in order to get a large audience to get their message heard.
Perhaps that’s harsh, but that’s what it seemed like from watching them. I will, however, agree with Matt’s closing statements:
I have a feeling it will strengthen the beliefs on both sides. I hope that people will listen to the petition of Comfort: just open your heart up a bit and honestly and earnestly search for God (a rough paraphrase). I don’t think the two sides were represented very well. No offense to Comfort and Cameron, but they aren’t scientists and couldn’t hope to actually scientifically prove God’s existence. Brian and Kelly (who didn’t want to give out their last names… I don’t really understand that) of The Rational Response Squad are also poor choices. Quite frankly “Rational” is somewhat of a misnomer in my opinion. Kelly was extremely condescending and Brian didn’t really listen I don’t think. The be blunt, they were asses. I think there are a number of atheists that could have been chosen to debate that would have been more eloquent and knowledgeable. Just poor choices all around. But I have a feeling that “legitimate” (I know it is somewhat dangerous to throw that word around) scientists on both sides wouldn’t bother to debate this. That being said, overall, I wasn’t completely disappointed in Comfort and Cameron. I really was quite worried initially about what they would say. And while I think they did say some silly things that I don’t agree with and could have hurt the “cause” they did ok.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:52 am
I was really scared when I heard Cameron and Comfort were going to debate this topic. What I was afraid would happen did happen. I was very frustrated because several times, the Creation side seemed stumped by the Evolution side, when it was clear they were just throwing words out there.
On the topic of Evolution/Creation debate, I’ve come to believe that this is not the forum to convince people to change their minds. It must be a one on one teaching. People who participate in – or attend – debates usually have already chosen their side and are not convinced, but rather disappointed if their side doesn’t win.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
I’d tend to agree with OTEOMS – real-world debates aren’t high enough bandwidth to get all the necessary detail across. It’s too easy to Gish-gallop your way to apparent victory.
Blogs and forums are actually quite good in this respect. The downside is that it’s rather easy to lose the thread.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
I think neither side did very well in responding to the other’s remarks on this topic. I think Comfort and Cameron could have done much worse than they did (I thought they would), it wasn’t really good, but I have heard much worse.
I definitely agree that debates like this only tend to make people fight and those that attend them are already set in their views.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I’d be interested to know what approaches people would consider to be more effective. What is it that really bugs you about evolution, and what approaches could hypothetically change your mind?
For example, I’m not a big fan of the Intelligent Design thesis. Treated as maths, I think it’s fatally informal; treated as science, I think it adds nothing but unnecessary complexity to our models of the universe.
Since my objections are mainly based on the logic and the facts, I could be won over by either:
1) a rigorous presentation of ID maths
2) a predictive model that incorporated ID as an essential part
By contrast, one ID supporter I discuss this stuff with says that his biggest reason for supporting ID is that it at least tries to include God. Mainstream science is literally atheistic in the sense of not discussing deities much.
If scientists ever discovered rock-hard evidence of God, or if he could be persuaded that science was not atheistic in any stronger sense, he’d presumably have no need for ID.
What are your sticking points? What are the hypotheticals that could lead you past them?