DBT01 Update: The Show Must Go On
Posted in (A)Theist Debate League, DBT01, Debate on | 6 minutes | 32 Comments →
Well, I’m sick of waiting for consensus so I’m moving forward, with or without everybody or anybody. As far as an explanation of the hold up, here’s my take.
We originally put the debate on hold due to concerns about scope, fairness, and judging criteria. First, a word about scope.
When I entered into this debate, I had every intention of denying the premise “needless suffering exists” and attacking the evidential POE from that presumption. Yet, as I spent hours going through source material and the Bible, I realized that given Peter’s definition, needless suffering actually exists. So, like any honorable debater would, I made that concession in my opening paragraph.
Now, at that point, some people were calling it a wash, or a forfeit, or a misfire, or saying I lost, or whatever else. I thought that was silly (I still think it’s silly). Neither the logical nor evidential POE hinge on the truth of the premise, “there exists suffering that is not logically required to obtain a higher good.” My “concession” is in no way a victory for Peter (unless of course one narrowly interprets the debate as only about a single premise: the existence of needless suffering). Rather, it simply forces a clarification of the question at hand: Would God allow an instance of suffering if that particular instance of suffering was not logically required in order to obtain a higher good?
Peter takes it as “tautological” that God wouldn’t, and explicitly stated that he had “no interest” in debating that premise. Well, okay, but in doing so, he effectively slipped the logical POE in through the backdoor, when the original focus of our discussion was the evidential POE vis-a-vis the question of needless suffering. When we agreed that Peter wouldn’t be defending the “ergo belief in the traditional Abrahamic God is unjustified” part, I didn’t think that meant other key premises were off limits. For whatever reason, Peter took liberty nobody had granted, which is why I was shocked when he precluded any discussion of his so-called “non-controversial” premise #2.
What now? Peter has “no interest” in debating his so-called “non-controversial” assumption. So?
Further, Peter has expressed interest in pursuing the “argument from ignorance / incredulity” charge, but I don’t really want to go there (at least not in the current debate). That would make a fine topic for a new debate, but in terms of the evidential POE vis-a-vis needless suffering, I want to finish what we started.
Lastly, for some reason, Peter’s still writing as if I need to rebut his claim that needless suffering exists! For example, in emails as recent as this week, he’s saying things like, “you still need to demonstrate the higher good of the other two.” Or, when he asked me this:
Do you think if I were to somehow demonstrate that “there is no set of outweighing goods that justify the existence of birth defects, nonhuman animal suffering, and the Bubonic Plague”, that I would have demonstrated something relevant enough to merit “winning” the debate?
No. Why? If I’ve already conceded that needless suffering exists, what’s the point? The only reason Peter would challenge me to demonstrate the higher good WRT baby / animal suffering is so I can fail and he can say, “See, cl? Needless suffering probably exists.” Yet, this makes no sense: I’ve already stated that needless suffering exists! So the main problem is that we haven’t agreed where to go from here.
With regard to fairness, I felt a bit cheated because Peter still had a 1,000 word advantage (for whatever reason) when the debate started. He originally gave himself a 1,500 word advantage, but in all fairness, I neglected to do the math until it was too late. So I assume responsibility for not catching that earlier.
As for the criteria, I think we all agreed it was mostly sound, but a few things came up that Peter and I felt merited redress. Both Peter and I felt his opener contained at least one fallacious argument and didn’t deserve a full score. I objected to Matt deducting a point from my rebuttal for not explicitly stating what was apparently obvious (the presumption of a literal Fall / Genesis). But these are all minor issues, and the debate could have proceeded just fine even if we didn’t address them. Besides, at the end of the day, scores are up to the judges. Whether or not Peter and I agree with their assessment is moot.
Another problem was that two judges completely flipped out when they realized I was arguing from presumption of a literal Genesis. Both Matt and Andrés responded with smarmy quirks about how they have “better things to do” than judge a debate where a literal Genesis was presumed. Uh, okay… I guess our debate will suffer because our judges are too good to judge such a debate, then! Irrelevant complaints such as, “I don’t want to debate transitional fossils” were tossed around like candy. Why on Earth would we have to? This is a POE discussion. Chalk up another victory for good ol’ fashioned intellectual polarization! It doesn’t help that the judges keep changing their minds, either. After both copping out, Matt and Andrés both apparently told Peter they were still in. Then, today, Andrés is claiming to be “done” again, and I haven’t heard from Matt or anybody else. So I still don’t have an official word as to which judges are in or out, for this debate or the next.
Truth be told, I feel sorry for Daniel and Adamoriens and all our readers, who’ve sat patiently on the sidelines while we squabble. I apologize! I didn’t realize it would get this messy.
That said, enough is enough. Honestly, I think we should either chalk this one up as a training and move on to a new debate, or continue with or without judges and no word count. If the former, I’m open to topics. If people want the “argument from ignorance / incredulity” angle pursued, so be it. If the latter, I’m still interested in hearing Peter’s rejoinder to the current debate. Not that any of those options are mutually exclusive, either.
The real question is, “where should we go from here?” and we need your input.
Daniel
says...I’m ready to judge, if you want judges.
Which of Peter’s arguments was agreed to be formally fallacious?
Peter Hurford
says...Cl, what do the words “benevolent” and “all-loving” mean to you when used to describe God?
Garren
says...As I understood it, “needless suffering exists, ergo belief in the traditional Abrahamic God is not justified” without the second part leaves the proposition “needless suffering exists.” Not a larger point to be contended which merely includes “needless suffering exists.”
I would start over with the point of contention being something like: “the existence of needless suffering is a defeater for belief in the traditional Abrahamic God.”
Matt
says...CL,
I agree with Garren. I got the idea that the debate was actually about the existence needless suffering. CL conceded the existence of needless suffering. It seems that the debate at this point is a wash and if you are to continue either take back your concession or start over on a new topic. Just my 2 cents. You seem to choose your words very carefully and I was surprised to see you make a concession that was so significant to the nature of the debate like that.
Do you think it is reasonable from this statement to assume that the debate is on the existence of needless suffering since, as you said, you weren’t covering the “ergo” part?
joseph
says...CL,
I think technically you’ve lost the debate, if you explicitly state “there is needless suffering”.
Never the less I respect your decision to be intellectually honest and would like to see you explain how someone (such as myself) who believes there is unnecessary suffering, can believe in the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God (unlike myself). I’d also like an account of which theory of free will you adhere to, for humans, humans in the New Earth, and God.
cl
says...Daniel,
I appreciate your patience and perseverance. As far as your question, I’d say ask Peter. Perhaps his thoughts have changed.
Peter,
Inclined towards grace, mercy, love and kindness. What does the phrase “perfectly just” mean to you?
Garren,
I’m fine with starting over. Matt and Daniel awarded this round to Peter anyways (last I checked Andrés fully bailed and never even posted his writeup of my opening statement). I’m content to say Peter “won” although the use of scare quotes should definitely be noticed. His “win” is like winning a game of 9-ball when I thought we were playing 8.
At the same time, I’m game for continuing the current debate. It really makes no difference to me. But if there’s an audience preference for starting over, I’d rather do that. It’s for the fans!
Matt,
It was. It was about the evidential problem of evil vis-a-vis the question of needless suffering. That is how I understood the scope of the debate from the beginning. Like I said, I had no idea that Peter was going to restrain the scope of the debate in his opening statement. He did not share that intention with myself or any of the judges prior to the debate. It came as a total surprise, and quite frankly, I don’t think it was professional at all. On the upside, I’ve learned much about what ought to be secured before debate commences.
Sure, if one is going off that statement alone. Remember, though, this debate was supposed to be a continuation of last year’s discussion on the evidential POE, of which “needless suffering exists” is but one aspect. When I said we would forego the “ergo” part, all I meant was that we would postpone the issue of whether our conclusions justify faith / doubt. IOW, I figured that any other aspect of evidential POE discussion was fair game. That’s why I was surprised when Peter took the liberty to further constrain the scope of the debate without anybody’s approval. He knows this was a source of dismay for me. I emailed him and told him. Granted, we came up with a workaround, but that workaround entailed a widening of scope and the continuance of this debate, not scratching it and starting over.
But, like I said, I’m down for whatever.
cl
says...joseph,
Well, that’s only because you (understandably, but mistakenly) evaluate the whole on the basis of a single part. Read my above comments and hopefully you’ll see what I mean.
Thanks. You stand out from those “always suspicious and ever quick to accuse others of dishonesty” types of atheist.
First I’d have to understand why you think that set is incompatible. Do you *REALLY* endorse logic so atrocious it requires one to doubt God’s existence simply because they stubbed their toe? I don’t. When it comes to the Cosmic Coddler, I’m definitely an atheist.
joseph
says...Thankyou CL,
It is nice to not always disappoint.
I will re-evaluate my position, you are right in that I am thinking in a very narrow context (which is why I am not too perturbed and am interested in the continuation of this debate).
For now I’ll decline your offer to discuss the idea of a “cosmic coddler” in case the debate restarts.
Mr. Nightstick
says...If I were ever to debate a materialist on the existence of suffering, I would make hold their feet to the material fire and make them prove something immaterial, such as suffering, exist.
For instance, “Put simply, needless suffering is anything that causes pain to an entity capable of feeling it and is not logically required in order to realize a higher benefit for that entity or other entities. ”
I would make the materialist define “pain” in a material manner, “feeling” in a material manner and “benefit” in a material manner.
Matt DeStefano
says...I haven’t said anything WRT judging because the both you (cl) and Peter seem to disagree about where the debate should go from here. You want to attack the “non-controversial premise #2”, and Peter wants to challenge the argument from ignorance/incredulity bit.
OTOH, if the rest of the debate is going to center around “the Fall” of mankind from a perfect state of nature in Eden, I will certainly bow out. There was death and suffering long before man came into this world. It simply isn’t a tenable position in reality, and even the most devout theist philosophers have moved on from a literal interpretation of Genesis. I’m interested in dialoguing about truth, but there are some propositions which are beyond the bounds of reasonable discourse.
You can attack me for being “close-minded” (and whatever other adjectives you’ve been calling Andres and I through e-mail) to your heart’s desire, but it’s simply something I’m not interested in discussing.
cl
says...Cool, I’ll count you out then.
cl
says...As for this,
A bit of a cheapshot, don’t you think? All I said is that you’re closed-minded WRT to what’s going on here. That’s not an attack, it’s undeniably true. In case you forgot, you were the one who starting running your mouth about how “absurd” my position was (despite the interesting fact that you’ve never even asked me about any of it), so don’t accuse me of reaching for adjectives when I’m just calling it like it is. Personally, I think atheism is as “absurd” as you think my beliefs are, yet I’ll never let that stop me from confronting the issues.
Truth be told, we don’t need judges who are too closed-minded to suspend their own strong feelings. It’s better this way.
Peter Hurford
says...Just so everyone knows, I’ll respond to everything that’s been said here within ten hours or so. I don’t want anyone thinking I’m being intentionally silent, I’m just a bit busy. Give me a bit of time.
cl
says...Peter,
Thanks for the update. Maybe you can start by explaining why you apparently refuse to acknowledge my concession? In case you’re confused, I refer you back to the OP. Just this week, you’re still asking me if you could “win” by demonstrating “no higher good exists” for baby / animal suffering. This suggests you still haven’t grasped the full implications of my concession, for, if I’ve already conceded that needless suffering exists, how on Earth could you “win” by demonstrating what I’ve already conceded?
cl
says...Matt DeStefano,
I just looked through the email chains. I also used the term “intellectual snobbery” in reference to your refusal to judge our POE debate because of your disdain for Creationism. I stand by my use of that term. Again, atheism is as silly and untenable to me as Creationism is to you (and note that I’m not affirming your mistaken assumption that I am a Creationist). Nonetheless, I’m willing to keep an open mind and hear other people out, regardless of how silly I think their beliefs are. At the end of the day, I’m glad you were honest. Honest concession of bias is far less dangerous than bias masquerading as objectivity.
Thinking Emotions
says...cl, you’d benefit if you stopped using the term “cosmic coddler” and the example of stubbing one’s toe as an example of needless suffering. If you used them as facetious/tongue-in-cheek remarks, I’d have no problem, but you’re acting like atheists of the caliber that keep up with you and respect you genuinely endorse that view. They don’t and you know this.
cl
says...ThinkingEmotions,
How so?
Surely you’re not claiming the existence of some higher good that stubbing one’s toe is logically required to obtain? Quite literally, Peter’s argument commits one to doubt God’s existence simply because they stubbed their toe. Or bumped their head. Or had gas pains. Doesn’t that strike you as, oh, I don’t know… a bit wimpy? Why not (in good taste, of course) mock a mockworthy argument? If you think that’s silly, then shouldn’t you criticize Peter?
Peter endorses that view! Are you implying he’s not being genuine? Are you implying he’s not of my caliver? Are you implying he doesn’t respect me? If no to those, then, what? This is an unavoidable, logical entailment of his definitions. I’m not using hyperbole to make the argument appear absurd. I don’t understand your criticism.
Thinking Emotions
says...No, I’m not claiming that, but it’s just not the focal point of the argument. While it may meet the definition, atheists do not care. It’s a red herring. Besides, I hardly define stubbing one’s toe as “suffering” at all. In order to stub one’s toe, you need stuff to stub it on. If someone’s really all that upset over this, they can move out of their comfy house full of comfy stuff and sit for all eternity so they’ll never stub it on anything ever again.
While Peter endorses the view of evil = needless suffering, he is not an atheist because he stubs his toe on occasion.
Now imagine our incredulity when theists maintain there is a higher good that logically requires far worse instances of suffering…
cl
says...Come on TE. Now you’re getting sloppy. I mean that in a friendly way, too, so don’t get all mad. Consider:
Do you for some reason disbelieve that God created rocks?
Then why would he provide such a definition to argue against? If he doesn’t *REALLY* believe stubbing one’s toe is an instance of needless suffering, that means one of two things: either his definition is not properly conceived, or he secretly disbelieves his so-called “non-controversial” assumption #2.
I’m unsure what you’re alluding to…
Thinking Emotions
says...I’m not saying you ever explicitly made that argument, but consider the following. You were (are?) incredulous about my remark when it comes to stubbing toes. “That’s just absurd… does he really think there’s a higher good that logically requires stubbing one’s toe? That makes little sense!” When atheists express sentiments such as, “How can a loving God allow perfectly innocent children in Africa to suffer horribly and then die a slow, painful death?” Guess what we get? “Well, there’s a higher good that logically requires that instance of suffering.” How is this not inconsistent thinking?
Since when are people outside barefoot or wearing socks? That’s what shoes are for. You can’t blame God for you choosing not to wear shoes. That’s why I included the part about sitting down. It’s hard to stub a toe when one is not walking. I’m trying to express this from both my perspective and Peter’s, and I’m taking the liberty of assuming that neither of us prefer to walk around outside barefoot or in socks. This nicely eliminates the pain of any toe stubbing I might run into.
BTW, it’s likely that rocks and trees (potential toe-stubbing obstacles) are necessary for some service to humanity. The reason I call this a red herring is because it’s not what is being argued about. Actually, if anything, it’s a strawman — why try to explain away horrible instances of suffering when one can make a very minor instance of suffering look unimportant or ridiculous to account for? I don’t know if toe-stubbing would even qualify as suffering. Even if it did, it’s not like it compares to the pain of dying of dehydration and starvation.
Probably because it’s a good definition. I find it precise and simple. Like I said, I *do* happen to find Peter’s definition of omnibenevolent compelling. It makes sense, along with his views regarding evil = needless suffering.
1. His definition is properly conceived. Why attack such a watered down version though? Not all needless suffering is equal. For example, I may define a g
2. It is perhaps possible that there could be needless suffering that God could morally get away with permitting (e.g. stubbing one’s toe) and morally be held accountable for permitting (e.g. allowing children to wither away in Africa). An analogy may elucidate this more clearly.
For example, you can’t hold the president accountable when you trip over your shoelaces. However, you could hold him accountable when he had the potential and capacity to stop a brutal terrorist attack that, in additions to hundreds of other people, killed all your friends and family while you were vacationing.
What do you think?
cl
says...I’ll address your response in full, but for now:
Why not? Can you precisely articulate the principle behind which this claim stands?
cl
says...TE,
Just to clarify, this is from Peter’s post tonight:
Undeniably, then, Peter’s argument requires one to doubt God’s existence because they stubbed their toe. Or bumped their head. Or got a gas pain. Etc.
Peter Hurford
says...@Mr. Nightstick:
While I’m not sure I’m actually a materialist as you define it, given that I agree that certain things aren’t made out of atoms but instead reduce to arrangements of atoms, I can ground “pain”, “feeling”, and “benefit”.
Pain seems describable in terms of the psychology of nociception, whereas feeling is describable in terms of the psychology of perception and emotion, and benefit is describable in terms of the psychology of desire.
I’d never say these fields are incomplete, but they’re doing well and growing. And the nonmaterialists don’t have this at all — so I’d flip the tables and ask how do nonmaterialists ground pain, feeling, and benefit? What makes us feel pain, if not neurology? What predictions can you make about pain with nonmaterialist theories?
Peter Hurford
says...@Cl:
I added in a section to the essay about that — basically, if we really don’t want to be coddled in that way, then that in itself is an outweighing good that justifies us not being coddled in that way. Thus 2-Suffering, not 3-Suffering.
That being said, I’m not even sure if your response is a genuine reducto ad absurdum of my position: what justification do we have for toe-stubbing, other than “Cl thinks this is ridiculous” or the “this is obviously an argument from ignorance”?
joseph
says...Ok, things have moved a bit faster than I anticipated, so on the “Cosmic Coddler”:
To claim that an Omnibenevolent God’s failure to prevent the lifelong suffering experienced by animals, including humans, born with congenital diseases is “the equivalent of a Cosmic Coddler failing to prevent the stubbing of a toe″ is to mistakenly equate a brief amount of demonstrably beneficial suffering with lifelong undemonstrably beneficial one.
cl
says...Peter,
You defined 3-suffering thus: “This kind of suffering, if it exists, is avoidable even for God. This is the kind of suffering that God can remove and people will not be net worse off, because no higher benefits / outweighing goods would be lost at all, and humans would be net better off if God removed this kind of suffering.”
Let “X” denote the suffering caused by stubbed toes and gas pains. Are you alleging that people would be worse off if God removed X?
Stephen R. Diamond
says...More likely, you’re not honest enough to admit it. How the hell can you not be a creationist when you accept a literal reading of Genesis? Are you trying to tell anyone that you _might_ deny man was directly created by God, yet you believe that that man once lived in the Garden of Eden? No wonder the judges flaked: you weren’t even up front with them about what you were going to center this debate on. The descent of man plus the garden of Eden! Of course!
Don’t insult the judges’ intelligence. Why, eve now, are you unwilling to state a position on creationism? How is that refusal intellectually honest?
Mr. Nightstick
says...Peter,
Like I said, “If I were to debate”. I am not up for debating, I have neither the skill nor the inclination. If you do ever come across an experiment that proves the existence of pain, feelings and benefits, please let me know so that I can perform it in my lab. Otherwise all I have is an certain arrangement of particles and energy called Peter telling me that there is a certain arrangement of particles and energy called pain, feelings and benefits. Plus I doubt you can tell me why I should value the certain arrangement of particles and energy that make up Peter more than the certain arrangement of particles and energy that make up my car.
You could tell me that the certain arrangement of particles and energy that make Mr. Nightstick are more similar to Peter than to the car and I would grant you that point but that similarity still doesn’t tell me why my collection should value your collection more than the collection that is my car.
My comments were more for cl than for anybody else. It was just an idea to throw out to him. You can disagree all you want and “prove” me wrong all you want, and if cl agrees with you that’s fine. He may have already thought through this line of reasoning and rejected it. I just thought I would throw it out there for him to think about if he has not already done so.
Thinking Emotions
says...It’s not like the president, at least in the US, can stop private shoe companies from making shoes with laces. Besides, shoelaces do more good than harm. They allow a shoe to be spacious and comfortable yet well-fitting and snug. This helps your ankles, which in turn helps your knees. Even if the president had the power to stop the production of shoes with laces or if he could influence them to stop in some way, he would refuse to exercise it. Don’t want to trip over shoelaces? Don’t wear shoes with laces or tie them next time!
Also, I would respond via Peter’s definition, but now that he’s back for the moment, I’ll let him defend his own theory. I’m in agreement that toe stubbing and gas pains technically fit under 3-suffering. Here’s Peter’s explanation from the essay he wrote last night…
Emphasis mine.
Peter Hurford
says...@Mr. Nightstick:
What do you mean? Simply get someone in a lab, and poke them with a needle. Observe their reaction, and interview them afterward. You will have confirmed the existence of pain and feelings. You can even look at the neurology of these things with fMRI machines!
Unless I’m missing something, the only way this doesn’t add up to a demonstration of pain is if you’re some sort of solipsist. But even that wouldn’t do it, because it still would be worth talking about people’s outward behavior and the thingies that make them act in such a way, and thus would end up talking about “feelings” and “pain” anyway.
~
That is indeed an accurate depiction of what is going on. That’s because I personally reduce to that arrangements of particles and energy, and pain/feelings/benefits reduce to certain arrangements of particles. Nothing is lost there.
~
I do think I can, provided you are not a psychopath. Do you really value cars on equal level as me?
~
No, you would need the added facts about what you personally value. And it turns out that, I’m pretty sure, you value people more than cars.
~
Fair enough, but I’m still not going to let them go unchallenged.
Peter Hurford
says...@Cl:
My reaction to your question about “gas pains” is included in my comments in your “DBT01: My Response To Peter’s Closing Statement”.
joseph
says...@Peter Hurford
“Plus I doubt you can tell me why I should value the certain arrangement of particles and energy that make up Peter more than the certain arrangement of particles and energy that make up my car.” – Mr Nightstick
“I do think I can, provided you are not a psychopath. Do you really value cars on equal level as me?” – Peter Hurford
To chime in, I think this is the same problem faced by anyone defining what is moral, what is to be valued. I think theists face it equally. For example CL’s theory of morality, things are by definition moral, and God is the best at knowing and conveying moral facts. Still if God were to say to me “Joe, you should value Peter Hurford more than you car (and by the way quit suffering witches to live, I was serious)”, I would still be left with the questions:
1. Why does God value Peter Hurford more than a car?
2. Why should I obey God?
Both of those questions can be answered, and those answers questioned. Probably until questioners die. My point is atheists can, and do, play this game as much as theists.