DBT01: Closing Comments
Matt and Andrés both told their side of the DBT01 judging fiasco here, so now I guess I have to tell mine. First, I’d like to explain why I believe I effectively won the debate, despite officially forfeiting out of frustration. A few weeks ago, Peter Hurford dropped the following comment:
… it is not true that if God exists, removing any instance of suffering must make everyone net worse off. Thus, I hereby recant all the essays I wrote in which I argued this position. …the Problem of Evil, as traditionally conceived, fails. (source, bold orig.)
That says it all. A debate aims to show who created the more persuasive arguments. Regardless of my concession that needless suffering existed per Peter’s definition, I was ultimately arguing that the POE was impotent, and Peter ultimately agreed. Plain and simple, his recanting should carry more weight than my concession.
As for the judging fiasco, I’ll just take it line-by-line:
Either way, no hard feelings towards anyone. (Andrés)
No hard feelings on my side, either. Although, I don’t think you gave people the full picture regarding our interactions.
I merely disagreed with him when he called it “fallacious” and that it’s an argument from ignorance. (Andrés)
A minor but non-trivial correction: I called it an argument from incredulity. Did you think I was assuming all inductive arguments for negative existentials qualify as fallacious arguments from incredulity? That’s not what I was saying.
The creationism thing really was the main motivation for dropping out of the debate… (Andrés)
What “Creationism thing?” Andrés and Matt got all riled up over nothing. I’m not one to cling to dogma. When I consider arguments, I like to respond from many angles. I’m able to engage the POE from a “literalist” or “inerrantist” position, or I can engage it against the backdrop of the conventional evolutionary narrative. There was no need to freak out. We weren’t going to debate or discuss “Creationism” at all. Andrés and Matt could have just went along and saw some ambitious philosophy that had everything to do with the POE and nothing to do with “transitional fossils” like they fretted. Andrés said I acted “childish” and “emotional,” but him and Matt were the ones who got all up-in-arms over mere mention of a politically charged keyword. This is from Matt’s original response on the issue, before I responded mockingly:
It seems to me that the entire foundation of your argument relies upon taking some account of the Fall literally. (as you said, “On my view, sin caused death, suffering and so-called “natural evil.”) I’m not sure if you are actually advocating Creationism, or that you expect to somehow mesh an account of the Fall with evolutionary theory (a la Inwagen). If it’s the former, I will happily revoke my own position as a judge. I do not take Creationism even remotely seriously, and I can’t in earnest judge a debate in which an entire argument hinges upon it. (Matt DeStefano)
A bit stuffy, hypersensitive and over-reacting, don’t you think? Hell, I don’t take atheism even remotely seriously, yet I don’t pretend I’m too good to judge a debate with an atheist, so what’s their problem? Besides, the foundation of my argument is philosophical. It can be adapted to an “old-Earth” account of things. Daniel had no problem realizing this (bold mine):
The issue of Genesis is minor, and frankly cl’s interpretation of Genesis is irrelevant. The question on the table is whether needless suffering is inconsistent with the Abrahamic God, right? The Abrahamic God created the world as good. If Peter can prove otherwise, then have at it. So cl is free to present a definition of this Abrahamic God, just as Peter proposed a definition of needless suffering. We judges need to sit back and see how Peter responds to all of this. (Daniel)
Exactly! Did anybody else happen to notice how Daniel thought critically and stayed focused on the matter at hand, as opposed to reacting aghast at mere mention of a politically charged keyword? Andrés and Matt both responded with noticeable polarization ala Dawkins. Here is Andrés’ first response with regard to this issue (bold mine):
Do you believe that animals have existed before human beings arrived on the scene? If not, your defense of suffering in nature depends upon Young Earth Creationism being true. That’s very hard to swallow. If you do believe animals were alive before men then your free will defense doesn’t work because animals died and suffered before man sinned. If you’re a young earther then like Matt, I’ll humbly apologize and express my lack of interest in this debate since in order for your defense to work the debate would have to turn to whether or not we’re justified in believing YEC is true. I’ve no interest in judging that kind of debate. Last time I seriously considered that view was back in high school, I’ve no interest going back there. Like Matt said, every respectable philosopher of religion accepts evolution and that death and suffering has been with us since before man arrived on the scene. There are perfectly good reasons to believe the evidential proble of evil doesn’t work. Attributing all the suffering found in nature to human free will just isn’t one of then. I’d love to keep this debate going, specially since Philosophy of Religion is my area of concentration. Unfortunately I just can’t take some views seriously or worth entertaining, YEC is one of them. As elitist as this might sound, I’ve got real scholarship to read and work on. If YEC is where this debate is going then I’ll sadly have to drop out of judging. (Andrés)
Oh, well excuse me! Don’t let my intellectual shortcomings get in the way of all that “real scholarship.” Seriously, can anybody give one good reason why I shouldn’t have mocked such misinformed elitism? Besides, Andrés is plain wrong. My defense of suffering *DOESN’T* depend on “YEC” being true. He just hauled off and assumed that without so much as even asking. The remarks about “last time I considered that view was high school” were unwarranted and irrelevant. Similarly, what “every respectable philosopher” thinks is irrelevant, and essentially amounts to more thumbing-of-the-nose. Andrés’ job as judge wasn’t to give his personal opinion of what he mistakenly assumed my arguments necessarily entailed. It was to evaluate the arguments for cogency, internal consistency and epistemic warrant. If Andrés can’t see the detectable smarm in his statement, then he really won’t ever understand why I responded dismissively.
In response to the snippet of Daniel’s above, Andrés responded:
CL’s view might be internally consistent, but in order for it to work he’d have to argue for the actual occurrence of events in Genesis. He’d have to tell us why such a view is more epistemically warranted than naturalistic evolution. How could he possibly do that without the debate itself turning into a Creationism Vs. Evolution debate? Especially given word limits, I don’t see how you can argue it successfully without completely setting aside the original topic of debate which was gratuitous suffering. I’m torn here: I don’t want to judge a Creationism vs. Evolution debate. I suppose CL could just stick to the free will defense (which is what it all boils down to on his view), if he could flesh out those details and, say, argue for why such a view doesn’t make God a moral monster (I mean, seriously, two people were responsible for all the carnage in nature, seriously? And God just decided to turn vegetarian animals into meat eating monsters because two people broke a rule? Really?) then I might be inclined to continue. What I don’t want to judge because I don’t find it particularly philosophically interesting is stuff like fossils, floods, blah blah blah. I’m torn here, and I don’t want to be an asshole, but I’m not sure how Peter and CL can bridge a gap as huge as their assumptions about the history of the Earth. (Andrés)
Again, Andrés went totally overboard. The point was whether or not the suffering we observe was needless (and ultimately whether or not it can be consistent with the existence of the traditional Abrahamic God). There wasn’t going to be any debate about “Creation vs. Evolution.” Andrés and Matt fell into the trap of strong reaction to an emotionally-charged topic. In response, Daniel wrote:
The point is that this debate is not Creationism v. Evolution at all. It’s a debate about whether needless suffering is inconsistent with an Abrahamic God. There are many versions of the Abrahamic God, and if cl can defend the consistency of at least one, then I would chalk that up as a good defense. So, let’s suppose that cl is a YEC and is able to show that needless suffering is consistent with a YEC’s understanding of the Abrahamic God. You might be frustrated because you think there are other good reasons to think such a God doesn’t exist. Well, we need to wait to have that sort of debate. We have to stick to the nature of the question at hand. (Daniel)
Again, Daniel hits the nail on the head. I can only wonder how our debate might have turned out had Andrés and Matt listened. Oh well.
I’m not sure how someone studying the evidence and concluding, with the majority of philosophers and scientists, that YEC isn’t a plausible view is thereby “biased” and “close minded.” (Andrés)
First, I reject Andrés’ appeal to authority. Less than a century ago, the “majority of philosophers and scientists” also said that quantum mechanics wasn’t plausible. This is an undeniable truth Andrés cannot possibly challenge. The freethinker is just that: free to think. Free to hold his or her own opinions so long as they are educated and able to sustain engagement from competent critics. I’m a freethinker. I don’t need to side with the crowd.
Second, I didn’t call Andrés “closed-minded” because he rejects “Creationism” or whatever. I called him closed-minded for passing judgement on my argument and pulling a melodramatic exit stage left before I even got a chance to finish! I originally contacted the judges with questions about criteria and that was all I wanted to discuss (per our prestated agreement that judges should *NOT* interact with the arguments). Andrés and Matt were the ones who blew the whole “Creationism” thing out of the water. When I realized how emotionally polarized they both felt about this, I remarked that they were “too biased” to be judges, and quite frankly, I stand by that. Their personal opinions about “Creationism” shouldn’t have got in the way of a debate about needless suffering and the evidential POE.
Your logic bashing is disturbing. If you want to deny evolution, that’s one thing. (Andrés)
This was the icing on the cake. Andrés calls me “childish” and “emotional,” but makes retorts like that. The funny thing is, he doesn’t even know what I think about evolution! He ran off to Vegas with an assumption. Besides, it doesn’t matter, as Daniel valiantly tried to get through their thick skulls. I don’t bash logic, I simply bashed Andrés’ insinuation that his status as a “logic teacher” had any bearing whatsoever. It doesn’t.
In the circles I work in there are no Young Earthers, because it really is a fringe view. I was shocked because, quite frankly, the posts I’ve read from you have been thoughtful and articulate and, honestly, I thought of you as too smart to entertain such an extreme view. (Andrés)
The “circles Andrés works” had absolutely nothing to do with our debate, and where exactly did I say I was a YEC? Andrés and Matt who leaped to that conclusion, despite the fact I told them I’m an agnostic with regard to the age of the Earth. Were they both purposely misrepresenting me despite my adamant attempts to clarify?
In fact, cl’s entire argument hinges upon the idea that before man sinned, there was no suffering, natural or otherwise. (Matt DeStefano)
No, it doesn’t. Only my concession that needless suffering exists hinges upon the idea that before man sinned, there was no suffering, natural or otherwise. My entire argument hinges on ability / inability to demonstrate that needless suffering is compatible with the traditional Abrahamic God. IOW, whether one is “YEC” or “old-Earther” has nothing to do with it. Look at this underhanded insult from Matt:
Why should I have a discussion about women having penises when the majority of serious theists are willing to actually engage reality when discussing the POE? (Matt DeStefano)
Sorry, but for Matt to imply that I’m not a “serious” theist, or that I don’t “actually engage reality” on account of his misunderstanding of a single issue is… well, that’s intellectual snobbery, plain and simple. I was justified to respond dismissively.
So there you have it, folks. As much as I didn’t want to publish it, I hope this post helps onlookers understand why I reacted the way I did. In my opinion, Andrés’ and Matt’s freakouts ultimately derailed DBT01. We could have easily resolved the scoring flaws. Then again, none of it matters now, because Peter recanted his POE.
I’m still waiting to hear a response from Peter regarding DBT02.
Peter Hurford
says...For the record, I still do think the POE works, I just formulate it completely differently than I have in the past:
So don’t get me wrong, I now do disagree with a large majority of the POEs I see in popular philosophy, and that is in part because of our debate. However, I think it’s misleading to say I’ve recanted the POE and not include my new position.
Those who are interested can read “TheraminTrees’s Atheism, Part II: Evil”, which cl does link to in his essay.
~
As you can probably infer from my haphazard blogging and commenting schedule, I just haven’t been able to find the time to think through how I want to approach future debates. Sorry I’ve been keeping you waiting, but my work as a full time student does come first.
cl
says...Peter,
No worries, I assumed you were busy with school, or something. No need to apologize. When I was a wee lad, I use to make the mistake of thinking that the absence of an immediate response was evidence that the responder was purposely avoiding me. I’ve long since shed that silliness.
With all due respect I think you’re confused, and if you’re not, then I certainly am. When I read your essay, the impression I got was that an appeal to skeptical theism undermines faith, not the POE. You don’t think the POE undermines theism. You think appeals to skeptical theism do. If not, feel free to clarify, and you might want to consider doing so in your original essay.
I linked directly to your new position. How is that misleading?
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Does Peter have no sense of humor, that he can respond to this with a straight face? [You could restate the facts: Peter used a broken argument to beat you and a few weeks later found a stronger one.]
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Why would someone choose to debate a position they don’t take even remotely seriously? Such a position can be discussed—but debated? Correspondingly, why would anyone want to debate against someone who considers their views beneath serious reception? Not knowing they’re so considered is one reason. Now you know.
How could one lose a debate against a position that deserves not even remotely serious attention? Would anyone debate Santa Claus. Flat earth? or (for more popular views) ordinary superstitions. That is, except as a joke or diversion? Is it not disingenuous to challenge someone to debate to support a position you don’t take remotely seriously? When that’s the case, is considering opposing arguments anything more than the pretense it is in fact when you pretend to consider these arguments? How can it be anything but that? A person can’t induce himself to take seriously that which isn’t even remotely worth considering.
And, of course, if you think your opponent was defending a position not worth even considering, you will conclude you were cheated if you lost. Judging a debate where one party doesn’t think his opponent is espousing a position even worth considering is nothing someone should look forward to doing.
This is why I think your participation in such debates is a sham and a fraud. Now, I realize evolutionists debate creationists (who don’t deserve to be taken seriously), but these are openly propagandist endeavors, without the pretense to serious consideration of opposed positions. (Not that I care for those debates either.)
cl
says...Diamond,
Uh, because *THEIR OPPONENT* takes it seriously? C’mon Stephen, at least think for two seconds before your pride sends you digging into your keyboard to spew ill-informed hate. Remember, the whole world is pink through rose-colored glasses.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...You challenged Peter to a debate—because Peter takes atheism seriously.
Another of your unceasing non sequiturs. The question is, what’s the value of such a debate? How can you seriously consider your opponent’s arguments, as you pretend (unconvincingly)to do? Could you seriously consider the arguments for Santa Claus? (I learned of your dogmatism when you unwaveringly argued for a position on a nearly mechanical calculation, despite not even understanding it. You are plainly unwilling to understand what contradicts dogma–or even what you faintly suspect might.)
An argument with such a total dogmatist can only be a sham, which is OK as long as you don’t try to convey a real debate is presented. You are able to state in advance that nothing would convince you. Did Peter know this? Would he have been interested in a so-called debate with someone with a mind that you admit totally closed? Would the judges have agreed, had they known of your absolutist dogmatism? I don’t know about their decisions, but I do know that only after the “debate” did Peter learn that you were really a complete fideist whom no argument could possibly convince.
Some viewers responded that they wanted more intellectual honesty in these debates. This indicates that they believed a real intellectual process was going on–that they were misled (or at least misunderstood) the debate’s purpose. They thought it was a process where such admissions of error had a place–where both sides at least considered the possibility that they were wrong; not one believed the other side was beneath even taking seriously.
Two judges agreed with me, in that they refused to proceed once they learned they could no longer take your position seriously. One can’t judge such a debate or participate in one–a minimum of common ground is required.
Now, you say Peter lost the debate because he changed his mind. Safe to claim because you’re incapable of changing your mind.
I’m at a loss about what my pride has to do with it, except that you seek to personalize everything by innuendo and then become aggrieved when I respond by doing it openly. To me, you’ve become an emblem of religious pretense and hypocrisy.
Atheists who uphold the pretense that your fairy tales of Adam and Eve are intellectually honest or otherwise respectable do the intellect no favors.
cl
says...Oh, look… it’s the atheist with Asperger’s syndrome popping his inflated head out to troll again. I probably shouldn’t feed into this guy and his annoying issues, but, since nobody has the gumption to stick up for the truth ’round here, I suppose I must, again… besides, it’s clear that this little boy needs a good fisking.
Stephen R. Diamond,
Correct, and because I take my beliefs seriously, and because I know there are many regular readers of this blog that take both of us seriously. Surely that can’t be too difficult for your advanced brain to comprehend, right? What with your little psychology degree and all. Surely you understand, I mean, you’re so… intelligent, and so… discerning. Best yet, you *NEVER* get lose your temper and say stupid stuff, so… you must understand.
For Pete’s sake would you shut your flapping mouth already? Your incorrect usage of the term suggests you don’t even know what a non-sequitur is. You come around here and toss out bunk claims without evidence, like they’re pennies to the poor or something. Get over your lame pride and learn to make some genuine contributions instead of just coming across like such an obvious hater. Or, keep doing you and annoying most us that congregate here. Whatever floats your boat, Stephen R. Diamond. After all, this *IS* all about you, big guy.
Obviously not much to you, so why don’t you go troll somebody else’s blog? We get it: you don’t like me, I’m a fake, a sham, a liar and everything else bad… we all know the drill, Stephen R. Diamond. You gettin’ off yet? How many times do you need to call me names before you feel better about yourself? Do you think anybody else really cares?
It’s easy, just move forward in good faith and don’t be a hater. Peter and I didn’t have any problems whatsoever. OTOH, how can you make baseless claim after baseless claim, not to mention being a condescending jerk while you’re at it, and still come around here with a straight face? Think about how unintelligent you’re coming across here. Don’t you remember that Peter actually convinced me that needless suffering exists? Take off your “I hate cl” glasses and try to reason clearly.
Nonsense. You walked off that thread and refused to answer questions, from me or others. Don’t blame me because you can’t persuasively make your case. Put up or shut up (and I’d prefer the latter, but that would constitute a miracle sufficient to close the epistemic gap and persuade us ALL that God exists).
Typical black-and-white, “I’m not really thinking clearly because I’m so consumed by intolerance and hate,” Stephen R. Diamond for ya. Newsflash, genius: that I don’t take atheism seriously does not entail that nothing could convince me, or that my mind is closed. Again, Peter convinced me that needless suffering exists, so, can you, you know… actually think here?
See? You just can’t do it, can you? By “it” I refer to common critical thinking practice of providing evidence for one’s claims. Most viewers complained that the structure needed tightening up. To the best of my memory, the only whining about intellectual honesty was, ironically, from the paragon of intellectual dishonesty himself, Stephen R. Diamond.
That’s because a real intellectual process WAS going on, and continues to go on. The only time there isn’t a real intellectual process going on around these parts is when you show up. Then it devolves into real intellectuals dealing with an attention-starved hater who apparently wants everyone to go read his blog that nobody comments on. Seriously, why do you comment here? Act civil or bugger upstream.
No, just like you, two judges failed to think critically long enough to realize that the “Creationism” thing was a non-issue. And, what “position?” Are you trying to misrepresent me as a YEC again? Get over it already.
Cool, thanks, I’ll add that to the list. Anything else? You done hatin’ yet?
Right, but I suppose atheists that show up and troll Christian websites and puff their chest like they’re some big tough guy actually do the intellect favors? Oh, okay… I apologize. I have to thank you for all the favors you do for (a)theist intellect! LOL!!
I know, that’s the incredible thing. It really is. You’re so self-consumed you can’t even see it, yet other commenters spot you a mile away. But of course, it *MUST* be us, because it just *CAN’T* possibly be true that you actually are a prideful, condescending, mean-spirited jerk, right?
Peter Hurford
says...Good to hear! I do hope to get back to things soon enough, however!
~
I think the POE undermines theism only if skeptical theism is false, and then I think that skeptical theism is false.
Also, I think that the POE undermines theism by making it that we can’t know if God is good. I do not think that POE undermines theism by demonstrating that God is evil. We just can’t rule out evil.
Does that help? Or is it still confusing?
~
Nevermind, I misread something you wrote as saying that I conceded that God is knowably good. Sorry.