A 2009 Religious Debate

Here is a debate at held La Ciudad de las Ideas entitled 2009 Re-evolution.

You can watch 6 speakers argue over religion:

• atheists: Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett


• conventionally religious: Dinesh D'Souza, Shmuley Boteach, Nassim Taleb


• fence-sitter: Robert Wright (denies a historical religious belief but claims to see a "purpose" in the world evidenced by evolution

For me, the atheists win hands down. I like Robert Wright's argument but it isn't persuasive. Sadly I find the universe indifferent to humankind. We sit on one planet of one star out of the hundred billion that make up our galaxy and which is but one galaxy out of the hundred billion we can see. Worse yet, our science tells us that this universe is accelerating apart living us lonely and alone. Still worse, science tells us that what we see as "matter" is only 4% of what is out there. Some 96% of what has to be there is insensible to our best scientific instruments! Talk about a slap in the face. We are worse than a pimple on the ass, we are worse than an afterthought of God, we are meaningless in the immensity of what we can see and even more meaningless in the fact that we know that there is even more than we can see and what we can see is quickly leaving us abandoned. This is so far from a "loving God" and a "personal relationship" with a deity that it makes religious views laughable.

I have sympathy for religion. I study it because it is part of my culture. It would be nice if the better bits were true, but there is no evidence of that. At best religious people delude themselves. Sure, I have the same vague religious feelings, the sense of awe at "creation" and a sense of a numimous "presence" and a thirst for a "purpose" to it all. But my cold-headed rationalism tells me that is me projecting my wants onto a universe that is indifferent to me.

The one thing I heard that I liked was Robert Wright's condemnation of "fundamentalism". He is against fundamentalist religious people as well as the "fundamentalist" atheists. What we need is more tolerance, not more conflict and intransigence.

I was also impressed during the discussion at the end when a philosopher got up and pointed out that religion is in fact not a simple thing. He pointed out it is a bit of three things: beliefs, practices, and community. The atheists attack the beliefs. The religionists hide in the wonderful values of practice and community and when nobody is looking bring back in the beliefs. That in a nutshell is why this "debate" will never end. The beliefs are irrational and the atheists' arguments have trumped them. But people will remain religious for other reasons, the practice and the community. What would be nice is if everybody accepted the conflict over belief and the religionists admitted the irrationality of their beliefs and the atheists would admit that their attacks are not against "religion" but against the irrational beliefs. Maybe some day that compromise will take root.

The good news is that in 2009 we can have a religious debate without having heretics burned at the stake. Back when religion held sway, you took your life in your hands to challenge orthodoxy. I sure hope those never come back. The only real knowledge comes from science. Science is a deeply democratic process and all of the best things in our culture come from democratic institutions. Hierarchies, authorities, verities, and convention are invariably wrong-headed and oppressive. Only through free and open debate among equals has our culture "stood on the shoulders of giants" and seen farther. May that continue!