PZ Myers should have skipped the debate
Patrick Ross — who blogs at Nexus of Assholery — wrote this in a comment last night, after the debate between Kirk Durston and PZ Myers at the University of Alberta (in my old haunt, ETLC, no less!). Initially, I was going to publish it to the relevant post, but after due consideration (and picking up the laundry) I decided to bump it to the front page.
Because it’s just that delicious.
I attended the debate tonight, and I have to honestly say that PZ lost… badly.
He basically decided to dismiss the agreed topic of debate and then proceeded to lecture on Hox genes. If the topic of debate was really evolution vs Intelligent Design he certainly would have won on the issue of genetics, but still would have lost on the issue of overall rationale.
In the end, his conclusion was that he couldn’t argue the agreed-upon question because it wasn’t his area of expertise and they should have gotten someone else.
So then why did he bother to come? Why did he agree to the debate topic?
Indeed!
The debate topic — Does God Exist? — was agreed upon beforehand, and well-publicized. Even if Myers didn’t feel it was his “area of expertise,” he should have had at least some advance knowledge of the topic, and thus should have opted out of participating if in fact he is the honest man he kind of attempts to claim he is in his own brief comments on the debate. It’s good to admit when you feel you aren’t qualified to discuss the matter at hand…but not on the day of the event, in the lecture hall, after the start of the event itself.
Let’s be clear: if you are invited to debate on topic X, and you lecture on topic F instead, not only have you lost the debate in the first place (given that you’ve defaulted on the topic), but you’ve also grossly misled those who had been rooting for your participation in the debate in the first place.
As I noted previously, Kirk Durston shouldn’t have been any kind of intellectual threat to Myers, and certainly shouldn’t have been worth the derisive concession of defeat that is Myers’ own analysis of his Edmonton debate (he was also recently at an event in Calgary). ID, of the “irreducible complexity” variety, is easy enough to argue against, given that it basically reduces to a classic “God of the Gaps” model. And Durston’s arguments for the existence of God, rather than being ontological and/or otherwise grounded in argument from reason, tend to be based on looking for gaps where his own gene analysis computer models break down, and then inserting God into the mix at about that point.
So what went wrong?
Well, as Mr. Ross notes above, Myers abandoned the topic and instead gave a lecture about something else entierly. But it also appears that he would up being thrown, more or less, by a digression into the discussion of just which side — Religion or atheism — has more blood on its hands, historically speaking. Predictably, Durston’s arguments were based on misrepresentations of extant data, while Myers’ own responses were based on a) a “no true atheist” fallacy, and b) an attempt to dismiss the admittedly very large body counts of e.g. Stalin and Mao as being the result of modernity, with all of its advanced weapons. Which might work, except that for both Stalin and Mao, hunger was the most potent weapon in their arsenal.
Oh, and Myers also attempted to deflect the example of Hitler — which Durston evidently, and erroneously, introduced as another example of atheism’s bloody-handedness — by claiming that Hitler was a Catholic. It is true that Hitler grew up in a Catholic family…but it’s equally true that by the time he rose to power, he wasn’t a Catholic anymore. And no, I’m not attempting to construct a “no true Catholic” fallacy here — I’m simply noting that based on the Code of Canon Law, Adolf Hitler basically removed himself from the Church by his refusal, upon leaving home, to participate in the Mass or in any of the Sacraments
In fact, Hitler’s exact religious standpoint is hard to pin down. At his own blog, Patrick Ross notes that Hitler dabbled in various forms of occultism, which is fairly accurate. There’s also the matter of Positive Christianity, although Hitler distanced himself from some of that philosophy’s more radical elements and adherents. Be that as it may: Hitler was Catholic by birth only, and I very much doubt that the dictator would have described him views in any way that implied a philosophical connection to Rome.
Both Myers and Ross, incidentally, still seem caught up on the myth of “Hitler’s Pope.” It’s true that the Church was often very cautious in how it criticized the Nazi regime and its murderous excesses, but the reciprocal question to that charge is, simply: what more should the Church have done, given the situation? Would it have been better that every Catholic in Axis-controlled territory be martyred as well? What then would have been achieved?
Because in truth, quite a bit was achieved by the cautious Church; thousands of Jews, especially children, were evacuated fromGerman -controlled territories and hidden in churches, chapels, monasteries, and even The Vatican!
Granted, there is a picture of Hitler and the man unjustly called “Hitler’s Pope” — Pope Pius XII — meeting, because they did in fact meet. They may, in fact, have met more than once — one time being when Pius XII was still a cardinal.
But of course, being photographed together doesn’t mean they agreed on anything, even lunch.
And if you actually look at the historical record and the evidence it provides, it is impossible to overlook the extant writings of Pius XII — which he wrote both as Pope and, earlier, as a cardinal — all of which are harshly critical of the Nazi regime and of Hitler. There is also the testimony of Jewish survivors who were rescued through Catholic channels that bolsters the case in support of the Church. And looking at such things can only lead you to the conclusion, good reader, that Pius XII was anything but “Hitler’s Pope.”
Did the Church do everything it could to prevent the Holocaust? In a sense, that’s kind of a pointless question. The Church was not involved in the creation of the national environment or political policies that led to the Holocaust, and by that time had long made a point of not directly stepping in to the political affairs of a country. You could, in other words, just as soon blame the Church for the Holodomor, for not doing more to oppose Stalin. And the criticism would ring as hollow.
Could they have done “more?” Well, maybe, had they had an clearer picture earlier on of the scope of Hitler’s mad intent. But nobody had that insight. And yes, I suppose Pius could have taken a stance that would have ensured the martyrdom of every Catholic in Axis-controlled Europe…but what end would that have served? Alive, Catholics served as a pipeline for evacuating Jews from Axis-controlled territories. Dead, they would have served only as one more grim example of Hitler’s mad designs.
But then, Catholicism is not Myers’ only historical blind spot. There is still the matter of his attempt to construct a “no true atheist” fallacy in regard to Durston’s charge that atheists have more blood on their hands, in terms of the number of people massacred, than do religious people. That’s a bad argument on Durston’s part anyhow, but Myers’ attempt at dismissing it is even worse.
By some coincidence, Vox Day has a post up — featuring a new de-motivator (thumbnail to the left — click for the full-size image) discussing Sam Harris and the follies of both Durston and Myers.
While atheists are quite understandably reluctant to embrace “their” responsibility for the mass murders committed by their godless brethren, what they consistently fail to understand is that pinning the responsibility on the godless murderer is not about implying that the average atheist today is inclined to commit mass murder, but rather demonstrating the complete absurdity of the oft-made case that historical crimes committed by those of vaguely similar belief somehow justify advocating legal or social restrictions on individuals who have not committed any such crimes.
This was Durston’s mistake in the debate more than Myers’, but — given his response — it’s apparent that Myers did not adequately understand the exact nature of the error being made.
Responsibility must either be assigned individually or collectively. If the former, then no Christian today can be held responsible for the First Crusade, no atheist today can be held responsible for the Holodomor, and no Jew today can be held responsible for killing Jesus Christ or any of his followers. If the latter, then Christians, atheists, and Jews are all justified in engaging a war of all against all, in which case one would probably be wise to bet on the Muslims.
Just so.
Now, the argument can be made for looking at things one way or the other — there are good reasons to assign responsibility collectively, and there are good reasons to assign responsibility to individuals. The important point is not how we assign responsibility, as much as it is that we are consistent in doing so. If we are to judge the religious according to past massacres committed by religious people, then it is only logical, and only consistent, to judge the atheistic according to past massacres committed by atheists. And the fact that atheism’s body count, in such a survey, has mostly been racked up in the last 120 years is not something which argues against the conclusion, drawn from just such a comparison, that atheism’s hands are bloodier than religion’s.
…with regards to the mass slaughters of the previous century, there is simply no way to escape the established fact that individual atheists have been among mankind’s very worst killers. This doesn’t mean that the average atheist is any more likely to be homicidally inclined than anyone else, it does, however, cast serious doubt on the common atheist assertion that a godless society will be a peaceful one.
Vox Day’s book, The Irrational Atheist
Equally, though, the book’s figures are useful for those times when people insist on painting all religion with a very wide brush, and blaming the Church today for the evils of its adherents and allies in centuries past. It is true that the Spanish Inquisition killed between 3,000 and 4,000 people over its 300+ year existence…just as it is true that Spanish secularists, between 1936 and 1939, killed over 7,000 Catholic clergy (and then often by means that would have been deemed barbaric by the Inquisition). Does this prove anything? No, it doesn’t, save that people can always be found who are willing to kill in service to an ideology, even one that abhors murder. But it does force the issue of consistency, and thus is useful.
Anyhow, I have to admit that I didn’t think that the debate would have result it did. I figured Myers would mop the floor with Durston’s “God of the Gaps” arguments, but it seems that in the end the two men ended up sniping at each other when they weren’t talking past each other.
That said, it sounds like the victory goes to Durston, since Myers basically defaulted on the topic in the first place.
Update: Welcome, Vox Day readers!
Heh. You got me a pretty good one there. And you’re right.
It’s easy to criticize the Roman Catholic church for not having done anything to stop Hitler. But then there is the matter of what Hitler did to deal with dissent. And you’re right that adding millions of Germans to the ranks of Hitler’s victims wouldn’t have done much aside from just exploding the body count.
I’d counter that the Catholic Church has failed on other occassions, such as in Rwanda when it could have helped stop the slaughter there by issuing an edict. Then again, that isn’t entirely the same thing we’re talking about here. We’re talking about Nazi Germany, and few other historical situations really compare to that.
To be honest with you, I think the question of whether or not religion or atheism has more blood on its hands is a bit of an insipid argument. Neither religion nor atheism really demands that anyone be killed. Often the political programs that people use each for do.
There may be some complicity for religion and atheism in that. I’m not sure how far you and I could agree on how much. But the real culprit is the politics these things are being mobilized in favour of, not necessarily the beliefs themselves.
Granted, I don’t pretend as though the Church — either at the level of the Vatican or at a diocesan/national level (there is actually a fair bit of compartmentalization) — is blameless, and certainly she has failed her people on any number of occasions, or become involved in wrongdoing by both action and inaction.
But by the same token, it’s sometimes insipid to wonder whether she could not have “done more” in response to any particular historical horror she may have been affiliated with or connected to. What went on in Rwanda, per your example, was not about religion, but about tribe — Tutsi vs. Hutu. Indeed, both the Hutus and the Tutsis were, for the most part, Catholic.
An edict from the Church might have served to diminish the violence, in that it would have caused some people to reconsider their motivation to act out violently…but by and large, the slaughter would have progressed unabated, because the impulse toward tribalism was stronger than the pull of religious ideals.
I would agree, however, that overall, the issue of whose hands have more blood on them is, as you say, insipid, and I tend only to keep the rote facts of the matter on hand for those times when I have to go up against a Hitchens-esque atheist who insists on arguing on such points, or against a Harris-esque atheist who attempts to segue between the assertion that religious folks have a higher propensity for criminality and the historical record of which ideology has been behind the killing of more people.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you note the role of political motives in the emergence of killing programmes, from both religious and atheistic groups. The people behind the French Revolution, the rebels in the Spanish Civil War, the Soviets…all of these were secularist/atheist by philosophy, but were (more importantly) politically utopian (that is: their end goal was to re-shape society into something ostensibly better, for society’s own good).
There’s only two ways to achieve the utopian goal by purely human means: convince everyone, or pass the ammunition. Historically, people don’t change their hearts and minds fast enough to satisfy the patience of the revolutionaries, and so violence tends to be the result.
The same is true in those instances where we do see the intersection of religion and violence; whether one cares to point to the edicts in the Old Testament to re-take the Holy Land, or to the various parts of e.g. the Koran that command violence against non-Muslims, all of these have a very political purpose and motive behind them. This is especially true of Islam, which is an ideology that fuses religious and political ideals together so closely as to be inseparable.
With specific regard to Myers, I didn’t explicitly say so in my previous post, but I think he really has it in for Catholicism in particular, so it’s to be expected that he’d pull out various old canards in his arguments.
Well, we don’t know for sure if the genocide in Rwanda would have continued unabated if the Church had denounced this. I’ll admit to that. We don’t really know one way or the other.
Romeo Dallaire seems to think that the Catholic Church could have averted at least a portion of the violence. He’s been to Rwanda and knows the country much better than I, so I’m encouraged to believe him. Then again, there’s always the issue of doubt: Dallaire could be wrong about this. Once again, I can’t say for certain one way or the other.
As it regards religion and encouragement toward violence, we have to keep in mind that these things are a matter of interpretation. Certainly, there must be some people committing violence in the name of a religion who legitimately believe their faith calls for it. Then again, when we look at the leaders who actually preach it, it’s very difficult to overlook the distinct political overtones of their pronunciations.
I guess what I’m saying is that people who haven’t been gifted with the benefit of education can be duped by politically-motivated “religious” leaders. We know this to be true.
Right now I’m reading Reconciliation by Benazir Bhutto, and she subscribes to a very different interpretation of the Koran than does Osama Bin Laden. Which makes it all the more unfortunate that she was killed. Her book may in time have a transformative influence on Islam, and I sincerely hope that it does.
Again, regarding Rwanda, the issue was tribal rather than religious; both sides were about equally Catholic, but the Hutus were still more than willing to butcher those who were, as far as faith go, their brothers and sisters.
Could the Church have prevented some of the violence? Dallaire seems to think so, as you note, and certainly he would be the expert here. But equally, as you note, he could just as well be flat-out wrong; it wouldn’t be the first time in recorded history that people ignored what the Church said in pursuit of their own sinful interests.
Politics can provide a powerful impetus for the outbreak of violence, as you note that it often does. Tribalism is also powerful in this regard, however, and in both cases the protestations of the Church may fall only on ears deafened by the roar of power.
Some scholars do dispute whether or not tribalism was at the heart of the Rwandan genocide. Some point the finger squarely at capitalism and claim it was western colonialism that was to blame for the genocide.
I don’t fully agree with them.
I’d dispute whether or not religion couldn’t avert the violence just because it wasn’t the source of the violence. That being said, I’m sure this isn’t what you mean to say here.
Clearly another possibility in Rwanda is that Hutus would have dismissed a denunciation by the Catholic Church as “white man’s imperialist meddling in our affairs”. That’s clearly a real possibility.
Sadly, all we’re really doing here — all I was really doing when I proposed Rwanda as a sort of test case to begin with — is speculating. Speculating can be fun, but it doesn’t deliver any definitive answers.
I’ll be more than happy to continue discussing that particular issue with you, but it’s actually taken us away from the reason why I dropped in on this post to begin with — to thank you for your commentary here, and to tell you that I’ve taken it to heart.
So, again, thanks.
No, not at all.
My point was more that history is rather…full…of people betraying all manner of moral and philosophical principles (religious and not) in pursuit of greed and hatred.
There is that.
At any rate, yes, we are a bit off topic. That happens ’round here.
You’re more than welcome; do drop by from time to time!
Just a simple comment on the whole “PZ didn’t talk about the existence of God”. I think if he had gotten to the point about the Hox genes quicker, it seems like he was arguing that we can explain life without needing to resort to ‘God did it. To me, many of Durston’s arguments boiled down to, “If science doesn’t explain this for sure then we have to conclude God did it”, so in a way, saying, “Hey, this is how we could do it, no God required.” at least answers “Does there need to be a God for us to exist?”
Since there doesn’t seem to be a way to conclusively prove that God does or does not exist, it would make sense for each participant to choose his area of expertise. Since PZ’s platform was, “There is probably no God”, using his experience in biology to show that God isn’t neccessary for life would kind of make sense. I would say it made a good lecture but a fuzzy debate platform.
I noted, in a previous post, that Myers should have been able to take Durston down. Not that I’d ever root for Myers, but you basically hit the nail on the head here — Durston’s arguments are all of the “God of the Gaps” sort. Had Myers been a) quicker, b) smarter, and/or c) both, he’d have closed off those gaps.
Which wouldn’t have proved that God wasn’t involved, or that God doesn’t exist, of course…but at least it would have given him the edge in the debate.
Again, I agree in general…although I don’t think Myers could have demonstrated that God wasn’t absolutely necessary; he could, at most, have demonstrated that Durston’s supposition of God bridging the gaps in our knowledge was incorrect.
It appears, however, that Myers didn’t opt to go this route.
Steynian 317 « Free Canuckistan! (January 28, 2009, 6:08 pm).
[...] HYNEK SEZ– PZ Myers should have skipped the debate …. [...]
It seems to me that PZ looked through Durston’s track record in previous debates, noticed he seemed to repeatedly pull out certain biology-based arguments, reasoned that this is why Durston wants to debate a biologist, in order to test these arguments, prepared for that – then got flummoxed when Durston utterly failed to pull out any biology-based arguments, but instead pulled out the ‘God of the Gaps’ type arguments, ‘First Cause’ type arguments, and also made the mistake of getting too sidetracked in the whole ‘atheism leads to mass murder, so atheism is untrue’ argument, which is both wrong and an example of the ‘adverse consequences’ fallacy, as, even if it were true, it would have no bearing on the fact of whether or not God exists.
Hmmmm.
That is a good point. Using hox genes to support the stance that God is unnecessary for the creation of life — at least, if you subscribe to a conventional notion of “God” — is a very reasonable argument.
But I would note that it’s up to PZ to articulate this within his argument, and I don’t feel that he did that.
While the lecture on hox genes was informative, I don’t think it fit within the context of the “does God exist” question.
Interestingly enough, consider this as a potential argument:
When joining the Free Masons, Robert Lomas was asked if he believed in a “higher power”. Most people presume such a higher power to be a God.
Lomas, however, decided that he believed in the laws of physics as his higher power (Lomas, like Myers, is an atheist).
Now here’s an interesting idea: provided that you believe in a God, and believe in the conventional sense. Yet the processes of nature are strongly supported scientifically. Many of them are not feasibly disputable.
It could only serve to reason that God created the world through natural process, and that the creation story in the Bible is simply a metaphor.
But if one were to accept this argument, wouldn’t one also have to consider the possibility that these natural processes are, possibly, God?
I’ve always felt that this is an implication of Lomas’ argument. In essence that he has a God, and his God is science.
@Zmidponk:
While I’m loathe to give PZ any credit at all, and so very much doubt that he went to the lengths of actually researching his opponent’s tactics all that thoroughly, I would agree that Durston’s approach was not one that, for him, could be said to be conventional.
But then, I don’t want to give him too much credit either, and prefer to think of the debate as being a case of two reasonably intelligent idiots talking past each other.
@Patrick Ross:
I suppose that would be an implication of Lomas’ argument, yes. As I’ve said before and elsewhere — and this is as true of atheists as of theists — the real question is not “shall we believe?” but “what shall we believe?”
A guy like me believes in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and all that stuff that the Nicene Creed talks about.
A guy like Lomas believes in the “higher power” of physics.
A guy like Daniel Dennett believes in the power of the three-pound meaty thing that lives a few inches behind his eyeballs. Moreover, he believes that said meaty thing, driven as it is by semi-random chemical interactions and hormones, is capable of reason.
And arguably, yes, it could well be that what is actually God is, in fact, the very processes that someone like Lomas looks to. The possibility exists.
But it’s not a possibility I plan to base or change my worldview upon.