A Dangerous Delusion

Last night, the University of Bristol hosted a debate based on the following motion: Is God a dangerous delusion? Debating for the motion was Susan Blackmore, and against was Alastair McGrath. Each had 20 minutes for their proposition, and 7 minutes to rebut.

I found the actual content of the debate quite disappointing. Neither of the two seemed to answer the question very well. Blackmore, who actually had green hair!, spent the first 4-5 minutes stating that God was dangerous, but not the God of the philosophers. Spouting 'cruelty' and 'war', etc., she barely explained what she was so upset about. She then briefly mentioned Sam Harris' critique that any amount of blind faith can generally erode the veracity of reason within a given society. She hardly mentioned it before moving on.

But the bulk of her 'critique' of religion was spent on explaining the origins thereof. She put forth her assertion of memes, and asserted that since religion was natural, then therefore not true. Obviously this critique fails- regardless of how religion develops, it could still be true. Indeed, this is why religion has (almost) nothing to do with science- it simply isn't falsifiable. Further, and as she mentioned, the religions that we have are the ends of the branches, more developed that the previous models. Religion, according to her, holds sway simply because it has latched onto a few good ideas. Or trickery. Either or.

Her last point is hard to swallow. The assertion of memes surely does not follow genes 1:1, but a comparison should be applicable. We don't assume that the result of evolution is only something that 'looks' useful to the species, but something that IS useful. As well, introducing memes into religion, in the way she did, implies a certain value in religion. Once that is granted, it can just as easily be argued that the 'newer' religions have validity.

McGrath was only slightly better. He broke the question into two parts. The first being whether God is a delusion. He claimed he had evidence for religion, but never provided it. At least he pointed out that the evidence necessary wasn't on the same level as science or maths. He countered that democracy is not demonstrably a better system (although, I would argue that it is) but that, nonetheless, we would all agree that it is. There are so many things that we take for granted, and are not able to sufficiently explain, but nonetheless, take for granted. To make his point fuller- as JSM observes, any telos cannot be proven.

Nonetheless, McGrath offered no proof whatsoever. He simply suggested that his belief in God, or specifically Jesus, makes science, and existence, all the more real for him. This notion seems dubious, but nice for him if it does. I've heard theist argue this before, but it doesn't seem to actually make sense. They claim that beauty can only be explained by the existence of God- surely we perceive it as more than just atoms and neural reactions.

That point is irrelevant though. No matter what the source, that does not (necessarily) create an objective concept of 'beauty.' Beauty may be an objective form, such as within Plato's extreme realist philosophy. Even barring that though, we can still accept a strong form of beauty- we can't genes make beauty the same way that God would?

McGrath then actually got to the point- it is not religion, per se, but any ideology, that is dangerous. And, more specifically, it is the fringes of any ideology that seems to brood violence. Countering the claim that theist convince themselves of God because they already want to believe, he claim that atheist are the same (if not worse) Atheism was the natural extension of the Enlightenment's view of the autonomous man.

Looking back, perhaps they said more than I though they did. But most of what the did say seemed 'old hat' to me. I guess I've been through these arguments for too long. Likewise, many people find Dawkins' arguments profoundly revealing- I find them to be nothing more than the recycling of old arguments.

Nonetheless, I think McGrath won. But only because he bothered answering the question a bit more than Blackmore did.

But, to my money, the actual contents of the debate were the most intriguing part of the night. The attitudes of the debaters, as well as the audience, seemed to exhibit certain particular patterns. As should have been expected- people tended to think that those they already agreed with, had won the debate. Further, they felt that the opposing side was rude to their favored side. In other words, the theists thought that Blackmore was just insulting to their beliefs (though she was trying to be a bit) and the atheists (or those more skeptical of religious belief) thought that McGrath was giving unsatisfactory answers. It was interesting how partisan the interpretations were.

But that was hardly the most interesting aspect of the debate. Much more interesting was the demeanor of the debaters. Blackmore was fairly condescending towards other people's opinions- she considered herself the bastion of rationality. McGrath, on the other hand, was patronizing. But he was more than that. He seemed almost to go out of his way to be nice- so that if his arguments did not suffice, he would gain the psychological advantage by his disposition.

More shocking, and also more obvious, was the terms in which the debate were framed. Although it was supposed to be a debate about theism, supposedly in general, it was actually a debate about Christianity. As I am wont to say: the God that atheists of this country deny is Jesus. Islam was denigrated to a degree greater than Christianity, and religions other than Christianity were taken to be obviously false- without any need for proof. The supposed superiority of Christianity was so obvious to the audience, that a questioner objected to grouping Christianity into the debate at all. As if Christianity has never been the source for conflict in this world. Never mind the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the 100 Year War. Nope, perfect religion. And demonstrably so.