what happened to the atheist community of austin
I recently debated atheist Matt Dillahunty on Theology Unleashed,. Matt is an atheist activist and the former president of the Atheist Customs of Austin, Texas. Since 2005 he has hosted the televised webcast The Atheist Experience and he has besides hosted a live Internet radio bear witness and founded Iron Chariots, a counter-apologetics project. From a bio sketch:
Matt Dillahunty is a seasoned debater, the current president of the Atheist Community of Austin, and the well known host of The Atheist Experience. He has debated Jordan Peterson, David Wood and a host of other theists, and has shared stages with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Laurence Krauss. He is known for his cool headed logical arguments and philosophical abilities.
Matt describes himself equally a strong proponent of debates and endorses debates as "incredibly valuable." Ironically, following our contempo debate, Dillahunty believes that debates are less valuable. The creator of Theology Unleashed reached out to Dillahunty after our debate and invited him back — I offered to debate Dillahunty as ofttimes as he would like — and Dillahunty refused any further debates with me. This is despite the fact that Dillahunty was (unlike me) paid a fee to debate.
Our kickoff (and final) argue was a chip contentious — merely only a flake. The topic was: "Does God be?" During the ten minute introduction I listed x of the well-nigh mutual classical arguments that demonstrate God's existence and asked a series of six questions that atheists struggle to answer, such equally "Why is there anything?" (rather than zip).
[Partial transcripts and notes to the debate are available at the links below. – ed.]
In my presentation of the classical arguments for God's existence, I presented well-nigh a paragraph on each statement but didn't become into meticulous detail with whatsoever of them.
I did this deliberately. I had watched Dillahunty contend this question previously. I've had enough of experience with New Atheists and it was articulate to me that Dillahunty, like every New Atheist I've encountered, had no genuine understanding of the arguments for God's existence. Of form, for meaningful argue, both debaters must empathize the arguments and I thought a skillful place to offset would be to run into if Dillahunty did indeed understand any of the arguments that he claimed to reject. He admitted that he didn't. His ignorance of the arguments for God'southward being became even more than articulate every bit the contend went on.
I was amazed (but not really surprised) that Dillahunty would devote his life and his career to debunk arguments that he didn't understand, and that he knew he didn't sympathize.
Dillahunty has summed upwardly his debating philosophy elsewhere every bit "Have the opponent seriously: The audience has to sense that I tin perfectly sympathise their views, and have rejected them."
The irony is remarkable.
Since Dillahunty has refused to debate me once more, I'd similar to follow upward on some very important points that came up during the debate that I won't take a chance to discuss with him. At to the lowest degree we tin can reverberate on these issues hither.
Dillahunty began his opening statement thus:
Unremarkably I point out in these debates that I'm not here to defend a no because the brunt of proof is on those who say there is a yes. Information technology's not up to atheists to show that a God doesn't exist. So today I'm just going to say, no, there's not a God, in the same way that there aren't leprechauns or fairies.
Both sides in a debate have a burden of proof. The denial of God's existence entails evidence and logic that need to exist explained, no less than the affidavit of God's being does. The merits by New Atheists that their ideology has no need for evidence, logic, or proof is absurd and, bluntly, cowardly. The inescapable inference is that atheism has a very brusk supply of logic and evidence and atheists volition do whatever they tin can to avoid explaining themselves. Theists, for thousands of years, have devoted their lives to rigorous and meticulous thought near God's existence. Atheists – at least New Atheists – merely claim that they take no responsibility to make their instance. Such intellectual cowardice is one of the factors that collection me abroad from disbelief decades ago.
Past Mike Sheridan CC By ii.0
Dillahunty'due south invocation of fairies and leprechauns demonstrates his ignorance of the arguments for God's beingness. The classical arguments – Aquinas' 5 Ways, the Thomistic proof, the neoPlatonic proof, the Augustinian proof, the Rationalist proof, and the proof from Moral Law – don't invoke fairies or leprechauns. They are rigorous detailed arguments that demonstrate God'due south existence based on ubiquitous prove in the natural world and impeccable logic. The arguments were adult past some of the all-time thinkers in human being history – Aristotle, Augustine, Plotinus, Aquinas, and Leibniz, and they take been a mainstay of natural theology for over two millennia. They take certainly never been "refuted" although they have been the topic of word for many centuries.
Dillahunty'southward characterization of these arguments as invocation of 'fairies and leprechauns' is an access on his part of his consummate ignorance as to their content. I won't go into the details of each of these arguments here – for readers who are interested I have posted on several of these arguments in considerable detail (here, hither, here, here, here, here, and here), and Ed Feser has a superb assay of most of these arguments in his books Aquinas and Five Proofs for the Existence of God.
Dillahunty knew none of these arguments. Astonishingly, the public claim that these arguments are untrue is what he does for a living. What a remarkable precis of New Atheism — loud, shameless, persistent ignorance.
Dillahunty:
Given the wording of this debate, "Does God be?", we're asking a question: Is God's nature consistent with existence? Does God be? It's not about: Do I believe? It's not near: Do I take proficient reason to believe? But I tin't really address the ontology of God because there's not a God in front of me to appraise. In that location'southward not even been a God defined for me to brainstorm to assess. Then the question is kind of ill-formed.
Dillahunty implies that ambiguity in defining God makes the question about his beingness moot. Again, it'due south clear that Dillahunty doesn't sympathize the arguments for the existence of God. God is not a thing within nature; He is non an object that can be defined as one might ascertain a car or tree. He cannot be known fully as He is in Himself. He is after all the Ground of Beingness, the Prime Mover, the Commencement Cause, the Necessary Existence, the Ultimate Goodness, the Intelligent Designer. While all of these terms are a kind of clarification and can be justified by abundant evidence and logic, God transcends the kind of definition that nosotros would apply to objects in nature. God is not a thing. He is the Source of all things.
How then can we know God? Aquinas points to three ways:
- We can know God by what he is non — he is non express, he is not material, he is not mortal, he is not evil, etc.
- Nosotros can know God by his creation, that is by his effects in nature. Natural theology is the study of God based on his effects in the natural globe. This kind of written report of God's existence is in fact completely analogous to any other theory in scientific discipline, in the sense that it entails examination of show and inference to best caption for the evidence. I believe that God'southward existence is more thoroughly proven than any other theory in natural science – I have posted on that here.
- We can know God by analogy. Because all that is good in cosmos is a manifestation of His transcendent goodness, we tin know much almost Him through analogy to good things in nature. By analogy we tin begin to understand His wisdom, His mercy, His justice, His dazzler, and His dearest.
The answers I've given here to Dillahunty'southward questions are not, of grade, originally mine — they are answers that take been given for a couple of thousand years to these questions. Nevertheless Dillahunty obviously knows nothing of them. Or if he does know them, perhaps he hopes that his audience doesn't.
I believe that the reason Dillahunty won't contend me again is that I insist upon telling the audition the truth near the arguments for God'south existence. That is the truth that Dillahunty — and New Atheists like him — volition exercise anything to deny.
Editor's note: In the current debate which is already taped, it'south Mike Egnor'south turn to rebut Dillahunty… so stay tuned for Egnor's rebuttal: No, the burden of proof is on all of us…
The debate to date:
- Debate: Former atheist neurosurgeon vs. former Christian activist. At Theology Unleashed, each gets a chance to state his case and interrogate the other. In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and broadcaster Matt Dillahunty clash over the existence of God.
- A neurosurgeon's x proofs for the existence of God. First, how did a medic, formerly an atheist, who cuts open people'due south brains for a living, come up to be sure there is irrefutable proof for God? In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, Michael Egnor and Matt Dillahunty clash over "Does God exist?" Egnor starts off.
- Atheist Dillahunty spots fallacies in Christian Egnor's views. "My position is that it's unacceptable to believe something if the available evidence does non support information technology." Dillahunty: We can't conclusively disprove an unfalsifiable proposition. And that is what most "God" definitions, at least as far as I can tell, are.
You may also wish to read: COVID-19: Atheism went viral as well. Atheists are uniquely unsuited to accuse others of devaluing human life. Professor Steven Pinker's quickly deleted tweet provides a window into anti-religious hate. In health and medicine, he is entirely mistaken. (Michael Egnor)
Source: https://mindmatters.ai/2021/09/atheist-spokesman-matt-dillahunty-refuses-to-debate-me-again/
0 Response to "what happened to the atheist community of austin"
Post a Comment