Why do the majority of people that debate the existence of God are the ones least equipped for mature debate?

Question

Obviously, the less said about the majority (and I apologise profusely for the minority who ask and answer questions maturely and comprehensively) on Y! Answers, the better.

On both sides of the debate, we see people using "facts" that are clearly not based on any balanced reading of the subject. Circular arguments, and non-arguments abound.

Even many of the academics who engage in this debate in public perform little better. While I have not yet read Richard Dawkins's "God Delusion", I did see the "The Root of All Evil", the TV series of the book. While some reasonable points were made, this series primarily seemed to consist of Dawkins making dubious, often hackneyed claims - such as religion causing most wars - and winding up theists (notably Ted Haggard), particularly extremists (who clearly present easy targets). Dawkins is supposed to be a leading academic - I expect much better.

To the above I will add one caveat. The link below is to a series of BBC radio programmes in which John Humphrys debates the existence of God(s) with leading theologians. I found the interview with Archbishop of Caterbury Dr Rowan Williams particularly fascinating. Both men are clearly outrageously intelligent and engage in actual, real-life, mature debate. It is the fact that we hear so little debate on the subject that is of this calibre that leads me to use the expression "exception that proves the rule".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/misc/insearchofgod.shtml

thisisaburd: Perhaps my question is a little rhetorical, but I suppose I am wondering why people feel it is appropriate to enter into a debate like this without doing a bit of background reading first.

OK, OK, so the question is purely rhetorical. I just wish people would think a bit before they type!

Nemesis: I'm trying to work out whether you agree with me or not. Your first bit, about "superior standpoint" seems to suggest not, though I hope my additional comment above regarding the BBC program presents my idea of how well-informed debate can be conducted.

Your bit about: "it is easy to criticise, especially if you have only some of the information but to create a substantive argument, you must possess a deep knowledge of the subject" seems to sum up exactly what I am trying to say about ill-informed debate, but I suspect that you meant it as a criticism of the question. If so, I would be grateful if you would explain and expand upon that point.

Thanks.
Z

Clarkie: I am not referring to one side of the debate or the other. I am referring to the majority on both sides.

Please note that I am not trying to argue for or against the existence of any deity(s) in this question, I am merely expressing my dissatisfaction with the manner in which the debate (in this forum and others) is carried out.

I am sorry if my point is unclear, and I would be grateful if you would expand upon "that's only the beginning of [my] point not being clearly made...". Which bits are unclear? I will try to elucidate further if you wish.

angelcake:

Thank you for your comments. What you say about the fact that I'm talking about a TV show kind of supports my point, (although, as "Root of All Evil" was a documentary made by a leading evolutionary biologists, actors were not really involved). The fact that a TV show has to introduce an element of drama (in this case, the confrontational scenes with Christian and Islamic extremists) in order to boost viewing figures immediately undermines the arguments it attempts to present.

CAE:

Thank you for such a thought-provoking answer.

I accept most of your points, which are very valid. However, I am unsure about your accusations re. over-generalising (excuse my British spelling). I accept that my question could be read as over-generalising about others (though I would like to think that my apology in the first sentence of my additional details exonerates me from that), but I do not feel that I have accused others of over-generalising. I would be grateful if you would explain what I have said that leads you to say that I do. Are you referring to another one of my questions/answers that I have forgotten about?

Thanks again for your answer. Definately the front-runner for Best Answer so far.

Clarkie:

Apologies. I've only just noticed the typo in the original question. I spent a fair bit of time playing with the wording to get it under the character limit, but I guess I just waved the white flag without sorting it out properly. It should read:

"Why is it that the majority of people who feel the need to debate the existence or otherwise of (a) God(s) are the ones apparently least equipped for mature debate?"

Ashley H:

"you could argue that arguing in the first place about something that is impossible to prove or disprove is pretty immature as well"

A valid point, but one I would contest by again pointing to Dawkins's "Root of All Evil". The central thesis of the series was that, regardless of whether theism is right or wrong (though, of course, Dawkins also argued that it was wrong), the very existence of organised religion was detrimental to humanity. Although (as I have said) I did not approve of the way Dawkins approached it, I think that this is a highly relevant thing to debate, as organised religion plays such a huge role in society. The absence of such a debate would be akin to failing to debate Government policy.

nelson_england:
"And don't assume anything about my intelligence mate" - you seem to take my comments rather personally. My criticism is aimed specifically at the people who make claims/arguments WITHOUT having first considered at both sides and, in many cases, without even fully understanding what they are saying themselves.

As for whether "reasoned debate will work for people devoted to the two poles of the god/no god divide, or perhaps for the agnostics/undecided in the middle?" I agree that there is very little chance of debate influencing those whose ideas are already polarised, but I do not accept that this is necessarily the case for those who are undecided.

Jedi Worm:

I understand how my question could lead one to think I am being arrogant. If you browse my other questions and answers, you may also feel that they support the accusation. I would also concede that the question is highly rhetorical, but nonetheless I have received some thought-provoking answers.

However, I feel that one thing that is truly arrogant is to present arguments without first making an effort to understand them. I generally (though this is something of an exception) try to avoid asking questions of a rhetorical nature; instead, I try to elicit answers that enable me to better understand aspects of the debate that I know little about. I all-to-often get the impression that many people asking questions in "Religion & Spirituality" ask questions to prove a point, but in so doing clearly show a pathetically poor grasp of the issues they are trying to debate.

In my opinion, trying to debate but not bothering to understand is outrageously arrogant.

jamjan100: I prefer the word "cad" myself. Or maybe bounder and rogue...

Answer 1

In my experience on this site I have been surprised by the range of questions and answers given. Despite what YA would have you believe this site is about entertainment and some merely try to provoke. Some of these people are not good at it and go horribly awry, but others bring them back in check. You are accusing others of over generalizing ... yet it is something you do yourself. The best questions are from those who genuinely are seeking an answer to some aspect of another religion they are curious about.

Some entries make me cringe but I also now understand the range of opinions out there. I do not look to YA for hard news and analysis and you should not either.

****Even your apology seemed to generalize or generalise...wink

Answer 2

I have read the God Delusion and found it more mature and less pedantic and banal than the Root of All Evil. I have also read his "Selfish Gene" which I believe is one of the most powerful arguments for evolution and agnosticism and atheism ever written. Although, I share your despair for the state of the debate and debaters. I do believe it is because the rationalists and atheists are fed up and the Christians and evangelicals and moderate theists are becoming more militant. There is, increasingly in America, at least, an attack on rationality and free-thinking. Children are being branded a religion, parents becoming fearful and I lay blame in the schism that has formed in the American public. The political system, for the last 30 years--since the rise of the religious right--has made Democrats anti-american and godless fools, and this ideology is spreading across the globe.
Furthermore, there is very real pressure on the education systems by huge Christian lobbies, and it is angering many people.

I believe the athiests are angry, and the religious see an opportunity. The rationalists fear and religions are attempting to put down the impending uprising.

Answer 3

I consider myself an atheist who is willing to be surprised.
You seem to think that reasoned debate will work for people devoted to the two poles of the god/no god divide, or perhaps for the agnostics/undecided in the middle? Not true. "Reasoned debate" has been tried for two thousand years, and when it comes down to it, Dawkins is right: You are either the believing type, or you are not. Personally, I believe that belief in a god is fine, and it can be quite a noble thing, but EVRY piece of religio-cultural baggage - dogma, prohibitions, fatwas, shibboleths, etc that is added onto the prime fact of god - is a piece of evil intellectual dishonesty and mischief-making and bound to cause trouble, which it most certainly does.

And don't assume anything about my intelligence mate - I have classical education to masters level, and I have been raised as a catholic, wherein my education was philosophical and profound. However, my wider education has brought me to the conclusion that all religious experience is a phenomenon of the mind only, and not connecting to anything outside the self. Also, I find the "logical" arguments for the existence of god - "prime mover", "must have come from somewhere" frankly, rubbish.

Answer 4

The debate about god is an arid one. By it's nature religion is inaccessible to proof. I find the idea of evolution a fascinating one. It contains richness and grandeur which does not detract from the authority of a hypothetical god. There are holes in the theory which may/may not be substantiated by subsequent discoveries. I find the idea that life itself could come from the interaction of lightning, water, nitrogen and whatever else was present in the atmosphere 4B years ago truly awesome. I see no problem in humankind sharing a common ancestry with the apes. To me this presents a much more credible and convincing scenario for the creation than the allegorical version in Genesis. I think we should keep digging and keep our minds open!

Answer 5

An excellent point.

My personal contention is that most of those who try to participate in such debates are practising not religion but religiousity. That's a concept that, among other things, trashes the concept of critical thought.

Without the capacity or willingness to thing critically, one can't see fit to ask questions of religion or or anything else that smacks of authority. And without being able to ask such questions, one really doesn't have the capacity to discuss or debate any topic.

Answer 6

There is proof but why would you listen to it since you have already made your mind up that He doesn't exist. Also that every argument for His existence has to do with dimwitted people who only exercise weak arguments. You are so superior in your enlightenment that you are blinded by your own splendor of your own mind. Wow how brilliant you are, so bright I am fascinated that you couldn't make a better argument for your position. You call yourself intelligent, able to make boisterous claims about something you don't know anything about. You are so proud and lofty in your expressions of thought that if you had come down to earth every once in awhile it was just to show to such pathetic dregs how wonderful and intelligent your thinking is your intellect, your thought processors are simply divine - oh that would make you think that you are something that you don't believe in doesn't it?

Answer 7

Your point is not clear at all.
Beginning with this: "Why do the majority of people that debate the existence of god are (sic) the ones least equipped for mature debate". Both sides of the argument are debating the existence of god, some believe in it, some do not. Which ones do you think are "least equipped" ?
And that's only the beginning of your point not being clearly made...

Answer 8

hmm, bit of a weird one that... you could argue that arguing in the first place about something that is impossible to prove or disprove is pretty immature as well. I do find it rather amusing how pissed off religious types get if you point out a percieved flaw in their beliefs, surely if they were true believers they wouldnt really care? ah well maybe one day GOD (or allah, or thor, or whatever) will come down and say, OY, stop praying, im trying to get some sleep! (u never know...)

Answer 9

It is often driven by curiosity...actually what they do is not debating but more to a sort of asking question but in a rough provocative way...they don't have any idea in some aspects in religion so they create their own before bringing it to be debated hoping that they would find an answer to their inquiries...

Answer 10

Theres no point in debating it
on here if you don`t agree with the Christians they report you
in the real world they stamp their foot and say IT IS TRUE and your going to hell
End of debate
i`m open minded i believe in God but not religion