6 comments

• Comment Link Monday, 06 May 2013 15:57 posted by david bailey

  The best way to win an argument originated from the playground - that is to simply point to the scoreboard. Based on the unopposed empirical evidence presented on the net positive effect based on the acts of the faithful - it is a slam dunk. If one is going to classify "Stalinism", eugenics or any other form of atheism as a religion - then the premise of the debate seems moot. The rest of the debate seemed to be a side show to this central point. It seemed to play to the psychology of the audience - specifically their anti-american, anti-west, anti-religion bias.

• Comment Link Saturday, 04 May 2013 19:39 posted by scott

  Does religion provide truth? Of course not. Religious stories with supernatural phenomenon are morality tales, and are all fictional at the core. Don’t take that on faith. It’s a fact. That said, this debate is not about the truth of religion, but whether it is good for the world, and that is a much harder question to answer.
  
  -- Arguments for a world without religion:
  
  01
  As a species, we might not survive if we continue to practice religion, especially in its more extreme forms. The main problem is that most religions claim to be the only path, at the exclusion of all others. When coupled with divine instructions to share the good word and defend against all other claims, conflict is inevitable. It’s by design: “We’re right and everyone else is wrong.”
  
  02
  Religion often discourages or prohibits scientific inquiry that yields benefits to everyone. Science provides large scale access to food, water, medicine, energy, communications and transportation. Scientific discoveries and inventions reduce suffering and provide higher standards of living. Religion often tells us that these are earthy matters that don’t matter, or that suffering is god’s wrath for sin. It often blames victims for their troubles, or gives people false hope. Religion can be quite cruel.
  
  -- Arguments against a world without religion:
  
  01
  Science provides no means to judge right and wrong behavior, so if we rely exclusively on scientific investigation and statistical analysis to inform public policy, do we not invite economical or efficient decisions over moral ones? No institution, other than religion, teaches morality so effectively as to keep relative peace in society. If we eliminate it, do we not unleash people to act according to their self-interest and the interest of their tribes, with no regard for others? Without self-regulation, imposed by religion, will society begin to collapse and challenge law enforcement in ways we can only imagine?
  
  02
  Supposing the world would be better off without religion, how could get there? If we define religion clearly, make it illegal to teach or practice, the scenario would play right out of a doomsday novel with correct thinking, loyalty oaths, state surveillance, thought police, medical treatment of dissenters, political trials, political prisoners, re-education centers -- a human rights and free thinkers nightmare. Short of that, dispensing with religion is neither expedient nor efficient, and relies on popular recognition that scientific advances provide better solutions and lifestyles than do religious practices. Since a coercive change has too high a human cost and a persuasive change is unlikely to succeed in time to address overpopulation, food and water shortages, global warming, environmental degradation, and nuclear war, a better strategy might be to fund science in the name of doing what is right; The message that we are caretakers of this planet resonates well with some Evangelical Christian groups.

• Comment Link Tuesday, 16 April 2013 15:57 posted by Trevor G

  The biggest issue with this debate is that the idea of what a "religion" is tends to shift every couple of minutes. Is it centered on traditional texts, on communities, a belief in God, or something else? A religious community may have developed a useful set of beliefs that it teaches its members, but if these don't actually arise from God or the texts, then would any of the social implications change without faith in such things?
  
  D'Souza is also massively hypocritical for constantly arguing for the superiority of Christianity (by which he means the West) while attacking Grayling for going after Christianity's failings. It is Christianity, of all the large religions, that most emphasizes the idea the humans are morally flawed and fated to annihilation without a God-king-father. The alledged superiority of Christianity, as evidenced by modern Western society's power, shows only ignorance of the flow of theological, philosophical, and scientific thought between civilizations.
  
  The arguments that atheistic regimes committ atrocities seems to not be an argument against atheism, so much as against totalitarian communism. I can recall that, as a child, I had read enough of world history to understand the atrocities committed in the name of religions throughout the world. When I was twelve or so, my father asked about the same communist regimes mentioned by D'Souza, and I replied, "In those countries, the state is God and communism is the religion."
  
  Certainly, if something like early Daoism can be considered a religion, rather than a philosophy, then so can the faith-based system of Stalinism.

• Comment Link Tuesday, 02 April 2013 15:27 posted by David E

  Pascal is basically correct on this one...
  
  There is nothing worse than a bigot who feels he is doing the "work of God"...

• Comment Link Sunday, 10 February 2013 07:43 posted by jay bee

  where is the debate with Fry and Hitchens.......?

• Comment Link Friday, 27 July 2012 13:38 posted by Josh

  I'm an architect that specializes in design religious institutions. Thank you for providing this rich format that respects both sides of issues and gives a valid system for them to debate in a public forum. I wish other public discourse could be so well handled.