I LIKE TO WATCH DEBATES about religion and atheism, not just to root for the home team, or to help me make up my mind, but because I always learn something more about the world views and stances of the debaters.
"On the other hand, the arguments posed by the pro-religion side all circle a very interesting point."
Some time ago, for instance, I wrote an extensive commentary on a debate between Daniel Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza on the question "Is God a Human Invention?"
I learned an enormous amount, in the process, about the differing rhetorics of the two sides, and the completely different goals they were trying to achieve through the debate process.
I recently ran across another debate at IQ2 , of a completely different kind, presenting Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Anthony Grayling arguing on behalf of the resolution "We'd be better off without religion," and Nigel Spivey, Julia Neuberger, and Roger Scruton opposing.
D'Souza, in the first case, represented a sort of frenetic, right-wing religious approach, taking more the stance of an evangelist or conservative politician than that of an intelligent person genuinely interested in the issue.
The debate at IQ2, on the other hand, provides a view from a different sort of religious perspective.
Each representative of the opposing side has credentials to back them up.
Nigel Spivey teaches Classical Art and Archaeology at Cambridge, Julia Neuberger is a Rabbi at London Liberal Synagogue, and Roger Scruton is a philosopher.
Together, they represent the more reasoned end of the religious spectrum: the moderate or liberal end.
I'll concentrate on their arguments, not because I want to pick on them, but because the atheists in this debate say pretty much what we would expect them to say.
On the other hand, the arguments posed by the pro-religion side all circle a very interesting point.
I'll look at their arguments one at a time, then speak to the common theme in the next few posts:
Next time, Nigel Spivey
argues on two fronts...
