Pharyngula

Posted by: Phodopus | November 8, 2009 2:51 PM

Aww finally, I've been waiting for that!

Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 8, 2009 3:03 PM

I saw this earlier: Steven Fry totally rocked! The results of the vote were well earned.

Posted by: Souljacker | November 8, 2009 3:08 PM

Stephen Fry makes me glad I'm English. Hitchens makes me glad I'm a loud mouthed alcoholic who seems to get some strange kind of sadistic thrill mentally torturing dullards.

Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 8, 2009 3:15 PM

*Stephen

Posted by: intothewild | November 8, 2009 3:26 PM

'twas enjoyable, indeed! thanks!

Posted by: wiley | November 8, 2009 3:37 PM

Boring! The Catholic church WAS a force for good in the world; like when Urban ll called the 1st Crusade, but they apologise for stuff like that now. If it wasn't for Christians like Charles Martel, Urban ll and Jan Sobieski, Europe would have been under Sharia law for centuries; where would your Enlightenment be then? And if it were not for missionaries in Africa, all of that continent would be under Sharia law. Without Catholicism/Christianity, Mexicans may still be into human sacrifice, and cannibalism would be rampant in many parts of the world.
What would be more interesting: 'Is CBM a force for good in the world?' If Atheism wants to claim the Moral High Ground, where's the Atheist equivalent to CBM?

Posted by: Ashley F. Miller | November 8, 2009 3:38 PM

Wow. I always enjoy Mr. Hitchens, but Stephen Fry was unbelievable. More than that, I was really horrified by how bad the people on the Catholic side were. I realize that they don't have much good on their side, but it seemed so transparently obvious.

Posted by: bobxxxx | November 8, 2009 3:40 PM

On the question of whether they are a force of good in the world, I would be undecided.

Wow. You're not too wishy-washy. I guess you don't have a problem with the brainwashing of children in Catholic schools. As one of their victims, I would like to see the complete eradication of the Catholic death cult.

Posted by: Biology Blogger | November 8, 2009 3:49 PM

@#11

Yes there are many ignorant Catholics, but I believe the debate was about the church itself, which accepts evolution.

I am decided because I don't know much about the work they do today. I don't know what goes on in Catholic schools, maybe you would like to say?

Posted by: Sili | November 8, 2009 3:55 PM

Ouch! Now, that is the A-game!

I'm impressed that the poor Bishie didn't break down crying in a corner.

The Hitch wasn't entirely honest in saying that Fry couldn't be a member of the RCC. They do, as the Bish said, embrace sinners. But, yes, Fry would be condemned to Hell, if there was such a thing.

Bishie was missing the point in saying that The Church is made up of the Catholic Communion. In that case, what the Hell is he there for? Does he believe that there is salvation outside the Mother Church? Does the Pope not matter at all? Either he is stupid, or he's intellectually dishonest.

Ah well. Onward to the blonde.

Posted by: a lurker | November 8, 2009 4:11 PM

Damn, Fry presented one of the best performances that I have ever seen.

Are his novels any good? It is a shame he not a non-fiction author.

Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 8, 2009 4:18 PM

In terms of religion keeping it's boundaries to theology, the Catholics have done the best

I'm sure those millions of people dying of AIDS in Africa would disagree with you. Or the women that would like to have abortions covered by the US health plan.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 8, 2009 4:18 PM

how do explain the millions of Catholic evolution deniers?

They're Americans. :-|

Really, where I come from, almost everyone is (to varying degrees) Catholic, but the only cdesign proponentsists are Jehovah's Witlesses.

where would your Enlightenment be then?

Who knows?

Perhaps you should take into account that the Enlightenment was first and foremost an anticlerical movement.

Without Catholicism/Christianity, Mexicans may still be into human sacrifice, and cannibalism would be rampant in many parts of the world.

Without the Conquista, you mean. That's something Christianity had little to do with, loudly proclaimed though it was at every opportunity; try "greed" next time.

Posted by: ChrisKG1 | November 8, 2009 4:22 PM

Does anyone have an MP3 of this?

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 8, 2009 4:26 PM

I'm fairly certain I've come across creationist Catholics in Australia before.

Posted by: Outlaw | November 8, 2009 4:32 PM

I broke it down into precents for you guys.

Before...

31% FOR
51% AGAINST
16% UNDECIDED

And after...

12% FOR
88% AGAINST
1.5% UNDECIDED

I know they don't quite add up to 100% but I did my best.

Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 8, 2009 4:34 PM

I'm not sure at this point which pairing I like better, Fry & Hitchens, or Fry & Laurie.

Posted by: bobxxxx | November 8, 2009 4:35 PM

I don't know what goes on in Catholic schools, maybe you would like to say?

Christ died for your sins.
Christ died for your sins.
Christ died for your sins.
Christ died for your sins.
Christ died for your sins.
Christ died for your sins.
Christ died for your sins.
Christ died for your sins.

And so on, millions of times this is drilled into little children every year.

Catholic nuns are stupid assholes.

Posted by: apoLOLgetics | November 8, 2009 4:36 PM

"Oh, you WOULD bring that up, wouldn't you? Well, that's not very sporting of you, old chap!"

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 8, 2009 4:40 PM

Boring! The Catholic church WAS a force for good in the world; like when Urban ll called the 1st Crusade, but they apologise for stuff like that now. If it wasn't for Christians like Charles Martel, Urban ll and Jan Sobieski, Europe would have been under Sharia law for centuries; where would your Enlightenment be then? And if it were not for missionaries in Africa, all of that continent would be under Sharia law. Without Catholicism/Christianity, Mexicans may still be into human sacrifice, and cannibalism would be rampant in many parts of the world.

aah, the smell of historical revisionism in the morning....

nevermind that Islam during the Middle Ages was positively liberal when compared to Europe, and only turned it's back on progress when Islamic countries started falling to Christians, and thus Islam started feeling threatened and regressed.

Nevermind that the Crusades spawned such atrocious things as the Chrildren's Crusade

Nevermind that "cannibalism" is a myth in most places, and in the few places where it wasn't it was mostly a burial tradition, i.e. they were eating people who were already dead. No one was boiled alive in giant cauldrons with nude "savages" dancing and singing around it.

Nevermind that Christians practiced human sacrifice in form of witch burnings etc.

Nevermind that the Conquista and its descendants killed far more American Natives than died from ritual human sacrifice.

Nevermind that in the deep reaches of Africa, Islam isn't any more deadly and dangerous than Christianity, with its modern witchhunts

Posted by: Newfie | November 8, 2009 4:42 PM

At the 4:30 of the 4th video, the Archbishop makes the point himself, that his father and other Africans knew the principals of morality, before they became Christian. Hitchens throws up his hands as if to say, "There, you just made my point for me."
You'd think that an Archbishop would be able to make strong arguments for his position, but he was ineffectual.

Posted by: Irene Delse | November 8, 2009 4:49 PM

Er, guys, about the RCC keeping their theology from interfering with science and supporting evolution... It might not last. There are at least some very disquieting signs that the current pope is closer to supporting ID than his predecessor. And then, there is this:

http://headlinebistro.typepad.com/headlinebistro/2009/10/a-upcoming-scientific-conference-plans-to-defeat-darwin.html

So, a Vatican university is preparing to host a "scientific conference" with the goal of "defeating" Darwin... What does it remind us of, again?

Posted by: Sili | November 8, 2009 4:52 PM

I've only read The Liar and The Hippopotamus by Fry. Both of them eminently readable. The former a bit tough on me, but I'm kinda slow, the latter ... may be a tad 'controversial' for some people.

Somewhere I have The Stars' Tennisballs, but I have yet to read it. That one, though, was my introduction to Fry as an author, since I saw him on Parkinson saying something along the lines of "Then I had the most horrid realisation: I've just written The Count of Monte Christo!"

(Yay! Embedded <em>-tags!)

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | November 8, 2009 4:58 PM

A lurker, apart from the autobiography already mentioned, Fry has written several non-fiction books. A history of classical music, a guide to writing poetry, one about conservation. He also blogs and writes columns about techie toys.

Go to http://www.stephenfry.com/

Posted by: Anon | November 8, 2009 5:00 PM

Fry was tapped by the Douglas Adams estate to revisit DA's "Last Chance To See", if you want non-fiction.

Posted by: Aquaria | November 8, 2009 5:03 PM

On the question of whether they are a force of good in the world, I would be undecided.

You're out of your fucking gourd.

Please. The no contraception doctrine is utterly and unforgivably inhumane. Because they have such a monstrous fear and loathing of basic human desire and the human body, the church dehumanizes sex, and makes women pay the price for sexual desire with their very bodies. It doesn't matter if birth impoverishes you or kills you. Nope, you do the mating dance, you download a kid. Want to know the origin of the church's continued misogyny? Look no further than their no contraception doctrine. Women are supposed to be popping out babies every year or less, to provide more fresh meat to fill the pews.

The no contraception doctrine is the root of the blatant lies the church is telling in Africa about condoms causing AIDS. They couldn't scare enough people with the rational claim that condoms might not be entirely effective, so they decided to simply lie that condoms cause it. This is lying on an epic scale, but they have to do it--to product their batshit insane doctrine. People who use condoms are also preventing birth, y'know. Meanwhile, millions suffer and die. How is this in any way, shape or form "good"?

Their breedeer doctrine is also a huge factor in their homophobia. Why... not keeping homosexuals in the cloisert means that there were will be fewer efforts made at breeding! If people don't breed, the church won't have legions of fresh new brains to corrupt! That won't do!

And of course, let's not forget the breeder doctrine's role in blocking stem cell research in this country, or such recent scandals as the Magdalene sisters, the Christian brothers, the child-raping priests around the globe... Think about it--their hatred of human sexuality is at the root of every single one of these issues.

Anyone with an ounce of rational humanity cannot be undecided about how the RCC is insane and inhumane. Whatever good they do is annihilated by the bad they bring into the world.

Posted by: idlemind | November 8, 2009 5:24 PM

The term "Apologist" just seems so appropriate...

Posted by: raven | November 8, 2009 5:26 PM

BB:

It's American protestantism that is fighting scientific facts, not that it changes the fact that it's

That is not quite correct. Most mainline Protestant sects don't have a problem with evolution. Even the Mormons teach it at their university.

It's the fundie cults.

There is no such thing as a xian or xianity anyway. The various sects have evolved too far away from each other and speciated. There are now a variety of religions that have little or nothing in common except they all claim to be "xianity". That is why the ecomenical movement had some but not a lot of success. The divisions are too great. And why all the sects hate each other.

Posted by: raven | November 8, 2009 5:37 PM

aquaria:

Please. The no contraception doctrine is utterly and unforgivably inhumane.

Your are correct. It is so obviously stupid and evil that the members have long ago decided to ignore it and the priests. The Catholic birth rate in the US and Europe is identical to the national averages. Like most sane and responsible adults, they plan their families.

The no contraception policy is also a modern invention thought up by supposed male virgins a few hundred years ago. With no biblical support. If they had a married clergy, I doubt it would have lasted too long if the priests had to try and support a dozen or so kids.

Posted by: gettingfree | November 8, 2009 5:41 PM

When I was a Christian for many years, I never felt driven to worship. It was always a chore.

As an atheist, is it wrong for me to say that I feel compelled to worship Hitchens every time I see him debate? :)

Posted by: StevePr | November 8, 2009 5:46 PM

The laws in these countries, and her youth, make it impossible for her to refuse sex (or rape) and she cannot control the faithfulness of her owner/husband
Unfortunately the laws in that country wouldn't allow her to use a condom either if her husband didn't agree. There are two evils here. Allowing the subjugation of women, something the Catholic Church has ever been in favour of, and promoting abstinence as a cure, along with the hokey that condoms cause aids.

The debate was very good but the Catholic church picked the wrong two to debate their position.

Posted by: Alan E. | November 8, 2009 5:57 PM

I love how the Archbishop at the end argues a technicality. I prefer the burglar analogy that was brought up before.

Posted by: not a gator | November 8, 2009 6:11 PM

@bio blogger:

So that whole objecting to stem cell research thing and that whole objecting to any abortion whatsoever including early first term and even in cases of rape thing and that whole objecting to Plan B because it's an alleged abortifacient (it's not) thing and that whole objecting to Gardicil because it's bad for young girls (???) thing and that whole Terri Schiavo thing don't count as not sticking to theology?

I grew up in a heavily Catholic area (the Northeast) and was raised Catholic and believe me, if they believe anything, the American prelates believe they have some sort of special insight into bioethics. They cause untold mischief on account of this belief. Unfortunately, their information is biased, incomplete, and out of date, not to mention distorted by idiotic medieval concepts like insoulation.

I would dearly love to question a bishop about the insoulation of identical twins and the insoulation of chimeras (much more common than once thought). A chimera is formed by two separate conceived embryos fusing into one person. More proof that their superior ethical guidance is in fact morally bankrupt. You lose, go to the back of the line and STFU.

Posted by: Voltaire | November 8, 2009 6:16 PM

A shame it was shortened. I hope the whole debate emerges soon. We can only speculate whether it has any impact.

The timing was great since the Catholic Church announced just a week or so ago that the congregants for whom the bigotry of the Church of England isn't enough are welcome to the Catholic Church.

BTW. PZ is mentioned here by Bill Donoghue in a recent radio apperance on 'Opie & Anthony'

@4:30 on...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et2MAG1LFCc

Posted by: Draken | November 8, 2009 6:28 PM

They should have had Father Ted on the panel. I'm not certain on which side though.

Posted by: Sastra | November 8, 2009 6:36 PM

Just watched the debate, and yes, it was as promised.

I especially liked Anne Widdencombe emphasizing the "hope and salvation" which Catholicism brings to the world, as if this was going to be a deep and meaningful point in favor. No.

First, you'd already have to be a Catholic to think that this is what Catholicism contributes to the world. And, second, the remedies address problems that the Christian religion invents. Before you are grateful that you're not going to have to go to Hell after all, they first need to tell you that there IS a Hell, and that you deserve to go there, and that you ARE going there -- and that they, and only they, have the remedy for that, if you do everything they say. Then the gratitude just pours in.

First they cut you, then they give you a band-aid. No, this is not a winning debate point.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 8, 2009 6:52 PM

If everyone ignores the teaching, how can it be responsible for gazillions of deaths in Africa? Or aren't Africans "sane and responsible" ... ?

Education & access, Piltdown - as you well know but are being intellectual dishonest about (as usual). European members of the church (I won't use the term 'Christian', since it's about as accurate to describe the majority of them as that as it is the gum tree in my backyard) know what contraception is, what it does and doesn't do - and (importantly) can still go to the nearest pharmacy and pick up a pack of Jimmy Hats when they need them.

That the church is lying to people who don't know better and can't find out the truth, and preventing them from getting their hands on things that will save millions of lives is a monstrous act - but perfectly in line with the history of Christian (particularly Catholic) anti-human behaviour.

Posted by: Anonym | November 8, 2009 6:57 PM

Martin Luther was clearly (even if unconsciously) the cat's paw of the German barons.

Posted by: Peter Beattie | November 8, 2009 6:59 PM

Does anyone have a link to a complete, preferably high-quality, download of the debate?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 8, 2009 7:04 PM

Oh, wait, the Hoax likes to think he is pithy and witty.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 8, 2009 7:08 PM

Lyin' Lion, still no evidence for your diety, babble, or dogma. What a loser you are, as evidence rulz, religion droolz. Nothing but blather.

Posted by: EricB | November 8, 2009 7:14 PM

Watched all five segments of the debate on YouTube. I appreciated hearing from both sides, I appreciate the faith the Bishop has in his church, I loved the factual information provided by Hitchens and Fry. What I found really disingenuous was the ARGUEMENTS from the MP. She started off by saying that the other side was going to bring up condoms and gays....wow, isn’t that the point of a debate....bring up the fallacies or gaps in the other sides arguments...she was such a tool and may have been the sole reason why so many people jumped ship by the end of the debate. I cannot believe it was the arguments of Hitchens or Fry that did all the work, and I believe Hitchens left much out there that he could have crushed especially from the MP....and I may feel that way because I did not get to see the entire debate uncut. She is a horrible person to have providing your side of the debate. I am glad they made her look like such a fool.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 8, 2009 7:15 PM

The RCC doesn't have a problem with Greek Orthodox theology. The differences between the two churches are political.

Well, they have one theological problem with each other: Charlemagne added one word, filioque, to the Nicene Creed, so that the Holy Spirit now comes from the Father "and from the Son".

You might think that this sort of detail is something that even theologians would happily declare themselves agnostic on. But they're not scientists. They're theologians. They cannot bear the possibility of the thought that they don't know their own subject matter in excruciating* detail.

* Pun intended – there's a cross in that word.

Besides, the Orthodox concept is comparatively egalitarian, in that there are several patriarchs (historically Constantinople, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem; nowadays Moscow, Belgrade, Bucharest, Sofia etc. etc.), among which the one of Constantinople is merely some sort of "first among equals" who gets the greatest respect. The Catholic concept, of course, is that the bishop of Rome is The Boss™, second only to God (a position historically contended by some French kings, see Gallicanism, but I digress).

Or aren't Africans "sane and responsible" ... ?

They're for the most part poor, therefore uneducated, therefore ignorant. They don't know better than the priests.

Now don't tell me this has never occurred to yourself.

Greek Orthodox = Protestants with a liturgy.

LOL. They don't believe in sola fides, they don't believe in sola scriptura, they have no problem with declaring people saints, and so on and so forth. For "protestants with a liturgy", maybe try Low Church Anglicans, or Broad Church ones, though I'm not too familiar with that stuff. Orthodoxy is more like "Catholics with another liturgy" (...for literal cases of that, see the Uniate churches, like the Greek Catholics).

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 8, 2009 7:17 PM

"A clutch of hysterical sinister virgins"...Jesus Jorge!

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | November 8, 2009 7:17 PM

Dear Brother and Sister Atheists,

Praise Jesus for Ann Widdecombe, a pious polymath for Jesus and deserved winner of the debate we have all so much enjoyed. Don't let the "Maggie Thatcher in a fat suit" look fool you, Ann's the real deal. She doesn't just preach it, she practices it!

Homosexuals? She hates 'em!
Women? Grow a penis if you want to be a pseudo-Jesus!
Raped children? Get over it, nobody else cared about you back then either!
Condoms? Satan's balloons, lubricated with essence of HIV!
Poor people? You'll be rich in the afterlife...heh... heh...

With honey's like Ann in the ONE TRUE CHURCH, you can't be surprised that people are flocking back to the Pontifical banner, beginning with the Church of England's shit encrusted reactionary ass.

Even my brother in Christ, Piltdown Man, has an erotic picture of Ann on the back of his toilet door to help him with his Catholic calisthenics. It's well known that when one struggles every day with demonic desires to masturbate and get friendly with the neighbour's livestock, a sharp cold dousing in sweat of Widdecombe has a puritanically bracing effect.

Anyway, here's my review of the evening:

THOUGHTS UPON WATCHING CATHOLIC HUMILIATION

When Christ's left your heart's broken door,
And your two plus two don't equal four,

Place your trust in the Pope of Saint Ann,
For he's drafted a marvelous plan,

To do good in the world (for a fee,
Paid in souls, stolen gold and disease).

Which they would, if there wasn't a Hitch,
Interfering with Pope Benny's pitch,

That all sinner's, like Stephen, we'll stone,
And all thinkers we'll crush neath the throne,

Of that hairy old bastard, Saint Pete,
Who had fish guts and crap on his feet,

Not silk slippers of pederast gold,
Nor the robes of some eunuch of old.

And our catch-cry will be that, back then,
We knew no more of life than most men,

But, see, "infallible" is contingent,
On when popular thought's most astringent,

Thus we'll duck and we'll swoop and we'll dive,
And we'll keep our Old Whore half alive,

By injecting umbilical blood,
From the Christ Child's own little flood

Of restorative, holy elixir
Transubstantiated, so it will fix her,

For another few years of bad news
For faggots, sick mothers, and Jews.

AMEN

Smoggy Batzrubble
Missionary to the Atheists

Posted by: cafeeine | November 8, 2009 7:24 PM

'Tis Himself @67

*None of this modern "Istanbul" stuff for the Greek Orthodox.

I'd say it has less to do with the 'Orthodox' part, but with the Greek. Ever since the early 19th century Greek independence revolt, Asia Minor was (subtly and not-so subtly) been promoted as the 'lost Greek empire', which it tried and failed to regain in early 20th century. Most former Greek settlements in Asia Minor are referred to by their Greek names.

On topic, I watched the 'debate' as soon as it was on YT, and it was delicious. Fry stole the show.

With regards to smart catholics, I believe a measure of their intelligence was that they stayed the hell away from this massacre,

Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 8, 2009 7:28 PM

Haha, we have quite a few trolls today. Both pilty the fraud and lyin' jerk.
To bad in that crowd they'd be reduced to just the small noise making duo that they are here.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 8, 2009 7:30 PM

Lyin' Lion, when one side has no evidence, the usually lose. The religion side has no evidence, just like you. Therefore, they, like you, are losers.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 8, 2009 7:36 PM

Lion IRC, you seem to think others should debate while you yourself are too cowardly to do so - how about you stop being a hypocrite and present some arguments to support your position for a change?

Or will you just run away again, crapping yourself in fear?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 8, 2009 7:40 PM

Lyin' Lion, it is easy to debate here. You simply start out "This is what I believe, and this is the evidence to back it up". But we both know why you are afraid to do that...

Posted by: al brownlee | November 8, 2009 7:49 PM

First time poster, long time lurker from England. Love the blog PZ, keep up the good work!

In relation to the IS debate - Widdicombe is a pratling Tory nincompoop, the Bishop an god bothering idiot, Hitchins an all round good guy, and Fry makes me proud to be English.

Best,

Al

Posted by: Vincent Poffley | November 8, 2009 7:56 PM

I posted this on RichardDawkins.net earlier this evening, but I think it definitely deserves to be shared here too. Some early christmas cheer from everybody's favourite catholic battleaxe, courtesy of Victoria Wood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ywPDqWrHU

See, she was just this crazy back in 1999 when she was shadow Home Secretary (and before she had converted to catholicism). Didn't look quite as much like a possessed sack of beetles then though. Apologies to all the US residents who don't get the decade-old British references to William Hague and Zoe Ball.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 8, 2009 8:00 PM

David Marjanović, OM #86

You might think that this sort of detail is something that even theologians would happily declare themselves agnostic on. But they're not scientists. They're theologians. They cannot bear the possibility of the thought that they don't know their own subject matter in excruciating* detail.

Theologians not only argue about how many angels dance on the heads of pins, they argue about whether the angels are doing a minuet or a waltz.

Posted by: not a gator | November 8, 2009 8:05 PM

he's intellectually dishonest.

I'll take intellectually dishonest for $300, Alex. Recall his (failed) attempts at populist distraction (the multinationals are the *real* enemy!) and his strong offense when asked for a mite of self reflection (the "what are you ashamed of" question).

And yes, Widdecombe is a foul creature. Btw, her silly natural law argument in defense of all-male priesthood was a real headscratcher. A man can give birth, but how does a virgin?

Posted by: Piltdown Man | November 8, 2009 8:13 PM

not a gator @ 105:

Do you think Africans lack theology, moral philosophy, or world view without alien influence?

Huh? I thought they were "for the most part poor, therefore uneducated, therefore ignorant" ...

+ + +

Future convert.

Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 8, 2009 8:24 PM

I thought they were "for the most part poor, therefore uneducated, therefore ignorant" ...

I guess the word ignorant has different connotations to different people, but the way I've always used it, the word carries an implication of choice. In other words, somebody is ignorant if they "should have known better" but not if they had no access to the knowledge in question (which is why ignorance is considered negative, or at least something to take responsibility for). I don't know if that's simply the way I was taught or if it has to do with the fact that the word has the same root as ignore, but that's how I've always used and understood the word.

Posted by: Porco Dio | November 8, 2009 8:25 PM

bye bye religion...

Posted by: not a gator | November 8, 2009 8:30 PM

Even my brother in Christ, Piltdown Man, has an erotic picture of Ann on the back of his toilet door to help him with his Catholic calisthenics. It's well known that when one struggles every day with demonic desires to masturbate and get friendly with the neighbour's livestock, a sharp cold dousing in sweat of Widdecombe has a puritanically bracing effect.

Spittake.

You win, Smoggy. I present you one Internet (accept no imitations, limited free trial offer, payments due after 30 days, all rights reserved, offer void in MN, NV, and SSK).

Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 8, 2009 8:32 PM

Pilty, you're just pissed that Hitch and Fry made mincemeat of the stupid apologists.
Will you for once in your entire life be honest and admit it?
I didn't think so.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 8, 2009 8:36 PM

Huh? I thought they were "for the most part poor, therefore uneducated, therefore ignorant" ...

Now you're just being silly. First, you can't ascribe my opinions to not a gator – lacking a church organization or even just a dogma, we Pharyngulites don't even pretend to all think alike, so you can't generalize from one to all. Second, it is dead obvious that I meant "ignorant about how a condom works", not "ignorant about absolutely everything".

Did Hammurabi's Code come from Ishtar?

I thought Shamash? That's the dude that hands the laws out on the famous phallus pillar on which the laws are inscribed.

(And by the way, the "sh" is probably [s], and the "s" is probably [ts]. The usual transcription is based on a pecularity of Hebrew.)

Hey fucknuts, every time you say "Happy Easter," you're worshiping Ishtar.

Would surprise me. Try Aurora first.

the way I've always used it, the word carries an implication of choice.

Maybe I'm just doing it wrong. German distinguishes unwissend, literally "unknowing", from ignorant – the latter, and only the latter, is an insult. I was trying to imply the former.

Posted by: not a gator | November 8, 2009 8:42 PM

@120

Shamash? Sure. Let's go with that. I don't know much more about Hammurabi than I learned in 9th grade. I picked Ishtar because she stars in Gilgamesh smiting people and stuff or throwing tantrums or something, I don't recall, and also for humor because as Asherah she is the consort of Yahweh, worshipped in groves called asherot, one more thing the RCC and some Gilette-boycotting rabbis don't want you to know about.

Posted by: Groo | November 8, 2009 8:59 PM

I have a very general opinion that all organizations are corrupt unless they have great motivation for truth finding. The Catholic Church is just a Big Monster with little motivation or truth seeking. Combine that with other anomalies...

Posted by: Michael Dickens | November 8, 2009 9:23 PM

These debates should be structured more like LD or Policy debates. You know, with definitions, constructive/rebuttal rounds, etc. I don't know how that would affect their popularity, but I think I'd get more out of it.

Posted by: waspbloke | November 8, 2009 9:27 PM

'scuse me...

these catholics seem to be broken, have you got any that work?

Posted by: Sir Craig | November 8, 2009 9:47 PM

Petty sniping among the other commenters aside, this was an excellent debate if you happen to think a Mini Cooper going head-to-head with a diesel locomotive is an example of an even match: the archbishop and the Tory MP were completely out-gunned and out-classed every step of the way. This was such a lopsided debate that the Catholic apologists might as well have not bothered to show up, which means that the real question is who, between Hitchens and Fry, gave the best case against the RCC.

It cannot be denied that Hitchens was passionate in his attacks, but his arguments were the same old same old: no less effective as the apologists had nothing to counter them (other than whining about Hitchens bringing them up, which Fry countered beautifully), but nothing new either. Stephen Fry, on the other hand, brought forth actual experience: Eyewitness testimony to the actual destructiveness of Vatican policies. Hitchens attitude alone could well have alienated enough of the audience to shift their sympathies towards the apologists, but Fry's testimony visibly moved the audience back to the rational.

Stephen Fry for the win.

By the way, this debate should be likewise awesome.

Posted by: RagingBullwinkle | November 8, 2009 10:24 PM

Never thought it would be possible to admire Stephen Fry more, but that debate proved me wrong. He was truly amazing. He even managed to make Hitchens look better just by sitting there.

Anne Widdencombe seems to have taken a page from Bill Donahue's book on how to play the victim who is constantly attacked. Onaiyekan is just plain blind.

Posted by: Shamar | November 8, 2009 10:51 PM

Yeah, I watched that debate last night. I thoroughly enjoyed it :-)

Posted by: Muzz | November 8, 2009 11:02 PM

Geez, I've heard Anne Widdencombe speak before, but only on TV. When she's public speaking though she goes into singy/screechy church voice. Like nails on a blackboard.

Posted by: bossmanham | November 8, 2009 11:17 PM

Haha, yeah it was funny that one time William Lane Craig totally pwned Hitchens too...and every other atheist he has ever debated...ever.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 8, 2009 11:27 PM

Too bad they couldn't have fit another billion or so in the room...as effective as Fry and Hitchens were, I'm amazed that so many people changed their minds. Usually reason does not win the day.
Yesterday, I was with my daughter at the playground of the school that she will probably be attending. The school is pretty run down, a fact made all the more apparent by the affluence of the three churches surrounding it. I'm a natural grouser, and the imbalance in prioritties put me in a snit. The debate has almost reversed my pissy mood. Almost.

Posted by: wiley | November 9, 2009 12:28 AM

@the apologist for cannibalism #40: yeah, we just had a witch-burnin' up at the church.
To find out how liberal Islam was in the Middle Ages, I recommend Andrew Bostom's 'Legacy of Jihad'.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 9, 2009 1:05 AM

Geez, I've heard Anne Widdencombe speak before, but only on TV. When she's public speaking though she goes into singy/screechy church voice. Like nails on a blackboard.

I had this running on another tab and wasnt watching it when she started speaking, had to had a look to make sure it's not Dame Edna !!

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 9, 2009 1:16 AM

yeah, we just had a witch-burnin' up at the church.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33356826/

Posted by: not a gator | November 9, 2009 1:28 AM

@133

Okay, I'd take the Eos theory as "possible, not plausible", but wiki says Aurora is basically just a literary personification which is associated with--but not actually derived from--Eos. The Romans did borrow a famous Eos story and rewrite it with Aurora, hence the post-renaissance art pics.

Okay. I see the connection now. I was just agog at what looked like tying an ancient solar/fertility rite to the Roman equivalent of a manga character or a courthouse bas relief. It was like saying Thanksgiving is the day we worship the Statue of Liberty.

Posted by: MikeM | November 9, 2009 1:35 AM

I saw only the first two. The 'Lics were down big-time already, and since you gave us the final score, well, I'll get back to the rest later.

But that first fifth... Go Hitchens! But one point: Who's his hair-stylist? I want to know, so I don't have to go there.

Petty, childish... Sorry. But seriously, I don't think it'd kill him to wear a tie. The final score would have been a bigger rout if he had.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 9, 2009 1:50 AM

Rorschach,

Then she gave this "like a man being the virgin mary" later

Posted by: Rorschach | November 9, 2009 2:16 AM

While I find this debate interesting, its really all opinions, appeals to emotions, and logical fallacies. Does it really establish anything?

Water is cold, hot, warm or lukewarm. Discuss.

Posted by: Thedepressingstatistician | November 9, 2009 2:24 AM

Just as there is with your water (temperature), there is a way of quantifying such a discussion so that it is actually meaningful as opposed to "They think I am evil and that hurts my feelings."

That's anecdotal. Both sides presented anecdotal evidence. It may as well have been a jousting match, as it would have established just as much.

Posted by: OurSally | November 9, 2009 2:31 AM

>People who use condoms are also preventing birth, y'know. Meanwhile, millions suffer and die. How is this in any way, shape or form "good"?

You are missing the point entirely. According to Mother Teresa, every child which is born into poverty and then dies is another soul in heaven to sing the glory of god. The more souls, the better.

The logic is so simple.

Posted by: Treppenwitz | November 9, 2009 2:38 AM

While I find this debate interesting, its really all opinions, appeals to emotions, and logical fallacies. Does it really establish anything?

Well ... no. This debate can pretty much be summed up as "here are some terrible things the church has done" versus "I wish you hadn't mentioned those things."

A more thorough investigation of the motion would require a more complete description of the effects of the Catholic church's existence, then defining and defending criteria by which to evaluate the data. Neither side really attempted that latter bit.

Posted by: Thedepressingstatistician | November 9, 2009 2:41 AM

That's exactly what I was getting at.

It seemed to be "hurt feelings all around" as opposed to an actual academic debate.

To think people would base a decision off of that is what scares me the most.

Posted by: Andrew | November 9, 2009 2:51 AM

I read an article/review about this that said Fry was nervous and less avuncular than his past self. I will never trust that journalist again! Stephen Fry was on top form. Humble and convincing.

Posted by: Crewvy | November 9, 2009 3:06 AM

Maybe if they sent Ann to Africa ,they would`nt have a need for condoms there.

Posted by: raven | November 9, 2009 3:18 AM

yeah, we just had a witch-burnin' up at the church.

Witches are usually hung in the USA. It is hard to get a permit from the EPA due to the smoke, the global warming people complain, and during the summer the fire department doesn't like it.

In other parts of the world they just hack away with machetes.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 9, 2009 4:24 AM

I finally had time to sit down and watch the whole thing; damn, I didn't think it was possible for me to like Stephen Fry any more than I already did, but after that piece of apologist floor-mopping he's leapt even higher in my estimation.

Posted by: booger | November 9, 2009 5:08 AM

Its so nice to see Hitchens introduced as a journalist and writer and not just "Athiest."

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 9, 2009 5:26 AM

which means that the real question is who, between Hitchens and Fry, gave the best case against the RCC.

I think they made a very good team that wouldn't have worked as well seperately, Fry being all self effacing and personal and Hitchens dealing with the coldly logical facts.

I do however vote for Fry.

Posted by: Ellie | November 9, 2009 5:39 AM

Ooops. Italics tag close Fail, "net" was the operative word there.

Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | November 9, 2009 6:40 AM

What would be more interesting: 'Is CBM a force for good in the world?

CBM? Chips, bacon and a mug of tea?

Posted by: Treppenwitz | November 9, 2009 6:57 AM

Christian Blind Mission, perhaps.

Posted by: Beaker | November 9, 2009 7:14 AM

Darn you to heck PZ, I forgot just how irritating Ann Widdecombe's voice is. How does anyone get that many nails on a blackboard?

Posted by: Rewarp | November 9, 2009 8:14 AM

Thank you for the fine debate. I learnt a lot today about methods to trump all delusions in general (since I live in a Muslim majority country instead, I will have to modify some points of the debate in my own debates).

Among them, how does an organization maintain the right to prescribe morality, if it only follows the moral norms of the era?

Why I should start watching more videos by Stephen Fry.

And why I should start buying books written by Stephen Fry.

Yours gratefully.

Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | November 9, 2009 8:21 AM

Jadehawk, OM #40

No one was boiled alive in giant cauldrons with nude "savages" dancing and singing around it.

Research Madagascar and Queen Ranavalona, (e.g. Last Travels by Ida Pfeiffer and ,er, bring a bucket.

Posted by: Cogito | November 9, 2009 8:29 AM

The audience response should be taken with a grain of salt, since intelligent people were overrepresented.

Posted by: SmilingSkeptic | November 9, 2009 8:59 AM

I thought they stopped throwing Christians to the lions centuries ago...

Posted by: clausentum | November 9, 2009 9:28 AM

I don't want to spoil the fun, but the judgment on the RCC is I guess all based on the assumption that it would be replaced with a brave new world of high-morality, non-judgmental free-thinking atheism, or at least with a benign form of islam. The possibility that the potential for religiosity that exists in the average human psyche might lead to other, much grimmer scenarios is not allowed.

Posted by: ButchKitties | November 9, 2009 9:42 AM

@Andyo #173

That's why I took the trouble of writing to the local bishop and declaring Actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica. For all I know the Church still counts me among its membership, but at least I have told them, in writing, that I do not want to be counted as a member in an organization that has systematically and without apology sheltered child rapists and denied impoverished people such life-saving measures as condoms. It was unconscionable for me to maintain any relationship, even a nominal one, with such an immoral organization.

Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | November 9, 2009 10:06 AM

I apologise for last part of comment 191, got a bit carried away there. Such virulence uncalled for.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | November 9, 2009 10:47 AM

#193

Which is like saying what we feel about Nazi policies doesn't matter in any objective sense. You are wanking.

The condoms issue has direct results, including overpopulation and the spread of a deadly disease that is killing off a fair chunk of the continent, particularly in my country, South Africa.

That is not hurt feelings all around.

Posted by: Charmedquark | November 9, 2009 10:52 AM

In these debates the mysterions/theists often raise the issue of the foundation of morality needing to have come from their god. Which in the case of Christian apologists is always Yahweh although for some reason they just usually want to talk about his boy Joshua so as to ignore Yahweh's thirst for genocide, foreskins, 32 virgins etc....

It would be nice to see more arguments based on neuroscience to refute the theists assertion that morality is not related to nature or evolution. V.S. Ramichandran, Robert Sapolsky and many others have raised some very interesting points as to our current understanding of the origins of what modern humans view as moral behavior.

Also many Christians argue that Yahweh through Jesus brought us the "Golden Rule". In fact documentation of teachings regarding the benefits of altruistic behavior and empathy dates back well before then with Confucious, Budha and the Egyptians with stories such as the "Tale of the Eloquent Peasant".

Posted by: piero | November 9, 2009 11:08 AM

#193

"Any debate which refers to morality is, by necessity, going to be a debate of opinion."

Not so. There are objective, biological reasons for morality. Have a look at atheistethicist.blogspot.com

Posted by: toth | November 9, 2009 11:31 AM

Hitchens is magnificent as always, and Fry reminds me why I love him so much. This was no debate, it was a massacre.

You could do a lot worse than invest in the boxed set of "A Bit of Fry and Laurie".

Also "Jeeves & Wooster", starring Fry and Laurie as P.G. Wodehouse's characters of the same name.

Posted by: Dr. I. Needtob Athe | November 9, 2009 11:46 AM

With all the money the Catholic Church has, you'd think they'd buy that Nigerian Archbishop a pair of glasses that reached his ears.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 9, 2009 12:24 PM

That most certainly is the case. Now that we have established that, quantify it, compare it, and then proceed to say that the catholic church is not a net force for good in the world. Until that happens, it is hurt feelings all around, I am afraid.

Tell me, what are the SI units used for measuring homophobia and misogyny ?

Posted by: kopd | November 9, 2009 12:37 PM

Now that we have established that, quantify it, compare it, and then proceed to say that the catholic church is not a net force for good in the world.

As somebody said in the older post about this debate series, we shouldn't be looking for "net good". You don't save 3 lives and murder one in cold blood and say that on the balance you're a good person. Especially when the practices that are causing harm are still ongoing. If they were to stop being a misogynistic, homophobic institution that preys on the uneducated, then we can have a discussion about whether the Reformed RCC (assuming that name isn't taken already) is a force for good.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | November 9, 2009 12:49 PM

Treppenwitz (@53):

As for the debate itself, I wish it were longer and without the mostly pointless audience participation; the format allowed for almost no depth.

I haven't had a chance to watch this particular debate yet, but I've downloaded a couple of the previous I² debates from audible.com, and it's worth noting that these events are, first and foremost, popular entertainments. The one on the resolution monogamy is bad for the soul, for instance, was vastly entertaining, and even intellectually stimulating, but in no way represented a careful, scholarly examination of the question. Take this format for what it's worth.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 9, 2009 12:55 PM

If it can be quantifiably shown that Nazi policies have a detrimental effect on aspects of society, that matters in an objective sense.

Good point... now explain to me how this wasn't clearly demonstrated in Hitchens' or Fry's arguments?

This is what is trying to be explained to you... the arguments were not simply anecdotal appeals to emotion... they were quite real, substantive references to actual events and policies that support an argument against the catholic church as a force for good in the world.

Now that we have established that, quantify it, compare it, and then proceed to say that the catholic church is not a net force for good in the world. Until that happens, it is hurt feelings all around, I am afraid.

You say that as if it hasn't already been done...

I must ask you... are you really trying to argue that the position that the catholic church is NOT a force for good in the world is merely an emotional one?

Posted by: Jack | November 9, 2009 1:15 PM

Sastra, I know you're not proposing that the "Catholic excuse" you outlined is in any way justifiable, but it did remind me of how I like to deal with that excuse when it is presented sincerely. Which is sort of like this:

The CatholicsNazis are at a serious disadvantage in any public debate about whether they do good in the world, because the only type of "good" that will count must meet secular non-fascist standards. They can't plead that they have their own special understanding of reality which makes condemning homosexuality invading other countries or discouraging the use of condoms murdering Jews the right thing to do, so they merit special rules. They can't whine about how their religious fascist sensibilities must be respected, so don't criticize what makes sense only to CatholicsNazis . They can't insist their morality is above that of the world, and therefore they get to use their own yardstick.

And then they screech "Godwin", and thereby admit defeat. :-)

Posted by: A. Noyd | November 9, 2009 1:28 PM

Rewarp (#184)

Among them, how does an organization maintain the right to prescribe morality, if it only follows the moral norms of the era?

And that's as a best case scenario. Quite often a religion preaches morals that are several centuries behind the times!

~*~*~*~*~*~

Jack (#216)

but it did remind me of how I like to deal with that excuse when it is presented sincerely.

That can be made into a good argument against postmodernist waffle in general.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 9, 2009 1:55 PM

Okay, I'd take the Eos theory as "possible, not plausible", but wiki says Aurora is basically just a literary personification which is associated with--but not actually derived from--Eos.

They have a common ancestor with each other, with Latin auster "wind from the south" (see Australia etc. etc.), and with English east. It's all the same word.

I had written a fairly epic comment on the historical linguistics behind all this, but then I opened the link in comment 146, and this stupid ancient version of Safari crashed. I can't upgrade, because here in the lab I'm stuck with OS 10.3.9; only Safari 4 is available, and it requires a much higher version of the OS. Apple really expects you to shell out oodles of money for what Microsoft calls a "service pack" and sends you for free. Microsoft rules precisely because Apple drools.

I'll try to write it again from home, later…

By the way, this debate should be likewise awesome.

Interesting who one of the two on the side of the angels, the one who's not a bishop, is a former Torygraph editor…

However, the idea that objective opinions on morality are inherently worthless is silly. I do not need to objectively justify why murder is wrong; so long as I can get a sufficient number of people in my society agree with me, that's all I need.

Why is murder wrong?

Because murder of me would be wrong.

Assuming complete lack of empathy all around, Randroid-style, then how do I get people to agree that murder of me would be wrong?

By arguing that murder of them would be wrong, too.

So, murder of anyone is wrong. Quantum electrodynamics.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 9, 2009 2:19 PM

While it may not need be an emotional case, that's the only one I've ever seen presented.

I'm really trying to be patient here... but did you actually WATCH the debate? Please, list for me, of all the citations and reasons given by Hitchens and Fry, please list the ones that are anecdotal and emotional only, that are not actually results of church doctrine or policy, that are not rooted in substance and backed by evidence...

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 9, 2009 2:30 PM

It would certainly be news to me if such an analysis existed. If you have any links to such, it would be very appreciated.

Let me make sure I am understanding your question... are you asking me to provide data supporting the assertion that the catholic church's stand on condom use significantly contributes to the spread of AIDS in Africa? And that you've never heard of such data existing?

I just want to make sure I understand the request...

Posted by: andrewasante | November 9, 2009 3:41 PM

To present an alternative analogy to Stephen Fry's argument about the burgalar complaining nobody gives him credit for giving his father a birthday present.

It's like Harold Shipman complaining that there's far too much attention paid to just 15 of his patients, whilst ignoring the literally thousands of people that he's helped and healed.

Posted by: kev_s | November 9, 2009 4:26 PM

Sadly I think the bishop's performance illustrates the education standard of the people he used to dealing with in Africa. I felt sorry for him in the end because he seems a nice man that has ended up on the wrong team. Priceless at the end when he signed up to the idea that morals are innate and not from the bible.

Posted by: Thedepressingstatistician | November 9, 2009 7:04 PM

@#224.

No, I want you to do a cost benefit analysis of the existence of the catholic church as a whole, with all the information properly cited of course.

Until that happens, stop pretending your hatred of them is based on anything other than emotional arguments.

Posted by: raven | November 9, 2009 7:31 PM

the depressed religious kook:

No, I want you to do a cost benefit analysis of the existence of the catholic church as a whole, with all the information properly cited of course.

Until that happens, stop pretending your hatred of them is based on anything other than emotional arguments.

There is no doubt that the RCC has done great evil and continues to do so. But the members have figured that out and found a cure!!! In the US and Europe, they pay no attention to the priests. The birth rates of RCC's on those two continents is identical to the national averages and rather low, 2.2 or so. There is a statistic for you. Pathetic when people have to use common sense to survive their own stupid religion.

There are other statistics below. HIV is the leading cause of death in women worldwide. Childbirth is another leading one. In the first world we don't worry much about that. In the third world, pregnancy and childbirth can be life ending due to lack of modern medical facilities.

All the RCC has done is pour gasoline on these burning problems and major killers of women. As the one demanding statistics, why don't you calculate how many women the RCC helps kills every year. It is a lot, probably in the millions.

And if you have time, try to figure out why the RCC has a bad reputation such that only 20% of the members bother going to mass anymore. Hint, it involves piles of dead bodies. The RCC is seen as a force for evil because....it is a force for evil.

WHO: AIDS leading cause of death, disease in women

By BRADLEY S. KLAPPER, Associated Press Writer Bradley S. Klapper, Associated Press Writer – Mon Nov 9, 3:39 pm ET
GENEVA – In its first study of women's health around the globe, the World Health Organization said Monday that the AIDS virus is the leading cause of death and disease among women between the ages of 15 and 44.

Unsafe sex is the leading risk factor in developing countries for these women of childbearing age, with others including lack of access to contraceptives and iron deficiency, the WHO said. Throughout the world, one in five deaths among women in this age group is linked to unsafe sex, according to the U.N. agency.

"Women who do not know how to protect themselves from such infections, or who are unable to do so, face increased risks of death or illness," WHO said in a 91-page report. "So do those who cannot protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy or control their fertility because of lack of access to contraception."

Posted by: Marcus B. | November 9, 2009 8:18 PM

Well, Thedepressingstatistician, I guess a large part of our difficulty to agree on this matter is that we are using different definitions of the word "good".

In some areas we can measure objectively how good something is. For instance, if a company does an ad campaign they can ask if it was good for the economy of the company and get numbers as a reply. But in that case, "was it good?" is merely shorthand for "did it create a net increase in funds?" so of course you can compare the cost of the ad with any increase in funds and see if it was "good" or not.

But when we start talking about if the Catholic Church is a force of "good" in the world, we are talking about a more general meaning of good. That kind of good has to be judged by the set of moral values that we hold ourselves to, simply because there are no numbers that can compare for instance "making people in Africa stop using condoms" to "giving comfort to people on their deathbed." It is impossible to reduce those things to numbers in the same unit and compare any statistics for that, so if any debate is to be hold on this subject it must contain a certain amount of personal moral values.

A big part can be quantified (AIDS cases, poverty, sex abuse etcetera are all things that can have numbers attached to them) but as you correctly point out this doesn't mean that the quantities can be compared to any other argument.

My point is that this doesn't matter. When I listen to bad things that the Catholic Church has done and good things that it has done, I don't see how the good things could excuse the bad things. And yes, my reaction is in line with my personal set of moral values, not some grand objective Truth about how things should be, but that is what I expect of a debate about a subject like this.

I'm definitely a scientific person and I'm very happy when things in life can be measured objectively. I love things that can be quantified and compared. I don't see how the question whether something is good or bad (in the broad, general sense of those words) could be measured in such a way. That's just how the world works, at least in my eyes.

My morality tells me that the Nazi ideology was evil. My morality tells me that the RCC is not a force of good in the world. These conclusions are based on facts, but the facts are judged and placed in categories of good or bad based on my moral values. And however much I love scientific objectivity I don't see my moral judgment as a bad thing - I see it as inevitable.

You might have expected (or at least wished for) a debate comparing cold, hard numbers, but I have a very hard time seeing how such a debate would work when it comes to a subject like this. For me, the debate was the only kind that could work.

Posted by: Marcus B. | November 9, 2009 8:47 PM

Well, then I'm again unsure about what your original point was.

As have been mentioned before, the format itself doesn't lend itself to any deeper inspection of the things mentioned and I think that we all agree about that. And I don't think anyone here has ever said that this debate should be the end-all thing that everyone should base their opinion about the church on.

I liked the debate because it was interesting, so did you. It's starting to get late in the morning here so I'm on my way to bed and haven't got the energy now to re-examine your earlier comments to see if I misunderstood what you said, but as for now I don't know exactly why you brought the whole thing up.

Your argument seemed, at least to me, to be about whether the arguments brought forth were the right kind of arguments or not, not what merit the debate had as a whole. So that was what I responded to.

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 9, 2009 8:55 PM

"But to develop and opinion on the matter off a debate like that? For shame. 20 Minutes arguing for or against something as important as that should not be left up to a debate that relies so heavily on subjectivity."

Yeah, but that's not what you said. That's what you're saying now, because people called you on the fallacy of your original argument, which was, "Hurt feelings all around," and the assertion that none of these arguments are objective at all because they present no data. That's just false.

Posted by: Thedepressingstatistician | November 9, 2009 9:04 PM

It is what I said.
Develop your comprehension skills a little further.

Posted by: Thedepressingstatistician | November 9, 2009 9:08 PM

To address some of your claims more bluntly Casey, do you hold that a debate such as this is a reliable method of establishing a truth claim?

Posted by: Thedepressingstatistician | November 9, 2009 9:28 PM

I don't think the debate addressed the validity of catholic doctrine, but other than that, you are right.

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 9, 2009 10:21 PM

"Develop your comprehension...blah blah"

I quoted you directly. As far as my supposed misapprehension of your words, I wasn't the only one, obviously. Perhaps you should develop your writing skills a little further. Or just give up the charade and admit that you were incorrect.

"A truth claim?"

No. Why do you? In response I would like to ask if you think any of the points made in this debate were rational arguments.

Posted by: Carl | November 9, 2009 10:35 PM

"I've read that he was *threatened* with torture, which, I suppose, is as good as being tortured."

Hmm? If I have a choice between being threatened with torture (but not actually tortured), and being tortured, I'm going to go with option A every time :)

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 9, 2009 10:50 PM

@ Carl:

False dichotomy. Not being threatened with torture should also be an option, and your "option A" comes with some fine print you aren't including. The point being, it is not worth the effort to split the moral hair between the action of threatening someone with torture and that of actually torturing someone. It certainly wouldn't win the Catholic Church any points by doing so. Can you imagine it? "No, he wasn't tortured! He was only *threatened* with torture!"

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 9, 2009 10:58 PM

'"It came down to which team had the better orators..."

That's the point of debate.'

Just to clarify: That is the point of debate if by "orators" you mean "speakers who attempt to persuade people through argumentation," and if by "better" you mean "more convincing." Certainly there are sophists who attempt to persuade people through logical fallacies.

Posted by: Thedepressingstatistician | November 9, 2009 11:07 PM

You would seriously make a decision such as this based on how well each argument was presented by speakers?

That's ridiculous. Stephen Fry is going to win every single debate he ever does, not necessarily because he is right, but because he can convey a point so masterfully. Stephen Fry would destroy Widdencombe and Onaiyekan in any debate, no matter how ridiculous his position.

That fact alone precludes debates such as this from being a reliable source of truth claims.

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 9, 2009 11:17 PM

The point of debate is to decide which team had better orators?

See 252.

Statistician seems to think that the purpose of debate is to get to the "truth" of some proposition. It isn't. Never has been. The purpose of debate is to persuade. Ask anybody who has ever been on a debate team whether they are only expected to argue in favor of "true" positions.

That is not to say that valid points are never made, though, as statistician also incorrectly suggests. That is also the point of debate--to try to persuade with rational arguments. Rational arguments are a beast Statistician does not seem to be familiar with, since he believes any argument that does not refer to numbers on a graph is irrational.

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 9, 2009 11:33 PM

"vote on the truth"

This phrase is indicative of a gross misunderstanding on your part. Truth is not decided by vote. But, do you know what could be? The winning team in a debate. The votes do not tell us what is true, they tell us which team presented the most persuasive arguments for the most people--and they were persuasive (and powerfully so) mainly because they were rational and stood up to the weak arguments of the opposing team. Please tell me this makes sense to you.

Posted by: Thedepressingstatistician | November 9, 2009 11:43 PM

. Truth is not decided by vote. But, do you know what could be? The winning team in a debate.

That is where you are mistaken. No where during the vote was there any mention of voting for "Which side was more persuasive." Where that the case everyone in the room would have voted for Fry and Hitchens. They were quite simply the more persuasive pair.

However, the vote was "For or Against the Motion that the catholic church is a force for good in the world". They attempted to establish a truth claim before and after the debates, contrary to your position.

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 9, 2009 11:49 PM

"caseywollberg, I have made a point."

Care to back up that claim with some data? If not, then I don't see why I should be persuaded of the "truth value" of this emotional outburst from you.

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 10, 2009 12:04 AM

'No where during the vote was there any mention of voting for "Which side was more persuasive."'

Your ignorance and stupidity are massive. So you expect the hosts of a debate to educate you on what a debate is? Just to be cute I'll point out that there also was no mention of voting for "which side had illuminated the absolute truth," nor was there any mention of voting for "which side had the nicest hair." Yet, somehow, the participants succeeded in navigating this ambiguity without your assistance.

"P.Z just made a post saying that all of us atheists much march in lock step with one another."

Where?

"Is that how you deal with all dissent that doesn't vaporize the second you voice your irritation with it? By ad hominems and attempts at belittlement?"

I don't do ad hominem, sorry. Belittlement I do, but only when the dissenting party is much weaker than myself...and is not armed. In the case of armed revolt I grab the gold and head for the hills. (And that's really all the response you deserve. Forgive me for not realizing this sooner.)

Posted by: Thedepressingstatistician | November 10, 2009 12:15 AM

That is exactly what I was trying to express Carl, albeit in evidently far less exact terms.

Posted by: Thedepressingstatistician | November 10, 2009 12:20 AM

"Your ignorance and stupidity are massive."
....
"I don't do ad hominem, sorry. "

?

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 10, 2009 12:32 AM

"In exactly the same way (and for the same reasons), I hope (presumably in vain) that nobody was convinced by the debate on the church."

For some things, statistical analysis is appropriate. For other things, it's ridiculous. In those cases a strong rational argument can be very convincing, and rightly so. Our statistician wanted to claim that this debate was irrational, just a flurry of emotions signifying nothing, since, after all, it presented no data. I think that's hogwash.

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 10, 2009 12:44 AM

"Nope, by not agreeing with you, I am automatically as dumb as a YEC."

"Have you ever even considered the possibility that an intelligent person could disagree with you."

You display your stupidity here as much as anywhere else I pointed it out...and we agree on YEC. Intelligent people disagree with me all the time. You ain't one of them.

Posted by: Carl | November 10, 2009 12:53 AM

"For some things, statistical analysis is appropriate. For other things, it's ridiculous."

Agreed. For instance, as I mentioned above, I see no reason for numbers in a debate on "The Catholic Church is good"; and, as also mentioned above, I believe that numbers are essentially required in a debate on "Medicine is a force for good in the world". It seems to me that "The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world" is more akin to the latter than the former; this makes me agree with basically everything Thedepressingstatistician said.

Evidently you disagree; unless I'm missing a step in the discussion, you disagree so strongly that when I claim that numbers are important for debating "The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world" (and hence I agree with Thedepressingstatistician), that means "my ignorance and stupidity are massive". Could you try to explain again why you disagree on this point, and could you try to see my point of view here?

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 10, 2009 2:38 AM

"Could you try to explain again why you disagree on this point, and could you try to see my point of view here?"

Not if you are going to woefully misrepresent my responses to *specific* things said by statistician as responses to entirely different things said by you, like this...

"(and hence I agree with Thedepressingstatistician), that means "my ignorance and stupidity are massive"."

If you can agree to stop doing that (because it is either dishonest or is itself stupid), then we might be able to have a decent discussion.

I don't agree that every argument made in opposition to the motion in this debate are amenable to statistical data (for example, that it is evil and hypocritical to discriminate against homosexuals on the grounds that they are somehow morally inadequate). Those that are, are in fact supported by the data (for example, the condom issue, as has been brought up already).

Can it be shown through an analysis of statistical data that the Catholic church as an institution is or is not responsible for the rape of children perpetrated and covered up by its officials? The question of culpability does not seem to be determinable by statistical analysis. And what data would you use to make your proposed "comparison" between good and evil in this instance, the number of tears cried by the victims? And pitted against what? Is there an Index of Good and Evil for us to refer to that will guide us in making these comparisons, so that we may produce the most accurate and precise measurement of "Net Good," or "Net Evil?" How much charity money is an act of child rape worth, for example?

You also make this foundational analogy to the imagined argument, "Medicine is a force for good in the world," as if you didn't realize that "medicine" and "the Catholic Church" refer to completely disparate categories of entities. You rightly claim that the goods of medicine can be measured, because they represent measurable effects. But then you leap to the false conclusion (apparently just because it can be fit into a similar syntactic structure) that the effects of medicine are analogous to the effects of the Catholic Church, and that they, therefore, are measurable.

But this is a false analogy to start with. The effects of medicine are straightforward and obviously measurable. The effects of the Catholic Church, on the other hand, are intricately intertwined with culture, geography, doctrine, politics, history, etc. To get at those effects requires just the thing you are dismissing. Debate. And judging the goodness or evil of those effects demands rational consideration and common sense, not a bar graph (except in a supporting role).

In conclusion, it seems highly irrational to me for someone of your apparent intelligence to reject the utility of rational debate in these matters.

Posted by: Carl | November 10, 2009 4:02 AM

I do apologize for not double-checking the source of the "ignorance and stupidity" quote.

"Those that are, are in fact supported by the data (for example, the condom issue, as has been brought up already)."

Yes, they are supported by data, but that data was not given during the debate. And I still don't have an estimate for the number of people with AIDS involved here. (Yes, I'm sure I could look up enough information to make the kind of estimate I want fairly easily. But I still think it should have been given during the debate.)

"Can it be shown through an analysis of statistical data that the Catholic church as an institution is or is not responsible for the rape of children perpetrated and covered up by its officials?"

I think it's reasonable to say that the Catholic church is responsible for any child rape that was committed by one Catholic official and covered up by another; I agree that this is not a question for statistics.

"And what data would you use to make your proposed "comparison" between good and evil in this instance, the number of tears cried by the victims?"

The number of victims.

"Is there an Index of Good and Evil for us to refer to that will guide us in making these comparisons, so that we may produce the most accurate and precise measurement of "Net Good," or "Net Evil?" How much charity money is an act of child rape worth, for example?"

I'm going to go with the same number I used before in the case of AIDS: enough to let 100 people live long, healthy lives that would otherwise have died in childhood. (I don't know how much money this is.) That's my current subjective definition for what it would take to convince me that the church is a force for good in the world. That's not to say that it makes the child rape "OK", or forgivable, like Catholic indulgences. A pattern of covering up child rape definitely marks the church as evil, and no amount of charity money will change that; but I don't think it's logically impossible for an evil institution to be "a force for good in the world". (I don't have any particular justification for this number, and I am certainly not arguing that it is in any sense the "correct" number. I do hope, however, that you will allow that it is neither evil nor insane to assign some number here.)

"The effects of the Catholic Church, on the other hand, are intricately intertwined with culture, geography, doctrine, politics, history, etc. To get at those effects requires just the thing you are dismissing. Debate."

I am not dismissing debate; I am dismissing this debate. I realize that "what are all the effects of the Catholic Church" would be an impossible question to answer, and "what are the most important effects of the Catholic Church" would be very difficult (and probably almost every pair of people, even after a lot of research, etc. would come up with a different answer).

But I also think that it is necessary to answer "what are the most important effects of the Catholic Church" in order to decide whether it is a force for good in the world. Since this debate only had four people listing some of the effects they cared about most, with no apparent attempt at making a complete list, and certainly nothing approaching consensus as to what a complete list might look like, I believe that the debate was essentially useless at helping people decide whether the church is a force for good. But even if we (surely incorrectly) assume that all of the most important effects were mentioned by one or another participant, I would want numbers (numbers of people helped, numbers of people harmed) to help me decide.

"And judging the goodness or evil of those effects demands rational consideration and common sense, not a bar graph (except in a supporting role)."

Well, I mostly agree. For my personal, subjective definition of what it would mean for an institution to be a force for good in the world, you would definitely need rational consideration, common sense, and numbers. You couldn't do without the numbers any more than you could do without the rational consideration and common sense, so I wouldn't call that only "a supporting role".

And really, even though I don't think everybody would make the same use of numbers that I would, I do think that everybody cares about the numbers. For instance, if it was only one covered-up child rape and 10 people unnecessarily dying of AIDS, I think very few people would even bother putting these on the list of important effects of the Catholic Church.

Posted by: Carpe Diem | November 11, 2009 9:49 PM

I agree with post #34, it is hard to distinguish between the two in levels of awesomeness. To fix this, perhaps the three could team up (Hugh Laurie stepping up to the podium on the issue would be equally as surprising as Stephen Fry's initial forays into theological debate). It's safe to assume that Hugh Laurie is as (or close to) wonderful an orator as Stephen clearly is.