I wish to generate a new debate on the existence of God, one that follows the same novel procedure as my recent debate with Jonathan Sheffield. You can follow how that debate operated here. I want this debate to be with a well-qualified defender of theism, who has a Ph.D. in any relevant field. If you qualify and are interested, please contact me. Or if you know someone who is qualified and interested, please have them contact me.
Here is why this will be different, and thus worth encouraging a qualified proponent to take it on:
My debate with Sheffield was written (so we had ample time to consider and compose and research between entries), reasonably paced (no entry was over long, making for an easy read, but not too short to make substantial points), and open ended (we only set one closing deadline months out, so we were able to generate a dozen entries altogether, ample space to explore everything without arbitrarily “ending the clock”).
Each entry we limited to 1100 words. Not counting references, which means any words that merely identified or linked to a source, or explained how to find a source and a reference or quote within it, were not counted against that 1100 limit. The proponent would open with their case; I would respond as soon as I could manage; they would respond to my response as soon as they could manage; and so on until the closing deadline, at which we submitted a final like round of “closing” remarks.
The content will all be published on my blog, but full non-exclusive rights to all of it is owned by both parties. So either of us may re-publish it in any form if we wished, without having to involve or consult or pay the other.
Most debates become arbitrary exercises in tactics and rhetoric, where each tries to run out the clock before the other can adequately answer what’s been said. And they tend to be combative exercises in oratory rather than exploratory discussions of why we believe differently on the subject.
This debate format works the other way around, as the clock does not arbitrarily end after just an opening, rebuttal, and closing; but rather the discussion continues, possibly a dozen times, before closing. And yet each entry is short enough that no one gets lost in excessive complexity or endless digressions. The debate stays focused on essentials, and the whys of it all. And there is time to consider one’s words carefully, and research claims and assertions as one needs, and cite sources.
My Patreon supporters have generously met the required targets to make this happen; and a published debate on the historicity of Jesus with a relevant Ph.D. is already in the works. For the existence of God I want to do something different, something that hasn’t been done before: a debate in the Carrier-Sheffield format. All I need is a suitable proponent to take on the task of defending belief in God. And I need your help in getting the word out to find such a one. Let’s make this happen!
Richard, do you worry at all that this is just going to get into the weeds of “who is committing what fallacy”? The god question isn’t really an historical question unless the opponent is trying to defend a very specific god and the supposed texts from that god. And all the empirical claims are really just philosophical interpretations pasted on top of the data (this is technically true of both sides, and thus where the fallacies in interpretation arise).
Maybe that’s what you’re going for, and I’m just being pedantic. But it feels like a general god debate can’t really interrogate the data (like the Sheffield debate – which very clearly showed which position HAD supporting data, and arguably which position even cared about data). Though the Sheffield debate never really got off the ground, I really enjoyed all the information and citation presented. I guess I’m finding it hard to envision that for a more generic god debate.
Who knows? That’s the point of trying this format on the theism question. There isn’t any way to make a claim and run. You’ll actually have to confront every aspect of it down a dozen exchanges, and really answer the questions, like whether you are leaning on the fallacy described or not. By then, it will be clear someone dosn’t have the goods.
There is certainly a lot of empirical material to argue over. The question is only, what explains that material better. In some cases, the facts are false. And can be shown to be. In some cases, there are better explanations of the facts. And this can be demonstrated. And so on. That’s what the debate would be about.
I’ve been told Andy McIntosh would be willing to debate. This is just word of mouth but supposedly the people I know can get in contact with him.
INFO: Andrew McIntosh professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at the University of Leeds. He is also the director of the organisation Truth in Science which promotes creationism and intelligent design.
Fascinating. Yes, get in touch with him, or have someone do, and ask if he’ll contact me about it.
Hopefully you’ll be doing a lot more debates. I’m bored.
I would love for you to have a debate with Dr. Ed Young.
He does not have a Ph.D.
I kind of wish there were a moderator to these, someone who said “You have not responded yet to questions a, b, e, g, you may not continue to post before doing so. Also, you were requested to provide sources for x, y, z. List those before continuing.” Bugs me when excellent points are ignored as though never made…. Not sure how this could work though.
Hopefully we will do all that policing of each other. So readers can see what’s being ignored or overlooked (as I did in the Sheffield debate: I continually pointed out what he kept ignoring, etc.).
Richard, would you be interested in a debate of this style on the topic of moral realism (you) versus moral anti-realism (I’ll volunteer; I have a PhD and academic status, if that matters)?
Email me with a clearer statement of your credentials and publications and what you mean by “moral anti-realism” and we can discuss this possibility.
Travis Dickinson has a Ph.D. I’m not sure he’d be interested. I’ve had a short exchange with him on his blog.
http://www.travisdickinson.com/