Eddie Tabash debates Todd Friel, Talk at UF

The debate bode very well for atheism, and very poorly for any future hope for Friel at a career in philosophy. I think Eddie won handily. Friel basically sermonized and waxed emotive all night. His only arguments were from incredulity and ignorance. He honestly sounded more like a guy trying to convert a bunch of teenagers than someone attempting to make a rational case for theism. But...make up your mind for yourself, and leave a comment.

I really won't go any further than that, because I swear I don't think Friel is worth the analysis. He had nothing new, and what older arguments he did have were mangled versions (e.g., the first cause argument), which Eddie was able to refute, as he was met only with more personal incredulity and appeals to ignorance.

I was unable to tape Eddie's opening because I was limited by lack of equipment, but his arguments for naturalism were almost identical to what he presented (see below) to GF last Sunday, albeit abbreviated, since he had 15 mins instead of 45 -- Eddie opened with arguments against the supernatural along Humean lines: miracles, the argument from physical minds, arguments against an afterlife, the argument from divine hiddenness, and the problem of evil. It was typical Eddie -- cogent, precise and clear.

The Center for Inquiry - Daytona came off looking great, from their representation to the graphics and banners and the ACLU table. Props to them for their hard work -- they were all really nice and appeared to have taken this project quite seriously.

My seat for part 1 gave me a poor angle to begin with, and the issue of quality was compounded because I was only able to post this in low-res as the Google Video Desktop Uploader for large files would've taken days. If you want a DVD, email me and we'll negotiate the $^***.

Here is part 1 of 2, which I recommend watching below as GV stretches it out and makes it look even worse at their site:

Here is part 2 of 2 of the debate:


Here is part 1 of 2 of Eddie's talk at UF on 3-25-07:


And finally, here is part 2 of 2 of Eddie's talk at UF:


Please leave thoughts and comments below.
________________
***To cover my time and media/shipping expenses -- I think $10, including S&H, is fair for a DVD. You can pay me via mailed check, but I would prefer using PayPal, email me and I'll invoice you.

PS: I'm always amazed by how differently two eyewitnesses can report the facts about an event -- see here for someone who thinks that atheists were "humiliated" by Eddie's performance...

You be the judge.
_________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Philosophy, Gator Freethought

Seminal Paper on the Establishment Clause

Those who claim to be freethinkers must arrive at their conclusions of belief without sole reliance upon dogma, religious (or otherwise unqualified) authority and tradition.

In that vein, I strongly encourage those who would call themselves freethinking, whether or not they agree with me on church-state separation, to read "The True Meaning of the Establishment Clause." (March 2007)

The paper, by civil rights attorney Eddie Tabash, and reviewed by other scholars, outlines in succinct and brilliant form the legal and historical arguments for complete government neutrality towards religion (strict separationism) and against nonpreferentialism and accommodationalism. He takes key opinions written from the latter two perspectives, analyzes their evidential arguments, and shows why they are flawed. It is required reading for anyone who demands to be informed on, and to understand, these perspectives, even if said person claims their mind is already made up on the issue.

For those interested, Eddie has an older, shorter paper on the issue as well: "The True Meaning of 'Separation of Church and State'".
________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Church-state

Article and Interview in Newspaper on Campus Preachers

Josh Lanier, executive editor of the NinerOnline, an independent paper covering UNCC and the surrounding areas, called me this weekend to do a phone interview on my coverage of campus preachers.

He just published the article, with a few quotes from me, entitled, "'You're going to hell' says campus preachers: An in-depth look into the practice of campus preachers":

"These guys are always looking for ways to get attention," said Daniel Morgan, a third-year graduate student at the University of Florida.

Morgan, who is working on his Ph. D. in chemistry, has spent a lot of time researching the phenomena of street preachers in his blog called "Get Busy Livin', or Get Busy Bloggin'."

"I'm one of those people who loves to argue about religion," he said during a phone interview. "I had run into these guys on campus and like a lot of people spent a good bit of time arguing with them."

Morgan began his blog in November of 2005 and has spoken with many of the aforementioned preachers in private away from the angry throngs of students.

"In private these guys are much different," he said. "If you get these guys away from other people they will generally speak to you, answer your questions and even concede some ground on some issues."

Even though Morgan and these campus preachers don't see eye-to-eye on most issues, he doesn't dislike them. "I have a lot of respect for these guys … They aren't stupid like a lot of people think. They're actually pretty smart and generally nice guys if you pull them aside and speak with them. Their acts are a façade for the most part."

Morgan witnesses many of the preachers visiting UF and has picked up on some common practices amongst all of them. "One common tactic, for the people aren't going to repent they use the law, but for the ones who have they will use grace."

Morgan continued: "The only people really get mad about this are other Christians. The atheists just laugh these guys off, but the Christians feel like [the preachers] are doing a disservice."

What I meant in that next-to-last quote was that they hammer the "hard of heart" over the head with the law, but preach grace and mercy towards those who are repentant.

He graciously linked to my personal site's RSS feed for campus preachers. Go check out his article.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion

Traffic Surge

Eddie's presentation went well, and I was glad we had so many turn out (about 150 peak), despite the UF v. Oregon "elite 8" game at 2:40. I will write up something more substantial on it soon, right now I'm working on converting our video of Eddie' talk into a digital format and it's going slow. Do you guys know the easiest way to take a mini-DV tape and get it into an MPG or something like that? I can get it into ASF format, but it is low-quality.

A big thanks to all the Gator Freethought members that came by and helped out in any/every way. Ryan recorded the whole event for us on camcorder, Brandon helped with sound, set up and literature, Holly had coffee going, and there were others milling about that I haven't named, but appreciate nonetheless. You know who you are, and how you helped. Thanks!

In the meanwhile, note the huge surge in our traffic to our site this month, spurred, I'm sure, by our advertising this event and coverage in the Sun:


Here are our site stats:

-- Site Summary ---

Visits

Total ........................ 9,019
Average per Day ................. 83
Average Visit Length .......... 2:14
This Week ...................... 584

Page Views

Total ....................... 15,883
Average per Day ................ 152
Average per Visit .............. 1.8
This Week .................... 1,066

Pretty good, eh? Thanks for all your hard work, and I'm looking forward to our next opportunity to have a real debate. We'll get SG funds and have months to prepare next time around, and I guarantee we'll have a huge turnout if we pick a day when UF isn't involved in a semifinal in a national championship ;-)

I hope some of you will want to come to tonight's debate in Daytona. Contact me if you want to car-pool. It's about a two-hour drive. Here are directions from I-75.
________________
Technorati tags: Gator Freethought

New Domain

Under the good advice of VP Ryan, we have acquired a new domain: www.gatorfreethought.org.

We will be working to switch everything over, and update all our materials. The good news is, the old aasauf.blogspot.com will still point to the new URL, so it really isn't a big deal to stress over.

It will take a little while for everything to process, but you can see our registration here. (I used a private service to protect my information -- domains by proxy)
________________
Technorati tags: Gator Freethought

Campus Sun Article on "Free Hugs" Event

Here is the full-text of today's Campus Sun article on Gator Freethought's recent "Free Hugs" event:

"Atheists give free hugs to fellow students"
March 23. 2007 6:01AM
By JESSICA PALOMBO, Campus correspondent

Turlington Plaza, the University of Florida's hot spot for preachers of ominous messages, was the backdrop for an ideological clash Thursday afternoon.

Frank Zaccaro, toting a Bible, was screaming warnings of hell to passersby when a group of atheists tried to hug him.

"No, I don't want that!" he yelled, and jumped back beyond their reach.

One of the rejected huggers, Robert Stark, said, "It would have been a good juxtaposition to the whole, him yelling about hell."

Stark and about 10 other members of the Atheist, Agnostic and Freethinking Student Association were tabled nearby, advertising "Free Hugs" and publicizing the upcoming speech "Why There Really Is No God."

On Sunday, the group hosts Eddie Tabash, author, lawyer and noted atheist, who will examine the question: "Who made whom: God or man?"

The event will begin at 2 p.m. in Norman Hall, Room 137, and is free and open to the public. A Q&A session will follow.

"We're working on the image of atheists," AAFSA President Daniel Morgan said. "We're trying to show people that there are young, happy atheists who want to give hugs."

Morgan, a 25-year-old University of Florida chemistry graduate student, said atheism faces a "gray problem;" people often picture atheists as "older, grumpy professors."

Vice President Brandon Smock said tabling was an attempt to dispel some common misconceptions and to "provide an alternative to the inflammatory speech that usually dominates Turlington Plaza."

"Atheists are some of the most moral, friendliest, most intelligent people I know," he said.

Tabash's appearance is sponsored by the Center for Inquiry, an international nonprofit group advocating scientific naturalism.

For more details about AAFSA or the event, visit http://aasauf.blogspot.com/.

Made my day! :-) Thanks again, all, for your support. Without you, Gator Freethought wouldn't exist, and the message wouldn't be heard.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Gator Freethought

Another Success for GF

Thanks for helping make the "Free Hugs" event a success, all. I was promised by Jessica Palombo at the Gainesville Sun that the story will run tomorrow, and I know they got some photographs too. Without your time and support Gator Freethought wouldn't exist, and I'm glad it does. I'll certainly post a link to it as soon as it is published.

Sometimes we forget that people are taking notice of our group, and our core values and mission are being promoted -- we are a part of a much larger movement to restore moral and intellectual integrity to those who reject religion, and opt for freethought. Sometimes the question comes up, as it did today between myself and Ryan, why we do what we do. We agreed on this: In many ways, we are "just" socially and politically motivated, but one must never forget the reason for our motive. There are many groups who have millions of dollars and millions more people, and who want to use their influence to erode our civil liberties and the social tolerance for atheism/agnosticism/freethought generally.

Fourteen percent of Floridians are nonreligious, according to the last ARIS survey in 2001 (the largest self-identification religious survey ever conducted). A recent Baylor study concluded that 10.8% of people are "religious nones". However, this month we witnessed the very first Congressman to ever "come out" as a nonbeliever, and poll after poll shows public distrust and intolerance for nontheists and freethinkers. Our efforts are aimed at changing that public distrust and intolerance, at raising the intellectual level of the dialogue about religion, and at maintaining the beauty of our democratic secular state. Thank you for that. Thank you for helping silence those who would argue, "Why do we care what 1-3% of people think, or if they're offended?"

Thanks for being willing to stand up and be counted, and being willing to promote science, freedom of inquiry in all areas of human endeavor (esp. religion), and the triumph of reason over faith and superstition.

See you Sunday!
________________
Technorati tags: Gator Freethought, God, Atheism

Church-state Separation Victory in Starke, FL

In another legal victory for religious freedom, the American Atheists have won a court case involving a city display of a religious icon. Today's Gainesville Sun reports that an injunction has been placed against a cross placed above a city's water tower in Starke, FL:

[Judge Moore] prohibited the city from "displaying, maintaining, illuminating or otherwise allowing" the cross to appear on the tower.

Prof. Friedman, as usual, has pithy coverage:

In American Atheists, Inc. v. City of Starke, Florida, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19512 (MD FL, March 19, 2007), a Florida federal district court held that Starke, Florida's placement and maintenance of a lighted cross on the top of the city's water tower violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. and Florida constitutions. The court held that the case was not moot even though the city had removed the cross. It granted plaintiffs' request for an injunction because it is not clear that city will not put the cross back up at a later date.

________________
Technorati tags: Church-state, Politics, Gator Freethought

Two Debates Worth Attending re God's Existence

Eddie Tabash will be debating Todd Friel of Way of the Master Radio on Monday, March 26th at Daytona Beach (in the Mary McLeod Bethune Performing Arts Center, 698 W. International Speedway Blvd.). Doors open at 6:30 PM. I'm going, and I encourage you to check it out (we can car pool). details here

Eddie Tabash will be debating Rev. Joel Reif of the First United Church of Christ of Orlando on Thursday, March 29th at UCF (in the Pegasus Ballroom). Unfortunately, it starts at 1 PM, which is fairly inconvenient to most working people, and even students, here in Gainesville. But if you can make it, try! details here
________________
Technorati tags: Gator Freethought

Gainesville Sun Coverage of "Free Hugs"

A reporter from the Gainesville Sun just wrote me and wants to come out tomorrow while we're doing our "Free Hugs" event. She also was interested in the event coming up Sunday. Another young woman wrote me earlier and wants to cover the event Sunday and submit it to the Alligator (she's freelance).

Please, all, come out some time between 12-2 tomorrow to Turlington Plaza, even if you can only stay a few minutes, to support the group. I'll see you all there.
________________
Technorati tags: Gator Freethought

Free Hugs Event

We've been discussing a simple and fun way to advertise our event, and to raise awareness of the group in general, on Facebook: "Free Hugs from Atheists." We will be out in Turlington Plaza on Thursday (3/22) from 12-2 pm, and we will bring our large sign from the SOF event, lean it up against a tree or plant, put together a simple poster that says, "Free Hugs from Atheists" and hug away. We will offer the hugs with no strings attached, but at the same time, afterwards, inform people about the event this Sunday and ask them, if they are interested, if they would like a flyer with more information.

What I would really appreciate from you guys is to bring handouts using flyer_05. Just save it to your disk, and open it using something simple (like MS Picture Viewer), then print 4 to a page, preferably with borders outlined for easy cutting. I did this, and the print is still very legible. Anyone interested in the free hugs, please do this, just print out a few (5-6) pages of 4 per page, of flyer_05 (easier to read than flyer_06 at low res and small font), cut them and bring them with you on Thursday 12-2 pm. See you then!
________________
Technorati tags: Atheism

Gator Times Listing

We got our event listed in the Gator Times, but the ad was from before we knew it was a presentation, and not a debate. I hope that doesn't deter believers and atheists alike from coming, since there will be an extended Q&A opportunity at the end.
________________
Technorati tags: Gator Freethought

Promoting the Event via Advertising, Facebook and Emails

The big day is almost upon us, and I wanted to post a last (hopefully) note with an emphasis to help promote the event and spread the word, reiterate the link to our flyers, and encourage you to help out. I know that some of you have already seen some of this, but it is important to ensure that everyone receives the event information:

• Atheist Eddie Tabash, "Why There Really Is No God." Sunday, March 25th, 2 PM, Norman Hall 137 (SW 5th Ave & 13th St)

Eddie's title isn't "Does God Exist?" but it doesn't really matter. We are advertising the event as a lecture by an atheist, so I doubt that many of them will come in unsure as to which side Eddie will be taking.

Now, I don't ask for much of our members, but there are two things I ask of you now to help us promote and advertise the event:

1. First, you can find the flyers, generously created by Brandon, here.

Please download them, print some off, and post them around your residence, and at any available bulletin board you see. Since we are a registered student organization, and since this event has been planned and permitted, you can post the flyers basically anywhere. Here are the details concerning on-campus restrictions -- most important (and simplest) is to use a stapler, not glue or tape, and not to use trees.

I will be out this morning at Target Copy to get a bunch made up, on either yellow or green paper, then I will be placing them all around campus. Please feel free to join me, either working independently or working with me this morning: just call my cell (number here)!

2. Second, please go to the Facebook event tool and RSVP, if you already haven't. Then, invite people!!!

As of this morning (6 AM), there are 75 "yes" and 60 "maybe" responses. We can do better. The hall has a capacity of almost 400, so please help us to keep it from looking empty.

If you don't have Facebook, or if some people you know don't, please email friends an invitation, and/or a flyer, for the event. Emphasize that there will be Q&A afterwards, and that this event is free and open to the public, and that they can bring guests.

You may have noticed that our event (finally) appears on the Reitz calendar.

Unfortunately, and I don't know why, they refused to post the event to the "Stuff to Do" Calendar, and the UF Calendar.

It's okay though, as the visibility of flyers, use of word of mouth and the Facebook tool will certainly draw in a packed crowd...IF you all help out!! Now, I'm done being the cheerleader/broken record, no more notices or posts encouraging participation, so it's up to you to help make this event what I hope for it to be.

I would love for a few of you to come a little early, just in case we run into any problems with setup/sound/unforeseen issues, and need some help.

Thank you, Gator Freethought members, for making this group successful with your time and support. I am looking forward to a successful event. I figure that some of you will want to socialize with Eddie, so clear your calendar that evening, if you want to go out and eat and have some beer (or Kool-aid, or whatever) afterwards.

Finally, if there is anyone who is willing to video record this event, please contact me asap, and if any of you have a video camera that we can borrow, preferably digital and with either DVD or HD-recording format, please let me know. I'll see you Sunday, if not sooner.
________________
Technorati tags: Gator Freethought

Flyers for Eddie Tabash Event at UF

Here are the two flyers for the Eddie Tabash event at UF on 3/25 at 2 PM in NRN 137 (see Facebook event here):

• Flyer 05 (JPG, 2284 x 2868, 300 dpi, 934 KB)
• Flyer 06 (JPG, 2284 x 2868, 300 dpi, 1.3 MB)

Major thanks go to Brandon for making these! The only difference between the two is the background, which in Flyer 06 has extra question marks, and in Flyer 05 is plain white. Here's a view of what they look like, but remember to download them from the links above, in order to get the full resolution and size.
flyer 05 -->) (flyer 06 -->)

Please, print some of these out and post them around your residence, on your door, etc. You would be surprised how many people will see them. So far, the Facebook event shows there are 67 confirmed attendees and 51 "maybes", with 203 MIA (as of 9 AM). Please, right now, go to the event and invite your friends! Then, print out the flyers!

Thanks for your support and participation. Gator Freethought would be nothing without you.
________________
Technorati tags: Gator Freethought

Tabash Event will be Lecture, Not Debate

I'm sorry to report that it will only be a lecture, not a debate. My last possible debate opponent, Todd Friel, who Eddie will debate the day after our event in Daytona, just let me know that he could not afford to change his plans, even after I offered to offset some of the cost (out of my pocket, plus anything Gator Freethought could chip in). I'm sorry. I worked long and hard to get someone, and it just simply didn't work out.

Now, the good news is -- we already have gotten a lot of responses. I've gotten calls from all over the state, after the CFI flyer went out, and a Unitarian group in Ocala promised to send a lot of its members to listen.

Also, we will heavily emphasize the Q&A session afterwards, in the hopes of getting theistic participation. Please help me spread the word and get people interested. I don't ask for much, and what I'm asking for here is free: spread the word and invite people to attend.

I'll be posting the flyers as soon as my co-VPs get them to me. I may make one of my own.
________________
Technorati tags: Gator Freethought

Tabash Debate Update

I just wanted to drop a quick note to let you all know that I am working on things with respect to the debate.

1. Co-VPs Brandon and Ryan are graciously working on our advertising flyers
2. Paul Manata, mentioned in an earlier post as a possible debate opponent, will not be able to come on March 25th; however, he will indeed be debating Eddie nonetheless -- here at UF this fall. Details will come soon.
3. I've spoken with a lot of people (at least 10) who held a lot of potential, but for one reason or another couldn't make it as an opponent. I have about five outstanding invites that I am awaiting response on that are integral to the ability to make this a debate: Richard Horner, Todd Friel (Eddie's debate opponent the next day in Daytona; trying to see if he can work it out to come a day early), George Bowes, and a few people from the Dept. of Religion I wrote.
4. I submitted a request to add our event to the Gator Times, Reitz Union Stuff to Do and UF's Calendar (I emailed calndar@nersp.osg.ufl.edu for that last one).
   
5. I downloaded the form to use the Residential TV ad program (Ch. 68), and I'll be turning it in asap; props to Jessica for that
6. I wrote Prof. Witmer about helping us procure the A/V equipment we need, I've yet to hear back from him, but I'll keep you posted

I'll keep you posted as details develop. I'm excited and I hope you are too. All info will be tagged "tabash", and you can access it here.
________________
Technorati tags: Gator Freethought

Tabash Flyer for Florida Events

Debbie Goddard at the Center for Inquiry just sent me the flyer describing all of Eddie's events here in Florida during the last week of March. Some of you may desire to attend one of these, as I'm sure some of you live at or near one of these venues:

1. March 22 -- Miami (UM)
   
2. March 23 -- Ft. Lauderdale
3. March 24 -- Tampa
4. March 25 -- Gainesville
5. March 26 -- Daytona Beach
6. March 27 -- Tallahassee
7. March 29 -- Orlando (UCF)
   

Download the flyer HERE (.pdf) for more details. We'll be making our own flyer for our debate.
________________
Technorati tags: Gator Freethought

Facebook Event for Debate

I just wanted to notify our members that I have created a Facebook Event for our debate:

http://ufl.facebook.com/event.php?eid=2249339915

I will be sending out the invitations via Facebook later on, as I want the advertisement value of news feeds to be maximized closer to the time of the event. For now, feel free to sign up if you want, or wait until I invite you, it doesn't matter. I will continue to post updates on the confirmation of the theist and you can monitor those posts, tagged "tabash," here.
________________
Technorati tags: Gator Freethought

Update on Wood-Loftus Debate on Evil and Suffering

Some of you Gator Freethought members who attended the last few meetings of the semester last year will remember me showing clips from a debate on evil/suffering between my friend John Loftus of "Debunking Christianity" and theist David Wood of "Answering Infidels". Both John (here, or in parts: 1, 2, 3) and David (here) have weighed in on their debate on the problem of evil (also see the free podcast from their Debate Hour exchange). Now, theist Mary Jo Sharp has a response, and atheist Prof. Andrea M. Weisberger has weighed in as well. Andrea has written Suffering Belief, in which she examines the problem of suffering/evil, and she also wrote the chapter on the problem of evil for The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, edited by Michael Martin, and so she is certainly well-positioned and learned to weigh in on the debate. The full-text of her response follows:

Reason to Disbelieve: A Critical Reflection on the Loftus-Wood Debate
By A. M. Weisberger.

Some prefatory remarks should be made about the following discussion of the Loftus-Wood Debate. First, both sides continually refer to god as "he." Although this may be a cultural throwback, my comments will use what I believe to be the more accurate term: 'it.' God, as theologically construed, would be an incorporeal, genderless being, having neither the attributes of female nor male, but some wholly other constitution that transcends these physically-based categories. Alternatively, we might construe god as a combination of all genders [here we can bracket the question of whether gender categories are binary or not], and interpret god's perfect nature as incorporating all gender configurations. In this case, god would also be an 'it' since the combination of all genders would render attributions such as 'he' inappropriate. If there is difficulty in conceiving of god as an 'it' we should be reminded that we do have examples of creatures classified in such a way, namely the mule. Mules, offspring of donkeys and horses, are considered to be genderless beings, and referred to as 'it' rather than as a 'he' or a 'she.'

Secondly, the term 'god' is frequently capitalized as if it is a proper name. Being a non-theist (and here I lay my cards on the table), I lack faith in the existence of such a being, let alone such a being with a proper name. As a result, I find that the capitalization of 'God' begs the question for the theistic hypothesis, and prefer the more neutral reference to deity: god.

Terms of the debate
Framing the terms of the debate is helpful for clarificatory purposes. I found Mr. Wood's remarks in his review of the debate to be helpful in this respect, as he touches on some issues which were not laid out in the opening remarks of the debate itself.

In his critical review of the Loftus-Wood Debate, Mr. Wood lays out 5 possible debate propositions, and focuses on the distinction between implausibility and improbability. He claims:

Whereas a person could hold that the existence of God is improbable yet still plausible, to say that the existence of God is implausible means that we shouldn’t even take God’s existence seriously.

However, he seems to have it backwards here: if a proposition were to be labeled implausible, it would be difficult to believe, or have some quality that provokes disbelief. On the other hand, if a proposition were to be labeled improbable, that would mean it was unlikely to be true or occur. If something is unlikely, it would therefore be difficult to believe, and would in fact have some quality which would provoke disbelief. Therefore, if a proposition were improbable, it would be implausible as well, contrary to what Mr. Wood claims. For why would anyone accept that something is plausible when it is unlikely to be true? On the other hand, it does make sense to say that although a proposition seems implausible, it is still probable -- in other worlds something may be true even though people do not believe it is. It is much more difficult to provide evidence for the claim that although something is recognized to most likely be false, it still makes sense.

In short, it seems in Mr. Wood's listing of the 'weakest to strongest' debate propositions, he should reverse the places of 'improbable' and 'implausible' so that:

(1) The extent of suffering in our world poses an interesting problem for theists, since God is said to be all-powerful and wholly good.
(2) The extent of suffering in our world is at least some evidence against theism.
(3) The extent of suffering in our world makes the existence of God improbable.
(4) The extent of suffering in our world makes the existence of God implausible.
(5) The extent of suffering in our world makes the existence of God impossible.

becomes:

(1) The extent of suffering in our world poses an interesting problem for theists, since God is said to be all-powerful and wholly good.
(2) The extent of suffering in our world is at least some evidence against theism.
(3) The extent of suffering in our world makes the existence of God implausible.
(4) The extent of suffering in our world makes the existence of God improbable.
(5) The extent of suffering in our world makes the existence of God impossible.

That being said, the claim that the extent of suffering in the world serves to make the existence of god implausible seems to me to be too weak a position. I would opt for the stronger statement that the abundance or extent of suffering in the world serves to make the existence of god improbable. However, this debate focused on the weaker claim, namely that the extent of suffering in the world makes the existence of god difficult to believe. Implausibility refers to the belief-worthiness of a claim, while improbability references the chances that something is true or will occur. The belief in god might be argued to be plausible or implausible, whereas the debate over the existence of god should focus on issues which call probability and possibility into question.

Since this particular debate referenced the plausibility option, the focus is then on whether or not the god hypothesis is difficult to believe, given the constraints of so much suffering in the world. Perhaps framing the debate as: "Does the Extent of Suffering in Our World Make Belief in the Existence of God Implausible?” would clarify this ambiguity. [Again, it does seem, however, that the more interesting issue would focus on the stronger claim which could be rendered as: "Does the Extent of Suffering in Our World Make the Existence of God Improbable?”

Perhaps this ambiguity is responsible for Mr. Wood's understanding that the debate does not focus on the existence of god, but whether evil makes the existence of god implausible. It is unclear what this distinction really amounts to, for it is the existence of evil itself, in such great abundance and variety that abounds in the world, which is in need of justification in order for a deity so radically opposed to evil, and who admittedly has the ability to eradicate such evil, to be claimed to exist. In fact, it is the existence of wholly good, all-powerful god which the problem of evil calls into question.

Another issue to be addressed is the burden of proof which, Wood claims, lies with the skeptic. But his position here appears to rely on a misunderstanding. The entire terms of the debate rests on a response to the god hypothesis, initially offered by the theistic view. The problem of evil, which is the focus of the debate, could not even arise unless a particular theistic worldview were presented beforehand.

This worldview, as Dr. Hatab noted in his introductory comments to the debate, is peculiarly western: god is assumed to be all powerful, (inclusive of all knowing), as well as wholly good. If we round out what these terms mean in their most profound sense, we should conclude that we are referencing a deity which is as powerful as logical possibility would permit, and so perfectly good that this being would be opposed to evil in every respect. So this god, no matter what other attributes might be claimed of it, would be powerful enough to eradicate evil (provided it was not logically impossible to do so) and motivated to do so by absolute goodness, which we can suppose is the opposite of evil.

If we posit the existence of an omnipotent (and omniscient), and omnibenevolent deity, then one might wonder why there is such an abundance of suffering or evil in the world. It is only if we posit the existence of such a god that evil becomes a "problem." So we see that the questioning of the existence of god, or the plausibility of the god hypothesis, only occurs in response to the god hypothesis. As a result, the burden is on the proponent of the hypothesis or the presenter of the initial claim.

An analogy would be if someone were to claim that invisible, green gremlins power all microchips. Confronted with this hypothesis, one might ask how this is so, how it is known that these gremlins are green if they are invisible, and many similar questions. It is simply not convincing for the proponent of the invisible, green gremlin hypothesis to then claim, 'Well, since you question the gremlins' greenness, it is up to you to prove that they are not green!' This does little to persuade anyone of the viability or plausibility of the gremlin hypothesis. Similarly, anyone making claims about the existence of extraordinary phenomena, such as invisible, green gremlins, the burden of proof lies with the claimant. And the claim about the existence of a wholly good, all powerful being, in the face of such abundant and excruciating suffering in the world, appears to be an extraordinary claim! It is the proposer of the god hypothesis, no matter what the flavor (classical or personalist), who must bear the burden of making sense of the claim that an all good, all powerful being -- one who is powerful enough to eradicate at least some of the tremendous suffering that exists, and one who is opposed to such suffering by its very essence -- exists.

The Arguments
Mr. Loftus presents a summary list of evils in the world, from mental torture to animal suffering to the evils of slavery. Reflecting on these leads to the following questions:

• Why did god create any of this at all?
• If god had to create, why not just create a heavenly world with perfect existences (no evil)?
• If there was an initial heavenly world, but there was rebellion, then how can we explain how an angel would rebel when in the presence of an all-powerful, wholly good being?

Free will is frequently offered as an explanation, complete or partial, for numerous instances of suffering, mostly those having to do with moral choice. But the issue of free will provokes another set of questions. One of which is:

• Did god not know how free will would be abused?

Loftus reminds us that, If the answer is affirmative, then god is blameworthy for the subsequent suffering. If the theist maintains that free will is a ‘gift,’ then the giver of a gift, for which it is foreknown will be used to cause harm, is guilty of that harm. For example, a mother who gives a toddler a razor blade to play with is responsible for the resulting damage.

For Loftus, there are a number of moral concerns which arise from a posited relationship between an all-powerful god and creation. Some of these are:

1) We should not be permitted to create suffering by abusing free will (we should not be constructed so as to easily choose evil)
2) We should not be placed in a dangerous environment (we should not be subject to suffering from natural disasters)

• To claim there is a compensatory greater good for our troubles is problematic as a justifier. Such claims do not justify our torture of others, even if we were to reward them afterward. And, the purported greater good is not revealed.
• Creatures should not be subject to the horrors of predation, and pain is not necessary as a warning mechanism. God should not have created animals, if their only purpose was to suffer pointlessly. (There is no moral lesson animals are meant to learn.)
• If physical laws are responsible for suffering, then why could the laws be altered so as not to do so?

3) We should not be created as to be so physically vulnerable (why can’t our injuries be more easily healed?) Our configuration could have been different so as to minimize suffering, especially in light of god’s omniscience.

The resulting conclusion from Loftus’ argument is that this just cannot be the best of all possible worlds – an omniscient being should have been able to do better.

_____________________________________________________________


In his response to these concerns, Mr. Wood begins by stating that it is not the existence of god which is at issue, but whether the abundance of pain and suffering does damage to the god hypothesis. His claim is that the burden of proof lies with the atheist rather than the theist.

Wood lays out two options here. Either:

1) There is a reason for suffering
or
2) There is no reason for suffering

Wood argues that on intellectual grounds, but perhaps not emotional, there is a reason for suffering. He uses the example of the plot in the film Sophie’s choice. Sophie, while standing in line to the gas chambers with her two small children, must select one child over another to save -- under duress from a Nazi. If she fails to select one, all three will die. If she plays the Nazi’s cruel game, two of them live. She chooses her son and sends off her daughter to die. Wood claims that this was an acceptable intellectual choice, though emotionally devastating. In the film, Sophie eventually commits suicide.

However, is such a choice justified on intellectual moral grounds? Is it the case that we have some definitive framework for determining a morally correct choice here? And if so, is there obvious evidence for adopting an act utilitarianism over a rule utilitarian or even deontological approach -- which might claim that since all human lives are infinitely (or even equally valuable) one cannot then choose between them? To make this claim, and in light of the background of Nazi insanity, implies that there was a logically coherent and correct response to the Nazi proposition of choosing to save one of your children and condemn the other to death. This is not a rational proposition, and there is no rationally based correct response to such horror. There is not even a moral framework, let alone a meaningful language external to the incoherence of the Holocaust, to judge the actions of the film’s protagonist.

Undeterred, Wood argues that the concept of god’s goodness is not a claim about personal behavior, but about essential features. Despite a misplaced reference to Thomas Aquinas’ pronouncement that ‘god is good’ (since Aquinas was loathe to apply moral predicates in any meaningful sense to god) this concept is abandoned.

The claim that Wood wants to emphasize is that there are coherent reasons for why a god would permit the existence of suffering in the world. Wood briefly mentions 3 possible theodicies, and only discusses the last in any detail:

1) Free will theodicy:

• A world with free will is better than one without
• True freedom entails the choice to choose evil

Of course, both of these claims are highly questionable. Why is it the case that a world with free will is better than a world without? How is the value of free will quantified so as to make such a claim? What measurements would be used to determine that free will is so intrinsically valuable that without it our lives would somehow be diminished? Considering that god itself does not have free will, namely the ability to even choose to do evil since god is perfectly good, it does not seem that it is really such a boon to existence.

And, does true freedom really entail the choice to choose evil? If we had the choice between very good, good, and uneventful actions, would that not be a real choice? Is it not a real choice if I am only choosing between oatmeal and Frosted Flakes for breakfast? Could not free will also refer to the ability to choose to act, and not necessarily to commit the act? (As in choosing to create a plan to do evil, but not have the ability to carry out the plan?) If so, then is not having the ability to fly, no matter how hard we flap our arms, a limitation on free choice? In other words, is ‘true freedom’ the same as absolute freedom? If so, then we do not have that now.

2) Wizard of Oz theodicy

• The world is a place of wonder, and problems make us realize there is hope

I am not sure what to make of this claim. It is not really a theodicy at all since it does not offer any explanatory power regarding the existence of suffering. Is the existence of hope somehow the justifier for suffering? Was it just fine to torture people in concentration camps so long as they had hope of liberation? And is the take home message, for concentration camp survivors and others who were enslaved, that the world is a wondrous place? It seems to me that if god is relying on suffering to create a sense of wonder in humans, then god is inept, and really not the sharpest tool in the shed. A miracle now and then would seem to have a better chance of assuring the resulting sense of wonder in the face of the world than torture!

3) Soul-building theodicy

• Suffering builds character, god is a divine thermostat

Although this theodicy has a long history, Wood makes no reference to any of the literature on the topic. Instead, Wood constructs a very odd argument:

1) If god exists, we would not be permitted to feel pain (since it interferes with our happiness)
2) We experience pain
3) Therefore, god does not exist

But, Wood notes, what if premise one were not true? What if the purpose of existence were not to maximize happiness? Then the argument against soul-building fails.

Of course, the reasonable rejoinder is that even if premise one were false, and suffering serves some good purpose, there still does not need to be the abundance of suffering that exists in the world. And it is the great abundance of suffering, or gratuitous evil, which calls into question the existence of a wholly good, all-powerful deity.

Anticipating such a response, Wood argues that the world is not such a bad place as the non-theist makes it out to be. The non-theist makes it out that the world is just one giant cesspool of suffering, without focusing on the good that exists. The atheist, according to Wood, has ‘tunnel vision.’

This view, that the world is a happy place overall, is perfectly consistent with being a privileged, well fed, insulated person who has had the good fortune to be born into a first world country and who has all their immediate survival needs met. The facts speak quite differently, especially if one were to take a global perspective.

Just to take one example: 18,000 children a day die of starvation. 18,000 children: innocent people who have never done anything to deserve such a horrible death. These are children who have had the misfortune of being born into a country in which there are not enough resources to feed them – either due to natural occurrences such as drought, or due to the misuse of freewill by political leaders aiming to torture their own people and/or accrue wealth to satisfy their own desires. To take one example, the death rate for starvation in North Korea is monumentally higher than that of South Korea. Here, being born in one geographical location considerably impacts on quality of life and life expectancy. According to James Morris, outgoing director of the UN World Food Program:

"The average 7-year-old North Korean boy is eight inches shorter, 20 pounds lighter and has a 10-year-shorter life expectancy than his 7-year-old counterpart in South Korea. And to have this much disparity by age 7 — it's a terrible thing."1

Moreover, death by starvation is not even a remotely pleasant experience. And, having to watch one’s own children die of starvation adds an additional layer of agony, one which is incomprehensible to the majority of us living in the privileged environment of the US.

So, the attribution of ‘tunnel vision’ by Wood in this case seems to be self-referential. What possible justification could there be for subjecting 18,000 children per day to death by starvation? And notice, this number does not include adults into the equation. Estimates are that 40,000 people per day die of starvation worldwide.

The point Wood wants to make is that the claim about the abundance of evil outweighing the good needs substantiation in order for the argument from evil to succeed. But this is a factual issue that must rely on some type of quantification, both in the amount and quality of suffering versus incidents of pleasure in the world. And who is willing to make the case that the joy of an American child receiving a Playstation 3 for Christmas outweighs the excruciating pain a North Korean child experiences while suffering from starvation?

The important issue is that the suffering of the North Korean child is unnecessary and gratuitous. If one North Korean child could be prevented from starvation without that occurrence impacting any of god’s ‘plans’ in some negative fashion, then that suffering is gratuitous. If it is reasonable to think that the entire course of the universe is not dependent upon the suffering of one North Korean child, then not all suffering is necessary. If not all suffering is necessary, then there is no reason for some suffering, and it is gratuitous. If there is gratuitous suffering in the world, then we can imagine a better world than this, one in which there is at the very least, no gratuitous suffering.

So, to clarify:

1) If an instance of suffering could be prevented without compromising a greater good, that suffering is unnecessary for that greater good
2) If an instance of suffering is unnecessary, then there is gratuitous suffering in the world
3) If there is gratuitous suffering in this world, then we can imagine a better world than this

Contrary to what Wood believes -- that the burden is on the atheist to show how the suffering outweighs the happiness, the burden is on the theist to show why this particular worldly configuration, one in which gratuitous suffering seems to exist, is the best of all possible worlds.

Because if this is not the best god could have created, even with the 18,000 children a day dying of starvation, then there is a problem.

4) If god could have done better but chose not to, god is not wholly good
5) If god wanted to do better than this but could not, then god is not all powerful
Assenting to either one of these propositions supports the conclusion that the argument from evil offers.

It is the original claim that is what is really at issue – it is the theist who makes the initial claim that god is wholly good and all powerful. And a wholly good being would be opposed to suffering in such a way as to desire to eradicate it. An all-powerful being would have the ability to do so. The stubborn fact of suffering in the world, and especially apparently gratuitous suffering, is what calls the theist’s claim into question.

Ignoring the entire issue of god’s allege omnipotence, and the ability to eradicate suffering in the world, leads to a consideration of the other primary attribute called into question by the argument from evil: god’s perfect goodness. Wood finds difficulty with the concept that there are moral laws that god must follow. In other words, god may be above the moral law, in other worlds, god is the source of moral law.

He presents an argument:

1) If god does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist
2) Objective moral values do exist
3) Therefore, god exists

Wood comments that the logic is valid. This may be so, but this is far from a sound argument. As first year logic students are taught, an argument’s validity says nothing about truth, it is merely a statement about the relationship between the premises and the conclusion. Valid arguments are not necessarily sound.

Wood notes that the second premise might be called into question in an effort to defeat the conclusion. But not only might the second premise be challenged, namely, whether there are such things as objective moral values existing independently of moral creatures in a vacuum, but the first premise is itself highly questionable. What, exactly, is the connection between god and morality? It seems that Wood is making the assumption that there is such a connection, an assumption that would beg the question in favor of his position.

If we hearken back to Socrates’ question in the Euthryphro, the difficulty is immediately obvious. In Socrates’ version the question is framed in the following terms: ‘Do the gods love what is holy, or is what is holy whatever the gods love?’ In terms relevant to this debate, the question could be framed as: ‘Is what is ‘objectively morally valid’ whatever god determines it to be, or is god itself subject to moral laws?’

In the first interpretation, god is the source of objective moral values. Therefore, whatever god tells one to do must be the right thing to do. So, if god spoke to you and told you to murder your infant daughter while she slept, than that would be morally the correct thing to do. If god had really commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, without the ‘just kidding’ part at the last minute, then according to the first interpretation [what is ‘objectively morally valid’ is whatever god determines it to be], human sacrifice would be morally correct. Note, this is the view that the first premise of the argument assumes. We should also note that the concept here of ‘objectively morally valid’ really means ‘subject to god’s whim at the moment’ – not very objective at all really.

If, on the other hand, we reason that there are actions which are right or wrong, independent of what god decides at the moment, than god itself must be subject to moral laws. If so, then the existence of ‘objective moral laws’ has no bearing on the existence of god, since god itself is subject to these laws. If god is subject to these laws, there is a complication with imagining that god is also the source of these laws.

After parsing out the first premise of the argument Wood offers, we can see that it is incoherent. If God is the source of moral law, it is hardly ‘objectively valid.’ On the other hand, if there is such a thing as an objective moral law, then it would not be dependent upon the existence of god. In fact, the theist is better off arguing that there is no such thing as an objective moral law (denying premise #2) in its most absolute sense, since that claim would then negate the concept of god as the creator of everything.

In sum, either premise 1 is false (that morality is dependent upon god) or premise 2 is false (that morality is independent of god). Objective moral values cannot be both dependent upon god (in which case they would be subjective to god) and truly objective (independent of a subjective viewpoint) at one and the same time. Such an argument, as Wood constructs, falls under its own weight, without even so much as a whisper from the atheist.

Perhaps it might be better to construe moral values as inter-subjectively determined by moral creatures who are attempting to make the world a better place than they found it. The issue of why we find so much suffering in the world, suffering that we moral creatures should be attempting to eradicate, still remains unanswerable.

Any coherent attempt on the theist’s part to offer an explanation will need to go beyond the hollow repetition that god has reasons for everything. Ultimately, the belief in such a deity in the face of the horrendous suffering that currently exists, coupled with the reliance on the hope that it will all one day make sense, requires a leap of faith beyond the boundaries of rationality.

1 Departing U.N. Food Chief Reflects on World Hunger Michele Keleman, National Public Radio

________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Philosophy

Campus Preacher Gary Birdsong on Racism

Birdsong is a regular at UNC, and other NC colleges, but we don't see him much here at UF. He has his own wiki, and paid a visit to us last week, living up to all that was recorded there. See his 6-part diatribe on the evil of interracial relationships ("...I'm not racist...it [interracial marriage] just causes a lot of confusion in the family.") and his other general rantings below:

1. Part 1
2. Part 2
3. Part 3
4. Part 4
5. Part 5
6. Part 6
   

Thanks again to DracoTheVampyre for those vids.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion

Debate Room and Time - Sunday March 25, 2:00 PM

Eddie will be coming to Norman Hall 137 at 2 PM on Sunday, March 25th. We will either be hosting a debate or a lecture, depending on how it works out setting him up an opponent.

I just received and responded to an email about a proposed debate between Paul Manata and Eddie Tabash. Paul has debated Dan Barker and a few others. Listen to that debate here. Paul is of the presuppositionalist school, and he is a fine representative of their thought and tactics. I don't know yet if Paul will be able to make this meeting (3/25), but I'll notify you as soon as he lets me know. Regardless, we will try to set up a debate again at a later date if Paul can't make it this time.

Below I have placed a couple pics of the venue we will be having the debate at. It is the largest hall I could find on short notice: Norman Hall 137.


The good news is that they've renovated it from these pictures (taken May 2005), and so it looks nicer now. It has PowerPoint and overhead capabilities, and an installed A/V system. I don't know if we can get the equipment or not, as it says here we can, but the email from the guy who reserved it for me says:

Use of any multi-media equipment is prohibited unless faculty has made
arrangements with the Office of Academic Technology to have the
equipment available for their use. Information about multi-media
equipped rooms can be found at:

http://www.at.ufl.edu/classrooms/policies.html

I will be writing our faculty advisor to see if he can help us out with that. I would actually like to video record the debate, and I would like to talk to Gator Freethought members who have some equipment to do this with, and/or prior experience. If you have any experience recording events, please email me (thinkingfreely at gmail dot com).

See you in Norman Hall 137 on Sunday, March 25 @ 2 PM...that is, of course, if I don't see you first at our next meeting, Sunday March 4 @ 5 PM, 1st floor of Marston Science Library.
________________
Technorati tags: Gator Freethought

Meeting 15: Sun 3/4, 5PM, Marston Science Library 1st Floor

Our third spring meeting will be in the Marston Science Library general discussion / group study area on the 1st floor this Sunday at 5 PM. We'll be finalizing plans for the Tabash event and discussing general group business.