22-Jul-2013, 06:36 PM
Recently saw the NDTV debate Science, magic or miracles
The debate didn't have any new or good arguments from theists. So there is not much to discuss on that front. But I would like to discuss about how to respond and some takeaways from this discussion.
The debate didn't have any new or good arguments from theists. So there is not much to discuss on that front. But I would like to discuss about how to respond and some takeaways from this discussion.
- Narendra Nayak did a fabulous job of retaining composure amidst adhominem attacks and maintained civility from his side while presenting rational arguments. I think that is a very important thing because the biased theists are looking for slightest opportunity to stop listening.
- Noticed how Raghu Rai repeatedly brings the point of not equating tricksters with the gurus while surreptitiously presenting personal anecdotes as evidence. This is a cheap trick in debates to win brownie points with the people who are already believers without really making a point. I think this should be called out.
- Ashwini brings in the "I have already done this" card to the table. How do we call out such lies? [Narendra Nayak reported that the site has taken down the so called certificate after his complaints]
- One person made a good point that medical personnel are not qualified enough to catch tricks like mind/face/photo reading etc. We should probably make a list of who all be needed to evaluate such claims of miracle.
- Another person air quoted Science while making some bullshit point about how Dawkins disproved God in God Delusion. There are two important points to be tackled here
- The air quoting of Science should be immediately pointed and it should be stressed that people need to understand what is Science and what is not. Using terms like energy, time etc doesn't make everything Science.
- The critical distinctions between proofs/disproofs and justification should be pointed out. God Delusion doesn't prove non-existence of god. It gives us arguments that deprive of any justification to believe in God.
- The air quoting of Science should be immediately pointed and it should be stressed that people need to understand what is Science and what is not. Using terms like energy, time etc doesn't make everything Science.
- A lot of exchanges had words like "beyond logic". The pseudo profundity [deepityness] should be again brought to everybody's attention. What are effective ways of doing this?