Monday, March 27, 2017
The Dillahunty/Licona debate: A review
I watched the YouTube(d) debate (allegedly around the question, "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?") between Matt Dillahunty and fundamentalist Mike Licona, and Matt took a full 57 minutes to start talking about the need for evidence, the need to demonstrate that it's possible for someone to rise from the dead, etc., etc. This is the skeptic's single line: Show me. I have no problem with asking for proof, but why not lay his cards on the table at, say, 57 seconds in, thus saving us all a lot of watching and listening?
The debate can be summed up as:
Mike: The supernatural exists.
Matt: We don't really know what the supernatural would be, and I'm not going to accept the existence of anything supernatural until the supernatural is demonstrated to exist.
Mike: (Paranormal claims)
Matt: Proof, please.
Do we really need 2:29:20 of that? (Who do I mean by "we"? Anyone who hates him or herself enough to sit through such a thing, I guess.)
Licona took issue with Matt's application of Occam's Razor, so there's not much hope for Licona, who is intelligent but fundamentalistic to the core. Matt is equally a fundamentalist, and by that I mean a Christian fundamentalist. A dry fundamentalist, as it were. (Apologies to Firing Line.) He considers himself an atheist (he doesn't believe in God, after all), but anyone who considers the Resurrection the central fact (or fiction) of Christianity is a fundamentalist. Matt's not simply stating someone else's point of view here--he's stating his. It's the tiresome fundie notion that the truth, meaning, validity, etc. of scripture depends upon whether or not the miracles described in the text are real or made-up. Yawwwwwn.
Two Christian fundies battling it out--one a believer, the other a nonbeliever. I only put myself through this because I've questioned Matt's debating skills and felt, because of this, that I ought to watch him debate. Enough.
Background: Matt put up a hilarious YouTube video in which he glibly dismisses ontological arguments as inadequate. I questioned his qualifications to do so, which was not a response to any of his arguments, and certainly not an argument on my part. "What are your creds?" is not an argument for anything.
Nevertheless, he accused me of committing the argument ad hominem fallacy, which I did not, in any way, do. Kind of miffed me. It's too bad I don't have the ability to laugh at such things; instead, I get annoyed. But maybe I enjoy getting annoyed. (Me, and countless other internet addicts.)
Matt's rambling style doesn't impress me--it gives every impression that his knowledge of fallacies, critical thinking requirements, the purpose of scientific skepticism, etc. is pretty superficial. Sorry, but someone who finds a logical fallacy where it's not happening is not someone whose expert act is likely to fool me.
I'm not taking "sides" on the Resurrection, by the way--i.e., on the question of whether or not it really happened. I regard it as what it is--a very important Christian narrative, one whose meaning is far more important than any "debate" over its historicity.
Posted by Lee Hartsfeld at 1:47 PM