Monday, November 30, 2009 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Intelligence Squared Debate: Is Atheism the New Fundamentalism?

Richard Dawkins, AC Grayling, Richard Harries

Click here to play:
http://www.intelligencesquared.com/iq2-video/2009/atheism-is-the-new-fundamentalism

For the first time, this Intelligence Squared debate was live-streamed over the internet, allowing people to watch, and participate, from anywhere in the world. The online audience's vote is included below.

Initial Vote: For 333, Against 675, Undecided 389

Final Vote: For 363, Against 1070, Undecided 85

Final Online Vote: For 37, Against 889, Undecided 12

The motion proposes that "atheism is the new fundamentalism", i.e., atheism has replaced religion as the new faith of the secular age, exploring the notion that modern atheism is itself guilty of the very dogma and belief in its own infallibility which it scorns in the religious community.

Speaking for the motion are Richard Harries and Charles Moore.

Richard Harries outlines the features and the history of fundamentalism, arguing that many of the criteria required for it are in fact apparent in today's atheists. He portrays a set of people with narrow views, arguing against a specific view of God, who forget that some of the greatest philosophy, art, poetry and music has been inspired and supported by Christianity – the very belief system that is accused of restricting the creative process by its refusal to allow for ‘the grand perhaps’ (Browning).

Charles Moore insists that his opponents cannot see the true complexity of the argument, and that they emphasise the physical and the scientific aspect of humanity at the cost of any spiritual understanding. He criticises Richard Dawkins for embodying this crude and narrow pursuit of literal truth above all else.

Opposing the motion are A.C. Grayling and Richard Dawkins.

Professor Grayling maintains that since 9/11, the nature of the debate on religious commitment has become far more serious. He distinguishes between atheism, secularism and humanism. He refutes Moore's suggestion that atheists cannot fully understand the complexity of the religious experience, insisting that many atheists understand it all too well, having been brought up in a religious family or community.

Richard Dawkins defines fundamentalism as the following: blind obedience to scripture regardless of evidence, allied to extremism. He argues that far from being entrenched fundamentalists, atheists have a commitment to exploring evidence, and a readiness to embrace change, and that we should not mistake the passion of their arguments or their refusal to remain silent for fundamentalism.

This event was the first in a new partnership between Intelligence Squared and Wellington College. To find out more, visit Wellington College

Posted: Monday, November 30, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 310 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #437084 by SamKiddoGordon on November 30, 2009 at 11:32 pm

Reality is as reality does. If thats fundamentalism, I'll eat my hat.

Other Comments by SamKiddoGordon

2. Comment #437085 by toomanytribbles on November 30, 2009 at 11:33 pm

ah... watched this on live stream. it was great.
wasn't thrilled about the Q&A format though.

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

3. Comment #437087 by LWS on November 30, 2009 at 11:36 pm

Richard Dawkins was the most eloquent and comprehensive speaker on the panel. Harries and Moore really didn't put any effort into defending their side. The result of course is that Dawkins & Grayling won.

Harries' remarks were overall predictable and dull. In the diatribe against 'fundamentalism' he said it is 'impervious to the facts' yet he is wearing a big, glossy, bling-bling crucifix, the symbol of his faith, something that is based on magical thinking and that he continues to proclaim, not too loudly, is true. His citing of Pullman's old God (His Dark Materials Trilogy) is of a man that nobody pays much attention to anymore. It is perhaps a mirror image of himself.

Other Comments by LWS

4. Comment #437089 by DeusExNihilum on November 30, 2009 at 11:43 pm

they emphasise the physical and the scientific aspect of humanity at the cost of any spiritual understanding.

Show me that there anything spiritual to understand in the first place and then, and only then, is it valid to use this kind of reasoning.

Other Comments by DeusExNihilum

5. Comment #437090 by mordacious1 on November 30, 2009 at 11:45 pm

I'll have to watch this again. I have to admit, during some of Harries' remarks and most of Moore's, I was reading the tweets (Pzed was more entertaining). Also did not especially care for the Q&A session.

Other Comments by mordacious1

6. Comment #437093 by kkelly on November 30, 2009 at 11:57 pm

I wish there didn't have to be debates hinged on the fundamental misuse of a word.

Other Comments by kkelly

7. Comment #437094 by Nunbeliever on December 1, 2009 at 12:05 am

Interesting how Charles Moore is talking about how ARROGANT and fundamentalist atheists are. "How stupid of them to think they know all the answers to the great mysteries of the universe."

I'm sorry. Some of us might be arrogant. We are only human(ist)s. But, at least we are not the ones claiming to have access to holy books inspired by the creator of the universe himself. One would think that would count in our favor ;-)

And where did they find that utterly annoying moderator???

Other Comments by Nunbeliever

8. Comment #437096 by deBeuk on December 1, 2009 at 12:05 am

I watched it live yesterday. The questions from the audience were tedious. I wish they'd just answer questions posed through twitter after screening them, the people in the audience tend to blather on and on.

All in all, it was a good debate, though the remark from the moderator at the end was a bit odd (I guess he thought the microphones were turned off by that time).

Other Comments by deBeuk

9. Comment #437101 by Lucas on December 1, 2009 at 12:23 am

Similar to SamKiddoGordon, but I like to just go with, "What is is."

I'll check this out at some point, and I really should for simply academic reasons, but the whole question is just so fundamentally wrong that I can't bring myself to listen to it. I appreciate that Richard and A.C. are willing to publicly listen to such arguments and refute them soundly for everyone to see, but the bald-faced hypocrisy of these guys even trying to debate the point makes me wonder if its better to just ignore them.

Other Comments by Lucas

10. Comment #437103 by daverussell on December 1, 2009 at 12:27 am

This link doesn't seem to work here in Korea...actually when I registed for Int. squared, there was no 'Korea' option in the location box - along with Iran if I remember. Ah well.

Other Comments by daverussell

11. Comment #437112 by mjwemdee on December 1, 2009 at 1:06 am

Nope. Can't get this link to work. And I'm in Surrey.

Other Comments by mjwemdee

12. Comment #437114 by digibud on December 1, 2009 at 1:09 am

the video didn't appear to work. the screen remained black but it simply took a long time to load and showed no progress bar. eventually it did load and begin playing.

Other Comments by digibud

13. Comment #437117 by Stevezar on December 1, 2009 at 1:26 am

Cant see any video eother but I love the title of RD's segment: "Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings." Priceless!

Other Comments by Stevezar

14. Comment #437118 by InYourFaceNewYorker on December 1, 2009 at 1:28 am

Great debate!

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

15. Comment #437119 by Alternative Carpark on December 1, 2009 at 1:29 am

Why don't they just stick it on youtube if their own server is so crap?

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

16. Comment #437120 by Squigit on December 1, 2009 at 1:31 am

*pout* I also cannot seem to get the video to work. :(

Other Comments by Squigit

17. Comment #437122 by Silvia on December 1, 2009 at 1:31 am

Well, this link doesn't work for me either, but it's being posted at you tube. The first segments are already posted at http://www.youtube.com/user/AtheistMediaBlog . I hope the other parts will soon be there too.

Other Comments by Silvia

18. Comment #437126 by ViciousCircle on December 1, 2009 at 2:04 am

Brilliant debate enjoyed it throughly and thanks to all involved.

My favourite bit was at the end when the results came out. You can hear Richard saying to AC, "I'm just working out the percentage." Classy!

Other Comments by ViciousCircle

19. Comment #437128 by wetbread on December 1, 2009 at 2:14 am

I like Grayling more every time I hear him. He's a very patient man, perhaps even a walking talking example of why the answer to the question under debate is "no." I'm reading his, "Toward the Light of Reason" right now, and it's really very good. I'll have to pick up "Against All Gods" next.

Other Comments by wetbread

20. Comment #437129 by Koreman on December 1, 2009 at 2:15 am

@1. Comment #437084 by SamKiddoGordon on November 30, 2009 at 11:32 pm
It's the only true fundamentalism ;-)

Other Comments by Koreman

21. Comment #437141 by rgpratt on December 1, 2009 at 2:52 am

My favourite bit was at the end when the results came out. You can hear Richard saying to AC, "I'm just working out the percentage." Classy!

But they conveniently cut the sound at the very end, so we can no longer hear the moderator as he leans over to Charles Moore and says, "Well done, Charles. I was on your side". Not so classy ...

The moderator was foolish, excitable and trying hard to be wittier than he was capable of. His frantic questions at the end betrayed him: Did he really think his question, "If God didn't create the Universe, who did?" would stump anyone?

Other Comments by rgpratt

22. Comment #437157 by Eshto on December 1, 2009 at 3:27 am

I only caught some of this, I saw the Moore dude basically yell at Richard and tell him he's a big fat jerk and totally go way over the time limit.

Then Richard compared Yahweh to a leprechaun, and Grayling said if he met a leprechaun in real life he would tell it "hello" in an Irish accent.

Then I spit what I was drinking out because I was laughing so hard.

I can't wait to watch the whole thing!!

Other Comments by Eshto

23. Comment #437170 by Squigit on December 1, 2009 at 4:09 am

My thanks to Silvia for the link.
I enjoyed that. Atheism cannot be fundamentalist because it makes no statements of fact: it is simply a lack of belief in theism. Theism, on the other hand, is, in and of itself, fundamentalist because it makes statements of fact. In fact, it makes three:
1. There *is* a god.
2. There is a god and it is *my* god.
3. There is a god, it is my god and *all other gods are false.*

EDIT: In response to melsdr just below me: are you kidding? Grayling has better hair than I do!

Other Comments by Squigit

24. Comment #437173 by melsdr on December 1, 2009 at 4:29 am

Charles Moore put forward the most unpleasant, ad-hominem argument, complete with the usual guilt-tripping christian nonsense towards the end. Perhaps when he read the motion, he mistook "Atheism is the new fundamentalism" with "Richard Dawkins is a wanker. Discuss.".
Harries was more pleasant but no more convincing. It was my first time seeing Grayling, and was impressed with everything apart from his haircut. RD's usual stuff, as clear as ever.

Other Comments by melsdr

25. Comment #437180 by Rhiannon Le P on December 1, 2009 at 5:02 am

Charles Moore was exactly as bad as melsdr mentions above, but Richard Harries is an alright debater, don't you think?

Other Comments by Rhiannon Le P

26. Comment #437185 by Alternative Carpark on December 1, 2009 at 5:08 am

AC Grayling was devastating, and even the most unreasonable of persons could not describe him as "strident".

Does AC stand for "Alternative Carpark" by any chance?

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

27. Comment #437198 by melsdr on December 1, 2009 at 5:39 am

The other mistake Moore makes is that he just assumes the motion without arguing for it. He does not make any real attempt to prove that atheism can be fundamentalist, and just slags off Dawkins. He complains that Atheists project extremist religious views onto all the religious. Then he attacks Atheism by attacking Dawkins. If he cannot see the hypocrisy in this, then he does not deserve to be taken seriously.
Also if Moore can look at the Dark Ages in Europe and say that his views are aligned with the 'mainstream' christian views during that period, then he is either embarrassingly naive, or guilty of blatant intellectual dishonesty. I know which one my money is on.

Rhiannon, I agree that Harries is better, but his points are so gaseous, I do not see how they advance the debate.

Other Comments by melsdr

28. Comment #437203 by Akaei on December 1, 2009 at 5:56 am

Charles Moore starting at 24:48 ~ “It’s part of our opponents’ fundamentalist position that they don’t really distinguish between fundamentalism and other forms of religious belief.

Is that true? I don't think that's entirely true. I'm sure I've heard and read Richard regarding various practices and degrees of intractability with equally varied degrees of disdain.

Just as followers of bin Laden will say that all infidels are damned,

Regardless of what bin Laden’s followers do say, this is an unveiled attempt by Moore at suggesting guilt by association.

so these hyper-atheists say that all religion is equally contemptible.

I take "hyper-atheists" to mean "militant atheists" unless it is possible to believe less than none. If lies are contemptible and all religions are equally credible then this may be a stance worth adopting. It should be pointed out that while he’s saying at this point that he’s comparing religions he wants the audience to draw on the seeds he has just planted referring to the practices of fundamentalism and bin Laden’s followers. Very shrewd and more than a little deceptive. He should be a tabloid editor.

It seems to me that’s like saying fascists and liberals are really(?misheard) the same because both of them believe in politics.”

If fascists and liberals both believe in politics then they are in that sense the same. If religions all rely on flimsy-at-best evidence to proclaim supernatural influence then, in that sense, all religions are the same. The doctrines and practices of each deserve equal respect and consideration, which is to say: none.

Sadly, Moore may have won some points here. On the surface it is an evocative and intuitive comparison that may appeal to the non-critical. It falls apart under any hint of skepticism but the audience had little time to consider what was being said. Happily, he probably lost points for boring his audience long past his allotted time (and warnings.)

Other Comments by Akaei

29. Comment #437213 by Jesus86 on December 1, 2009 at 6:38 am

I'm (only a bit) surprised that there is no thread on this scientifically plugged-in website - or at least this part of the website - discussing the hacking of the Climate Reasearch Unit at East Anglia, and the implications of what has been revealed for the widespread faith in AGW (anthropogenic global warming).

O ye of tremendous faith! Is this the way science is supposed to be done these days?

"Hide the decline"!

Other Comments by Jesus86

30. Comment #437215 by Jos Gibbons on December 1, 2009 at 6:51 am

Direct download link http://ec2-79-125-48-20.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com/stream.prop/Atheism_is_the_new_fundamentalism.mp4

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

31. Comment #437222 by nhnl on December 1, 2009 at 7:31 am

here's the cartoon AC grayling reffered to:

http://a6.vox.com/6a00fad6aef25f000501240b7119c6860e-500pi

Other Comments by nhnl

32. Comment #437231 by zeerust2000 on December 1, 2009 at 8:30 am

mp3 audio would be nice

Other Comments by zeerust2000

33. Comment #437232 by Jos Gibbons on December 1, 2009 at 8:35 am

I'd debunk the side with which I disagree as I usually do, if only there seemed to be some actual arguments to debunk, rather than unsubstantiated claims. I'm not going to go through every quickly fired out lie with an explanation of why it's a lie, as if I'm the one who has to prove my case. It's painful enough listening to this nonsense. These people sometimes even revealed in their own speeches how to debunk them, such as when Moore claims RD cares only about intelligence, a criterion that would praise Nazi murderers, immediately after Moore himself confesses RD looked also at the prisoner issue. Who would be stupid enough to be persuaded by that? These speakers got the debate outcome they deserved.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

34. Comment #437233 by stephen.stallebrass on December 1, 2009 at 8:35 am

This was a great debate. IQ2 really know how to put on a good debate. It was well worth the three hour drive in the pouring rain. Well done Richard. It was also good to see Jeremy Paxman front and centre too.

For those of you that did didn't quite catch it, at about 1:17:30 when the bishop starts blabbering about TGD delusion not using "on the balance of probabilities" language, an audience member (which was ME by the way) berates the bishop by shouting "then you clearly haven't read it have you".

Yes, the questions from the audience were very poor for the most part but the loose format allowed for much better rebuttal between the panel, which was very good.

xXx

Other Comments by stephen.stallebrass

35. Comment #437235 by Jonathan Dore on December 1, 2009 at 9:07 am

Akaei, Comment #437203:

He should be a tabloid editor.

Good call -- he's actually a former editor of the Daily Telegraph, so the "skills" of innuendo, ad hom, and forcefully directed malice are in his blood.

Other Comments by Jonathan Dore

36. Comment #437237 by mixmastergaz on December 1, 2009 at 9:23 am

OFF TOPIC

Jeebus86

You should find an article and submit it to the site moderators, if you're really interested in discussing it, as opposed to making a mountain out of a molehill via your own selective editing. It's a non-story - the global warming denialists' equivalent of "missing links" for evolution deniers. It's not as if the whole case for global warming rested on this one study you have noticed (funny that), whilst studiously ignoring years of accumulated, independent, peer-reviewed, mutually self-supporting data, the vast majority of which is pointing in one direction.

ON TOPIC

Atheism is not the new fundamentalism. Claiming that it is however, is the new disingenuous tactic resorted to by increasingly desperate theists.

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

37. Comment #437238 by Rhiannon Le P on December 1, 2009 at 9:28 am

Mesldr - don't for one minute think that I think the bish had any compelling arguments. I agree that his points were largely gaseous, particularly his total misunderstanding of the 'on the balance of probabilities' concept.

However, he at least gave the against team an interesting argument to counter - the fallacious no room for 'the great perhaps' point, which makes such a nice opening for Professor Dawkins to demonstrate the completely un-fundamentalist scientific stance which delights in exploring that which is unknown.

Other Comments by Rhiannon Le P

38. Comment #437239 by Misc on December 1, 2009 at 9:28 am

32. Comment #437231 by zeerust2000

mp3 @ mediafire

Other Comments by Misc

39. Comment #437243 by Quine on December 1, 2009 at 9:47 am

Comment #437237 by mixmastergaz:

Atheism is not the new fundamentalism. Claiming that it is however, is the new disingenuous tactic resorted to by increasingly desperate theists.

They are not accustomed to people not just taking their word for it, but rather, demanding a rational justification. A couple of years ago, they would simply dismiss Richard as not knowing any theology, and expected him to go away. He has not gone away, and the numbers of people coming out of the closet to say that they are not going along with the make believe any longer, are getting too large for them to dismiss as a New Age fad. If they had something that would stand up to logic, they would produce it; they don't.

Other Comments by Quine

40. Comment #437247 by Mark Jones on December 1, 2009 at 10:11 am

Comment #437243 by Quine

If they had something that would stand up to logic, they would produce it; they don't.

Yes, and this was the irony of Charles Moore berating all and sundry for not discussing the more complex issues, such as consciousness, in a debate where he had proposed the vacuous motion 'Atheism is the new fundamentalism'.

The problem is that when theists talk about discussing these complex problems, they mean to sit around and glory in how God did it, whereas 'heartless' neuroscientists want to *investigate* it, and take all the mystery out of it for them. Boo hoo!

Other Comments by Mark Jones

41. Comment #437248 by bendigeidfran on December 1, 2009 at 10:26 am

Comment #437213 by Jesus86

OT but good idea. Someone post that. Lets see if typing emails can change the climate. This could be rather good news. It's -4C here this morning but it won't be for long with a little 'adjustment' to my thermometer.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

42. Comment #437251 by andersemil on December 1, 2009 at 10:46 am

Apparently, Richard Harries' god is about as far from the traditional christian god as he can be; talk about being deluded and ignorant of facts, he doesn't even get what's in the bible! Wonder if he thinks two plus two equals three as well, just as a matter of personal belief?

I can't wait to hear AC Grayling in Copenhagen next year, this was a good debate indeed on our behalf.

Other Comments by andersemil

43. Comment #437252 by retep57 on December 1, 2009 at 10:48 am

What a treat!

Thanks so much to Richard and Anthony, brilliant as expected but a joy to thrill the "heart" nonetheless. I understand the other side i used to be a 7th day adventist, A.C. had it right, many non believers used to be believers, we know EXACTLY how it is/was to be a believer.

A philosopher and a scientist - what a strong combination! - the other side meant well and i note Richards comment about that guys like them are probably nice guys and we would not have a problem with people like them but since sept 11 2001 when religiously deluded decide that murder is "holy" then we have to speak up against superstitious nonsense

I was in new york on sept 11 i SAW IT HAPPEN - even if you had a brain the size of a gnat you would surely realize that this was WRONG.

Pray to fairies in your closet if you must, just don't kill normal people "for god's sake".

Other Comments by retep57

44. Comment #437262 by Paula Kirby on December 1, 2009 at 11:02 am

There is huge irony in the 'fundamentalist atheist' tag

If we were to shut up, stop speaking out publicly about the baselessness of religious belief, its shamelessly dishonest claims and its scandalously influential role in society, the religious would tolerate us very nicely, thank you. Our views wouldn’t have changed, but Harries, Moore & co would no longer call us fundamentalists.

It is not our views, not even our atheism, which render us ‘fundamentalists’ in their minds: it is our pesky habit of voicing those views, unsettling their flocks, undermining their previously unchallenged status as moral champions, campaigning to reduce their automatic privileged access to government influence. If only we’d shut up, we’d stop being fundamentalist overnight.

That’s really why they use such patently inappropriate terms: they are hoping to bully and browbeat us into shutting up. And this is where the irony really arises: for what could be more fundamentalist than to try to silence your opponents? Than to say that your own position should be unassailable and that no one has the right to challenge it? The very use of the term ‘fundamentalist’ to describe an atheist simply underlines the fundamentalism of the speaker: even otherwise nice, woolly, liberal religious people like Richard Harries are fundamentalist at heart, because they object to atheism having found its voice and would prefer it to be silenced again.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

45. Comment #437265 by Jos Gibbons on December 1, 2009 at 11:24 am

Two happy observations occurred to me about the votes.
(1) The initial vote was 2:1 in RD's favour, which IIRC was also said to be true of TGD reviews. It looks like we're now at the point where our pre-argument acceptance is the same as our post-argument acceptance was 3 years ago.
(2) It has been said, including by me, that this wasn't quite the knockout Hitchens and Fry achieved, but I've now realised that may be wrong and for an interesting reason. If you look carefully at the numbers 333,675,389,363,1070,85 you'll notice that the initial total 1397 < the final total 1518. If you work out percentages, to 2 d.p. they go from 23.84,48.32,27.85 to 23.91,70.49,5.60; so, of the 22.25 points lost from the undecided category, the religious side gained 0.07 points, which is 0.31% of 22.25. So, essentially, their position hardly advanced at all. Does anyone recall the numbers of the other debate so we can see which one gave the theists the greater humiliation? Either way, this went well!

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

46. Comment #437273 by God fearing Atheist on December 1, 2009 at 11:44 am

45. Comment #437265 by Jos Gibbons

I think your calculations have spurious accuracy. Both the live and internet audience were self selected.

What happens if next time a mob of 400 xtians packs the debate and swings it 20% in the theist direction?

RDFRS etc needs to start using MORI (or other) to try and determine the opinion of the population, and plot change over time, and maybe tune tactics accordingly.

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

47. Comment #437276 by Paula Kirby on December 1, 2009 at 12:01 pm

http://tinyurl.com/ygchcq8

An atheist's grace

Anthony Seldon, the headmaster of Wellington College, was presented with a dilemma when he hosted a debate between Lord Harries, the former Bishop of Oxford, and Charles Moore, who proposed the motion "Atheism is the new fundamentalism", against Richard Dawkins and AC Grayling. Once the atheists had won by a generous margin of 1,070 to 363, the question of whether to start the dinner that followed with prayer arose.

In the event, Seldon asked both sides to kick off the meal in their chosen fashion. Lord Harries's grace finished, in conventional manner, with a "thanks be to God".

"I then asked the atheists to say a grace," says Seldon, "and Richard Dawkins took up the challenge. 'For what we are about to receive,' he said, 'thanks be to the cook'."

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

48. Comment #437277 by hairybreeks on December 1, 2009 at 12:02 pm

"The vote has been carried AGAINST . . . "
Hmmm. Strange way of putting it. Perhaps "the vote has been defeated" might have been better.
Atheists will always win these debates. Not because they are right (although they are) but because they are smarter.
My reasoning; the votes are judged NOT on the final numbers but on the SWING from the initial vote to the final vote. Therefore if you vote the same before and after, your vote has no effect (no points). However if you change your vote you score two points. Smart people (e.g. atheists) will therefore vote AGAINST their belief when they enter the debate, and FOR their belief at the end. Easy.

Other Comments by hairybreeks

49. Comment #437278 by Mark Jones on December 1, 2009 at 12:22 pm

Comment #437276 by Paula Kirby

'thanks be to the cook'

LOL; thank cook for that!

Other Comments by Mark Jones

50. Comment #437280 by Reckless Monkey on December 1, 2009 at 12:31 pm

Richard was brilliant as always, but I've never heard Grayling before, he's brilliant similar manner to Sam Harris, calmly and quietly slashing your throat. What books has he written? I'll have to look him up.

Other Comments by Reckless Monkey

Reload Comments | Back to Top