Published on Nov 6, 2013
Have the new atheists won the battle of ideas by proving that religion isn't true? Scientists and philosophers such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Lawrence Krauss have brought a new fire to debates on religion and belief by using the tools of logic and scientific method to dismantle the 'God Hypothesis.' But the response of 'new religion' is that theology cannot necessarily be understood by evidence or facts. As with the belief in equality or the belief that torture is wrong, defending religious belief in this misses the point. According to Peter Rollins, "faith is not placed into danger by being exposed as counter-factual," and to try and defend it in this way is to undermine its very nature. Can these contemporary views of religion open a new front in the atheism vs. religion battle? Or are they just a strategy to co-opt the middle ground for the religious? Join new atheism's most entertaining exponent Lawrence Krauss and postmodern religious firebrand Peter Rollins for a challenging debate.
Chair: Simon Longstaff is Executive Director of St James Ethics Centre, and is co-curator of Festival of Dangerous Ideas.
Lawrence M. Krauss is a renowned cosmologist and science communicator, and is the author of recent bestseller A Universe From Nothing.
Peter Rollins is a leading figure of the postmodern Christianity movement and author of books such as How (Not) to Speak of God and Insurrection.
Chair: Simon Longstaff is Executive Director of St James Ethics Centre, and is co-curator of Festival of Dangerous Ideas.
Lawrence M. Krauss is a renowned cosmologist and science communicator, and is the author of recent bestseller A Universe From Nothing.
Peter Rollins is a leading figure of the postmodern Christianity movement and author of books such as How (Not) to Speak of God and Insurrection.
Awesome video. I was very entertained when you showed us in class. I liked both sides of the argument but both guys did have some negative drawbacks. I feel like Peter Rollins was talking in circles and he kind of lost me a couple of times, he needs to be more direct. And Lawrence Krauss was just rude, i didnt like him very much
ReplyDeleteThis was a very interesting debate. I really liked Peter’s use of analogy throughout his debate, but I didn’t feel like he gave a clear concrete definition of what new Atheism is. He kind of just rambled about life. Krauss on the other hand wasn’t as charismatic as Rollins but he did have some good points. The fact that he kept interrupting Rollins made him appear rude and definitely took away from his argument.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though just like you argued that the Bill Nye debate wasn't fair because Ken Ham was borderline irrational, this is not a fair debate as Krauss was borderline rude and patronizing. Still, Peter Rollins didn't argue even close to as strongly as Bill Nye had. He was extremely moderate and passive and even confusing, barely arguing his point. Overall, this wasn't a strong debate. I would still be interested in watching a better one on New Religion vs. New Atheism in the future.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the whole debate, Krauss was extremely rude. He was constantly criticizing the church for criticizing others. Yes there are religious people that do act rudely but generalizing the whole church is completely ignorant. He was disrespectful to the church's opinion on God existing and was just as inappropriate as religious conservatives. The church has the right for its own opinion on God and what is sin but he was so focused and making the church look bad that he gave a worse impression of Atheist point of view.
ReplyDeleteOkay so at some point in the video there was a pop-up for a debate between Krauss and Bertrand Russel, and honestly that would be a very interesting debate. The new religion spokesperson was very relaxed and clearly good at preaching and speaking, and he makes some very good points. He doesn't like fundamentalists, but is not confronting anybody and is very accepting and tolerant. As one of the biggest critiques of religion is their lack of tolerance, new religion solves that problem. What I really loved was Krauss' point that you do not have to be religious to be a good person. Rollins speaks of things that a good tolerant person does and how it can help people who are in need. Krauss makes a great point, you can accomplish all that without being religious.
ReplyDeleteI really liked seeing this video discussion in class. First of all, the discussion has an interesting format, since two people brought had absolutely different point of view on religion and God. I certainly agree with the ideas mentioned by Peter Rollins more than with the Lawrence's ones. However, Lawrence also does a good job in defining the major aspects of atheism. But I didn't exactly like his way of presenting, since some of the things he said weren't really respectful towards the feelings of the religious audience.
ReplyDeleteI think it was a really good debate, both sides of the argument were very interesting. The only thing that bothered me a little is the way that Lawrence Krauss presented himself, he seemed like he did not want to be there, no body language at all. If you are going to have a debate on such a complicated matter you should probably bring some energy to your argument.
ReplyDeleteThis debate was interesting to watch because sometimes I do question the religion I was raised in, Catholicism. At times, I do have faith in God and other times I think science just makes more sense. Seeing these two completely different perspectives allowed me to understand both sides a little better. Krauss and Rollins both provided strong viewpoints and support for their beliefs. At times Krauss seemed a bit condescending when he said that people who have religious beliefs are silly. However, he did have good points when explaining that we sometimes steer away from reality when dealing with religion. Rollins had a more respectful and light side. He supports how people can effectively progress morally.
ReplyDeleteI remember listening to this in class. This caught my attention and was very interesting. I like the thought of everything is what you make of it. Everything is in your head, you kind of make your own world.
ReplyDeleteI wish Peter Rollins was more aggressive. It seems that Krauss walked all over him in this debate. Me personally, if I was debating I would be more passionate on my stance with the church.
ReplyDeleteThis was a great debate to listen to. Both individuals made excellent points. However, I feel as though Peter should have been more direct and absolute, and Krauss could have been more enthusiastic, and not come off so rude. Sometimes it's easy to lose faith because there is no concrete way to prove that there is a God, but religion is all about faith and believing.
ReplyDelete