Atheism Debate: Jeff Lowder & Phil Fernandes
Jeff Lowder has posted that his 1999 debate with Phil Fernandes is now available as a free download (though a large one). Internet Infidels has a good summary of the arguments raised in the debate and Uncredible Hallq has an analysis. Here is how he concludes:
Closing statements
Fernandes just reasserted a lot of old positions without defending them. Lowder made far better use of his time, talking about his personal movement from creationism to atheism, and telling the students in the audience to keep reading because the debate only scratched the surface (elsewhere, Lowder has complained that unfortunately some will decide on one debate, so this was a wise move).
Question and answer
Again, easy to sum up: ouch. There were scientists getting up saying that Fernandes had misrepresented data. I swear, these things are won in the Q & A.
Final assessment
There are a few things I wish Lowder had done better, but he handled many points better than I could have. Also, except for catching Lowder unprepared with the brain research claim, Fernandes didn't carry a single point, and that point resulted in a challenge in the Q & A. There's no question that Lowder won, though I'd be curious to hear exactly what impact it had on audience members new to these issues. The effect could not have been too slight, though.
Can you learn something from debates like this? Absolutely — Jeff Lowder does a good job presenting the various arguments he has, making what can be complex philosophical and scientific issues comprehensible to a general audience. He should probably write a book, reviewing major arguments with their strengths and weaknesses.
Should people be swayed by these debates? I'm not so sure about that. Pay close attention to what Hallq says at the end: "I swear, these things are won in the Q & A." It's a strong mark against the value of oral debates when "winning" might depend heavily on who you have sitting in the audience to ask the right questions later.
This does, however, point to how oral presentations and discussions can have a lot of value. If people simply read a book written by Jeff Lowder, they wouldn't be able to ask him to clarify something and they wouldn't be able to learn even more through good questions asked by others. There is definitely a place for this sort of thing and if a "debate" is the only or the easiest context for such presentations to occur in, then that's the way it has to be.
Understanding Atheism & Atheists:
Comments
[P]ublic, oral debates […] seem to me to turn more on who is the better debater than on who has the best position. A skilled debater and public speaker with a poor position will win against a poor debater with a better position.
This is exactly true. A successful debater doesn’t need to have truth or facts behind him to win a debate. How do you think creationism has come so far in the public forum? Creationists spend all their time on the lecture circuit, honing their oratory skills, while a scientist are distracted by the need to engage in actual research and study. Honestly, for all their genuine knowledge, a scientist is always at a distinct disadvantage against a creationist in a debate specifically because the scientist’s mindset directs him toward accuracy and clarity. The creationist, on the other had, thrives on equivocation and on using the connotations of words to sway the listener. In other words, a creationist only really needs to know enough about evolution to engender confusion. What evolution needs is more professional debaters on the forefront, not, necessarily, professional scientists. Carl Sagan, where are you when we need you most?