Intelligence² occupies a unique position in London’s social and intellectual landscape. It is the only institution in town - aside from Parliament - to provide a forum for debate on the crucial issues of the day; but unlike Parliament, its debates are consistently exciting, witty, provocative… and comfortable, held as they are at the Royal Geographical Society’s Ondaatje Theatre and other venues.
Intelligence² takes information and analysis as its raw material, and translates this into discussion, conversation, and sexy debate.
Richard Lindley introduces this debate on the future of Pakistan.
Opening the discussion, General Sir David Richards argues that the international community has been terribly good at coming up with bright ideas, but terribly poor at implementing them.
Imran Khan is heavily critical of the ways in which General Musharraf, President Asif Ali Zardari and the US have carried out their military offensive in the tribal areas of Pakistan since 2004. He said they had failed to distinguish between al-Qaida and the Taliban, which held limited ideological beliefs.
Anatol Lieven suggests that Pakistan, not Afghanistan, is our key strategic interest in the long term, and that the Western presence is driving radicalisation. He said he had been shocked to find that many Pakistanis regard the Taliban as they did the Mujahedeen, and support the Taliban’s right to fight against foreign occupiers.
Jonathan Paris foresees that, over the next one to three years, Pakistan will neither turn into a failed state, nor grow significantly. It would, he predicted, muddle through. Pakistan, he suggests, is not attracting enough investment, and needs to break away from the IMF stranglehold.
Farzana Shaikh reassesses the claim that the US is primarily responsible for Pakistan’s problems. Instead, she proposes, the country’s malaise lies in its historic conflict with India and uncertainty over the role of religion.
Jaswant Singh Jaswant Singh discusses the Future of Pakistan. Since the start of the 20th century, the whole of the South Asian region has been at the crossroads of a collapsed empire, be it Ottoman, How is it possible, Singh asked, that 60 years after Independence, the region was once again subject to the whims of the West?
William Dalrymple points out that while the media has been only too eager to praise India as an emerging superpower, neighbouring Pakistan has been portrayed as a failed state - and the only US ally bombed regularly by Washington. This contrast, Dalrymple said, was a huge exaggeration.
I forgot to express sufficient gratitude that the esteemed Professor Cowburn has graced us with his kind “belief in evolution.” Without that, we’d be listening to him drone on endlessly about how God punishes our hubris by his Making of the Fake Fossils on the Sixth Day. The horror.
A televised debate from November 2009 in London, followed by criticism and suggestions
Sponsored ad
Be prepared to meet your maker with the Indulgence line of credit and instant tithe payment
available at select mega-churches and praying malls
The debate
The biggest problem with this debate is the question. It didn’t really go anywhere interesting, nor did it seem to sway anyone in the audience (largely Christian, as it was held in a church.) I think the sub-text to all of Cowburn’s statements is an attempt to refute Dawkins’ “God is a delusion and religion is a virus” thesis.
Viewers should disregard any claims by Professor Cowburn that he is a humble garden-variety Christian. His smirk and air of self-satisfaction betray an absolute certainty in his righteousness, but in the end, high self-esteem and expertise in nano-technology don’t by themselves prove that “God and science go together.” Cowburn experienced an independent religious conversion to Christianity at age 18, presumably away from the “normal” British secularism of his family. Unfortunately, we don’t know if Cowburn is a Papist or Evangelical Protestant or what. He does seem to want everyone to accept Jeebus as God’s proxy, being such an important “pinch point.”
New rule: don’t coin new words and phrases to make your argument. If you say “pinch point” for example, your opponent may challenge the term. Should it be missing from the dictionary, your opponent may then use it freely to mean anything he wants — but you may not.
Criticism of the arguments
Overstating what can be expected from science makes a convenient straw-man argument to easily shoot down. I agree that science can’t answer Cowburn’s question “Does my wife love me?” but considering general infidelity rates, I think a better question with a more useful answer would be “Does my wife love me more than the milkman?”
Cowburn shows his ignorance of applied science in military matters with his silly example “what does science say about the war in Iraq?” Intelligence gathering, threat evaluation and war “gaming” all use state-of-the art “science” as does the field of game theory. It’s only recently that a computer won against a chess grand master; perhaps Cowburn would rather everyone pray for guidance rather than attempt a rigorous answer to the Iraq war question. His obvious unstated opinion is that his faith gives him moral superiority, and hence he can answer the question better than “science.” All of which is utter nonsense, of course. Cowburn is also apparently ignorant of what the Downing Street memo proved: that the “Iraq war” wasn’t a question to be posed, but a given around which everything else was to be choreographed
For believers, “proving” a Supreme Being exists or seeking such proof could be seen as an sign of weak faith. If you know Jeebus is your personal savior, why prove anything? Doesn’t that imply you haven’t completely given yourself over to your Messiah?
I dislike the implication that hard science and religious dogma are the only things of use to nurture civil society. It’s important to inform your arguments with the best knowledge and information at hand, and realize that your argument must persuade regardless of faith or lack of it
I found the claims about Jesus proving God, endorsing Abraham & subsuming all Abrahamic faiths, ridiculous. Cowburn realized his error later in the debate, and claimed “Jesus proves the existence of the Abrahamic God” which I find ridiculous still, but coherent (a well-formed theorem, but false)
I dislike the fact that this religious argument admits no possible errors in the doctrine, and makes no attempt to separate valuable human parables from completely outdated social policies. I’d rather people didn’t ask everyone to accept their “miracles” and genesis myths as factual. Second- and third-hand accounts, accounts recorded decades after events, language muddled through multiple translations, and suppression of unpopular accounts must be dealt with honestly
Cowburn misstates the Atheist position regarding the existence of a divine dictator. A request that extraordinary evidence accompany extraordinary claims is quite different from the notion that the existence of said dictator has been or can be disproved. This is elementary logic and rhetoric, and a cynical attempt to rebut an argument that was never made. The impossibility of proving a negative is well-known and quite tedious regarding the question “does God exist?” The more interesting issue is whether one thinks the existence of God is provable in the affirmative at all. Cowburn apparently thinks it is, and his proof is his personal conversion to Christianity via the New Testament (King James edition?) at age 18. Hallelujah, praise be, yada yada. Snore.
Possibly related suggestions
Try to get as far away from this anti-example as you can (stick around for the intro to evolution concepts)
Headless transcript: mumble has become mumble from mumbletypeg. Correct? A has become A from A’. Correct? You have become yourself from your parent. Correct?
I wish I could count past the one after one. I hate the idea of meeting my great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather at the zoo. Our ancestors are lurking around waiting to stab us in a dark alley, dirty clever gorillas. Or lemurs. Or benobo. Or is it monkeys?
Are we marsupials or insects? I’m confused! Man is a manimal, and so is a whale, but not shark week. Sharks are like water snakes, cold blooded! When can I get a manimarsupial pouch for my cell phone? Sign me up, forget that river crap!
Comparative religion and the history of religion deserve more study. Was it the Franciscans and the Catholics that had the epic battle and split over whether Jeebus had a purse?Yes, more or less: Wikipedia: Apostolic Poverty (I’m pleased I remembered that factoid)
The fracturing of at least 2 of the big 3 religions into conflicting orders and sects shows me that regardless of which lucky religion (if any) holds the magic key to the pearly gates, it isn’t a discernable fact and should never be used as an argument for or against any proposition. It is a sin of pride, false judgment and hubris to regard another as inferior because of a difference in faith. Faith is largely an accident of birth — most commonly it is inherited from your family and community. How cruel it would be if the other (roughly) two thirds of humans lost the coin toss, and will be eternally damned because their parents were Pastafarians. Is the divine dictator benevolent if he gives you at best a one-in-three chance for salvation? Are we but chips on a divine Craps table that He is gambling with cynically?
Dogma reformation can be and has been accomplished. Literal, fundamentalist interpretation of ancient dogma is too common. Articles of faith are not “true” but instead are possiblyrelevant or valuable to modern human society. Often these articles are “religious” commands requiring or forbidding garments, personal grooming, body exposure, sex, flirtation, visibility of ankles, discussions of items like these, appeals to an elder, stonings, castings out, ad lib infinitum. These are ancient relics, useful only to bind you together with a false cord. Please look harder to see what’s relevant. It might not matter that you do things a certain way. It probably matters more that you all follow strict rules, eat the same diet and worship together. It’s even more relevant if you are thousands strong in a giant crystal cave on a mountain top, with a tall masculine leader who claims to be your new Messiah come to Earth to lead you in battle! Please call me immediately and reverse the charges should this happen. This is both valuable and relevant — and quite rare thankfully
First leave your dogma with the cat and then please argue your position on HIV prevention, birth control, and the like and explain how it is applicable to all affected humans of all (or no) faiths
Last I checked we are all human, regardless of genetic differences. Let us not allow our brothers and sisters and our tiny blue dot to suffer outrageous harm, acts of genocidal violence, terrorism and wholesale damage to delicate ecosystems. And let us not become ideological extremists serving some fervently misguided cause (i.e. Earth Liberation Front, P.E.T.A.)
Let us strive to avoid becoming “protest addicts” who would rather yell at strangers with a bullhorn than have a debate on the merits of policy
Fair warning
The survival through 2009 of the 9/11 conspiracies in the U.S. is a sign that many people are becoming less interested in “objective reality.” By “objective reality” I mean (roughly) reasonable, coherent determination of causes, effects, motives and threats
The “tower of Babel” is quickly being brought down by technology. In its place is being constructed a grand temple of all faiths past and present, with Beelzebub collecting the exorbitant rent, payable only in human blood, to be sure
This was the first IQ² debate broadcast live, with an associated twitter hashtag. A few questions were taken from the twitter stream. Note: many of the uses of the hashtag since yesterday are “hashtag spam.”
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.
“Collision” carves a new path in documentary film-making as it pits leading atheist, political journalist and bestselling author Christopher Hitchens against fellow author, satirist and evangelical theologian Douglas Wilson, as they go on the road to exchange blows over the question: “Is Christianity Good for the World?”. The two contrarians laugh, confide and argue, in public and in private, as they journey through three cities. And the film captures it all. The result is a magnetic conflict, a character-driven narrative that sparkles cinematically with a perfect match of arresting personalities and intellectual rivalry.
Intelligence² occupies a unique position in London’s social and intellectual landscape. It is the only institution in town - aside from Parliament - to provide a forum for debate on the crucial issues of the day; but unlike Parliament, its debates are consistently exciting, witty, provocative… and comfortable, held as they are at the Royal Geographical Society’s Ondaatje Theatre and other venues.
Intelligence² takes information and analysis as its raw material, and translates this into discussion, conversation, and sexy debate.
20100119 at 16:37 
