About the Barker/Manata Debate

Exbeliever comments on the Dan Barker vs Paul Manata debate here. It's a good read...check it out!

4 comments:

openlyatheist said...

Will you be posting your comments, John?

Anonymous said...

I find it difficult to comment when I don't have a transcript of the debate in front of me. And it's hard to be objective when I side completely with Barker and think he did a fine job in answering Manata, who has a domineering style. If Manata were to ask me several simple questions in a row like he asked Barker, I would've simply said to him, "stop this silliness and make your point."

From memory: The very last analogy that Manata gave was that of marbles. His question, I think, was that if all that exists are these marbles then how can we expect those marbles to have an objective standard for moral truth? His point was that they cannot.

Barker extended the analogy to include God as part (or one) of the marbles. If we say that all that exists are marbles and we include God as one of the marbles, then we're in the same boat. How can we know that God is truly good and that he has an objective standard for moral truth?

You see, it doesn't do presuppositionalists any good to say atheists don't have an objective standard for moral truth when we question whether that which they presuppose has any better objective standard for knowledge and truth. What Barker's analogy was getting at was the Euthyphro dilemma And the Euthyphro dilemma puts an end to this presuppositionalist nonsense. So I say to presuppositionalists, solve that dilemma before we go any further.

I also thought Barker did a fine job when he asked why Manata believes a snake talked. Barker suggested that the principle of induction stands as overwhelming evidence against the story told in Genesis 3, as well as other Biblical claims. For none of us have experienced a snake that really talks. The only reason Manata believes a snake talked was because "someone told a story." Manata uses that "story" to count as evidence against all of our inductive conclusions about snakes, rather than letteing his own inductive conclusions about snakes to count as evidence against the reliability of the story in Genesis 3, and that's just strange and muddled thinking. Does Manata believe any similar "stories" told today just because someone tells them? Barker told a story with tongue-in-cheek about a cat that spoke Spanish to him. Such a story goes against what the principle of induction tells us can happen, and so Manata inconsistently said he didn't believe it. Of course he doesn't. But he won't apply that same clear thinking to the story about a snake that talked. Snakes do not have vocal chords, nor the other things needed to talk!

Barker could've gone into more detail if Paul wasn't so domineering, but to presuppose these Biblical stories against what the principle of induction tells us could happen, especially when those particular stories come from a highly superstitious ancient people, isn't the hallmark of clear thinking.

Error said...

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/07/reflections-on-my-debate-with-dan.html

Error said...

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/07/barkers-bulldog.html