In conjunction with its new sponsor, The Free Press, CBS News is launching a series of debates and town hall presentations. One of them is a debate about God featuring Steve Pinker and Ross Douthat, which should be a barn-burner. I am informed that that debate will take place on February 26, and will be broadcast live.
Douthat, as you know, has been flogging his new pro-Christianity book Believe: Why Everyone Should be Religious, and I’ve discussed excerpts published by Douthat here. It appears to be the usual guff, arguing that stuff about the Universe that we don’t understand, like consciousness and the “fine-tuning” of the laws of physics, comprise evidence for a creator God. Assessing all gods, Douthat (a pious Catholic) finds that the Christian one appears to be the “right” god. Are you surprised?
Pinker is an atheist, and has written about nonbelief from time to time in his books, but has not written an entire book on it. I look forward to this debate, which will be broadcast live on THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, so mark your calendars. Pinker will surely be ready to answer Douthat’s shopworn “evidence,” so it should be fun.
Click below to access the general announcement.
Below: the series’ rationale and its upcoming debates and interviews. No dates and times have been announced save my finding out that Pinker vs. Douthat is on February 26.
This is, of course, the result of Bari Weiss becoming Editor of CBS News, and I’m not sure how I feel about this endeavor. Note that it’s sponsored by the Bank of America.
We live in a divided country. A country where many cannot talk to those with whom they disagree. Where people can’t speak across the political divide – or even sometimes across the kitchen table.
THINGS THAT MATTER aims to change that.
Sponsored by Bank of America, THINGS THAT MATTER is a series of town halls and debates that will feature the people in politics and culture who are shaping American life. The events will be held across the country, in front of audiences who have a stake in the topics under discussion.
This launch comes on the heels of CBS News’ successful town hall with Erika Kirk, which drove double-digit ratings increases in its time slot and generated 192 million views across TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and X – making it CBS News’ most-watched interview ever on social media.
JAC: Note that the town hall with Erika Kirk was NOT a success; it was lame and uninformative. There’s a link to the video below. Back to the blurb:
The events take Americans into the most important issues that directly affect their lives – immigration, capitalism, public health, criminal justice, foreign policy, artificial intelligence and the state of politics. The debates echo the country’s 250th anniversary, showing how the power of America’s earliest principles – civil, substantive discussion, free of rancor – have immense value today.
“We believe that the vast majority of Americans crave honest conversation and civil, passionate debate,” said Bari Weiss, editor-in-chief of CBS News. “This series is for them. In a moment in which people believe that truth is whatever they are served on their social media feed, we can think of nothing more important than insisting that the only way to get to the truth is by speaking to one another.”
Bank of America has joined THINGS THAT MATTER as its title sponsor. Tracing its lineage to 1784, Bank of America is sponsoring the series in support of dialogue and debate during the country’s 250th anniversary year.
THINGS THAT MATTERwill kick off in the new year. An early look includes:
Town Halls:
Vice President JD Vance on the state of the country and the future of the Republican Party.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman on artificial intelligence.
Maryland Governor Wes Moore on the state of the country and the future of the Democratic Party.
In case you missed it: Turning Point USA CEO Erika Kirk on political violence, faith and grief – watch it here.
Debates:
Gen Z and the American Dream: Isabel Brown and Harry Sisson. Should Gen Z Believe in the American Dream?
God and Meaning: Ross Douthat and Steven Pinker. Does America Need God?
The Sexual Revolution: Liz Plank and Allie Beth Stuckey. Has Feminism Failed Women?
Readers are welcome to weigh in below on the topics and format of this forum.
Atheism is successful because of its laser-sharp focus.
No, I do not have a “But,” for this.
If I could, I would ask both Pinker and Douthat if their discussion tells us anything about Tao.
That’s all! Too much other religious stuff to cover.
Sam spoke with Douthat back in December (the podcast was released in December): https://open.substack.com/pub/samharris/p/dogma-tribe-and-truth-ep-449?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
I have rarely seen a debate between an atheist and a religious person that is not frustrating, in the sense that the interlocuters are often talking past one another.
The atheist will see God as a proposition about reality that requires evidence, in the same way that a claim that intelligent aliens exist on other planets is a proposition about reality. If the evidence is scant or nonexistent, the claim should not be accepted.
The religious person reasons in exactly the opposite way. The existence of their particular God or gods is a given in their minds…an axiom. Evidence is a “nice to have”, but not a requirement. Where evidence is scant or nonexistent, “faith” is wheeled out to caulk the gaps.
This is why I think the most effective way to debate a religious person is a) to show them the contradictory elements of their faith, and b) ask them why their faith is more accurate than another faith.
I would love to see Douthat explain in detail why his Catholic bible is correct and the King James version is not…i.e. why his faith is more accurate than a Protestant’s. Or why he is completely ignoring the Book of Mormon, or the Quran.
If “faith” is a reliable way to ascertain reality, then all of these books should be considered the word of God and accurate in all aspects. But they can’t be, because they contradict each other. You cannot both say that the Book of Tobit is of equal canonical status to the rest of the Bible, and also say that it is not. You cannot both say that Jesus is at once a man and a god and the savior of humankind (Christians), and also that he is only just a man and a minor prophet, with Mohammed actually being the last and greatest of the prophets (Islam).
This remains the most obvious issue with religions and Douthat must be made to defend his particular flavor of religion, and not adopt the mantle of all religions and spend the debate hiding behind the vagaries of “faith”.
In one of Douthat’s articles he does explain briefly why he thinks that Christianity is the “true” religion. As I recall, it was because Christianity resonated with him more than did other faiths. Not a very good reason to say a religion is “true”!
Yes! I hope Pinker drills down on that a bit more!
I cannot feel an ounce of respect for people like Douhat who expound the alleged benefits of religious belief. The only relevant question is “Is the proposition true?” The idea that life is more spiritually fulfilling or that we feel a better sense of purpose in life or that we live more morally if we believe in God is crashingly irrelevant. If it were possible to convince me that my life would be happier and more spiritually fulfilling if I believed that two and two is five rather than four, I would not wish to believe it unless it is actually true. Why is it hard for religious people to understand this?
OMG! (You’ll pardon the expression.) Will this really be useful, or will it simply give Douthat more attention than his work deserves? Debates are tricky, as professional debaters can sometimes run rings around people less experienced at debate—irrespective of the substance. We’ll see how this goes.
This is always my concern and the reason I’m not a fan of debates. They end up having more in common with sporting events than with legitimate discussions in which one tries to understand the other side and see if it has any merit. There’s no option for learning or growth–to admit to being wrong is a losing move. It becomes just a display of skill at rhetoric and manipulation more than about making convincing arguments or explaining evidence.
Framing the “debates” as “discussions” would be a small step toward bridging divides. The format will also matter tremendously. Does anyone expect an outcome other than “Team A” cheering its champion and declaring victory while “Team B” does the same?
The only approach I see with a realistic chance to build good will is one in which the two sides disagree vigorously, do so civilly, clearly signal respect for the other’s intellect and good intentions, and avoid condescension or disdain. That is a very small needle to thread. We’ll see whether each has the desire and dexterity—especially since there are people in each camp who see my conditions as impossible from the start.
[Last comment…Da Roolz]
It’s difficult with religious believers. To me it would be like arguing with someone who thinks that the Lord of the Rings was actual history. As in Sauron, Gandalf, and Bilbo actually existed and did all the things in the books.
It’s hard to contain your incredulity and maintain a level of respect in that case!