MPC MAJOR RESEARCH PAPER Arguing with God: A Rhetorical Analysis of ‘The God Debates’ VIN HENEY 500467928 Supervisor: Dr. Jean Mason The Major Research Paper is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Professional Communication Ryerson University Toronto, Ontario, Canada July 18, 2012 ARGUING WITH GOD ii ARGUING WITH GOD AUTHOR'S DECLARATION FOR ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF A MAJOR RESEARCH PAPER I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this Major Research Paper and the accompanying Research Poster. This is a true copy of the MRP and the research poster, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I authorize Ryerson University to lend this major research paper and/or poster to other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research. I further authorize Ryerson University to reproduce this MRP and/or poster by photocopying or by other means, in total or in part, at the request of other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research. I understand that my MRP and/or my MRP research poster may be made electronically available to the public. iii ARGUING WITH GOD ABSTRACT Recently published pro-atheist Books By Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens have reignited the age-old debate aBout the existence of God. Many pro-faith Books have Been written in response. The deliberations Between theists and atheists have moved Beyond the written word and onto the PuBlic deBate Platform. The Present PaPer oBserves three such ‘God deBates’ through the theoretical lens of rhetoric. Using a modified grounded theory approach, and Borrowing from literature concerning PuBlic deBates and religious rhetoric, a number of rhetorical strategies are identified. Thomas Kuhn’s incommensuraBility theory (1962) is then applied to the results in an effort to locate evidence of comPatiBility and incompatiBility Between the sPeakers championing the oPPosing Paradigms. Findings suggest that the sPeakers are aBle to achieve meaningful communication when aPPealing to a shared means of Persuasion (secular, scientific language) and recognizing the diversity in their opponents’ position. Conversely, the sPeakers are unaBle to achieve meaningful communication when engaging in one- side attack-based rhetoric and disagreeing on the constitution of evidence. Such findings are useful for communications professionals tasked with supporting meaningful communication Between divergent PersPectives. iv ARGUING WITH GOD ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A heartfelt thanks goes out to all of my fellow MPC students – I couldn’t have asked for a Better grouP of People to have learned with and from this Past year. A Big thanks to all of the staff and faculty at Ryerson – your efforts don’t go unnoticed. It has Been a tremendous learning exPerience and I look forward to staying in touch. A sPecial thanks to my suPervisor, Dr. Jean Mason, for her great humour and wonderful support, and my second reader, Dr. Gregory Levey, for his invaluable feedback and insight. Medasi paa to Stephen Brown-Okruhlik, who – back in his Trent days – told me I was what’s wrong with the left. I hate it when you’re right. To my family and friends who Barely heard from me this Past year – I’m still alive. And, finally, teşekkür ederim to my Beautiful wife, Başak – good enough, push on. v ARGUING WITH GOD TABLE OF CONTENTS VOICES..............................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS.......................................................................................................................6 LITERATURE REVIEW..............................................................................................................................7 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................17 DATA COLLECTION......................................................................................................18 RESULTS..........................................................................................................................21 ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................43 DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................52 CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................57 REFERENCES................................................................................................................104 vi ARGUING WITH GOD TABLES TABLE 1............................................................................................................................22 TABLE 2............................................................................................................................39 TABLE 3............................................................................................................................40 TABLE 4............................................................................................................................40 TABLE 5............................................................................................................................41 TABLE 6............................................................................................................................41 TABLE 7............................................................................................................................41 TABLE 8............................................................................................................................42 TABLE 9............................................................................................................................42 TABLE 10..........................................................................................................................42 vii ARGUING WITH GOD APPENDICIES 1. Dawkins-Lennox codeBook……………………………………….……………………………….……58 2. Harris-WolPe codeBook……………………………………….……………………………………….…71 3. Hitchens-D’Souza codeBook……………………………….……………………………………………89 viii ARGUING WITH GOD VOICES Scene: Taken from Does God Exist, a debate between Rabbi David Wolpe and bestselling author and neuroscientist Sam Harris, hosted at the American Jewish University in 2007. David WolPe: Science, and the place of science – which is at the heart of, in particular, Dawkins’ and Dennett’s book – is part of what people debate about and I think don’t understand very well. Moderator (directed to David Wople): What do you think they don’t get? David Wolpe: They don’t get that science is Powerful, But it’s narrow. And the idea that science exPlains human life is an idea that I think is Promoted only By PeoPle who are under the misimpression that the Place of science in human life is a scientific question, when in fact it’s a PhilosoPhical or religious question. And you can’t exPlain the Place of science in human life in scientific terms, just like you can’t exPlain what an idea is in scientific terms – it’s intangible and philosophical and religious, and I think that a lot of PeoPle are, or at least a number of PeoPle who are educated scientifically, but not philosophically or religiously, think that now that science is as Powerful and as Potent as it is there is no Place for religion or it has in some sense disproved religion (Wolpe, Does God Exist, 2007). 1 ARGUING WITH GOD Moderator (directed to Sam Harris): What do you think of that statement? Sam Harris: That’s a very good place to start. I think that one thing to notice is that the dialogue between science and religion has gone this way: it has been one of relentless and one-directional erosion of religious authority. I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer – however inadequate – but which now the best answer is a religious one. Now you can think of a multiPle number of questions that run the other way, where we once had a religious answer, and now the authority of religion has been battered and nullified By science and By moral Progress and secular progress generally, and I think that’s not an accident (Harris, Does God Exist, 2007). 2 ARGUING WITH GOD INTRODUCTION “Communication across the revolutionary divide is inevitably partial.” (Kuhn, 1996, p. 149) The excerpt in the above section, Voices, was taken from one of a growing number of public debates that are circulating online concerning the existence of god. This particular excerpt implies the range of issues involved in the debates, the divergent understandings of how positions can be substantiated, and the contrasting Paradigms involved. The question of god, which has long divided camps the world over, has been experiencing a cultural renaissance in the western world throughout the past decade, resulting largely from a series of bestselling books championing the atheist position. The most popular of these books, The End Of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (Harris, 2004), The God Delusion (Dawkins, 2006), and god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hitchens, 2007), openly challenge religious Belief and Practice while relying on scientific logic as evidence for the non- divine origins of the universe. These three books