The Great Dawkins running from debate with a theist?

[Smidlee]

I am willing to bet that Mr. Dawkins has been through this all too much and he knows that it is useless to debate the issue.

I wouldn't say useless since Dawkins made money off this debate.

 

[GenMarshall]

It may be my own opinion, but I am glad that Dawkins ran from a debate from a theist.

It could get ugly .

 

[Simple Simon]

That science/faith chart is nothing more than a cleverly designed ad hominem attack on theism. Science itself is based on faith.

You'll have a very hard time making anyone believe that!

I've noticed that people here hold to the misconception that science is the only informer of truth. This is a fundamental mistake because the belief that science is the only informer of truth is in and of itself a truth claim. Does science inform you of this truth claim? No. Rational intuition informed you of this claim, which is philosophical in nature.

And the last sentence is nonsense.

 

[holy king]

That science/faith chart is nothing more than a cleverly designed ad hominem attack on theism. Science itself is based on faith.

please explain, please

 

[Brighteye]

That science/faith chart is nothing more than a cleverly designed ad hominem attack on theism. Science itself is based on faith.

Here is your first mistake. Science is not an alternative faith. Science is entirely different. Science is the only process by which we can reach (probable) truths about the world.

I've noticed that people here hold to the misconception that science is the only informer of truth. This is a fundamental mistake because the belief that science is the only informer of truth is in and of itself a truth claim.

People know that science is the only way to reach truth about the physical world because all we get from the physical world is empirical evidence, and the scientific method is the best way to deal with this.
However, we will all readily admit that there are other truths, reached by logic, with given premisses, that do not require science. One such truth is that science is the only rational way to attempt to understand the physical world.

Does science inform you of this truth claim? No. Rational intuition informed you of this claim, which is philosophical in nature.

Rational what? Intuition? No, it's called plain old logic. No need for i intuition here.

Philosophy in essence holds the trump card. There are a host of things science cannot explain. Science can not prove math and logic, it persupposes them.

And they lead directly to science. if we accept logic (which we can hardly not do, since it is absolute) then we reach science. If we have science, we presuppose logic. The two are inextricably linked. We can't keep maths and logic but discard science in favour of religion, because then we're not being logical.

 

[Verità]

oh dear. science is based on evidence. real, tangible evidence. that is a far better approach to understanding the world than ignoring evidence and crying out "god did it" whenever we do not have answers for something. this latter approach would still have us living the stone age. science is NOT based on faith. faith is dogmatic and clings to a belief and NEVER abandons it. science is the antithesis to that. as soon as there is evidence that contradicts a theory, science must re-evaluate its beliefs. faith refuses to re-evaluate its beliefs.

according to the bible, the world is only around 8000 years old or so. this is based on faith. scientists on the other hand, uses multiple dating methods, to come up with the age of the earth, which is about 5 billion years old.

Whether its "God did it" or "the government did it," both religious and non-religious people are equally capable of rejecting evidence when the answers are not readily available. Ignoring evidence is not exclusively an enterprise of the religious.

You describe faith as the belief in the impossible or something that is contrary to evidence. This I would describe as 'blind' faith. Faith is knowledge in action. It's an intelligent trust in what can't be seen that's inferred from evidence that can be seen. If your faith is a commitment to reality, then there doesn't need to be any conflict at all.

Science is entirely different. Science is the only process by which we can reach (probable) truths about the world.

And accepting those probable truths requires faith. As a Darwanist, one may may place their active trust in abiogenesis. This is an act of faith.

People know that science is the only way to reach truth about the physical world because all we get from the physical world is empirical evidence, and the scientific method is the best way to deal with this.
However, we will all readily admit that there are other truths, reached by logic, with given premisses, that do not require science. One such truth is that science is the only rational way to attempt to understand the physical world.

I'm merely saying that there are other ways of discovering truth besides science. I am not minimizing its role. It's apparent to me that there is an elitism in science where people think the truth can only be dicovered by wielding the sword of science. As I've explained there are subjects which cannot be explained by science and are philosophical in nature.

Rational what? Intuition? No, it's called plain old logic. No need for i intuition here.

By rational intuition I'm referring to our intuitional need to abstract, to symbolize, to form judgments, to seek reasons, and to make deductions. I would dare say that logical intuition presupposes rational intuition.

And they lead directly to science. if we accept logic (which we can hardly not do, since it is absolute) then we reach science. If we have science, we presuppose logic. The two are inextricably linked. We can't keep maths and logic but discard science in favour of religion, because then we're not being logical.

I said nothing of religion. I'm not very fond of indefinite terms. Religion is a fuzzy word that causes divisiveness and confusion. A very unproductive word, especially when used without context.

 

[Simple Simon]

V, could you please give a definition of 'faith'?

 

[mrt144]

d'souza is a fool. anything that comes out of his little brain is either flim flam or shim sham.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Debate, to a scientist, is just about the most useless waste of time imaginable. Its function is merely to convince the audience that your position is right in a short amount of time. Most of Dawkins arguments are complicated and thus ill suited to the debate format. Basically any question posited by Dsouza would be impossible for Dawkins to answer in a satisfactory manner in the alloted time. The orator with the most complex position is always at a disadvantage in any debate.

Dsouza knows that the debate format is better suited to his own views than Dawkins'. he almost certainly knew ahead of time that Dawkins would refuse but asked anyway. Why? So he could use the refusal as a plug, dishonestly suggesting that Dawkins is afraid to debate him. This kind of baloney is used frequently to discredit people in the public eye. It is a pathetically fallacious, yet effective, technique.

 

[zxcvbnm]

Dsouza knows that the debate format is better suited to his own views than Dawkins'. he almost certainly knew ahead of time that Dawkins would refuse but asked anyway. Why? So he could use the refusal as a plug, dishonestly suggesting that Dawkins is afraid to debate him. This kind of baloney is used frequently to discredit people in the public eye. It is a pathetically fallacious, yet effective, technique.

People who prefer religion over science use this technique often to delude people. The same goes for creationists: if they don't get a debate, they say science is afraid of them, if they get a debate, they say their "theory" is so scientific that it needs to be considered by scientists.

That way of "winning" is a piece of holy ****, literally

 

[VX250]

Dawkins is a worthless cow and an utter utter moron. He would run from a debate with a ******** kid about which episode of The OC featured the most scenes with Autumn Reeser. COWARD.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You mean coward as in drive-by posting obnoxious crap and then running from the thread? That kind of coward?

 

[VX250]

I admit I can be a bit verbose at times to get my views across, if you would like me to tone it down I dislike Richard because of his style. It is possible to debate against religion without coming across as a disrespectful and rude, which he often does.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm sure Dawkins loses his cool now and again, but he isn't usually disrespectfull nor rude. I have seen him keep his cool where I would have lost it.

And I have seen him keep his cool on the O'Reilly show. That's some achievement.

I agree with him that religion is not immune to criticism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w8OhiLU7cU&feature=related

(The bit about respect in the first part)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm4HbqUKmY0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSatukeQzFM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQghm5QSsx0&feature=related

 

[VX250]

And I have seen him keep his cool on the O'Reilly show. That's some achievement.

I used to be a O'Reilly fan but lost all respect due to his bigotry against immigrants and his quest to blame every one of America's problem on them. If he believed in global warming he'd probably try to pin that one on those poor illegal immigrants. He is very aggresive and provoking when interviewing people, a trait shared by some of the other anchors at FNC.

Back on topic, while I agree that religion shouldn't be immune to criticism it is a very special and personal issue for a lot of people, and as an issue it's probably up there with ethnicity and other such things, it should be treated with respect, and I sometimes feel that he doesn't give religion the respect that one should.

 

[Andrei_V]

Back on topic, while I agree that religion shouldn't be immune to criticism it is a very special and personal issue for a lot of people, and as an issue it's probably up there with ethnicity and other such things, it should be treated with respect, and I sometimes feel that he doesn't give religion the respect that one should.

Can you please point to specific instances where you think he doesn't give religion the due respect?

I mean, 'respect' is a tricky thing, given all these recent rows about teddy-Mohammeds, Golden Compasses, Knowledge Trees in Philadelphia, etc, one can no longer be sure where valid criticism can be seen as offensive disrespect at the same level as racism. It looks like many people tend to use that argument 'you should respect our sacred values' as a weapon to stop a meaningful discussion when it reaches the point where they cannot give satisfactory answers to the criticism.

Dawkins himself draws a line between 'deserved respect' and 'undeserved respect' in 1st chapter of his book. If you disagree with him on this issue, where exactly?