Dawkins vs Lennox debate
| October 6, 2007 | Posted by idnet.com.au under Religion |
This debate is really worth a listen. Lennox speaks very well. What follows are some classic Richard Dawkins statements. What do you think? (A, B C refer to the sound files 1 2 and 3 form the download, and the number to the time into the sound file.)
A14 I lost my faith because Darwin left me with no good reason to believe.
B2 Life is explained by Darwin. Cosmology is waiting for its Darwin.
B6 I invoke the Anthropic principle … and the multiverse.
B18 I would not for a moment say that all religion is bad or all religion is dangerous or Christianity is dangerous. Only a minority of religious people are bad or do bad things.
B20 The one belief I would give to a child is scepticism.
B28 I am not trying to say that religious people do bad things.
I do think there is a logical path from religion to doing terrible things.
If you really believe … then it is possible for an entirely rational person to do hideous things.
I cannot conceive of a logical path that says because I am an atheist therefore it is rational for me to kill or murder or be cruel.
B30 Once you grant them the premise of their faith then the terrible things that they do follow logically.
The terrible things that Stalin did did not follow from his atheism.
You will not do terrible deeds because you are an atheist – not for rational reasons.
B34 If you base your morals on the Christian Bible, your morals are likely to be hideous.
We are all to a greater or lesser extent moral. Whether we are moral or not has nothing to do with whether we read the Bible.
B35 How do I know what is moral? I don’t on the whole.
B36 Everyone knows by common sense that “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” is moral. You don’t need a holy book to tell you to do that.
B37 As an evolutionist I say that …. the Darwinian pressure to be good is no longer so strong nor is the Darwinian pressure for lust as strong as it once was. That doesn’t matter.
There is something “in the air” about what it means to be moral and it clearly has nothing to do with religion because it doesn’t come from scripture.
C1 Maybe the world IS a hideous world. That doesn’t make it not true! If it is a hideous world, it gives us something to rise above. We can do a grand job of rebelling against the blind hideous physical forces that put us here.
We understand that we are here as a result of a truly hideous process. Natural Selection is an ugly process that has beautiful consequences.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1707,n,n
47 Responses to Dawkins vs Lennox debate
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Robo,
Could the other side EVER admit Dawkin’s lost?
No. But their chagrin is detectable.
To see it, you’ve got to translate the prose of a bunch of brown-nosing acolytes, whose practice of the fine arts of vituperation and propaganda in their relentless production of self-congratulating blather — evidently designed to be as devoid of facts and as question-begging as possible — has crippled them from being able to ever admit anything anywhere close to the truth.
Here’s a few stabs at translation:
BLATHER: There were to [sic] many logical fallacies to keep track of.
TRANSLATION: Oh man, he kicked our rear ends!
BLATHER: I sense that Richard is somewhat frustrated by the format of the debate.
TRANSLATION: Oh man, he kicked our rear ends!
BLATHER: Lennox spews nonsense but is very good at coming up soundbites and muddling the water with sophistry which a careless listener may find compelling.
TRANSLATION: Oh man, he kicked our rear ends!
BLATHER: Lennox is a nut.
TRANSLATION: Oh man, he kicked our rear ends!
BLATHER: I was so pissed off by the fact that Lennox always had the last word in.
TRANSLATION: Oh man, he kicked our rear ends!
BLATHER: This was not a debate – it was an ambush. And having walked into it the Prof got a bit of a kicking.
TRANSLATION: Oh man, he kicked our rear ends!
In re: (29) –
Of course, “they” (the “other side”) think of you (“your side”) exactly the same way — i.e. as being so blinded by dogma as to be incapable of revising one’s beliefs through argument and evidence.
What fascinates me is how precisely each side is a mirror of the other.
That’s what happens whenever “sides” are formed.
“I do think there is a logical path from religion to doing terrible things. If you really believe … then it is possible for an entirely rational person to do hideous things. I cannot conceive of a logical path that says because I am an atheist therefore it is rational for me to kill or murder or be cruel.”
Hah hah hah.
This guy really is something else.
Is it wrong to distribute this debate as an iPod compatible audio book in one single file instead of the 3? [email protected]
Carl Sach,
“What fascinates me is how precisely each side is a mirror of the other.”
I think this is a cop-out. I am not sure it holds up. There are 4 groups in this debate and 3 of the 4 are ideological based and for these groups there does not seem to be any reason to what they say or will accept, only ideology. For the 4th group, there are plenty who are willing to listen to reason and evidence.
It may be a cop-out, Jerry.
I was just struck by how someone here wants to represent “them” as unable to concede defeat, unable to even consider the evidence, unable to permit oneself to become vulnerable to the argument wherever it leads –
– whereas “they” think exactly the same things about those of you on “this side” of the debate.
As an experiment, I’m going to make this same point over “there” and see what happens.
In re: (33)
Mike, I’m really fascinated (and confused) by your derision of Dawkins. What part of his statement merits it?
Feel free to respond at [email protected] if you’d like. Otherwise, here is fine by me.
Carl Sach,
That’s what happens whenever “sides” are formed.
After seven years of independent research into the antrhopic physics (as a previously completely naive fool about it), I can say this as a general fact:
If there is only one universal truth that requires compromise from both “sides” in order to be realized, then it may as well not even exist.
This goes for all sides including the highest levels of physics research, where they dogmatically deny the biocentric implications of WMAP anomalies that just won’t go away… no matter how much they try to “explain-away” and willfully ignore the implication of the evidence.
If truth lies dead-center between ideologies, then we’d be done for as a species, were it not for the fact that this precarious balance between extreme diametrically opposing runaway tendencies also derives an anthropic coincidence.
That’s reality…
What fascinates me is how precisely each side is a mirror of the other.
How do you figure that? Who on our side is trying to shut someone up/ruin someone’s life/destroy someone’s reputation for honest criticisms of ID?
Who on our side falsely presents the positions of our opponents — at all, much less akin to “ID is creationism”?
Maybe if we ran the academy — weak and fallen beings that we are — we might be tempted. But I’d like to think if that were the case, I’d be sticking up for the honest evos.
Mirror of each other?
It is our presuppositions which ultimately lead us to different conclusions. The best thing to do is to test those presuppositions.
(38) I wonder if perhaps there’s a difficulty in communication between us. You seem to me to be ‘framing’ this as a scientific one. It may be, but not in any obvious sense. Because much o what is at stake here is what is going to count as science. And that question or problem — about what is going to count as science — is not only scientific but also — and this is not a bad thing! — metaphysical, epistemological, cultural, and political.
Since I’m looking at the ‘debate’ in those terms — i.e. as much more of a cultural debate than a ‘scientific’ one — I’m as interested in rhetoric as I am in content (argumentation).
And so I’m interested in the deployment of similar rhetoric on both sides — e.g. how each vilifies the other side.
One would not think, based on the rhetoric used here or on richarddawkins.net, that either side regards the other as comprised of people who are basically reasonable and well-intentioned.
“Carl Sachs”
Firstly, in that statement, he compares apples to oranges. He compares “religion” with “atheism” as if they were opposites. They are not. The opposite of atheism is theism, and generically has no religious dogma associated with it. Religious are ideologies, and everybody has one, theists and atheists.
Secondly, he assumes that atheism has no impact on, or with, the ideology that a given atheist would have. This is sheer nonsense. Do you really think Joseph Stalin’s atheism had no impact on his decision to murder 50 million people in the name of his ideology?
Get real.
Mike,
With regards to your first paragraph, I find your use of terms idiosyncratic but I appreciate your candor.
With regards to your second paragraph, I think that human psychology is a tangled skein of beliefs and desires, both conscious and unconscious, and it’s almost impossible to determine the “impact” of a philosophical position on the decision to commit genocide.
Whether an atheist takes the route of Stalin or Russell, or whether a Christian takes the route of Torquemada or King, Jr., is indeterminable with respect to one’s views regarding the metaphysical status of the god called God.
In that respect I agree with Dawkins that there is no logical argument with atheism as a premise and the moral permissibility of murder (let alone genocide) as a conclusion.
Carl Sachs: “In that respect I agree with Dawkins that there is no logical argument with atheism as a premise and the moral permissibility of murder (let alone genocide) as a conclusion.”
Try this logic on:
1. The construction of Utopia is the greatest good.
2. I believe I am qualified and mandated to implement Utopia.
3. Since Utopia is the greatest good, the lives of individuals must be sacrificed in whatever manner necessary, including death, when there is a conflict of interest.
4. There is no higher power, God, etc, that I should be plausibly be concerned about, who may have conflicting views with my own, particularly with regards to premise #3, therefore I shall act according to premises 1 thru 3.
How to break a dogma weilding neodarwinian cosmologist
I’d recommend that anyone who is interested in the cosmological argument, check out comments 254 thru 256 to see how “i” am doing it:
http://richarddawkins.net/arti.....age6#77415
http://richarddawkins.net/arti.....age6#77416
http://richarddawkins.net/arti.....age6#77418
Carl Sachs wrote, “Whether an atheist takes the route of Stalin or Russell, or whether a Christian takes the route of Torquemada or King, Jr., is indeterminable with respect to one’s views regarding the metaphysical status of the god called God.”
Well, not exactly. To the fanatical Christian, one can always say, “stop violating the life-affirming principles set forth in your doctrine.” Even when those principles are violated, the potential for reformation is built in. (We are made in the image and likeness of God, and we should treat one another accordingly).
No other thought system, not atheism (Darwin-monism etc.) or religious (Islam) contains such a concept. No other world view insists on the “inherent dignity of the human person.”
Neither Atheism, nor Islam contains an inherent fail-safe mechanism to curb its destructive side. Islam teaches that we are all slaves to an unapproachable God. We do not bear his imprint or resemble him in any way. Therefore, we do not “deserve” to be free.
Darwinism teaches that we are all products of a undirected, purposeless, mindless process. That means there can be no design, no purpose, and no inherent dignity.
Only the Judeo-Christian ethic affirms both the sanctity of human life and the imporance of political freedom. Its fanatics, therefore, are not nearly so numerous as are those of Atheism or Islam, nor are there actions nearly so rationalized by their peers.
Dawkins is becoming more and more inconsistent. He also seems to be drifting away from his strong stance to a more moderate stance as can be seen in this quote; “I would not for a moment say that all religion is bad or all religion is dangerous or Christianity is dangerous. Only a minority of religious people are bad or do bad things.”
In short periods of time he appears to flow from frustrated and annoyed with the opposing view, to unwilling to even engage the opposing view, to accepting certain propositions from the opposing view.
While he still seems it at times, he no longer appears as confidently smug as he use to.
I think that this points to the foundation for his belief system being crumbled away. Becoming less and less tenable for Dawkins to hold.