tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post6239080584813312310..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: On Craig and DawkinsVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79383963505914025282007-01-30T10:34:00.000-07:002007-01-30T10:34:00.000-07:00Of course there are limitations to public debate, ...Of course there are limitations to public debate, though I wouldn't go as far as you do in rejecting their significance. I think with scientific issues proper, public debate is can be systematically misleading. So I could surely understand if Dawkins were to say that his work is simply too scholarly to be well-served by the public debate format. Providing, of course, that that were true. <br /><br />As for the would-be Dawkins-Craig debate, I regret the missed entertainment more than anything else.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49734000553762284872007-01-30T07:39:00.000-07:002007-01-30T07:39:00.000-07:00I have never seen one of these debates that wasn't...I have never seen one of these debates that wasn't a circus.<br /><br />There are <i>much</i> better ways to engage someone's views than in public oral debates. I don't know what it is with Christians: you seem to fetishize these old-timey formats. I can think of a half-dozen formats that would better foster intellectual honesty, thoroughness, and .<br /><br />Dawkins is the Philip Johnson of theology. On the technical issues, he doesn't know what he's talking about, so I'm sure his confidence and intelletual-sounding words are annoying as hell. It would sure be nice to point all this stuff out in debates. But he's not gonna do it. Get over it. Some of you (David Wood in particular) are acting like refusing to engage in a public oral debate is akin to refusing to engage with the issues. Dawkins gives talks, fields questions, writes, responds to others' writings. It is possible to engage with him. Let go of the old-timey debate fetish. Jeez.<br /><br />Perhaps a Christian could explain this preoccupation with public oral debates. I think it is funny that the previous post had 40 responses and that a second thread was started. It's not like Dawkins has done anything wrong by refusing the debate (other than his arrogant manner, but again we are only getting one side of the story: who knows what was said to him initially etc). <br /><br />In science, there are good reasons we don't settle disputes by formal oral public debates, and people who want to engage in such debates are looked at askew. There are better ways to educate the public, if that is your goal, and <b>much</b> better ways to get at the truth.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25546606278314901442007-01-29T14:53:00.000-07:002007-01-29T14:53:00.000-07:00A very good critique of some of Dawkin's arguments...A very good critique of some of Dawkin's arguments can be found at the Richard Dawkins forum:<br /><a href="http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2739">Critical Post</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68438711264750682892007-01-29T14:08:00.000-07:002007-01-29T14:08:00.000-07:00Dawkins makes it virtually a point of honor (see a...Dawkins makes it virtually a <a href=http://richarddawkins.net/article,463,The-Courtiers-Reply,PZ-Myers>point of honor</a> (see also <a href=http://telicthoughts.com/the-courtiers-reply-v2/>here</a>) about not knowing what he's talking about in these realms. His "critique" of the cosmological argument in <i>The God Delusion</i> runs to all of about a paragraph, unless you count the misfire he aimed at God and infinite regress. <br /><br />I think it's the better part of self-protection for him not to debate Craig, especially on that topic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com