Page 1 of 4 [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

26 Apr 2013, 4:32 pm

Number 1 Thinker? No way.

A great Christian apologist debater like William Lane Craig could easily defeat him in an official debate because he actually sucks at philosophical arguments.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Apr 2013, 4:36 pm

MCalavera wrote:
Number 1 Thinker? No way.

A great Christian apologist debater like William Lane Craig could easily defeat him in an official debate because he actually sucks at philosophical arguments.


Debating (or disputation as it is sometimes called) is a Medieval and College sport. The truth is not found by debating. Truth is found by observation, measurement, and hypothesizing followed by rigorous empirical testing. During the Middle Ages the monks and scholars debated Meanwhile the explorers and the adventurers found new wolrds.

ruveyn



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

26 Apr 2013, 4:41 pm

Yeah, good debating skills don't indicate you're arguing for the truth, but they do sometimes reveal effort put into thinking deeply about the subject being debated. That's what a great thinker is all about. Doing science involves a lot of thinking, but philosophy demands it even more (in my opinion).



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

26 Apr 2013, 5:43 pm

Not the greatest thinker, but he's utterly fearless and doing the right thing, imo.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


BeautifulTechno
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 87
Location: If I don't know it, how could you know?

27 Apr 2013, 7:46 am

Tequila wrote:
BeautifulTechno wrote:
Christopher Hitchens is a fabulous thinker too, one of my favourites.


Was, you mean. He died in December 2011.


So true. Sorry about that!



fueledbycoffee
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 566
Location: Baltimore

27 Apr 2013, 7:57 am

MCalavera wrote:
A great Christian apologist debater like William Lane Craig could easily defeat him in an official debate because he actually sucks at philosophical arguments.


I've read a few of Lane Craig's arguments here and there. I've never been that impressed. What's so 'great' about him?

Dr. Dawkins' recent fame, I think, has really outshined his contributions. He's a brilliant man, and his greatest brilliance lies not in religious debate or philosophy, but in his understanding and explanation of evolution. He's the undisputed "master" of evolution, at least for right now. He's Darwin's torchbearer. That's where his strengths lie, and that's the reason I'd reward him.

I've read the God Delusion, seen all of his videos, and most of his debates, and he makes a lot of very good arguments. I've also watched him clean the clock of several professors of philosophy and great Christian apologists, and do so with class. He's not the greatest debater, no, and his debates all seem very similar, but I respect what he's doing to raise awareness for us Atheists.

I think the idea of a #1 thinker is absolutely absurd. But if you had to look at thinker who are the most respected, at least for me, Dr. Dawkins tops the list.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Apr 2013, 9:51 am

fueledbycoffee wrote:

I've read the God Delusion, seen all of his videos, and most of his debates, and he makes a lot of very good arguments. I've also watched him clean the clock of several professors of philosophy and great Christian apologists, and do so with class. He's not the greatest debater, no, and his debates all seem very similar, but I respect what he's doing to raise awareness for us Atheists.

I think the idea of a #1 thinker is absolutely absurd. But if you had to look at thinker who are the most respected, at least for me, Dr. Dawkins tops the list.


Debate is Nerd Ping Pong. It is an exercise in rhetoric, rather than reason. Read what Plato has to say about the Sophists who are professional debaters who can "prove" black is white and up is down.

ruveyn



TheValk
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 644

27 Apr 2013, 11:34 am

ruveyn wrote:
fueledbycoffee wrote:

I've read the God Delusion, seen all of his videos, and most of his debates, and he makes a lot of very good arguments. I've also watched him clean the clock of several professors of philosophy and great Christian apologists, and do so with class. He's not the greatest debater, no, and his debates all seem very similar, but I respect what he's doing to raise awareness for us Atheists.

I think the idea of a #1 thinker is absolutely absurd. But if you had to look at thinker who are the most respected, at least for me, Dr. Dawkins tops the list.


Debate is Nerd Ping Pong. It is an exercise in rhetoric, rather than reason. Read what Plato has to say about the Sophists who are professional debaters who can "prove" black is white and up is down.

ruveyn


That is a very double-edged sword sort of idea.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

27 Apr 2013, 12:36 pm

fueledbycoffee wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
A great Christian apologist debater like William Lane Craig could easily defeat him in an official debate because he actually sucks at philosophical arguments.


I've read a few of Lane Craig's arguments here and there. I've never been that impressed. What's so 'great' about him?


He has very good debating skills, something that most outspoken atheist celebrities lack. Even Hitchens had some uncomfortable moments when they had a debate a while ago. In my opinion, only Shelly Kagan has defeated him in an official debate.



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

27 Apr 2013, 2:00 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Debate is Nerd Ping Pong. It is an exercise in rhetoric, rather than reason. Read what Plato has to say about the Sophists who are professional debaters who can "prove" black is white and up is down.

ruveyn


Do you mind if I steal this quote of yours in the future? It's good.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

27 Apr 2013, 2:40 pm

Not surprised, although the result is wrong by a long way.

Don't get me wrong, he's a smart man, but his central argument in the God Delusion doesn't even make sense. There are many more accomplished philosophers (Lane Craig is possibly a better thinker but he isn't remotely as knowledgeable as Dawkins so comes to nonsensical conclusions), advocates and biologists.

People I would have preferred: Peter Singer, Keith Ward, Matt Ridley, Steven Pinker, Jared Diamond, Stephen Hawking, Steve Jones, Sam Harris... and that's just people I've heard of, and are alive. Was going to suggest Anthony Flew but apparently he died in 2010.



jekenai
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 1 Apr 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 70
Location: Czech Republic

27 Apr 2013, 3:21 pm

MCalavera wrote:
fueledbycoffee wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
A great Christian apologist debater like William Lane Craig could easily defeat him in an official debate because he actually sucks at philosophical arguments.


I've read a few of Lane Craig's arguments here and there. I've never been that impressed. What's so 'great' about him?


He has very good debating skills, something that most outspoken atheist celebrities lack. Even Hitchens had some uncomfortable moments when they had a debate a while ago. In my opinion, only Shelly Kagan has defeated him in an official debate.


Maybe he is good at "debating", but not very good at logic and either his ability to imagine different possibilities are pretty limited or he refuses even to think about other possibilities. Also his debating style isn't one of the most fair and polite. See for example RationalWiki: Craig's debating tactics and criticism of opponents

An example of Craig's argumentation with comments:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE80p6i8Sug[/youtube]



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

27 Apr 2013, 4:21 pm

What bothers me with these kind of debates is that often metaphors are used as arguments. Completely ridiculous.



Orr
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 569

28 Apr 2013, 8:27 am

I interpret #1 as most popular, in this instance, and agree. Dawkins penetration of the media has been extraordinary, it seems mostly down to his stance on religion.

Under the circumstances, may be it is understandable that so many are ready to associate themselves with him. The man could have the intelligence of an amoeba, but if the perception is that he is wise, it could be that people will think you are intelligent just for mentioning him. Or, you can affirm your own intelligence by naming him in a poll of thinkers.

Dawkins. Dawkins Dawkins, Dawkins. Dawkins!

Listening to the man debate religion is tedious, we all have to eat though.


_________________
'You seem very clever at explaining words, Sir,' said Alice. 'Would you kindly tell me the meaning of the poem called "Jabberwocky"?'


NewDawn
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Age: 67
Gender: Female
Posts: 306
Location: Netherlands

28 Apr 2013, 4:39 pm

I don't consider Dawkins to be a very rigorous thinker. "Memetics' and the "Selfish Gene" are bordering on pseudoscience if we're talking about evolutionary biology. They are propostions that seem to me more in the field of communication science/semiotics or sociobiology, which is merely sociology for all sentient animals. I don't know of any hypotheses based on these propositions, let alone any testing and evidence for or against it. If someone does, I'd like to be enlightened. Dawkins himself avoids the question.

When 'The God Delusion' came out, I didn't have a clue what all the fuss was about. I remember his Christmas Lectures on BCC, and enjoyed them very much (no memes, just the basics of evoltunary biology as it was known at that time), and wondered why he had written a book on religion all of a sudden. (Ah! Waitaminute! Wife left him and became catholic, taking daughter with her. Could that have something to do with it?)

I was also unaware of the level of ignorance in the USA about evolution. I remember Carl Sagan writing about it in "The Demon Haunted World", but that was in the 1980's. Frankly, I still don't get it. I'm still wondering if all those creationists are just trolling. I mean....nobody believes that the Earth is 6000 years old anymore, right? (Yes, I seem to be wrong, but I still find it hard to comprehend). I also just don't understand how anybody can take talking snakes, virgins getting pregnant without having a hump and people raised from death (unless they weren't really dead) seriously. Maybe my world view is limited. I don't know anybody who believes that, and those people include religious jews, christians and muslims.

Besides, I didn't get the dichotomy between science and religion. The person who (indirectly) taught me about evolution was an anabaptist with enlightenment ideals. His name was Pieter Teyler, silk merchant and filthy rich. He collected fossils, minerals, scientific instruments and art. In his testament he wished to have his capital used for the education of all people, and so his friends built a museum and collected some more fossils, scietific instruments and art. It was there that I saw my first mammoth skulls, cave bear and the first fossil of Archaeopterix ever found.

And what about Gregor Mendel (Augustinian monk) that contributed as much to the theory of evolution as Darwin did? George Lemaître (Big Bang theory and catholic priest)? Their religious views didn't seem to interfere with doing solid scientific research.

I personaly don't understand why someone would believe in gods (I seem to lack the 'religion module' in my brain), but I'm not bothered if someone else does, as long as they don't bother me with it. For obvious reasons. But as I said, my world view is/was somewhat limited. In my country the churches are NOT exempt from paying tax and haven't been since the 16th century when we kicked the Spanish out. There are a few exceptions to this such as the Nieuwe Kerk in Amsterdam, but that one isn't owned by the protestant church anyway. It's owned by the municipality of Amsterdam and subsidized by the state because the royals have their ceremonies there. Now you know why so many churches have had to close in the Netherlands.
In all fairness, I must also admit that Dawkins personally said to me that the Netherlands are an exception. But here again I don't think he's entirely accurate. The church doesn't play a big role in Scandinavia either.

What I do think is good about Dawkins is that he gave a voice to people (apparently mostly in the USA) that felt discriminated because they are atheists. But I really wonder if he's doing them a favour. Both his book (God Delusion) and debates lack nuance, are sometimes factually wrong and I've heard him throw out a logical fallacy often enough. What I see happening are 'tit for tat' debates (with sometimes ludicrously wrong statements on both sides) that doesn't do much to foster more tolerance and understanding between atheists and theists. It might even radicalize both sides, although I'm not sure about that. Is that what we call 'sound, reasonable thinking'?



mikassyna
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2013
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,319
Location: New York, NY

28 Apr 2013, 5:03 pm

The ironic thing is that people who love Dawkins and the idea of memetics cannot understand that his staunch stance on atheism is also a meme and virulently oppose that idea. It is hypocrisy at its finest.