Is this propaganda against Richard Dawkins?

[Dubio]

I am skeptical at what the host and guest are saying against Richard Dawkins but I want to keep an open mind. Do you agree or disagree at what they say about him?

[youtube]f3TooyRrbSE[/youtube]
Michael Coren: Is Richard Dawkins a Fraud? (William Lane Craig, John Lennox, and "Reason") - YouTube

 

[Krok]

I am skeptical at what the host and guest are saying against Richard Dawkins but I want to keep an open mind. Do you agree or disagree at what they say about him?

[youtube]f3TooyRrbSE[/youtube]
Michael Coren: Is Richard Dawkins a Fraud? (William Lane Craig, John Lennox, and "Reason") - YouTube

I don't really know.

I mean, Richard Dawkins is a Fellow of the Royal Society.

Michael Coren is a nobody.

William Lane Craig's "arguments" have been demolished by virtually every other philosopher in the world.

John Lennox is a mathematician.

 

[mycorrhiza]

It seems like most of the argument revolved around apologists not accepting the common definition of science and therefore, in their eyes, their view is just as scientifically correct.

Dawkins has actually debated John Lennox a few times according to wikipedia, so that he avoids debating with this man seems to be a lie.

 

[fantome profane]

I like Michael Coren, I use to watch his old show before he moved to Sun TV quite a bit and although I disagreed with his positions often he would present reasonable intelligent arguments and allow the other side a fair hearing in a civilized respectful way. I hope that has not changed since his move to fox north, but I have never seen his show there.

Much of what they say in this video is correct (if unkind). Dawkins is out of his league in discussing theological matters. He has avoided debates. And there are people in the atheist community (if there is such a thing) who hang on his every word.

But Richard Dawkins is a brilliant scientists. I am certain he does not believe that science is limited to what occurs in a laboratory. And to criticize Dawkins as a scientist because of what he says about Christianity is like saying Michael Phelps is a bad swimmer because he has a bad haircut.

 

[gnomon]

I am skeptical at what the host and guest are saying against Richard Dawkins but I want to keep an open mind. Do you agree or disagree at what they say about him?

[youtube]f3TooyRrbSE[/youtube]
Michael Coren: Is Richard Dawkins a Fraud? (William Lane Craig, John Lennox, and "Reason") - YouTube

For the most part it was the same crap in which creationists score points by challenging RD to a debate and he refuses to debate. First of all, I'm wondering why someone must accept every debate offered up to them.

I don't feel I need to explain why many scientists will not debate creationists regarding evolution. That should be common knowledge by now.

It's not just a debate on this topic as well. Many scientists will refuse to debate those individuals who claim vaccines cause autism. It's reached the same status as the evolution/creation debates by this point.

However, it appears RD is going to debate Lennox. Kind of a moot video.

As to the tired argument that RD is not a theologian so he should stick to keeping his mouth shut over religion I only ask this........when are members of RF going to take that same advice?

edit: I think people should concern themselves more with the substance of the upcoming debate. If it is anything like the debate earlier this year with Cardinal Pell I think most people will find it boring. Sure there were a few choice bits of outrageous statements both by Pell and Dawkins in that hour long debate most would probably use the debate as a cure for insomnia.

 

[fantome profane]

edit: I think people should concern themselves more with the substance of the upcoming debate.

Absolutly. Once again for the umpteen billionth time we find ourselves discussing the personality traits of one individual person rather than the ideas.

 

[Dubio]

For me, what matters is what Richard Dawkins says about evolution and if it is accurate. I could care less about his knowledge of theology. I just want to find accurate non-propaganda information about evolution and I think Richard does that. I have no scientific background so I have to trust my gut that Richard and other materials that I have been reading is accurate.

 

[Krok]

Dawkins is out of his league in discussing theological matters.

I disagree. He's actually spot on when discussing theological matters.

He has avoided debates.

So he should. Debating should be done on paper, where lots of time is available and sources can be verified or at scientific conferences, where abstracts are sent out before the vtime and people can verify the research.

And there are people in the atheist community (if there is such a thing) who hang on his every word.

Never met any atheist doing that. I've met lot of religious people hanging on to every word written in the Quoran, though.

But Richard Dawkins is a brilliant scientists.

Actually, he's only one of lots of brilliant scientists. Those scientists who publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

I am certain he does not believe that science is limited to what occurs in a laboratory.

Actually, no. He said it himself. He is adament that science is limited to the scientific method.

And to criticize Dawkins as a scientist because of what he says about Christianity is like saying Michael Phelps is a bad swimmer because he has a bad haircut.

Not at all. Michael Phelps won all those gold medals. Any person claiming that Michael Phelps is a bad swimmer, really is crazy. Same with those people who claim that Dawkins is a bad scientist. He won the equivalent of the gold medal in biology, many times. Anyone saying that he is a bad scientist is really crazy.

 

[Skwim]

Absolutly. Once again for the umpteen billionth time we find ourselves discussing the personality traits of one individual person rather than the ideas.

And when you can't successfully attack an argument, attack its maker. Gee, there must be a word for such a fallacious assault. Hmmm. Anyway, looking at this rather amusing character assassination, we have the following utterances:

Michael Coren: "He is very choosey in who he will debate with. There's all sorts of people ... 'No. No they're not worthy. They're not qualified.' A miasma of dishonesty. He's really saying 'They frighten me.'"
​

Nice to put words in people's mouths to discredit them. I doubt anyone frightens Dawkins. What I strongly suspect is that Dawkins has made so many enemies who have made so many challenges to debate him that he's grown weary of it all. He's not about to rehash issues he's already gone over, and certainly not with anyone who is incapable of a rational debate. Which, from what I've seen, almost all apologists
are incapable of doing.

Scott Masson: "He's ducked leading apologists who wanted to debate him. William Lange Craig, whose a very good debater, and I think these are the reasons that Dawkins ducks him."
​

Here is Dawkins' response to a debate with Craig, which also speaks to my comment above..

[youtube]JFamS4RGE_A[/youtube]
​

"Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig
​

This Christian 'philosopher' is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him
Craig's latest stalking foray has taken the form of a string of increasingly hectoring challenges to confront him in Oxford this October. I took pleasure in refusing again, which threw him and his followers into a frenzy of blogging, tweeting and YouTubed accusations of cowardice. To this I would only say I that I turn down hundreds of more worthy invitations every year, I have publicly engaged an archbishop of York, two archbishops of Canterbury, many bishops and the chief rabbi, and I'm looking forward to my imminent, doubtless civilised encounter with the present archbishop of Canterbury."
source
​

Scott Masson:"The other man he's ducking, quite frankly is his fellow Oxford professor, John Lennox. He's a professor of mathamatics who Dawkins says is not a scientist because he doesn't hold to the views Dawkins himself holds to. And because he holds to miracles, Dawkins says this man is not a scientist and he's not worthy of debating."
​

But Dawkins has debated Lennox, in 2008, and 2009. [youtube]DxD-HPMpTto[/youtube]

Scott Masson:"[Dawkins] own credentials as a scientist are in much dispute in the scientific community. They find some of his utterances on the Christian faith embarrassing."
​

Nice little, unsubstantiated ad hom.

Michael Coren and Scott Masson are simply cheesy atheist provokers.

 

[Hexagon]

I almost stopped listening after the first ten seconds of BS. But no, I carried on to discover the rest is just as bad.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I'm still at a loss why some people think that theology, defined as the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity*, is an actual field of knowledge.
I'll grant that religious history, scriptural studies, the study of religious practices and so on, are in fact areas in which one can have knowledge.

But God's attributes?
God's relations to the universe?
Divine things and religious truth?

How, exactly, do you make an empirical case for any sort of knowledge about a being you cannot even demonstrate actually exists?
No, I do not see theology as a field of knowledge because there is no knowledge to be had.

*Theology | Define Theology at Dictionary.com

 

[Apex]

How, exactly, do you make an empirical case for any sort of knowledge about a being you cannot even demonstrate actually exists?
No, I do not see theology as a field of knowledge because there is no knowledge to be had.

The problem is, you can say this exact same thing, to varying degrees, about a number of accepted fields of study:
Literature
Art
Ethics/Philosophy
Music
And really any other liberal arts field that is not grounded in simply studying the history of something, with only a few exceptions.

How do you make an empirical case that a work of art is a masterpiece? Or a work of literature is a classic? Or that a set of ethics is, in fact, ethical?

 

[jarofthoughts]

The problem is, you can say this exact same thing, to varying degrees, about a number of accepted fields of study:
Literature
Art
Ethics/Philosophy
Music
And really any other liberal arts field that is not grounded in simply studying the history of something, with only a few exceptions.

How do you make an empirical case that a work of art is a masterpiece? Or a work of literature is a classic? Or that a set of ethics is, in fact, ethical?

But in each of those cases you can, at the very least, demonstrate that the subject of your study exists.
Sure, defining art can be hard, but no-one disputes that various techniques give different results and that the end result most certainly exists, art or not.
The same goes for literature and music.
Philosophy follows the strict rules of logic and has many practical applications, and ethics ultimately deals with the well-being of humans which makes it, at least in theory, measurable.
All of them deal with actual real phenomena whereas theology, by the above definition, cannot be demonstrated to do the same.

 

[waitasec]

i never seen dawkins as a debater...he's a scientist...hitchens was the debater

 

[David M]

As to the tired argument that RD is not a theologian so he should stick to keeping his mouth shut over religion I only ask this........when are members of RF going to take that same advice?

Its the rampant hypocrisy of some of the public faces of creationism and ID, scientists are not qualified to speak on the subject of theology as it is not their area of expertise but theologians and lawyers (just to give 2 examples) are more than sufficiently qualified to speak about science (e.g. biology and geology).

 

[MD]

I think Dawkins is right in combatting religious fundamentalism and asking us to adapt a more scientific method towards understanding the universe, but to call God a delusion suggests he has an agenda. He is a materialist, which is a philosophical (and incomplete) view and he uses that philosophical position to push his ideas on others. Then again he is no different from most religious leaders, however one gets the sense that many atheists view him as infallible.

 

[otokage007]

The only reason that R.Dawkins doesn't debate with some people, is that not him nor them will gain anything from that debate. R.Dawkins can't be afraid of christians because his claims are supported by evidence, by facts. An he knows those people are supported by the Bible, which, to him, it is nothing but a book worthless than Harry Potter (actually much much worthless).

So why should he be afraid? That's quite a stupid statement.