Dawkins and Wendy Wright debate.

[Storm]

Huston Smith is a person with great knowledge of religion who has personally practiced a number of them, but I'm skeptical about whether he's actually what I'd call a believer.

May I ask why? He claims God-belief.

Dawkins certainly couldn't debate either Smith or Sinkford about subjects like evolution vs. creationism,

1) Bwuh? It sounds like you think Dawkins would lose the debate! I assume I'm reading you wrong, but please clarify.
2) I don't think either man would defend Creationism a la YEC.

but I think it would be interesting to see him debate Sinkford on the subject of moderate religion.

I'd pay good money to see that, I truly would.

 

[Smoke]

May I ask why? He claims God-belief.

His god-belief doesn't seem to be limited by dogma or any particular god-concept, though. He may believe in god, but it's hard for me to understand exactly what that means, or what sort of god he believes in. Of course, his explanation might in itself make the debate interesting.

1) Bwuh? It sounds like you think Dawkins would lose the debate! I assume I'm reading you wrong, but please clarify.
2) I don't think either man would defend Creationism a la YEC.

You are reading me wrong. I meant that neither Smith nor Sinkford would be stupid enough to argue against evolution.

 

[fantome profane]

Agreed. I'd like to see Dawkins debate a believer who was his intellectual equal someday. Preferably one with a liberal theology. Huston Smith, perhaps, or my own Rev. Dr. Bill Sinkford.....

[youtube]wxc0NpTZE18[/youtube]
Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath Pt. 1 of 15

 

[Storm]

His god-belief doesn't seem to be limited by dogma or any particular god-concept, though. He may believe in god, but it's hard for me to understand exactly what that means, or what sort of god he believes in. Of course, his explanation might in itself make the debate interesting.

OK, fair enough.

You are reading me wrong. I meant that neither Smith nor Sinkford would be stupid enough to argue against evolution.

Gotcha. I couldn't agree more.

 

[Walkntune]

Wasn't a very even debate although she brought up a good point of treating the world as if it was materialistic.If they could only see the truth that in a way both were right. I think this might be why when they asked Einstein if God exists, he gazed out over a cliff with tears in his eyes.

 

[Reptillian]

Seen this before.

Wendy Wright had no interest in listening to a word that Dawkins had to say.

I applaud R.D. for staying so calm. I'd have probably been yelling at her before it was over.

He seems like a very patient person. He repeatedly listens to the same flawed arguements and calmly gives the same reasonable refutations. Wendy basically just doesn't want to educate herself. She admits to being ignorant of science, then has the audacity to suggest that scientists are closed minded because they don't listen to her creationist ideas. Its like she is trying to play a game of chess without bothering to learn the rules. Whenever you tell her "knights don't move like that" she accuses you of being a cheating chess snob.

 

[painted wolf]

My favorite argument is... "Why isn't the evidence in the Smithsonian... I've never seen it"

Exhibit | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

wa:do

 

[linwood]

Which side of the debate do you agree with mostly and why?

She`s an idiot.

 

[Erebus]

[youtube]YFjoEgYOgRo[/youtube]

Wendy Wright is the president of The Concerned Women for America. After watching this interview between herself and Dawkins, I am interested to hear your views on what both of them have to say.

Which side of the debate do you agree with mostly and why?

Couldn't watch the whole video, I just wanted to reach into the screen and strangle that woman.
I agree with what has already been said about Dawkins, it would be nice to see him debate with a wider range of believers and with people of at least his own intellectual ability (I intend to watch the other interviews in this thread tomorrow in fact) because watching people like him demolish fundamentalist imbeciles get's boring quite quickly.

 

[Midnight Pete]

He seems like a very patient person. He repeatedly listens to the same flawed arguements and calmly gives the same reasonable refutations. Wendy basically just doesn't want to educate herself. She admits to being ignorant of science, then has the audacity to suggest that scientists are closed minded because they don't listen to her creationist ideas. Its like she is trying to play a game of chess without bothering to learn the rules. Whenever you tell her "knights don't move like that" she accuses you of being a cheating chess snob.

I sense you're holding something back.

 

[Reptillian]

I sense you're holding something back.

:areyoucra such as?

 

[Midnight Pete]

:areyoucra such as?

Your lips could be more firmly attached to Dawkins' behind than they currently are.

 

[Reptillian]

Your lips could be more firmly attached to Dawkins' behind than they currently are.

Would it help if I said that I think hes one of the nerdiest sounding englishmen ever? His voice is so nasal. And come on, "mightn't"...really?...people still use that contraction? I also suspect hes kind of slow since he wastes so much time repeating himself in the same old debate. Sheesh, video tape yourself responding to the typical arguements and just send in the tape whenever somebody wants to discuss evolutionary evidence. The creationists obviously aren't going to say anything new. Better yet, give them the name of a good biology textbook or send them to a science website or something. Doesn't he have research to do?

Personally I think his debate style needs to be a little less Darwin and a little more Huxley.

 

[gnomon]

Your lips could be more firmly attached to Dawkins' behind than they currently are.

That really sucked.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think this might be why when they asked Einstein if God exists, he gazed out over a cliff with tears in his eyes.

I'm skeptical that this actually happened. Einstein was basically an atheist and yet there is a popular myth that he believed in a personal God or thought of Christianity as sort of legitimate. He did not.

I've watched all parts of this interview/debate before. What's interesting to me is, later on they talk about what makes someone human. Dawkins basically admits, at first, that according to his view our brains and our capacity to think, love, etc. are what make us human. But then Wendy mentions her sister, who is severely mentally disabled. She says, according to Dawkins' perspective, her sister is somehow less than human. What's very interesting to me is, even though I think she is wrong about these implications there is a certain sense in which she is correct. A brain-dead person, according to a materialistic point of view, is no longer truly a person in the full sense.

That explains why this woman will not, and cannot, accept evolution. In her mind, evolution means her beloved sister does not really exist as we do, her sister has no "soul" beyond this life where she can think, feel, love and imagine like everyone else.

Wendy not only cannot accept this, but she *will not* accept it. To me, this goes a long way in explaining her behavior.

 

[Storm]

I'm skeptical that this actually happened. Einstein was basically an atheist and yet there is a popular myth that he believed in a personal God or thought of Christianity as sort of legitimate. He did not.

While his recorded thoughts make it clear you're right about the personal God, I think it's pushing it to call him "basically an atheist."

What we know - or what *I* know, I should say - is far from clear.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

While his recorded thoughts make it clear you're right about the personal God, I think it's pushing it to call him "basically an atheist."

What we know - or what *I* know, I should say - is far from clear.

He declared himself an atheist and an agnostic in various letters and writings. He repeatedly criticized the idea of a personal god and the traditional religions in general. There's really nothing he said about god, as far as I've seen, that is not consistent with a metaphor for the universe. Lots of atheist/ non-religious physicists use "god" as a metaphor for the universe (the majesty of the universe, etc). Stephen Hawking, for example.

Some Einstein quotes: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html
(And I've seen these same quotes in other sources like news reports, books about Einstein, etc. you can find another source if you suspect this one as biased)

"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth."

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic."

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Every time he says "God" it's entirely consistent to replace it with "the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it". So .... he's not a theist any more than I am.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I like this one:

"As the first way out there was religion, which is implanted into every child by way of the traditional education-machine. Thus I came — though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents — to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment-an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections. It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the ‘merely personal,’ from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings. Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking. The contemplation of this world beckoned as a liberation, and I soon noticed that many a man whom I had learned to esteem and to admire had found inner freedom and security in its pursuit. The mental grasp of this extra-personal world within the frame of our capabilities presented itself to my mind, half consciously, half unconsciously, as a supreme goal. Similarly motivated men of the present and of the past, as well as the insights they had achieved, were the friends who could not be lost. The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and I have never regretted having chosen it."

-Albert Einstein, Autobiographical Notes, 1979.

This reminds me of my own journey into (and out of) religion (not that I could be compared in any significant way to this man, of course). He was an atheist/agnostic who liked to use the word "God" as a metaphor for the intricacy and enormousness of the universe.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Albert Einstein's religious views - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These [...] interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I disagree with his opinion on atheism

but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth

This may be true for some people, but definitely not for me and not for very many atheists i've seen on this forum.

-Q