1. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    24468
    29 Jan '07 16:07
    http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/mcgrath/lecture.html#_edn2


    Conclusion.

    This lecture has barely scratched the surface of a series of fascinating questions raised by the writings of Richard Dawkins. Some of these are directly, others indirectly, religious in nature. I am conscious that I have failed to deal with any of them in the detail that they rightly demand. I have opened up some questions for further discussion, and have not settled anything - except that the issues raised here are important and interesting. Dawkins asks all the right questions, and gives some interesting answers. They're not particularly reliable answers, admittedly, unless you happen to believe that religious people are science-hating fools who are into `blind faith' and other unmentionable things in a big way.

    It's time to move the discussion on, and draw a line under the unreliable account of the relation of science and religion that Dawkins offers. An evidence-based approach to the question is much more complex than Dawkins' `path of simplicity and straight thinking'.

    The question of whether there is a God, and what that God might be like, has not - despite the predictions of overconfident Darwinians - gone away since Darwin, and remains of major intellectual and personal importance. Some minds may be closed; the evidence and the debate, however, are not. Scientists and theologians have so much to learn from each other. Listening to each other, we might hear the galaxies sing.[51] Or even the heavens declaring the glory of the Lord (Psalm 19:1).

    Thank you for listening!
  2. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    29 Jan '07 16:14
    Originally posted by ivanhoe


    Thank you for listening!
    Thank you for boring us with another cut and paste job!
  3. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    24468
    29 Jan '07 16:54
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Thank you for boring us with another cut and paste job!
    I love you too Starrman.
  4. Joined
    26 Oct '06
    Moves
    12602
    29 Jan '07 16:56
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/mcgrath/lecture.html#_edn2


    Conclusion.

    This lecture has barely scratched the surface of a series of fascinating questions raised by the writings of Richard Dawkins. Some of these are directly, others indirectly, religious in nature. I am conscious that I have failed to deal with any of them in the detail th ...[text shortened]... even the heavens declaring the glory of the Lord (Psalm 19:1).

    Thank you for listening!
    what is your point?
  5. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    24468
    29 Jan '07 18:131 edit
    Originally posted by wedgehead2
    what is your point?
    Read the lecture:

    http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/mcgrath/lecture.html#_edn2

    It is particularly interesting for people opposing the views of political guru Richard Dawkins ... and of course the above lecture is also interesting for those parrotting his views .......
  6. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    29 Jan '07 22:46
    Originally posted by wedgehead2
    what is your point?
    He has no point. He only has other people's points.
  7. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    29 Jan '07 23:27
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    Read the lecture:

    http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/mcgrath/lecture.html#_edn2

    It is particularly interesting for people opposing the views of political guru Richard Dawkins ... and of course the above lecture is also interesting for those parrotting his views .......
    Which part of the lecture were you hoping to target for discussion?
  8. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    24468
    30 Jan '07 18:585 edits
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    Which part of the lecture were you hoping to target for discussion?
    http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=59642

    What do you think ? Does the evolution theory eliminate God from the scene as Dawkins suggests ?
  9. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    30 Jan '07 21:09
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=59642

    What do you think ? Does the evolution theory eliminate God from the scene as Dawkins suggests ?
    In everything I've read of Dawkins, he merely says that evolution eliminates the need for God. We have a proven alternative answer to "where did life come from?" other than "Goddunnit."
  10. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36089
    31 Jan '07 10:57
    Originally posted by telerion
    In everything I've read of Dawkins, he merely says that evolution eliminates the need for God. We have a proven alternative answer to "where did life come from?" other than "Goddunnit."
    But does it eliminate the need for God? How is "Chancedunnit" different from "Goddunnit"?
  11. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    31 Jan '07 12:11
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    But does it eliminate the need for God? How is "Chancedunnit" different from "Goddunnit"?
    Perhaps wotdunnit is not the right question.

    Perhaps it weren't "dun" at all.
  12. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    05 Feb '07 02:09
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=59642

    What do you think ? Does the evolution theory eliminate God from the scene as Dawkins suggests ?
    Dawkins' contention is not merely that evolutionary theory renders your God (in particular) explanatorily unnecessary. He would agree with that I'm sure, but he claims something far stronger. If you read, for example, chapter 4 of The God Delusion, he argues that "there almost certainly is no God". Here, he means to say not that your God is explanatorily unnecessary, but rather that your God concept (or more generally, the concept of a divine creator) doesn't constitute any sort of probabilistically viable explanation at all. He thinks that any such creator would be "The Ultimate Boeing 747", and that his existence is just extraordinarily unlikely.

    Also, McGrath is just wrong when he says that Dawkins' arguments -- if correct -- only support agnosticism: if Dawkins is right, then it is extremely unlikely that God exists.
  13. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    05 Feb '07 02:101 edit
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    How is "Chancedunnit" different from "Goddunnit"?
    Well, in Dawkins' view, 'Chancedunnit' is extraordinarily unlikely, whereas 'Goddunnit' is even more extraordinarily unlikely. He of course therefore rejects both of them.
  14. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    05 Feb '07 02:134 edits
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    Read the lecture:

    http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/mcgrath/lecture.html#_edn2

    It is particularly interesting for people opposing the views of political guru Richard Dawkins ... and of course the above lecture is also interesting for those parrotting his views .......
    Also, McGrath seems confused to me in his section on Faith and Evidence. Dawkins is using the word 'faith' more or less in the proper sense: as an epistemic pejorative. The point is that 'faith' (prima facie) constitutes dereliction of noetic duty. As Dawkins points out, one hallmark of 'faith' is endorsing propositional content even in the face of countervailing evidence. I would say that the most egregious sort of 'faith' is when the cognitive faculties are more or less capable; the epistemic environment is more or less congenial; but the mental exercise is ultimately aimed at something other than the production of only true endorsements. That's basically a form of self-delusion.

    So 'faith' is defined more or less properly. Then the discussion should be over whether or not theistic belief qualifies as 'faith', as Dawkins seems categorically to suggest it does.
  15. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    24468
    05 Feb '07 15:511 edit
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    Also, McGrath seems confused to me in his section on Faith and Evidence. Dawkins is using the word 'faith' more or less in the proper sense: as an epistemic pejorative. The point is that 'faith' (prima facie) constitutes dereliction of noetic duty. As Dawkins points out, one hallmark of 'faith' is endorsing propositional content even in t tic belief qualifies as 'faith', as Dawkins seems categorically to suggest it does.
    That sounds pretty impressive, but can you tell me what it means ?
Back to Top