Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A serious case could be made for a deistic God. - Richard Dawkins
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1 of 16 (487247)
10-29-2008 1:13 AM


Richard Dawkins Evolving
This is an article on the second Lennox/Dawkins debate.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Deftil, posted 10-29-2008 3:24 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 10-29-2008 8:35 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 12 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2008 6:38 PM GDR has replied

  
Deftil
Member (Idle past 4455 days)
Posts: 128
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 04-19-2008


Message 2 of 16 (487249)
10-29-2008 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
10-29-2008 1:13 AM


Thanks for the link GDR.
I have to admit I'm a bit skeptical of Melanie Phillips and her view of things here, but I can believe that Dawkins is being forced to be a bit more intellectually honest about his views.
That's what I feel is happening here, and not so much that his views are actually changing/evolving.
Edited by Deftil, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 10-29-2008 1:13 AM GDR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 3 of 16 (487257)
10-29-2008 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
10-29-2008 1:13 AM


I've got to agree that the article is questionable, especially considering the author's biases.
(And this incredibly stupid point serves as an illustration:
Later, he amplified this by saying that physics was coming up with theories to show how matter could spontaneously be created from nothing. But as far as I can see - and as Anthony Flew elaborates - these theories cannot answer the crucial question of how the purpose-carrying codes which gave rise to self-reproduction in life-forms arose out of matter from which any sense of purpose was totally absent. So such a belief, whether adduced by physicists or anyone else, does not rest upon rational foundations.
Seems pretty clear that Melanie Phillips has no idea what a "rational foundation is!)
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 10-29-2008 1:13 AM GDR has not replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 4 of 16 (487260)
10-29-2008 9:11 AM


Melanie Phillips!!!
For those of you on the other side of the Atlantic who haven't heard of Melanie Phillips, she's famous here as a rabidly right-wing loon. Take what she says with a pinch of salt (and a double whiskey).
She's one of those commentators who has moved from being rabidly left wing (she used to write for the Guardian) to being rabidly right wing, with no intervening transition to sanity.

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 5 of 16 (487268)
10-29-2008 10:44 AM


The point though isn't the article itself, but the quote from Dawkins. "A serious case could be made for a deistic god".
It seems a pretty radical departure from anything he has said before.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Dr Jack, posted 10-29-2008 11:29 AM GDR has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 6 of 16 (487271)
10-29-2008 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by GDR
10-29-2008 10:44 AM


Without context, the quote tells us nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by GDR, posted 10-29-2008 10:44 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by GDR, posted 10-29-2008 11:59 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 7 of 16 (487272)
10-29-2008 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Dr Jack
10-29-2008 11:29 AM


There is more information on the debate here.
Lennox Dawkins Debate
I'm actually 2/3 of the way through "Has Science Buried God" by John Lennox. It's a good read.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Dr Jack, posted 10-29-2008 11:29 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Granny Magda, posted 10-29-2008 12:59 PM GDR has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 8 of 16 (487278)
10-29-2008 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by GDR
10-29-2008 11:59 AM


I think that Melanie Phillips has taken this one quote out of context and made way too big a deal out of it. Dawkins hasn't changed his views and he says so himself when questioned by Phillips.
quote:
Unfortunately, so stunning was this declaration it was not pursued on Tuesday evening.
Either it was too stunning or no-one other than Phillips decided to try and take it out of context.
quote:
Nevertheless, to acknowledge that ”a serious case could be made for a deistic god’ is to undermine his previous categorical assertion that
...all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ”design’ anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection...Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.
Phillips doesn't seem to understand what a deist God is. Deists do not generally believe in a god who creates life, merely one who sets up forces of nature that allow life. This in no way contradicts the quote above. Phillips also seems unable to understand the word "could".
I also notice that Phillips quote differs from the quote in the second link.
Phillips;
quote:
A serious case could be made for a deistic God.
Jason @ Thinking Matters;
quote:
a reasonably respectable case for a deist god
Note that the second version is somewhat less emphatic.
Basically, Melanie Phillips is nuts. I can only echo Java Man in saying that she is widely regarded as an extremist loon on this side of the pond (though naturally, she is not without her fans). I wouldn't trust a word she says. She is clearly trying to discredit Dawkins position off the back of a single sentence. Silly.
Mutate and Survive.

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by GDR, posted 10-29-2008 11:59 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by GDR, posted 10-29-2008 1:44 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 9 of 16 (487280)
10-29-2008 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Granny Magda
10-29-2008 12:59 PM


Granny Magda writes:
Phillips doesn't seem to understand what a deist God is. Deists do not generally believe in a god who creates life, merely one who sets up forces of nature that allow life. This in no way contradicts the quote above.
A god that sets up the forces of nature that allow life is a god who creates life. That is just the way he/she has gone about creating.
Dawkins has always agreed that he couldn't disprove the existence of a god. He has generally claimed that there isn't a rational argument for such an entity.Now he is suggesting that a good case can be made for a deistic god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Granny Magda, posted 10-29-2008 12:59 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Granny Magda, posted 10-29-2008 3:37 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 10-29-2008 5:33 PM GDR has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 10 of 16 (487294)
10-29-2008 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by GDR
10-29-2008 1:44 PM


A god that sets up the forces of nature that allow life is a god who creates life. That is just the way he/she has gone about creating.
Look at the quote. Dawkins says that life is not designed. Deist gods do not actively design life. Perhaps I should have said design instead of create. If a deist god kick-started the universe, that does not make it the designer of life. The statements that Phillips claims are contradictory are not contradictory. She has simply failed to comprehend them. Either that or she is lying for Jesus, which wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Dawkins has always agreed that he couldn't disprove the existence of a god. He has generally claimed that there isn't a rational argument for such an entity.Now he is suggesting that a good case can be made for a deistic god.
I think you are over stating it. He has said that a reasonable case can be made for it. That is not much of a claim. Reasonable cases can be made for many nonsensical things, that does not make them good cases.
Dawkins has always dismissed the deist's god, which he sees as purposeless, yet more likely than the Biblical God. He continues to do so. Where is the story here? Phillips is tying to create a controversy where none exists, typical of The Spectator's MO.
Mutate and Survive.

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by GDR, posted 10-29-2008 1:44 PM GDR has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 11 of 16 (487309)
10-29-2008 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by GDR
10-29-2008 1:44 PM


Argument from Authority
Now he is suggesting that a good case can be made for a deistic god.
We all seem to be arguing that if he did actually say this that it somehow means a darn thing.
What we would need to do is actually see the "good case" spelled out to decide if it is in any way "good". Since no one has supplied that this argument is a waste of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by GDR, posted 10-29-2008 1:44 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by GDR, posted 10-29-2008 7:22 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 16 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2008 10:53 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 12 of 16 (487322)
10-29-2008 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
10-29-2008 1:13 AM


I have read the article. Dawkins explicitly says that he was not and is not advocating Deism; and he said that anyone who suggests such a thing has misunderstood.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 10-29-2008 1:13 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Granny Magda, posted 10-29-2008 7:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 14 by GDR, posted 10-29-2008 7:18 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 13 of 16 (487325)
10-29-2008 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Cold Foreign Object
10-29-2008 6:38 PM


Well I'll be darned.
For once Ray, you and me are in total agreement. Only the second time that's ever happened, to my recollection.
Phillips is just picking up on the difference in vehemence with which Dawkins has made his points at different times. In my opinion she is running too far with it.
To Nosy;
I think that you make a good point. It doesn't really matter what Dawkins does or does not think. He is not the emperor of all atheists. His opinion of the case for deism may be a little more generous than mine, but he is entitled to it. It's not binding on anybody else.
I just get a little irritated when people take what I see as unjustified digs at Dawkins, who I have always admired (since before his emergence as a crusading atheist at any rate) and generally agree with.
Mutate and Survive.

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2008 6:38 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 14 of 16 (487326)
10-29-2008 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Cold Foreign Object
10-29-2008 6:38 PM


CFD writes:
I have read the article. Dawkins explicitly says that he was not and is not advocating Deism; and he said that anyone who suggests such a thing has misunderstood.
I'm not sure if you are referring to me with that statement or not, but in any case I completely agree with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2008 6:38 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 15 of 16 (487327)
10-29-2008 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by NosyNed
10-29-2008 5:33 PM


Re: Argument from Authority
NosyNed writes:
What we would need to do is actually see the "good case" spelled out to decide if it is in any way "good". Since no one has supplied that this argument is a waste of time.
I've just about finished Lennox's book this afternoon. I think he makes a very good case but then I'm sure you'd disagree. All Dawkins is saying is that it is possible to make a good case and I can't imagine him saying that unless he thought someone had. As he was in a debate with Lennox I assume that was who he had in mind.
I agree though that it doesn't mean a whole lot, but as far as I can see it is further than he has gone before.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 10-29-2008 5:33 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024