Is Dawkins Still Evolving? Melanie Phillips asks this question. The motivating event? This statement:
A serious case could be made for a deistic God.
(Note: The link can be slow to load. I find: http://www.spectator.co.uk/blogs/ to be quicker and then you need to click on the name Melanie Phillips.)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
October 24th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I was wondering when that would get noticed here.
Lurking around the net, the brewing fallout from that comment has been a lot of fun to observe. When even the big bad atheist figurehead has to concede that a serious case can be made for a mind being fundamentally responsible for our universe, he's no longer an opponent to theism. He's an apologetics resource.
Comment by nullasalus — October 24, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
October 24th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Just finished watching that debate linked to in the article. Dawkins was slaughtered by Lennox.
Comment by Jean — October 24, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
October 25th, 2008 at 12:44 am
nullasalus:
Dawkins' views apparently have evolved. Remember when he used to say that believing that the universe had a creator was no different from believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden?
Comment by Bradford — October 25, 2008 @ 12:44 am
October 25th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Hi Bradford,
I suggest you missed the point.
A serious case could be made that fairies, at one time, existed.
A less serious case could be made that both God and faires continue to exist today. However, they might along with anything that can be conjectured, including orbiting tea cups.
This is the point Dawkins' was making in the God Delusion. By the way, did you read Dawkin's book?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 25, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
October 25th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
i must admit, dawkins did seem a bit of a joke against lennox.
1) can i not rise above my genes, as i did with lust, and disregard human suffering and altruism, even daresay, violate the zeitgeist? am i not justified in this deviation from evolution?
2) can the word faith, in its etymology and historical roots, contain the concept of skepticism?
3) what are the differences between invoking a historical account of a man named Jesus, and invoking a tea pot orbiting around in space?
4) will thought provoker make fun of me?
Comment by dantedanti — October 25, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
October 25th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
TP,
I suggest you have missed the point
A deist God is not the same as a fairy or orbiting tea cups. A deist God has empirical implications that can be explored fairies or orbiting tea pots do not as far as I know.
It’s these implications that are used to make the case that Dawkins now seems to think can constitute a real case.
I don’t know about Bradford but I did. Found it to be mostly a angry tirade against a straw man that looks nothing like God as I know him or even a fair representation of a deist god. I would suggest that at the time he had not given intelligent theism much thought.
by the way speaking of books
Did you read the book I suggested?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 25, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
October 25th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I agree with fmm.
I think that's spin. A serious case was never made.
No. How well do you think Dawkins is holding up against Lennox?
Comment by Bradford — October 25, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
October 25th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Hi dantedanti!
Nice to "see" you again!
I am currently listening to the Dawkins/Lennox debate as I type this.
I have been overwhelmingly busy in Real Life lately. I'm sorry if I missed earlier comments from you. You wrote…
"I think, therefore I am" is the ultimate assumption. I suggest that independent thinking is an ultimate authority. Each is responsible for their own actions. Ergo, dantedanti, you are justified into believing anything you understand.
It probably depends on the definition of term "faith".
There is evidence that a MAN named Yashua ben Yosef existed sometime around 0 AD. This wandering rabbi had very interesting things to say. It appears this man was part of a Jewish family with many brothers and sisters. Many have thought that this Jewish man was to be the Jewish Meshiach who would lead the nation of Israel into a golden age.
I doubt it. Have I ever done that to you in the past?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 25, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
October 25th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
It wouldn't be very ethical of me not to follow through on my statements. So when you ask…
…I will remind you of the conditions…
"I will be checking into the book anyway. Let me know when you are ready to engage in active thinking rather than passive acceptance.
Better yet, show me by engaging in a discussion about the family history of the man we are talking about. Not the myth, the man. Did he have brothers and sisters?" link
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 25, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
October 25th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Hi Bradford,
As you should know by now I like to provoke independent thinking. So when you say things like "I agree with FMM" that comes across to me as you letting others do your thinking for you.
For example, did you just assume Dawkins said the actual words "A serious case could be made for a deistic God."?
I have listened to the debate and don't recall hearing those exact words. Could you tell me if Dawkins spoke those words and, if so, when?
During his opening remarks?
In his answer for the first question?
In his answer for the second?
You asked…
What I found interesting is the strong agreement between Dawkins and Lennox that there is only one Truth. They both reject NOMA. Lennox's background strongly suggests a philosophical position. And, despite his assertion that he was going to make scientific arguments, he presented mostly philosophical arguments.
It was a typical one way treatment of NOMA. Using philosophical arguments against science while rejecting the need to scientifically explain the existance of an eternal agency.
Did you note that Lennox agreed that understanding mechanisms is important?
Yet he treated agency as something separate. Inherently, that made it something "special" to be treated differently.
Since Dawkins rejects NOMA he has a hard time dealing with the inconsistencies of philosophy (e.g. "is" versus "ought").
Lennox says he rejects NOMA but relies on it to protect his faith.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 25, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
October 25th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I did agree and believe that equating the case for fairies with the case for a deity is way off the mark.
I'll have to listen carefully and get back on that. (Or anyone else can for that matter.)
You pick your poison. Neither is palatable to finite human minds. If you reject eternal agency you are left with a causal conundrum.
Someone sent me a private e-mail citing the paper of a fairly well known atheist and excellent thinker who touched on some issues that bear on NOMA and science. I initially decided against blogging about it because of copyrite considerations and my need to do too much descriptive narrative. (I get lazy sometimes.) Now I understand that it is available to the public to download so I think it is a go for the near future.
Comment by Bradford — October 25, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
October 25th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Comment by GringoRoyale — October 25, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
October 25th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
If I read the article correctly, the words were spoken at a second? debate. Only the first debate is online.
Comment by Jean — October 25, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
October 25th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Argumentation relies on philosophic principles.
Science itself doesn't provide that ground to formulate arguments.
But regardless, you're playing with terms. Lennox said that he was going to make scientific arguments, and he presented 'mostly'philosophical ones?
So? Did he say, "I'm going to present no philosophical arguments"?
TP, you're being extra-critical of Lennox in this debate.
Comment by GringoRoyale — October 25, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
October 25th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Hi Jean,
You wrote…
I think you are right. The first debate was last year. The debate being discussed was recent.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 25, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
October 25th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
You were the one to bring in the discussion of fairies into this thread.
While you may disagree with Dawkins' position that the real and CONTINUING presence of God and fairies are both possible yet unsupported by scientific experimentation, it was been his consistant and unchanging position.
The idea that God, angels and fairies might have existed in the past is more supportable due to the creations-need-creators argument.
To my one-way NOMA observation of "Using philosophical arguments against science while rejecting the need to scientifically explain the existance of an eternal agency" you wrote…
Or you except the scientific evidence available at the quantum level coupled with the philosophical implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorems to come to the conclusion there is no single Truth for us all (at least not one that we can ever know about). And, yes, that is inherently inconsistant and arguably illogical.
The "poison" I choose is to embrace NOMA.
I look forward to seeing a thread on this if you decide to do it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 25, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
October 25th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Hi GringoRoyale,
Thank you for your comment.
You wrote…
I agree. The need for logical consistency is, itself, a philosophical presumption.
To my NOMA embracing position, the Philosophy of Science isn't science, it is philosophy. Science is based on assumptions of logic and consistency in the form of experimentation.
Things that cannot be explained using logic and repeatable experiments are outside science’s magisterium. However, some reject the need for providing mechanistic explanations. That's ok, but it causes problems when such positions are claimed to be scientific, IMO.
Fair observation. I had intended to convey that I believe both Dawkins and Lennox have an inherent problem with their anti-NOMA stand. I have indicated in the past I disagree with Dawkin's position of rejecting NOMA. I made the mistake that those reading my comment would remember that.
In this thread it has been implied (if not stated outright) that Lennox beat Dawkins in this debate. That may be true, but I suggest that is because of the inherent indefensibility of a philosophical position claiming to know the Truth. The format of the debate was such that Lennox didn't have to defend his philosophical position, only attack Dawkins'.
To make matters worse, Dawkins was put in the ackward position of trying to respond to Lennox's previous attacks without having an official time for rebuttal.
The order of comments were backwards since the major themes were known up front. Giving Dawkin's five minutes to restate what was already known was a waste of time. The format should be been something similar to…
Moderator quotes Dawkin's book.
Dawkins has one minute to extend or modify the quote.
Lennox has four minutes for argument.
Dawkins has four minutes for argument and rebutting Lennox
Lennox has one minute to rebut Dawkins.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 25, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
October 26th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Unfortunately this mindset leave the scientific evidence you mention in your first sentence and science as a whole in a very precarious position. If we adopt this way of thinking we will all soon be believing in fairys and orbiting teacups or whatever else fits our fancy.
Comment by 0112358 — October 26, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
October 26th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Hi 0112358,
This is why I embrace NOMA. We can apply the rules of science to orditing teacups. We might also be able to apply them to fairies, if the claim is that fairies can be observed. If not, then we can not observe them and science's toolset wouldn't work anyway.
I suggest this is more than a "mindset". It is potentially the reality of Quantum Physics. We may never know what is behind that interconnected quantum effects. We might as well believe it is fairies or "whatever else fits our fancy" for all the good it will do us.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 26, 2008 @ 11:35 pm
October 27th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Yes, we may never "know" in the scientific sense. The physical and spiritual are not explorable in the same sense.
However, rather than throwing in the towel and coming
we need to continue to believe in one Truth and seek for it otherwise a rational framwork is destroyed.
There are rational reasons for belief in the spiritual (This is not to say all spiritual beliefs are rational. Some are rational others are less so).
Comment by 0112358 — October 27, 2008 @ 7:26 am