I haven’t read any of Richard Dawkins books’ in their entirety, but I have read and heard enough snippets of him, Hitchens, Harris, et. al. to recognize an intentional (and rather shallow) meanness in their presentations. I don’t think this will ultimately serve their cause well.
————
P.S. I’ve been listening to James White and Steve Gregg debate Calvinism the last few days. It has been a very interesting conversation. If you’re interested, you can get all five mp3s here.
Have you per chance ever looked at the debates between JW and Dave Armstrong? James White & Dave Armstrong That one even gets amusing at times.
I think the “meanness” you speak of is more of a frustration that comes from addressing the same questions over and over again. I know I feel that way on occassion. I can only imagine what guys like Dawkins feel like who go on tour supporting atheism. For an example, check out this video of Dawkins speaking at Liberty University in Lynchberg, VA. A young lady in the audience asked, “What if you’re wrong (and there really is a god)?” His response definitely comes across with a sense of meanness, but in doing so he pulls a good applause from the audience (at a Baptist University?). Really, I think the way he presents his remarks are meant mainly to pull the listener in his direction… just my 2 pennies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg
Cheers!
Darron,
This is precisely White’s point: Dawkins is engaged in a shallow name-calling, not real intellectual dialogue. The girl’s question is a legitimate one deserving a sincere answer that does not refer to the “flying spaghetti monster”.
God Bless
Hey Jim,
I think Dawkins response was actually a pretty good way of responding to Pascal’s Wager. I don’t think he personally insulted the girl, but rather answered her question by making it irrelevant. Admitidly, he did it in a “showboating” kind of way, but that goes part and parcel with public speaking, unless you’re trying to put your audience to sleep. Hope you’re having a good evening! Cheers!
Darron,
How does the “flying spaghetti monster” answer anything? She doesn’t believe in a “flying spaghetti monster”. She believes in a specific deity within a specific and complex religious system.
The “flying spaghetti monster” is not a coherent response to anything. It is shallow, showboating, mockery. And it persuades no one, but plays to a crowd already disposed to Dawkins’ point of view.
God Bless
Hey Jim,
The lady’s question was, “what if you’re wrong (about their not being a Judeo-Christian God)?”
Richard was saying basically saying that there have been tons and tons of gods since humankind first was able to construct such ideas. So, what if she’s wrong about all of those? It puts everyone pretty much in the same boat… I mean, won’t we both feel pretty stupid about things when we die and Thor is standing there with his hammer, or Zeus is there shooting lightning bolts at all us infidels?
You do realize that “The Flying Sphaghetti Monster” is meant to be precisely equal to Jesus Christ right? They’re meant to be analogous, so anything said about one reflects on the other. If The Flying Sphaghetti Monster is not a coherent explanation for anything, then neither is Jesus Christ. They both make claims that have to be taken on faith.
But keep this in mind, Jesus Christ offers you eternal life in heaven with him and his father, and with everyone you have ever loved.
The Flying Sphagetti Monster offers all that AND MORE! In Flying Spaghetti Monster heaven they also have a beer volcano and a stripper factory! I’m not making this up! It’s actually in the book written by our prophet Bobby Henderson; may his noodles never be al dente.
Cheers!
Sigh… I think we’re talking past each other.
I understand the FSM is supposed to be analogous with Christ. This is precisely my point. Christianity (along with other religions) offers a comprehensive worldview. The FSM argument essentially boils down to the atheist dismissing Christianity (and other religions), because he thinks it is stupid (the FSM is supposed to be, on it’s face, silly/stupid). This is not a very good argument.
An intelligent answer will take the time to meaningfully interact with the ideas being challenged.
And for the record, I don’t particularly care for Pascal’s Wager either. I don’t think Christ saves people by convincing them to hedge their bets.
God Bless
Hey Jim,
Then I guess we can agree to let this Wager conversation die, as it seems the question is as unfavorable as the answer.
I’m curious about your stance on the upcoming Expelled movie, and Evolutionary Theory in general. The debate has really been heating up since the movie started screening a few weeks ago. =)