David Quinn Vs Richard Dawkins

[VeniteAdoremus]

...well, Prof. Dawkins didn't explode. He just [i]wasn't interested[/i] (not unlike the way kids lose interest if a problem is too big for them to solve, and eventually fall asleep).

[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0086.htm"]Radio interview transcript[/url]

Edited August 1, 2009 by VeniteAdoremus

[Hassan]

[quote name='VeniteAdoremus' post='1938234' date='Aug 1 2009, 06:08 PM']...well, Prof. Dawkins didn't explode. He just [i]wasn't interested[/i] (not unlike the way kids lose interest if a problem is too big for them to solve, and eventually fall asleep).

[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0086.htm[/url][/quote]


The link doesn't work.

[Winchester]

pwned.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='VeniteAdoremus' post='1938234' date='Aug 1 2009, 07:08 PM']...well, Prof. Dawkins didn't explode. He just [i]wasn't interested[/i] (not unlike the way kids lose interest if a problem is too big for them to solve, and eventually fall asleep).

[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0086.htm"]http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0086.htm[/url][/quote]
Fixed it

[Hassan]

I've never understood his use of probabilities, or his complexity argument.

I mean I understand the form of his complexity argument, but I don't understand why he thinks it's a good argument.

[VeniteAdoremus]

He frustrates me because he says he's all about the truth, but when hard questions come up he just talks around them.

You don't steal my Order's motto and then do THAT with it

[Hassan]

Dawkins use of the word delusion is inconsistent, nor does he really mean it.


Quinn seems to ignore that children are generally socialized out of believing in faeries and Santa at a certain point.

Evolution is not intended to describe how matter came into being in the first place. Science doesn't address the question of God so long as the assertions believers make about God are not empirical. Science cannot strictly debunk religion in general but it can make it existentially irrelevant. Free will is not logically tied to theism. Nor would the existence of objective morality in itself be a proof for theism. I feel like Quinn is just offering a "god of the gaps' argument regarding matter.

Dawkins doesn't explain how free will is compatible with his philosophy of mind.

I don't know why Quinn keeps going back to that uncaused cause non sense.

The term fundamentalism does refer to an attitude towards a religious text with respect to a particular subset of American Christianity. Although Dawkins definition wasn't right either.

[dairygirl4u2c]

definitely a whole lot of quibbling.
for guys who are obviously smart, you'd think they'd form a method of sorting out complex arguments, premises etc. there's always a way to define the uncertainty.
they'd prob argue about definiting it, but htey could at least define each side it as they each see it- be more mature etc about it.
they need to be like dispute resolution-ists.
it doesn't have to devolve into bickering and quibbling.

[Hassan]

[quote name='VeniteAdoremus' post='1938256' date='Aug 1 2009, 06:25 PM']He frustrates me because he says he's all about the truth, but when hard questions come up he just talks around them.

You don't steal my Order's motto and then do THAT with it [/quote]


what is the motto?

[VeniteAdoremus]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1938271' date='Aug 2 2009, 02:42 AM']what is the motto?[/quote]

Veritas

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1938269' date='Aug 1 2009, 07:41 PM']Dawkins use of the word delusion is inconsistent, nor does he really mean it.


Quinn seems to ignore that children are generally socialized out of believing in faeries and Santa at a certain point.

Evolution is not intended to describe how matter came into being in the first place. Science doesn't address the question of God so long as the assertions believers make about God are not empirical. Science cannot strictly debunk religion in general but it can make it existentially irrelevant. Free will is not logically tied to theism. Nor would the existence of objective morality in itself be a proof for theism. I feel like Quinn is just offering a "god of the gaps' argument regarding matter.

Dawkins doesn't explain how free will is compatible with his philosophy of mind.

I don't know why Quinn keeps going back to that uncaused cause non sense.

The term fundamentalism does refer to an attitude towards a religious text with respect to a particular subset of American Christianity. Although Dawkins definition wasn't right either.


[/quote]
Interesting commentary. Just finished it myself. If uncaused cause thing doesn't work, what does? What convinced you of God in your Secret Muslim mind?

[dairygirl4u2c]

"Free will is not logically tied to theism. "

it's not necessarily. but when one talks of free will, it's usually in contrast to no free will cause "God" is in control. i think the term belongs to be used in this ense, given it's how it's usually used.
if you want to talk about the existentialist freedom, or the burden to be free, as sarte would put it, go for it. even they who are seeking a free life, wouldn't i don't think, use the term free will.
but in any case, it depends on how it's used etc. they just bicker about it, without having the latitude to realize what's going on, andor move past the petty, etc.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1938316' date='Aug 1 2009, 08:41 PM']What convinced you of God in your Secret Muslim mind?[/quote]



Secret Islam tends to be atheistic/agnostic in outlook

[jkaands]

[quote name='VeniteAdoremus' post='1938287' date='Aug 1 2009, 07:04 PM']Veritas [/quote]

That's Harvard's motto!

Yale's is:

LUX et Veritas!

They had to one-up [i]Hah-vahd.[/i]

[Hassan]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1938404' date='Aug 1 2009, 08:57 PM']That's Harvard's motto!

Yale's is:

LUX et Veritas!

They had to one-up [i]Hah-vahd.[/i][/quote]


My Latin is rusty but.... Light and Truth?