There is a really interesting article on God & Science in this week’s time mag with a discussion between Dawkins (atheist biologist) and Collins (christian geneticist)…
so…if you guys are interested…let’s all read it during the weekend (the homework) and let’s start a fun (and courteous) debate monday
Any Christian (any fundamentalist Christian, that is) who reads that piece will avoid a debate on it like the plague–at least if he or she is smart. Dawkins demolished Collins in that discussion.
It’s on-line here:
http://tango.gnn.tv/blogs/19781/God_vs_Science
Well, now you ruined it 
.
Dawkins demolished Collins in that discussion.
We must have read different accounts.
There’s a clip on Youtube of Dawkin’s interviewing Ted Haggard (before Pastor Ted became just that tiny bit more famous this past week) - now, as much as i’d like to see someone like Haggard be brought down a notch, Dawkin’s comes off as such an asshole that it’s more than a bit offputting…
Dawkins interviewed on the Colbert Report a few weeks ago:
I kinda find him charming.
In that interview, yes, he might possibly be described as charming. His interview with Pastor ManLove? Much more like a bulldog…
ps-your link was pasted in twice…
This?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmNjfpoRZpE
Dawkins is a lot more aggressive for sure, but well, it’s Haggard.
And I’d say Haggard gets pretty riled up and sneering by the end. Those were some really evil looks he was giving. However, I got really distracted looking at him b/c his mouth is shaped like a rectangle when he talks. It’s weird.
Haggard: “We fully embrace the scientific method…”
Yes, Haggard did get quite riled by the end - presumably he was getting turned on.
but i can’t be totally sure on that.
I have started my homework assignment, Dr. Modave. It looks particularly unenlightening from either point of view so far.
I did, however, get to this quote, which really nails it: “To me, the right approach is to say we are profoundly ignorant of these matters. We need to work on them.”
I completely agree there. If we accept that statement as true, is there a reason to read further?
I guess you go fishing in a barrel with dynamite too, eh?
The article was a lot shorter than I thought, so I finished the homework assignment, Dr. Modave. At the end I found this:
“If there is a God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.”
I guess he is saying that various religions speak of God in terms of being centered around man and the Earth. Maybe day to day that is true, but I really don’t see how he gets that from the description of a God that created the entire universe.
I guess I am trying to see how the science guy “destroys” the God guy when he admits the possiblity of God right in his conclusion.
On balance, I am not seeing how either person advanced any argument forward.
“If there is a God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.”
I guess he is saying that various religions speak of God in terms of being centered around man and the Earth. Maybe day to day that is true, but I really don’t see how he gets that from the description of a God that created the entire universe.
I guess I am trying to see how the science guy “destroys” the God guy when he admits the possiblity of God right in his conclusion.
On balance, I am not seeing how either person advanced any argument forward.
I give Art an A so far and an F- to the person who said Dawkins destroyed the Christian. I don’t see that at all.
“I give Art an A so far.”
Too bad you aren’t the professor. Still waiting for Professor Modave to weigh in here, but I am guessing he wants more student discussion first.
I certainly hope my God is bigger than just involvement with Earth. That would seem to follow pretty quickly from the all powerful and omnipresent theories.
Thank you for sharing this. Personally I see the issue as unanswerable(yet). As such, it leads us back to what we’re most comfortable with (faith in science or faith in whatever cultural religious tradition we profess membership in). Our faith (and yes I think Dawkins is expressing his faith too) is in someday having certainty on the question of how, why and possibly who.
I particularly enjoyed the interview because I think both men did a good job role modeling civility toward each other and avoiding polemics (although Dawkins did appear less patient than Collins for example his dismissal of the “clowns” of creationism).
These discussions are what make Slowtwitch, through the people who come here, more than a mere source of entertainment. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the article as well.
Ah Casey and Vitus, I’ve watched and admired you guys from afar. Your political and religious views never cease to amaze me. I will not enter the debate with you, though, as I think it’ll be much more fun to watch you guys argue it out.
Suffice it to say that I enjoyed receiving an F- as my grade! Seeing how I teach and publish in these particular areas (philosophy of biology, evolutionary theory, and philosophy of religion), it’s nice to receive a grade instead of having to hand them out! Sure, I wish I had done a bit better, but it’s hard to compete with Art . . .
I’ll enjoy watching you guys battle it out from afar!
I have enough homework as it is
.
Seriously, did you really think Dawkins “demolished” Collins in that short back and forth? I don’t know. It seems to me that his admission that there might be a God, but he just doesn’t think it’s likely to be the Christian God, represents a rather significant retreat from his militant atheism.
I’ll give an A to Art as well. The reason is I tried to put myself on both sides of the fence (not at once, thank you)…and truthfully, if you’re an atheist, you end up finishing as an atheist, unconvinced at all with Collins…and if you’re a christian (or any other religion, be it fundamentalist or not) you are not convinced by any of the arguments put forth by Dawkins…
That said, my guess is that the debate ought to be a lot longer…hence the homework
dont forget this debate