Dr. Ruse on Dawkins. Also, equitable standards of proof.

[dashan091]

. Can any sane person not see the absolute stupidity of this argument & how one might draw the opposite conclusion? No wonder Ruse said Dawkins makes him embarrassed to call himself an atheist! The who designed the designer is just a red herring. If we found an oject on the moon that looked designed would we have to know the identity or nature of the designer to say it was designed & not an odd rock?

[dashan091]

cont'd p2 the natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design with actual design itself. P3 we don’t have a naturalistic explanation but we should not give up the hope that one day Physics may find one, like we have for Darwinian evolution. p4 The temptation to infer design to an actual designer is false because it raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.

[dashan091]

Many eminent scientists like Hoyle, Davies, Smoot, Penzias, Dyson, Schafer, Einstein, Wigner, Plank Collins etc have concluded the evidence 4 DESIGN is overwhelming. Now, let’s look at Dawkins’ Central Theme in “The God Delusion” p187: from which he concludes “Therefore God almost certainly doesn’t exist.” Because p1: one of the greatest challenges to the human intellect is to explain how the complex improbable appearance of design in the universe arises

[GreekTrustsJesus]

Good job. Change the set pls.

[jamesms4]

Reasoning & Logic are learned skills just because one denies the existence of god(s) doesn't automatically make you rational. I think the problem is this.Just as Bonhoeffer talked about "Cheap grace" I think among modern Pop Atheists there is a sort of "Cheap Rationalism" that is not really rational. It's not cool.

Anyway God bless dude!

[patrox247]

Awesome video. I run across people who have unreasonable expectations or double standards when it comes to the burden of proof. We live in a post modern society in which many people simple can not or will not engage in profitable discussion in which legitimate ideas are exchanged. They opt for the post modern deconstructism that is running so rampant. A generation that is always learning but never gaining truth.

[tenneral]

Good video as usual. I am not a philosopher but I was mightily impressed by the God Delusion and I would very much like to find out where Dawkins's philosophy is at fault and his use of History breaks down. Has anyone written a serious analysis of his book? McGrath seems too sensational to me for this purpose.

[grammastola]

"Has anyone written a serious analysis of his book?"

There are several reviews on the web. I recommend Greg Koukl's review, and I've addressed this book in several of my videos.

I liked parts of the McGraths's book, but I don't feel that it was the best treatment of Dawkins. Remember though, that's partly because the McGraths don't appear to be conservative Christians. This just goes to show that scholars from diverse backgrounds all have problems with Dawkins' analysis of theism.

[MetaphysicsAddict]

"Has anyone written a serious analysis of his book? McGrath seems too sensational to me for this purpose."

See Keith Ward's book "Why There Almost Certainly is a God: Doubting Dawkins" and Eric Reitan's book "Is God a Delusion? A Reply to Religion's Cultured Despisers"

Both books could be better, but they're also pretty good.

[MetaphysicsAddict]

P.S. Also see the scathing review of "The God Delusion" by the non-theist/atheist H Allen Orr in NYT review of books. He ended up having a heated exchange with Dennett.

[grammastola]

Yep. I've mentioned H Allen Orr in another video. Both he and Michael Ruse demonstrate that you don't have to be a theist to see that Dawkins used sloppy logic indeed.

In fact, Dennett appears to be the only prominent philosopher who speaks favorably of "The God Delusion." Personally, I think it's pretty clear that he didn't read the book very well.

[BassP86]

Great video, Dean. I would to add something. In all the years I've debated with people of different beliefs, I've never seen more overgeneralizations given by any other people than atheists. Most of them whom I've debated with had that type of authoritative attitude, which gave them a right to believe as many stereotypes about theists as they wanted. Ironically, if a theist makes a statement that even comes close to a generalization about atheists, they become hostile/angry. Very hypocritical.

[grammastola]

I agree. Now, I'm not trying to bash atheists here, since I want to avoid overly broad generalizations. I do also appreciate discussions with atheists who avoid that kind of stereotyping.

Still, such double standards are common. For example, people who argue that religion is the greatest cause of killing of all time clearly lump all religions together... yet when one points out that the greatest killers of all time were atheists, they vehemently object to being lumped with such people!

[Clutchology]

You mean the view that's often propagated that theists are delusional, hell-fire ranting, intolerant, pro-life, creationist, conservative, Bible bashing Christians who have never questioned their beliefs, not have the intelligence to do so?

Yeah, that annoys me too.

[grammastola]

Indeed, Clutchology. I appreciate the fact that even though you're an atheist, you don't care for the way the more militant atheists tend to paint a caricature of Christians.

For the same reason, I try to emphasize that I draw distinctions between moderate atheists and the extreme atheists who persist in the type of argumentation that you deplore.