Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Richard Dawkins On His Recent Encounter With John Lennox (Updated)


My friend Peter Byrom kindly transcribed this communication he had with Richard Dawkins on twitter following Dawkins’ recent encounter with John Lennox in New York on the subject of God’s existence. Can you imagine John Lennox having this kind of post-debate attitude? What arrogance.


(a few days ago:)

Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins
“The Lord hath delivered him into my hand” (TH Huxley). I needed no help: John Lennox delivered himself. Reeled out the rope to hang himself

Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins
Charlie Rose “In Pursuit of Truth” PBS air time tbc. You’d be amazed what a “sophisticated theologian” (John Lennox) is capable of believing

Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins
John Lennox, in all seriousness, thought he could get away with the old “Stalin was an atheist, therefore . . . ” trick.
Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins
Not doubting the fact. Stalin was an atheist. Problem lies in the “therefore”. Stalin was short man with moustache, therefore mass murderer

(next day, Peter Byrom and about 10 others tweet the following:)

@RichardDawkins challenge: what rational argument could you give to Stalin to show why he should hold YOUR morality rather than his own?


Peter Byrom @PeterByrom
@RichardDawkins doing damage control by straw-manning @ProfJohnLennox post-debate, but cannot give a rational argument why Stalin was wrong.

Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins
@PeterByrom Of course Stalin was wrong. Also an atheist. No connection. “Damage control”? WHAT? Just you wait till you see the show!

Peter Byrom @PeterByrom
@RichardDawkins I asked for rational arg WHY he was wrong, which you can give as an atheist. Why on atheism are you right and he’s wrong?

Peter Byrom @PeterByrom
@RichardDawkins Also would you be willing to debate David Robertson at Stornoway, as he’ll be speaking there too? He’d be glad to. @Solascpc

Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins
@PeterByrom Evidently you haven’t read The God Delusion (Chapters 6 & 7). But I guess you probably haven’t read anything much.

Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins
@PeterByrom Yes, I bet he would! As a great President of the Royal Society said, “That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine.”

Peter Byrom @PeterByrom
@RichardDawkins I own & have studied it. You’re totally self-contradictory on morality. Evil does not exist, yet you call things evil!

Peter Byrom @PeterByrom
@RichardDawkins I’ve read lots, including critiques of your work. Haven’t read much in the way of your responses to them though, hmm…

Peter Byrom @PeterByrom
@RichardDawkins In fact, the first time we met I was carrying a copy of “The Greatest Show on Earth” & thanked you for it at Oxford Station.

Peter Byrom @PeterByrom
@RichardDawkins Chapters 6 & 7 at best describe survival & The Zeitgeist. By that logic, Stalin’s most immoral act would be having a stroke.

Peter Byrom @PeterByrom
@RichardDawkins you never resolve the contradiction of both affirming yet denying objective morality in TGD. So, again, why is Stalin wrong?

Peter Byrom @PeterByrom
@RichardDawkins Actually, that slogan has become more associated with your dodging debaters whom you fear. It’s become quite a compliment.

Peter Byrom @PeterByrom
@RichardDawkins Presumably at the time you agreed to debate “The Banana Man’s partner” on O’Reilly you thought that would look good on CV?

Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins
@PeterByrom Sounds like K Cameron. If you say I debated him I believe you. No doubt he wiped the floor with me with his superior knowledge?

Peter Byrom @PeterByrom
@RichardDawkins not answered my question: do you regard him as “looking good on your CV?” inconsistency my dear sir.

Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins
@PeterByrom Needless to say, he is NOT on my CV. He isn’t even in my memory. Was it really a debate, not just fellow guests on a TV show?

Peter Byrom @PeterByrom
@RichardDawkins there’s video on YouTube where you say you agreed, then he withdrew. You were prepared to go 1-on-1 with creationist on TV!

Peter Byrom @PeterByrom
@RichardDawkins so, why use the “not good on CV” excuse if you admit it actually has no impact on your CV!

Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins
@PeterByrom Oh don’t be such a pedantic bore, it’s a second-hand witticism, a QUOTATION, for goodness sake.

Peter Byrom @PeterByrom
@RichardDawkins sorry if you find personal consistency boring. I’d have thought giving a creationist the “oxygen of publicity” would matter!

Peter Byrom @PeterByrom
@RichardDawkins hang on a sec, then you don’t take the “CV” jibe to carry any meaning? Wasn’t it a way of saying they’re unworthy?

Peter Byrom @PeterByrom
@RichardDawkins … also, glad you’re speaking at Stornoway & I disagree with the protestors who think you’d not look good on their CV 😉

(couple of hours pass)

Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins
@anj11234 Thanks for your good advice re Peter Byrom. I’m not bothering with him any more.

Peter Byrom @PeterByrom
@RichardDawkins I’ve also stopped bothering with you (ie used to believe your book, then was shown how it failed) but nice chatting. Thanks!

[UPDATE 14/08/12: Following this saga, Richard Dawkins blocked Peter Byrom on twitter. This morning, Peter Byrom (under a different account) had the following interaction with Richard Dawkins:

CygnusOlor @RonnieCraven
@RichardDawkins did you know before Lennox debate he shared Craigs Canaanite views or did it no longer matter to check? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2rsE042fVg

Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins
@RonnieCraven When I agreed to do Charlie Rose show, it wasn’t going to be Lennox. Should I have let them down, backed out, having agreed?

CygnusOlor @RonnieCraven
@RichardDawkins So if it had turned out to be Craig, you’d have carried on, despite all the impassioned objections you made last October?

CygnusOlor @RonnieCraven
@RichardDawkins So “apologists for genocide” are so horrendous you ought not share a stage with them, but it would be impolite to back out?

Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins
Study casts doubt on human-Neanderthal interbreeding theory – Alok Jha – The Guardian – RichardDawkins.net bit.ly/NmE5jb

Notice how Dawkins moves to another subject at the end. According to Dawkins, “apologists for genocide” are so deplorable that you should never debate them… unless of course they take you by surprise, in which case sticking to your moral principles would just be impolite. Yet again, more evidence that Dawkins’ excuses are disingenuous and cowardly.]

That made highly amusing reading, didn't it ? I wonder how many of the bystanders were tempted to go up to his recumbent form and slap him ceremoniously around his cheeks. But then, maybe, thought, monster that he was, suppose he rose up from his stroke-stricken body, suddenly fit again... Ooooohh errrr.... Better not. Just to have called out, 'Bye bye, Joe !' would have been something, though. It does remind me of the Spaniards' joke about the moribund Franco, wheeled out onto the balcony of his hospital to acknowledge, albeit questioningly, the chorus of gleeful valedictions from the crowd below : 'Bye bye, Franco !' To which, Franco, asked his helpers : 'Where do they thnk they're going ?' Axel
I haven’t stopped laughing at Richard Dawkins since first reading his book The Selfish Gene several years ago. An absolutely absurd book that says more about Dawkins’s atheistic philosophical assumptions than it does about biological science. All of his books since then have been predictable and boring tirades against religion, especially Christianity for which he reserves a special kind of loathing. The Dawkins shtick still plays well to rabid, foaming at the mouth atheists, but the vast majority of people simply laugh at him these days…as I do.
I have a book club where we read both Behe's Darwin's black box and Dawkin's blind watchmaker. The book club is a mixed group of worldview's but everyone came to the same conclusion you did. bill cole
I haven't stopped laughing at Richard Dawkins since first reading his book The Selfish Gene several years ago. An absolutely absurd book that says more about Dawkins's atheistic philosophical assumptions than it does about biological science. All of his books since then have been predictable and boring tirades against religion, especially Christianity for which he reserves a special kind of loathing. The Dawkins shtick still plays well to rabid, foaming at the mouth atheists, but the vast majority of people simply laugh at him these days...as I do. Truth Will Set You Free
'it does appear to give every indication of being designed, of being observable, measurable, etc.' I should have said, '...it does give very empirically observable and measurable indication of being designed;' and this bizarrely misleading observability and measurability is the rock upon which science is built. Silly science! Axel
As if the brazen fantasy of a Blind Watchmaker were not enough, Dawkins apparently asserted that everything in nature only APPEARED to be designed. Err.. well, yes, it does appear to give every indication of being designed, of being observable, measurable, etc. But, you see, that's why it's called empirical science.... and not the materialists' phantasmagoria. If the natural world did not exhibit an appearance of design, the scientific endeavour, the natural world would be unintelligible, and science would never have seen the light of day. Even that last phrase is telling, isn't it? Truly, they belong to the Dark Side, and seem unable to escape it. Axel
Ben Stein – EXPELLED – The Staggering Complexity Of The Cell – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl0NXSbeeqg bornagain77
From #18:
Somewhere between windscreen wipers and tin openers on the one hand, and rocks and the universe on the other, lie living creatures.
Oddly, I've never noticed this sentence before. But it is simply horrendously wrong. It MIGHT have been barely acceptable for Darwin, who conceived of a cell as an amorphous blob of jelly-like substance, to think that living things lie "between" (!) rocks and tin openers, but we know without any doubt that the truth is greatly otherwise. We know, and Dawkins ought to be honest enough to concede, that an entire human city, tin openers and all, is a child's toy compared to a single living cell. Isn't he supposed to be a biologist of some sort? ScuzzaMan
I call Dawkins "Artless Dodger", from the Oliver Twist character, the Artful Dodger, whose real name is John Dawkins. Dodger, because he dodged debating with Dr. Meyer and Dr. William Lane Craig, and also in the exchange quoted above, and in artless, because it is plain as day to everyone he's chickening out. Ah, Richard, Richard... The Karaite Heretic
Interesting to read the thread discussion above. A side note...Someone may appear on this thread and actually claim Stalin and his evil "twin" Hitler...were "christian" ...so they want to shift these two truly evil men...away from either declared or practical atheism. The two men seemed to see only the "god" in their mirror and encouraged their people to think the same... (I just saw a "freethought" site which wants to tag Stalin as Christian or at least religious...and in discussions on atheism and evil...I've had people tell me Stalin and Hitler were "christian".) Apparently if one uses the "G_ d" word when one's country is under mass invasion (in the presence of Western allies whom one needs..to save oneself)...one is "christian" all of a sudden and not a ...manipulative Soviet leader. Apparently if one uses the "G_d" word in some public speech (well designed to entice and seduce) one is "christian". And the fact that both men grew up trained in some kind of faith...magically means that it stuck to them like superglue ...never to be repudiated ...never to be scrubbed off by their later choices and deeds and words. * * * * * you CAN prove anything if only you limit your argument to...whatever can work for your side...So I'm awaiting the "Hitler & Stalin were Christian"...posts to this thread. Logic or history will not work...with them. vikingmom
That must have been a hilarious moment, Rex: Stalin's perforce mute death-bed threat! The temptation to burst out laughing must have been tremendous. Or to go and slap his face! Or pull his nose! On the other hand, the devil looks after his own, so we'd all be fearful in that kind of situation, in the presence of such a monster, to take any risk at all. After all hadn't they all stood around him for 36 hours or some such, no one game to take the initiative in calling for the physicians. Or perhaps just persuaded that, a little longer, and he'd be 'dead meat', and they could relax a little. Why risk his recovery with medical treatment?! Axel
That Polish particle physicist's video on the Shroud of Turin and the singularity it evidences, is, well, 'out of this world'! But as crucially a part of this world as was its subject, Christ. Her findings seem incontrovertible, don't they? Axel
Berthajane, as a believer in Christ, I never had a problem in holding faith in God with my belief in evolution. As I have consistently to,d everyone here, I left evolution about 4 to 5 years ago because of the flimsy evidence for Macroevolution and the inability of evolutionists to explain the specific complexity of the language of DNA. As you have stated, the evidence for ID is becoming more compelling each day. Hey Berthajane, have you studied the shroud of turin? I'm curious as to your opinion of it? wallstreeter43
JLAFAN, veridical Nde's are actually in favor of a theistic worldview and not an atheistic or nihilistic worldview. In Nihilism, this life is all there is, yet veridical Nde's give compelling evidence that this simply isn't true. Now while I have always said that atheists are nihilists in denial, it still doesn't explain away things like veridical Nde's which show that life doesn't end with physical death. How can you lead towards nihilism when this clearly refutes it my friend.. wallstreeter43
I have a pet peeve about militant Atheists such as Dawkins. I’ve long been a religious agnostic. I don’t believe in a personal god, a human-like entity that cares about my personal welfare and becomes annoyed if I don’t worship him. However I also don’t believe life is a mechanical device, devoid of purpose or intelligence. Religious people have their myths and parables, which don’t seem too different from some of “science’s” stories. Such as the one about the existence of an infinite number of universes, somewhere out there where we can’t detect them. And we just happen to live in the universe that appears intelligently designed for life. We live in a rather tolerant society, more tolerant that most societies of the past. During much of history; people were often forced to profess the accepted religion. However today the atheistic materialists are the ones exhibiting dogmatic intolerance, declaring anyone sceptical of the random aspect of evolution to be “an ignorant creationist“. They are obviously more interested in waging a battle against religion than they are in understanding evolution, because the evidence for purposeful design as an aspect of living processes is growing more convincing. While intelligence appears obvious to many of us, I admit it probably will never be confirmed to everyone’s satisfaction. Dawkins’ atheism can never be scientifically disproved. Too bad the evangelical atheists can’t be as tolerant. Berthajane Vandegrift Berthajane Vandegrift
JLA, You may find here on in context helpful. Notice, where the matter begins, with turtles, not theology. KF kairosfocus
KF Nihilism is the only worldview that sees things as IS rather than OUGHT, in my opinion. Theists are called delusional nowadys for believing in God, but I think atheists are the same for believing they are God. This doesn't mean they can perform miracles and such of course but what theists get from their deity, atheists create for themselves. They claim that there is no intrinsic meaning, purpose or value in life, there is no objective or intrinsic right or wrong in the universe and the human mind, emotions, thoughts, freewill, reason and rationality are products of the atoms in our brain brought on by the blind, unguided process of evolution. So why are they not unhappy? I think it's because they refuse to look at the truth and create all these things as if they are real by themselves for themselves. It's their truth but not THE truth. Likewise, theists need a diety to get all these things for their lives but does this deity really exist? Even though the thesit world view may make more sense than than the athiest, doesn't make it true. That's why I think both groups are living in a dreamworld of their creation. Dawkins seems to have his foot in both the atheist and the nihilist camps. He says that their is no right or wrong but lives by some kind of morality, there is no purpose but lives to eradicate religion, He says that there is no value to humans cause we are just animals but fights for civil rights, we have no freewill but chooses not to debate Craig etc. He would make much more sense if he stuck to the fact that nothing and no one matters. JLAfan2001
JLA: Pardon, but I could not but notice:
It is possible that everyone, both theists and atheists, are living in self created dream world
Do you notice the self-referentiality implied in this? Is the system consistent or contradictory, and can you live consistent with it? I suggest this is self-referentially incoherent, once one needs to have substantial accuracy and rationality to live. I note also that I have given a link above on why evolutionary materialism is intellectually self-destructive, and another on why it is unable to ground ought opening the door to nihilism. In praxis, such invariably borrow moral values they deem convenient and scant those that do not fit their agenda for the moment. which is what Plato implies. It seems pretty clear that the following, from the 1995 Sci Am piece, God's utility function article, starkly reveals CRD's underlying grounding of morality problem:
Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose. We humans have purpose on the brain. We find it difficult to look at anything without wondering what it is “for,” what the motive for it or the purpose behind it might be. The desire to see purpose everywhere is natural in an animal that lives surrounded by machines, works of art, tools and other designed artifacts – an animal whose waking thoughts are dominated by its own goals and aims . . . . Somewhere between windscreen wipers and tin openers on the one hand, and rocks and the universe on the other, lie living creatures. Living bodies and their organs are objects that, unlike rocks, seem to have purpose written all over them . . . . The true process that has endowed wings, eyes, beaks, nesting instincts and everything else about life with the strong illusion of purposeful design is now well understood. It is Darwinian natural selection . . . . The true utility function of life, that which is being maximized in the natural world, is DNA survival. But DNA is not floating free; it is locked up in living bodies, and it has to make the most of the levers of power at its disposal. Genetic sequences that find themselves in cheetah bodies maximize their survival by causing those bodies to kill gazelles. Sequences that find themselves in gazelle bodies increase their chance of survival by promoting opposite ends. But the same utility function-the survival of DNA-explains the “purpose” of both the cheetah [--> i.e. predator] and the gazelle [--> i.e. prey] . . . . The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [[ “God’s Utility Function,” Sci. Am. Aug 1995, pp. 80 - 85.] [[NB: This article raises the issue of the problem of evil, here emphasising the problem of natural evil; probably the strongest argument in the atheists' arsenal, but one that only works by implicitly assuming that good and evil, thus moral obligation, are real; while ducking the implication that the only valid worldview in a world in which OUGHT is real, is one that has a foundational IS that adequately grounds ought. And materialism -- scientific atheism today, has no such is. So, the objecting atheist actually has no grounds to stand on to make the argument; his argument, in the end is self-defeating, and so the proper response is to insist that such an atheist face that issue before proceeding further. (Cf here for a preliminary discussion of the problem of evil from a Christian perspective.)]
KF PS: I observe a hits: comments ratio of coming on 100:1. That suggests considerable hostile scrutiny from sites connected to the new atheist agenda. kairosfocus
lpadron: Want to be rid of him? Don’t buy the product. Don’t even acknowledge it.
Wise words. CentralScrutinizer
Richard may be right in a way. Just because he can’t defend his atheism properly doesn’t mean it’s incorrect. If he was an advocate for nihilism (which I am currently leaning toward) maybe his arguments would make more sense. It is possible that everyone, both theists and atheists, are living in self created dream world. JLAfan2001
In line with my previous post: http://chronicle.com/article/Does-Religion-Really-Poison/133457 lpadron
Alas, that is spot on, Ipadron. Axel
I'd say everyone has missed the point. Dawkins isn't an atheist; not primarily anyways. He's a salesman. He's also the product. Want to be rid of him? Don't buy the product. Don't even acknowledge it. The older he gets the more obvious his foolishness becomes to everyone on both sides of the debate. lpadron
Richard Dawkins @PeterByrom 'Evidently you haven’t read The God Delusion (Chapters 6 & 7). But I guess you probably haven’t read anything much.' 'Well, that would doubtless be true if he had read it.' And since the cv 'line' is merely a throw-away 'witticism', what other excuse does His Nibs have for ducking out of invitations to debates? Not a rhetorical question. No. Inconsistency was never his strong suit. Nor indeed a rational, never mind a creative, intelligence. What original thought has he ever contributed that has not been exposed as false? Indeed, why does he expect people to read his books, when he handles the controversies he creates with such vapid bombast, so ineptly in interviews? Axel
Dawkins wants to be an atheist so he is more intent on supporting whatever it is that will help him in his mind be an intellectually fulfilled atheist no matter how difficult or seemingly impossible it may be. However, try as he will, atheism just does not work intellectually. Ridicule, condescension, and mockery are favorite tools of his to try and preserve his superiority and hide the blatant inconsistencies of his view. The "refusing to debate tactic" shows the lack of confidence he has in his position. It is easier to use ridicule and mockery to protect himself than to seriously engage the issues. tjguy
I can't help it, but I tend to feel sorry for Dawkins. He's empty..just a shell of a man. Very sad. Blue_Savannah
F/N: A typical, brief review of why Dawkins' arguments fail. This one gives more details. kairosfocus
Is there a link to the debate? An overview? A live blog of someone's? johnnyb
Missed this: "[in short . . ." , not "pin" kairosfocus
Folks: CRD had two earlier encounters with Lennox, both serious losses for him. No 1 No 2 His attempt to construct this one as a "win" is also a loss. Why do I freely say so? Simple. From Plato's warning (with Alcibiades as exhibit no 1) in The Laws, Bk X on -- 2350 years ago, it has been clear that evolutionary materialism is radically relativist and has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. So, it opens the door to ruthless nihilistic factions, who do in power what the ruthless and conscience-seared do: whatever they think they can get away with. Stalin is simply an extreme case. But, since his cheer-camp are unlikely to probe these issues, CRD can get away with pretending that he has answered Lennox seriously. And, these will gleefully tank up on the latest talking point and will even try to insist that it is a good answer. (Look, they are not embarrassed by CRD's crash and burn sophomoric forays on matters philosophical and theological, starting with The God Delusion. They apparently do not know enough to be ashamed of the fallacies, errors, strawman caricatures, menacing implied threats and slanders as well as just plain absurdities therein. Six years after they were exposed. That speaks volumes.) For those who have not spotted the problem yet: Stalin's mustache is not directly relevant to his nihilism and mass murders. His worldview is, and in particular, the materialism that lies at the heart of his atheism. So,let us now hear CRD and company show us a properly worked out and serious line of argument that starts from evolutionary materialism and leads to how it grounds something like respect and love for neighbour, instead of ending up in the absurdity of imagining or implying that might and manipulation make 'right.' Along the way, they will need to bridge Hume's IS-OUGHT gap, starting from matter, energy, time, blind chance and blind mechanical necessity. I think Anscombe, instead, was right: if ought is not in a worldview foundational IS, it can never be successfully brought in thereafter. And so either we have no rights [this being a binding moral claim as to how we OUGHT to be treated] or else evolutionary materialism collapses as a reasonable person's worldview. Failing that -- and I think it is clear that such evo mat views run into self-referential incoherence on the credibility of the mind as well as into the sort of IS-OUGHT gap amorality just indicated -- I think we would be better advised to heed Plato, from 360 BC:
[[The avant garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only pin short such evolutionary materialism is at root a philosophical assumption, not really a scientific conclusion, which is obvious from how it is now being used to distort both the definition and methods of science] . . . . [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . .
After 2350 years, we can hardly claim that we have not had adequate notice of the problem. And, the ghosts of 100 million victims over the past century -- many of them victims of Stalin -- warn us that this ancient warning is still all too relevant today. KF kairosfocus
Funny how Dawkins is discussing Stalin. I can see him in the end as Stalin's daughter saw her father breathing his last: with rage on his face and clenched fists raised to heaven. RexTugwell
Someone once said it best.. "Richard Dawkings is still evolving" .. So can we really fault him for his inconsistencies? KRock
"Richard Dawkins" = much famous evolutionist, no? "John Lennox" = I D supporter?? scordova, "According to Darwin, Natural Selection preserves all the good and rejects the bad. According to evolutionary biologist David Buss, Natural Seleciton favors murderers. According to evoltuionary biologists Thronhill and Palmer, Natural Selection also favors rapists. Thus if Natural Selection preseves what is good and rejects what is bad, and Natural Selection preserves Rapists and Murderers. Thus Darwinian “reasoning” would imply : “rape and murder are good” since these tendencies persist in the species." i see dificulty each reason connecting. add statement of one person and add statement of one person and add statement of two person and equal thought of all evolution supporters? thank you for response. sergio sergiomendes
According to Darwin, Natural Selection preserves all the good and rejects the bad. According to evolutionary biologist David Buss, Natural Seleciton favors murderers. According to evoltuionary biologists Thronhill and Palmer, Natural Selection also favors rapists. Thus if Natural Selection preseves what is good and rejects what is bad, and Natural Selection preserves Rapists and Murderers. Thus Darwinian "reasoning" would imply : "rape and murder are good" since these tendencies persist in the species. So, using Darwinian "reasoning", Stalin was more right than Dawkins about what is inherently "good" behavior in terms of Natural Selection. scordova
I guess believing we're nothing more than animals gives you the excuse to act like one. humbled

Leave a Reply