- Share
-
-
arroba
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
John Lennox, in all seriousness, thought he could get away with the old “Stalin was an atheist, therefore . . . ” trick.
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?
(today:)
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.]