Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dawkins in Austin

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Last week was spring break at Southwestern Seminary where I teach. The seminary is located in Ft. Worth, about 200 miles north of Austin. As it is, in the middle of the break (last Wednesday), Richard Dawkins was going to be speaking in Austin. I therefore challenged my class to go listen to him and provide proof that they had actually been there (the preferred proof was to have him sign a copy of THE GOD DELUSION). The incentive to go was extra credit for the course. Six of my students went. I told them that they should greet Richard from me should they speak to him. One student got Dawkins’s signature, shook hands, and then greeted him from me. Another made the mistake of first greeting him from me and then trying to shake his hand — Dawkins refused. Below is a blog entry from one of my students about the event:

On Wednesday, a friend from Seminary and I drove down to University of Texas in Austin to see renowned atheist Richard Dawson speak. If you’re not familiar with Dawkins, he is a scientist who has now moved into the realm of theology, and has recently written a book called “The God Delusion” that has sold 1.5 million copies in the United States. While our original motivation was to get extra credit for Apologetics class, we were both interested to see what Dawkins would have to say.

Dawkins was speaking at 7PM, so we showed up at the auditorium at about 5:45PM, thinking: “How many people really want to see Richard Dawkins?” Boy, were we surprised! Several thousand people had already showed up at that time, and the line to the auditorium snaked on for miles. We estimated that over 3,000 people showed up … and the auditorium would only hold 1,200 people. At about 6:45, some university staff showed up to tell folks in line that if they did not already have a free ticket, then they would not be able to get in. So we went to the front of the line and bought some free tickets for the lecture from some members of the Longhorn Atheist club. We ran into several of our fellow class members, and they ended up paying to get into as well. So, ironically, the Christians had to pay to see the head atheist.

My synopsis of what Dawkins had to say follows the old joke about atheism:

Q: “What are the two central beliefs of an atheist?”
A: “1. There is no God; and, 2. I really hate God.”

As Dawkins is more renowned for being a scientist than a philosopher, I kept waiting for him to have something scientifically profound to say … and I kept waiting. I was stunned that there was exactly ZERO scientific content to what Dawkins had to say. Opening up, he stated that there are two ways atheists can deal with Christianity: be conciliatory or be ridiculing. And ridicule he did. Dawkins essentially went on a 45 minute rant about why he hates Christianity. I won’t go over every point Dawkins made (because there weren’t many anyway), but here’s a couple bigger ones:

MORE

Comments
[...] Dawkins in Austin | Uncommon DescentMar 26, 2008 … The seminary is located in Ft. Worth, about 200 miles north of Austin. As it is, in the middle of the break (last Wednesday), Richard Dawkins was … [...]Austin dawkins | Thebutlergroup
November 6, 2012
November
11
Nov
6
06
2012
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
dr kim smith... Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !...dr kim smith
April 20, 2008
April
04
Apr
20
20
2008
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
About the joke above: Q: “What are the two central beliefs of an atheist?” A: “1. There is no God; and, 2. I really hate God.” Interesting that biologist Dr Don Batten from CMI has argued that Dawko should be called a misotheist (From Greek ????? mise? = hate; ???? theos = God) rather than an atheist. See Is Richard Dawkins an atheist?Jonathan Sarfati
April 14, 2008
April
04
Apr
14
14
2008
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT
About the joke above: Q: “What are the two central beliefs of an atheist?” A: “1. There is no God; and, 2. I really hate God.” Interesting that biologist Dr Don Batten from CMI has argued that Dawko should be called a misotheist (From Greek ????? mise? = hate; ???? theos = God) rather than an atheist. See Is Richard Dawkins an atheist?Jonathan Sarfati
April 14, 2008
April
04
Apr
14
14
2008
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT
I feel that Darwinism has led to ethical and social decadence. Darwinism is essentially the death blow to human decency and self respect. Therefore all kinds of things are possible in a society, where a great many people believe, "anything goes".DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
idnet.com.au says, "I wonder if Prof Dawkins would trust his students to go and listen to Dr Dembski talk?" Ah, yes. The old "who's afraid of the light" test.Gerry Rzeppa
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
SeanSean.. The problem with taking Darwinian Evolution as your world view is that it leads to genocide, mass murder, abortion, sex changes... Shall I go on?DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
I wonder if Prof Dawkins would trust his students to go and listen to Dr Dembski talk?idnet.com.au
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
*To listen to Dawkins ridicule Christians. There's no editor for this...SeanSean
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT
Aaaww, I go to UT, I'm so upset that I missed the opportunity to ridicule Christians. The funny thing is an atheist friend of mind said he liked what Dawkins had to say, so he bought three of his books. To say the least, my friend and Dawkins argue against Christianity in the same way.SeanSean
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT
Aesthetics and objective morality don't make sense within an atheist worldview. At least the morality point has been pointed out by Dawkins. Actually, he made the point himself in "the God Delusion" that it was hard to figure that one out. Bad philosopher.geoffrobinson
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
BFast, is that true about Dawkins being sexually abused? That's awful. His hostility to religious belief makes more sense now. Poor man.PannenbergOmega
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
Ekstasis: I second the suggestion to check out Gerry Rzeppa's ad for one response to the atheist flurry (or should I say, athiest fury?). ;-) Another specific response is the excellent book by mathematician John Lennox, God's Undertaker -- Has Science Buried God? Review by Denyse O'Leary Another possibility is The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski.ericB
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
Gerry Rzeppa: That's a cool font, but very difficult to read.russ
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
scheeseman And of course, if I were to meet Dawkins I would want to make sure he didn't have a knife in his hand :-)tribune7
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
Ekstasis says, "And, with this string of atheistic books and speaking series... what is the best way to counter-balance the propaganda?" I've got an idea. Click my ad on this page.Gerry Rzeppa
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
I think it's pretty admirable that Dembski offered extra credit for his students to go see one of Dawkins' lectures. So much for the typical casting of christians/theists as being afraid of exposure to those who disagree with them. Then again, at this point, there's really not that much Dawkins presents for a theist to intellectually fear. The man's little more than an angry rant with an unrelated PhD, at least one subjects of philosophy and theology.nullasalus
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
tribune7:
Shaking hands is also — and much more often used as such — a polite means of greeting and stems from the days when men routinely carried swords and knives (hence showing you had no implement of destruction in your right hand).
Yes, of course you are correct. Context is a big part of this, too. I might react quite differently if I were to bump into Richard Dawkins on the street, than if he had just completed a lecture as the above in which I was in attendance, where a handshake might appear to indicate "well said, old chap!". Certainly all our dealings, even with those we disagree with, should be civil, as far as it is possible to be so.SCheesman
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Dawkins seems to think of himself as the Clarence Darrow of our time. Frankly, it strikes me as being more akin to this era's Marylyn Manson.tribune7
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
scheeseman --I was taught that shaking hands is an understanding that an agreement has been made, Shaking hands is also -- and much more often used as such -- a polite means of greeting and stems from the days when men routinely carried swords and knives (hence showing you had no implement of destruction in your right hand).tribune7
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
The sad reality -- when Dawkins preaches, "Religion is child abuse" He is speaking from personal experience. He admits being homosexually abused as a child in a Christian bording school. The sad reality of Dawkins' situation is that he has not recognized that this tragedy in his life has been such a destructive force. If he were to serously recognize the trauma, he may be able to allow anger to turn to forgiveness, he may be able to love his enemies. He may be able to give up his righteous hatred of Christianity.bFast
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
I wonder whether the three thousand in attendance generally agreed with Dawkins, or were they there primarily out of curiosity? And, with this string of atheistic books and speaking series, how successful is the new, slick marketing of atheism likely to be? And what is the best way to counter-balance the propoganda?Ekstasis
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
Dawkins' arguments are non sequitur. No matter how strident Dawkins argues he cannot successfully defend his philosophical materialism. When someone represents what he despises but cannot refute, his reaction is similar to an earthworm having to endure crawling through a salt bed. If I were in his position I would want to get as far away from Dr. Dembski or anyone associated with him as possible.toc
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
Does Dawkins hate Dembski, I wonder? Not shaking a persons hand, because they like Bill Dembski. Dawkins is a drama queen.PannenbergOmega
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
Excellent synopsis of Dawkins' drivel. I pity and pray for him as well. He can huff and puff great bloated words signifying nothing all he wants but it won't change anything. His blather is good for contrasts in absurdity, nothing more.beancan5000
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Once I was offered the chance to shake hands with a man who would be President. "No thank you," said I, which I now think was a little too self-righteous. Why not indulge a little curiosity and not miss the opportunity to peer into the eyes of the man Jesse Jackson was later to describe as having no core beliefs . . . just "appetite all the way down"? Anyway we can be thankful that Dawkins loudly proclaims one core truth: DARWINISM IS ATHEISM. What is disconcerting is that so much of the intelligentsia is so ready to embrace his militant atheism.Rude
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
larrynormanfan, And the survey says?Atom
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
"On Wednesday, a friend from Seminary and I drove down to University of Texas in Austin to see renowned atheist Richard Dawson speak." As I recall from The Family Feud, Richard Dawson was really more of a kiss-kiss guy than a handshake man.larrynormanfan
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
Although it may seem rude, I was taught that shaking hands is an understanding that an agreement has been made, and the two parites involved are indicating that they have come to a meeting of minds, so it would be inappropriate for someone not agreeing with Richard Dawkins, and his agenda, to shake his hand at an event set up to let him air his views, unless both parties had already come to the understanding that they had "agreed to disagree". Richard Dawkins speaks against, and, in the public mind, stands opposed to my own deepest beliefs. I cannot judge him too harshly for refusing to shake hands with someone who has just identified himself as a "follower of Bill Dembski"; I expect I might have had the same reaction if the roles were reversed.SCheesman
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
Dawkins was in Austin last week? I wondered what that stinch was coming over the city, but then thankfully, it rained.Upright BiPed
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply