Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dawkins loses Cambridge debate by 324 votes to 136

News
February 4, 2013
News
1
Categories
News
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams

The UK Guardian reports on Richard Dawkins’ debate last week with Rowan Williams, which you can read about here.

Comments
Sorry. Another senior moment. And no drink involved.Axel
February 6, 2013
February
02
Feb
6
06
2013
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
'This implies that the debate took place in an atheistic venue. If that’s the case, how did he lose if the audience was stacked in his favor?' In at least one Oxford college, JLAfan2001 - I believe Balliol - before they even start their first term, they are required to read the Bible from cover to cover, since it is the bedrock of European culture. Nor do I think it will have gone unnoticed by the students at Oxford that Dawkins steadfastly avoids a debater with William Craig's mastery of his subject; who, while being perfectly courteous, is utterly ruthless in exposing the atheists' folly, in a way that John Lennox perhaps isn't. I've even heard Professor Lennox lauding Dawkins' stature in one debate - which I found somewhat bizarre. He was just being his gentlemanly self, I think, but it did sound odd from a man with such an superior intellect to that of Dawkins - and just about anyone for that matter. He seems to be appealing almost entirely to the reason of his opponents and the members of the audience, in the tone of his voice and general mien. Professor Craig's tone of voice and body-language, on the other hand, I think might be described as ever so discreetly truculent! Which is really what the atheists need. He's more like a barrister; he enjoys the combative dimension to debates, and takes manifest delight in exposing his opponents' folly. Of course, it's just how their respective approaches to debates strike me.Axel
February 6, 2013
February
02
Feb
6
06
2013
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
How did Dawkins lose this debate by such a large margin? The title of the debate was “This house believes that religion has no place in the 21st century”. This implies that the debate took place in an atheistic venue. If that’s the case, how did he lose if the audience was stacked in his favor?JLAfan2001
February 6, 2013
February
02
Feb
6
06
2013
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
F/N: Just to observe, I have put the vid up here at UD, for convenience. KFkairosfocus
February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT
In Craig's defense, Craig does listen to rebuttals - the guy publishes responses to all kinds of criticisms in books and otherwise. Dawkins really does tend to blast past objections. I checked out Dawkins' site. It's amusing to see all of them making excuses for his performance.nullasalus
February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
What’s funny about this is that Alex Rosenberg attacked William Lane Craig for using the same arguments in his debates and that he doesn’t listen to other people for their rebuttals. Here is Dawkins doing the exact same thing and have any of his fellow atheists called him on it? Not likely. In fact, I bet they would see these arguments as brilliant. Although I find Dawkins entertaining to listen, I sure don’t take him serious. I find that with all the debates and books he has done, he has ended up talking out of both sides of his mouth. He flip flops back and forth.JLAfan2001
February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
Its unfortunate that the newspaper article quotes the bishop talking about religion always being a matter of "community building", compassion etc. The old "religion/non overlapping magisteria" idea comes to mind when I read that. If religion is just made up in the mind of man, having no concern for truth and reality, then religion (or non scientism) will always lose the debate.juwilker
February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
He also used that pathetic 'Who Designed the Designer ?' Argument again which William Lane Craig would blow away immediately. Also that physics is waiting for its 'Darwin' , again leaving the impression that biological NDE is a fact and soon a similar explanation for physics will be available. Is this not BLIND FAITH??JoeMorreale1187
February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
Normally people vote twice at this kind of debate. One before the debate and one after the debate. The 460 dollar question would be: What was the outcome of the voting before the beginning of the debate?Seqenenre
February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
Dawkins says around the 40 min mark that the gaps are being filled in regards the Origin of the Cosmos and Life!! Which he of course means by materialist explanations. Yeah sure, keep wishing and dreaming my 'friend.' What I often find frustrating in these debates is that there is never any prominent ID proponent that would expose and refute his deluded , misplaced confidence ( faked or genuine) and arrogance in NDE like Meyer, Wells, Dembski, Berlinski ( who would murder him in humour too) , Luskin, Anne Gauger, Douglas Axe etc etc And because there isn't the impression is always left that NDE is unchallenged established solid fact when we know it is far far from that.JoeMorreale1187
February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
When this guy passes away he is most certainly going to get 'twiddled ' indeed.JoeMorreale1187
February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
Honestly, if Dawkins lost that badly to Williams, I can only imagine what his performance would be against Craig, or really, any other competent philosopher.nullasalus
February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
If the audience believed he lost the debate and this with all due respect was against just mainly against Rowan Williams what would plenty of others out there that are ready to expose this arrogant and wretched leftover of the Victorian Age? As usual Dawkins resorts to humour in an effort to disguise his clearly Weak case for atheism and outdated cliches regarding Religion.JoeMorreale1187
February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
Really? I thought Bishops of today (with few exceptions) were not noted for rhetorical prowess and effectiveness? That looks like 2-0, a serious football [soccer] defeat in my neck of the woods. KFkairosfocus
February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
I believe this is the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XpEjVlPFrssagebrush gardener
February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
Less well known is his fondness for p***s gags.
What!?!?M. Holcumbrink
February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply