Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

D’Souza – Dennett Debate

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Dinesh D’Souza and Daniel Dennett debated a few nights ago on the question whether God is a human invention (did God create man or did man create God). A video of the debate is available at RichardDawkins.net. An agnostic who attended the debate offered some interesting observations about it. Here’s a sample:

. . . And here’s the weakness of the entire Atheist movement on display. Argument via ridicule only takes you so far, and only keeps the already converted entertained. Time and again I was disappointed not only by Dennett’s inability to articulate the science, but in his inability to respond to D’Souza’s very interesting thought experiments, analogies and use of example from the history of Philosophy itself. What a disappointment from such a well-trained professor of philosophy! . . .

MORE

Comments
I stand with Carl. Posts like this feed the confusion on the stance of ID. Are we strong theists or not? I have asked these kinds of questions on other threads, and I challenge Tedsenough to answer them in light of what is best for the ID community and UD participants, based on what "Uncommon Descent holds" (see the top right of your page). My issues for Tedsenough to address:
My real concern — which likely betrays my lack of philosophical knowledge — is the mixed messages from this blog (I admit due to my ignorant interpretation, to be sure). On one hand we seem to say, to the likes of the editors of Nature: “ID is a legitimate scientific view, even in the way you define science, and we have the ability to determine design. Do not chase us with torches and pitchforks. Let us prove it to you.” And on the other hand we seem to say, again to the likes of the editors of Nature: “Your restrictive definition of science is blinding you from massive truths, and excluding hugely powerful concepts (man created in God’s image, for example) that can expand the reach and impact of your efforts.” Are these independent statements? It could be argued that they are, however if we stand by both as a community would we not be better served to concentrate on the latter without shame (as, thankfully, the upcoming “Expelled” film seems to do)?
If ID is legitimate science per the restrictive science establishment's rules, AND that is where we want to prove ourselves, then we should do that and avoid all theistic talk. If (and this is my view) the problem is precisely the restrictive science establishment's rules, then let that be our focus and allow God into that conversationJWarner
December 4, 2007
December
12
Dec
4
04
2007
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
Carl: I will answer your query. You ARE missing something, and it is simply that this blog is not merely a site for the defence of intelligent design; it is a place where WD and DO can post items which they find interesting and believe will be of interest to their readers. That I personally found the above item interesting is a small-sample confirmation of this.SCheesman
December 4, 2007
December
12
Dec
4
04
2007
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
I would rather an opponent who engages in civil debate, than one of like-mind who would call someone a fool. I for one will miss you, Carl, if this is the last we hear from you.SCheesman
December 4, 2007
December
12
Dec
4
04
2007
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
Whether or not "God" is the designer should be irrelevant IF science is interested in the reality behind what is being investigated. "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein Is Carl suggesting that he is in favor of lame science? And anyone who conflates any imlications of a theory with the theory itself should seek help...Joseph
December 4, 2007
December
12
Dec
4
04
2007
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply