« Papal Daytimer | Main | The Newman Cause »
October 17, 2006
Debating Dawkins
Pat Kenny sends along this linK;
Your readers may be interested in the following… David Quinn, a well known Catholic commentator and journalist here in Ireland debated Richard Dawkins on Irish radio last week on the reasonableness of religious belief. Dawkins is a formidable debater, but David Quinn absolutely embarrassed him – he had Dawkins on the ropes from the outset. It is a rare moment when Dawkins is left speechless and is well worth listening to.
The debate can be downloaded by going here and downloading the programme for October 9th. The debate starts at 7min 57 seconds into the programme and lasts for about 18 minutes.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Wow. Quinn really gives him no quarter. Superb!
Posted by: John Farrell at Oct 17, 2006 12:00:50 PM
Yowza.
Posted by: LCB at Oct 17, 2006 12:23:47 PM
Wow indeed... I particularly liked the part where Quinn pinned Dawkins on having "faith that there is no God."
Posted by: Chad at Oct 17, 2006 12:24:45 PM
"I'm just not interested in free will." Wow. As they said in Monty Python, "Ooh--what a giveaway!"
:)
You gotta love David Quinn. Did not let the guy get away with anything.
Posted by: John Farrell at Oct 17, 2006 12:25:20 PM
Considering he was asked to prove the existence of God before the host moved on to the next question, Quinn proceeded quite ably.
Dawkins is a walking straw man, it's a pity he gets so much publicity.
Posted by: Kevin Jones at Oct 17, 2006 12:52:55 PM
Kevin, I actually think the more publicity he gets, the more people can see what a shrill, humorless, one-sided egoist he is.
Posted by: John Farrell at Oct 17, 2006 1:25:30 PM
Richard Dawkins is a media darling, with regular and uncritical interviews. He holds a professorship created for him at Oxford University. His latest book is being promoted by the largest bookstore chain in Britain and is high on the bestseller lists, yet he has nothing new to say. It's a relief that some book reviewers are onto his case. Professor Dawkins is so unused to opposition that David Quinn unnerved him completely.
Posted by: Fr.Fergus at Oct 17, 2006 3:41:00 PM
Anybody have an email address for Mr. Quinn? I'd like to thank him for taking on Dawkins and among other things eliciting from Dawkins by his own presumably "free will" his disinterest in same.
Posted by: John at Oct 17, 2006 4:21:17 PM
John, from what I understand, he writes for the Daily Irish Independent:
http://college.hmco.com/economics/boyes/economics/6e/complete/eduspace/tutorials/hmco_web/tutorial/index.html
But I don't see any link to specific columnists.
(Leave it to an Irishman to get under an Englishman's skin!)
Posted by: John Farrell at Oct 17, 2006 4:37:37 PM
Quinn was fantastic. What I thought particularly interesting though, was Dawkin's objection to the uncaused cause that Quinn pointed to, when just minutes previously he had said that he didn't find the god of deists (a cause of the universe that doesn't interact further) to be particularly delusional. Yet, he can't say "oh, I'll grant some sort of uncaused cause, just not a deity as Person, or the Trinity, etc."
By the way, Dawkins will be on the Colbert Report tonight.
Posted by: h at Oct 17, 2006 5:59:23 PM
Oh no. Dawkins on Colbert. That could either be ridiculously hilarious, or Colbert's buffoonery could make him look considerably better than he did vs. Quinn. One can only hope that he performs similarly to Bart Ehrman.
Posted by: Chad at Oct 17, 2006 6:25:17 PM
If Dawkins is sincere in concluding that there is no God because - simply and purely because - "there is no evidence," then why not adopt the neutral position: "Because there is no current evidence that convinces me, there probably isn't a God, althoughthere may be a God." ? That would be the more logical conclusion to follow from the premise offered.
But Dawkins manifestly does not stop there. He is passionate that there is no God, and by his own admission (there is no evidence for God) he does so on an incomplete and shaky basis. If this is the central pillar that he has built upon, it is a doomed structure for sure. You don't have to go any further into counter evidence, or anything. Dawkins case is just a delusion from the start.
Posted by: Glenn Juday at Oct 17, 2006 6:52:51 PM
I want to buy David Quinn a steak and a Guinness! Just beautiful!
Posted by: Fr. John Pecoraro at Oct 17, 2006 9:20:36 PM
I did not think the exchange was quite the "homerun" that others had perceived. For a compelling argument related to Dawkins' intellectual incongruities see this book review by physicist Stephen Barr:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
Posted by: SteveM at Oct 17, 2006 10:27:20 PM
I need to starting reading David Quinn. What a formidable debater! Bravo!
Posted by: PMC at Oct 17, 2006 10:40:37 PM
I particularly liked:
"Free will is a very difficult question! It has nothing to do with religion!"
What a doofus.
And I say that as someone who read and thoroughly enjoyed Dawkins' _The Ancestor's Tale._ (Though was distracted by the occasional, Tourette-like spitting of jabs at religious people.)
Posted by: bearing at Oct 17, 2006 10:45:40 PM
At 18:30ish Mr Dawkins opines "If science can't answer that question, as sure as hell .... "
Ugh?@#! Hang on, so now he's sure of what Hell is then?
Separation from God the good?
Oops - my bad - he's sure God does NOT exist, so how can there be such a thing as being separated from what's not there? Are we sure then or not? Can we get this straight before we go on ...?
No...
At 24:45 Mr Dawkins gets even more confused.
"There is some evil in faith ... "
Come again? He's got me confused now!
If there's no ultimate good, then there's nothing opposed to that either, right? Nothing's evil?
So what quantity, of what type of thing is some evil and how did he collect evidence of it to convince himself it (evil) exists?
Assuming this quantity of evil exists, what kind of thing is it's opposite? How does one measure its effect on the environment to determine its physical or potential properties?
Oh, mea culpa, that's right! He said he doesn't care about free will. He just wants to get me to follow him down a blind alley without a ball of string to get myself back out again, right? Balls of string should be banned, right, in case someone starts a nasty religious war over them?
Duh! And I thought it was about some kind of mystery or something - why didn't he lambast Mr Quinn with a salvo on string theory to counteract all that philosophy! Tough job arguing back about string theory - even the physicists get testy about that, so we certainly all can agree to ban it I'm sure! Oh, all except Mr Quinn, of course, who maintains that physicists have a right to part ways with us when it comes to discussing string because he believes in that difficult thing called free will (and compassion, probably too - if we were to ban string theories what do we do with all those unemployed scientists?).
Well, since Mr. Dawkins has no heart for that kind of thing, he probably won't suffer such fools gladly, since they could cause a war'n all. So we'll have to ban string and then eliminate string fans, and criminalize anyone who aids and abets them, right, to keep World Peace? What if there's more Mr Quinn's out there?
We'll need to build up our defenses, right? To protect ourselves from their way of thinking, with perhaps genetic testing to find out who 's got the marker for free will, right?
|Sarcasm OFF | Charity ON |
Right!
Tyranny of relativism right there in just 18 minutes of airtime and 2" or 3" of column space.
Risible! Thanks for the dose of morning mirth!
If only evangelizing with faith and reason could be as simple as a mental test to see who's got that thing called free will no one seems to care about ...
If they care, they have it, I say!
Get 'em talking next time you meet them at the water cooler!
Posted by: Clare Krishan at Oct 18, 2006 10:12:43 AM
You are kidding yourselves. David Quinn shifted the argument onto ground that no self-respecting scientist could comment on because we simply do not know the origin of matter - Dawkins said so, but neither does Quinn without invoking God as the longstop. Whether we really have free will despite or because of our genes is a question I wouldn't hold my breath for theology to resolve with any credibility. From the religionist point of view free will is dangerous territory anyway since if God is omniscient he must know everything - and that includes the whole of time and what happens in it. So do you really have free will - and what do you mean by it anyway? Besides, I thought you guys believed free will was seriously impaired after the Fall. I think your celebrations are premature, like the man who has just bought the house doesn't want to see rising damp in the cellar. So go out to dinner for that steak with Fr. John Pecoraro. Your house is crumbling, father, while you are out to lunch quaffing your guinness.
And to Fr Fergus, have you read Dawkins's book yet, father? It is written for the non-scientist so you should understand it. But you clerical guys couldn't possibly agree or it's out of a job with you!
Posted by: Christopher at Oct 18, 2006 2:45:05 PM
David Quinn is a columnist with 'The Irish Catholic' and can be contacted at david@irishcatholic.ie
Posted by: holyhound at Oct 18, 2006 3:44:15 PM
Whatever you say, Christopher. Just remember the handy two-step atheists have for all metaphysical questions:
A. "Science is working on it."
B. "I'm not interested in it."
Posted by: John Farrell at Oct 18, 2006 4:09:41 PM
David Quinn here with a comment of his own. First of all, thanks to everyone for the words of support. The atheist websites have been very quick to pick up on the interview and post it. On Richard Dawkins' own site they are slaughtering me as you'd expect, mainly for being so rude to their man and for posing questions they refuse to answer, eg, where does matter come from?
What's interesting though, is the invective on the atheist websites, whereas here, even those who don't like Dawkins, are not insulting towards him.
What's also interesting is how often atheists in their message-boards can't seem to rise above childish abuse of religion.
Finally, I think John Farrell's atheists' 'two-step' is brilliant . It's exactly what they do, with depressing regularity.
Posted by: David Quinn at Oct 18, 2006 4:50:37 PM
"David Quinn shifted the argument onto ground that no self-respecting scientist could comment on..."
Christopher, Dawkins isn't talking as a "well-respected scientist" in the forum of this interview, or, indeed in any of his recent public appearances. He does not hold himself to a scientific standard in many of the comments he makes in the interview or in his books:"There's some evil in faith" etc.
He's speaking as an advocate for atheism, his faith.
"Whether we really have free will despite or because of our genes is a question I wouldn't hold my breath for theology to resolve with any credibility."
Well, good, because this is a question for science in any case: how do the physics of the universe allow for free will? I look forward to answers, and I'm not being facetious, I do belive that science will be able to answer many of the "How?" questions that perplex us now. In the meantime, (Catholic) theology will continue to take as a given the fact that we have free will.
"From the religionist point of view free will is dangerous territory anyway..."
This phrase and the next ones following it show your lack of familiarity with theology as a whole, and Catholic theology in particular. If you really want an answer to your question, I'm sure that with a bit of research you can find plenty of material that will address it, both pro and contra. Otherwise, please have the intellectual honesty to admit that in this particular area you are unfamiliar with the subject matter.
Posted by: ben at Oct 18, 2006 5:04:32 PM
"This phrase and the next ones following it show your lack of familiarity with theology as a whole, and Catholic theology in particular."
Well, Ben, if you think you can, why don't you correct my error over 'God's omniscience and free will' here and now instead of just fobbing us off with a comment about my 'lack of familiarity with theology'?
Posted by: Christopher at Oct 18, 2006 6:00:30 PM
Actually, David, I looked for comments on the various Dawkins sites about your RTE interview with Dawkins without much success. I found this link to the show on this site but no further comment about it:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/event,68,The-Tubridy-Show-RTE-Radio
Nor could I find any mention of it on
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/News/headlines.shtml
But there are some interesting comments on
'Sunny Spells and Scattered Showers' - Dawkins Gets a Hard Time
http://woodpigeon01.wordpress.com/2006/10/10/richard-dawkins-gets-a-hard-time/
So can you post the links where you say 'on Richard Dawkins' own site they are slaughtering me as you'd expect, mainly for being so rude to their man'?
Posted by: Christopher at Oct 18, 2006 6:31:33 PM
Christopher:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,193,Ryan-Tubridy-interviews-Richard-Dawkins,RTE-Radio-1
Posted by: Michael Kremer at Oct 18, 2006 7:12:09 PM
