50 Famous Academics & Scientists Talk About God

[_gramps]

Thanks for the link, EA. I haven't gotten to it yet, but will.

Of course, I withheld judgment on Krauss' argument with Lane because I hadn't yet watched it. That is why I only commented on the pouting part of CC's response to my post. And I will give CC a win on this one. But I am quite sure I win on the pouting claim and that is what I staked my post on. But CC may still be able to show that he was indeed pouting. I just have a hard time believing it.

I was just watching Krauss debate Lane on another link. O.K. I don't think he does too well in that debate (N.C. State, I believe). He is all over the board, looking through his notes, but not finding what he wants. It appears in this debate, anyway, that he had just fallen off a plane and was looking forward much more to meeting his lady friend after the debate was finished. Or something, anyway, was on his mind. It wasn't impressive.

I have seen other presentations of his and did not find him to be so disjointed, but he was talking within his field of expertise. Perhaps he should stay there. But I wouldn't call him generally intellectually lazy. But if he wants to step out of his expertise and risk the possibility of embarrassment, then that is his right to do so, but he may come across as lazy in that specific area. Granted.

I am guessing that Dennett would be a much more able foe after listening recently to him speak on Lane's arguments.

Thanks for the heads up on the link. I will take a look at it.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I am guessing that Dennett would be a much more able foe after listening recently to him speak on Lane's arguments.

Dan meanders while talking, and makes his points with stories like a professor would, and not make precise points like a debater would. Craig would crush him in short order.

It really has nothing to do with ideas, but more to do with how well you can manage time, and think on your feet. WLC has his 20 minute opening statement memorized, which has been written with the goal of presenting a number of arguments in easy to understand terms and re-written so many times that it is the very model of speech economy. WLC’s opponent, then has to deconstruct that refined and well honed 20 minute statement, in a mere 10 minutes.

Debate is a matter of pure rhetoric, and is not a matter of sound and solid dialectic. Beating WLC in a spoken debate would require a professional speaker/debater who can manage time well and clearly give an opening statement quickly.

In a cross examination or an informal back n forth, WLC can lose his polish and get flustered. Shelly Kagan was able to do that and I think Wes Morriston did too.

[_mikwut]

Stak,

Dan meanders while talking, and makes his points with stories like a professor would, and not make precise points like a debater would. Craig would crush him in short order.

I don't know if crushing is appropriate, but he did win quite resoundingly, you can hear the audio here:

http://www19.zippyshare.com/v/85071956/file.html

It really has nothing to do with ideas, but more to do with how well you can manage time, and think on your feet. WLC has his 20 minute opening statement memorized, which has been written with the goal of presenting a number of arguments in easy to understand terms and re-written so many times that it is the very model of speech economy. WLC’s opponent, then has to deconstruct that refined and well honed 20 minute statement, in a mere 10 minutes.

I agree. I can't help from wondering though why the atheists keep at it when WLC's canned presentation has been going on for nearly two decades. How hard is it to look at youtube prior to the debate and prepare accordingly; if you have agreed to the debate?

I do agree with you and wish more panel discussions with q and a among the participants could be done, Christopher Hitchens and WLC had a pretty good exchange after their debate that I wish was longer than the debate - they talked to each other. I don't like the audience questions because the usually boil down to students that don't understand the arguments, or they only understand one side of the arguments.

regards,mikwut

[_MrStakhanovite]

I agree. I can't help from wondering though why the atheists keep at it when WLC's canned presentation has been going on for nearly two decades. How hard is it to look at youtube prior to the debate and prepare accordingly; if you have agreed to the debate?

Harder than you think. WLC makes it look easy, but not only is he a first class debater, he is also a competent philosopher, which is a deadly combination when it comes to these kind of confrontations.

I think a lot of atheists think that debate is merely two monologues that are to be judged, but the real debate begins in the rebuttals, and is won or lost in the cross examination. It takes practice to properly flow arguments, so you respond to everything and keeping your responses short and intelligible.

And to be honest (in my opinion), I think the pop atheist movement, such as it is, isn’t really interested in any sort of meaningful engagement.

[_EAllusion]

WLC is basically a softer version of Duane Gish, but with a philosophical background. Time and time again he crushes atheists in debates because the atheists don't take the rhetorical aspect of the affair seriously. I've seen the same pattern repeatedly. They just hear an argument they know is wrong, slap their foreheads, and ramble. I believe the atheist is at a severe handicap, just like biologists were with Gish, because it's just a lot easier to jump from superficially intuitive, but factually dubious or unsound argument to another than it is to carefully refute those arguments. In written format, proper refutations take many paragraphs to reply to what can be summed up in one. I disagree with Stak somewhat in that I think some of those atheists are dismissive and aren't interested in serious engagement, but I think others are interested in engaging ideas. The problem is they treat the debate like discourse aimed at discovering truth when Craig is there to persuade an audience and appear legitimate by virtue of being there, not submit a manuscript to a academic journal.

I have seen one debate where WLC's opponent did well, and that was because they studied his presentation and had developed condensed replies to it ready. Otherwise, it's going to come off poorly because he is a top tier speaker.

[_mikwut]

Hi E,

I agree. I think the third element is WLC is a very likable presenter. I never watched Gish but I read he was a nut regarding his creationism but a very affable one. I think Sam Harris did a decent job with WLC because his like-ability was high and he had some wit and aphorisms loaded to match WLC. In a technical debate score WLC probably still one against Sam, but in presentation and after debate discussion Sam really shined.

regards, mikwut

[_The Nehor]

You were not paying attention. As was stated in the very first interview on the video, the idea of God is not even deemed worthy of serious consideration by most (especially good) scientists.

Then why were so many willing to talk if they HAVEN'T EVEN CONSIDERED IT????

That would be like asking for someone's views on the European Common Market from someone who has never thought about the Common Market. It's madness.

Your argument against the statements by these scientists is exactly analogous to claiming that they need learn more about Zeus (or the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus for that matter) before they can make an informed decision as to the existence of these supernatural beings.

That wasn't my argument. My argument was that the arguments I cited on their own merits make no sense whatsoever to anyone who has casually thought about them.

Do you want to talk about intellectual laziness? What about the religionist's belief that "God did it" when it comes to understanding how the Earth (or the Universe for that matter) came into being.

Is it also intellectual laziness when studying the pyramids to believe that "The Egyptians did it"?

Can you perhaps demonstrate that you yourself are not intellectually lazy by refuting with facts even a single assertion made by the scientists in the video?

I already pointed out the flawed arguments. I'm open to debate on the flaws I pointed out but no one seems capable or willing (or both).

I didn't think so.

Again Shades, can we have that remedial Reading Comprehension course? Many here desperately need it.