This video underscores the problems that can arise for people who are not capable as philosophers when they try to enter into a philosophical argument. Be sure to watch the very end of the video, as the comments by my friend Doug Geivett shouldn't be missed.
3 comments:
I believe Dr. Dawkins was only trying to prove a point, mainly that objective morality does not exist, and that is why he chose to be dishonest in his approach. (Of course I am joking)
Hello, Murcheson Fahls here,
How much of the presentation was edited out of this video?--apparently quite a lot--but assuming that contained in the video is all that is relevant to the pro-god side then---
Yes the pro-god (whatever that may be, since it is not defined) side
offered clear reasons and cogent. But as with all arguments --especially philosophical ones-- there is no compulsion to accept the premises the argument is built upon, as:
somehow the universe requires a purpose; there is no purpose without some god or other; there are objective moral laws; only a god or other can make objective moral laws.
These and many other premises were only lightly dealt with by the pro-god side, if at all, apparently, since it's hard to tell how much was edited out.
If Dawkins did not pounced on the assumptions, the premises, then yes he is ineffective as a debater.
But if this video is edited material aimed solely to present the view critical of Dawkins (with whom I do not agree, by the way) then the video is propaganda and not philosophy--and it doesn't belong on your page.
Murcheson,
I've watched the entire debate, and this remix seems fair to me, but you'd have to watch it for yourself, I suppose.
Post a Comment