Dawkins Vs. Pell...Thoughts?

[Twentythree]

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm

[Gawen]

Pell is an idiot? I quit watching after his Hitler/Stalin social Darwinism comment.

[Guardian85]

It's because of people like Pell, and those who are undeniably more stubborn and ignorant, that Dwakins gets his reputation as arrogant and strident. You would need the patientce of a saint (pardon the expression) not to get annoyed with that level of nonsense.

[Crow]

Its rubbish from both sides. However its worth watching just for the phrase around 48mins in, its too good.

I couldn't converse with a person like Pell to be honest, unless he learned some of the opposite arguments properly then he might be worth talking to otherwise there isn't any point as it will always arrive at defining words and the meanings in the context used.

Pell is an idiot? I quit watching after his Hitler/Stalin social Darwinism comment.

I can't believe this argument is still being used. It has been addressed time and time again not just by the secular debaters but also the knowledgeable theistic debaters and historians of the two periods, its a mute point and should be put to bed.

[The Magic Pudding]

I've heard the moderate christians talk of this, why didn't someone more able face Dawkins?
My question would be why doesn't some one more able lead the church.
My assumption is he is a master of pomposity, looks authoritative in robes.

Dawkins should have been smacked down for dismissing the question of the universe's purpose as silly.
People have been asking this question for millennia, do you dismiss them all?
Ye, I suppose I do.  Silly bastards all but you had the excuse of the limitations of your times.

[Recusant]

I finally got around to watching this. Thanks for the link, Twentythree.  

This event seemed to me to be a perfect illustration of why Richard Dawkins will only debate people like this cardinal. Neither of them is a real debater,* but Dawkins feels (in my opinion, correctly) that he has a stronger position to defend, so he has a fighting chance of holding his own or perhaps even coming out ahead. Even jet lagged and (as some commenters mentioned) tetchy as he was, he definitely held his own against Cardinal Pell, and on some of the topics, I'd say that Pell flailed badly.

* Dawkins has been repeatedly twitted about his refusal to debate William Lane Craig. I think that he is wise to stand by that position. Dawkins is a respected scientist and the cardinal is a respected church leader, but neither of them is really a debater, so one could say that they meet on more or less equal terms. Just as important I think, is the question of prestige, as perceived by the public. In the case of this event, the cardinal to some extent risked the public perception of the Catholic church in Australia, while Dawkins risked the public perception of science. (I know it's a bit simplistic, but I still think that this view has some validity.)

Craig, on the other hand, is a professional debater, and outclasses Dawkins in that arena, though he isn't a church leader per se. Thus he doesn't risk damaging the prestige of any church when he debates, and he's unlikely to come out behind in any debate in which he participates in any case, at least from a "points scored" perspective. So he would like to debate Dawkins, because he knows that he really doesn't have anything to lose, and his groupies would crow forever about his "victory" just as they now jeer at Dawkins for refusing to debate with him. Dawkins is extremely unlikely to come out ahead in such an encounter, and thus risks a perceived damage to his prestige, and indirectly, the public perception of science. Admittedly, it may have more to do with his ego, but I think that it also has a lot to do with not letting a slick sophist like Craig get a crack, at least from a perception standpoint, at discrediting the scientific (not to mention atheist) view.

[Guardian85]

Not to mention that if scientists debate with religious "scientists" they lend respctability to their sillyness.That is why Dawkisn doesn't debate creationists. If he, and others, give them the  time of day on an equal footing it reinforces the religious claim that they have serious material that scientists must concider. It's the scientific equivalent of feeding the trolls.

[AnimatedDirt]

I finally got around to watching this. Thanks for the link, Twentythree.  

This event seemed to me to be a perfect illustration of why Richard Dawkins will only debate people like this cardinal. Neither of them is a real debater,* but Dawkins feels (in my opinion, correctly) that he has a stronger position to defend, so he has a fighting chance of holding his own or perhaps even coming out ahead. Even jet lagged and (as some commenters mentioned) tetchy as he was, he definitely held his own against Cardinal Pell, and on some of the topics, I'd say that Pell flailed badly.

* Dawkins has been repeatedly twitted about his refusal to debate William Lane Craig. I think that he is wise to stand by that position. Dawkins is a respected scientist and the cardinal is a respected church leader, but neither of them is really a debater, so one could say that they meet on more or less equal terms. Just as important I think, is the question of prestige, as perceived by the public. In the case of this event, the cardinal to some extent risked the public perception of the Catholic church in Australia, while Dawkins risked the public perception of science. (I know it's a bit simplistic, but I still think that this view has some validity.)

Craig, on the other hand, is a professional debater, and outclasses Dawkins in that arena, though he isn't a church leader per se. Thus he doesn't risk damaging the prestige of any church when he debates, and he's unlikely to come out behind in any debate in which he participates in any case, at least from a "points scored" perspective. So he would like to debate Dawkins, because he knows that he really doesn't have anything to lose, and his groupies would crow forever about his "victory" just as they now jeer at Dawkins for refusing to debate with him. Dawkins is extremely unlikely to come out ahead in such an encounter, and thus risks a perceived damage to his prestige, and indirectly, the public perception of science. Admittedly, it may have more to do with his ego, but I think that it also has a lot to do with not letting a slick sophist like Craig get a crack, at least from a perception standpoint, at discrediting the scientific (not to mention atheist) view.

I find it disappointing that Dawkins, one of THE biggest names in Atheism today would shy away from a debate in which he claims to have the superior position...backed by science.  Whether Craig is a "professional" debator or not should make no difference.   Dawkins should be able to easily circumnavigate the globe of delusion that is religion and all its claims.  It's the "Thrilla-in-Manila" that seems may never happen.

I like a comment one Dawkins supporter mentioned, :engage with the idiot and demolish him in as humiliating a manner as possible."

[Recusant]

I find it disappointing that Dawkins, one of THE biggest names in Atheism today would shy away from a debate in which he claims to have the superior position...backed by science.  Whether Craig is a "professional" debator or not should make no difference.   Dawkins should be able to easily circumnavigate the globe of delusion that is religion and all its claims.  It's the "Thrilla-in-Manila" that seems may never happen.

I like a comment one Dawkins supporter mentioned, :engage with the idiot and demolish him in as humiliating a manner as possible."

The "Dawkins supporter" is factually incorrect, and delusional. Craig is no idiot, but an intelligent person who has been honing his debating technique for decades. There is no chance that Dawkins would "demolish him" in any manner. It wouldn't be a "Thrilla-in-Manila." More like a boxing match between a yoga instructor and a professional cruiserweight. Yoga may be healthier than boxing, but the yoga instructor will only demonstrate that indirectly by getting thoroughly bruised and bloodied. (Poor analogy, but I enjoyed the image.  )

A skilled and prepared debater can win a debate against somebody with no real background in debating, even when defending a position with no unequivocal evidentiary support (let alone one which has thousands of years of tradition and sophistry to support it). I don't understand why you feel justified in your assertion that Craig's status as a professional debater is irrelevant to the outcome of this theoretical match-up.

Dawkins may have made a name for himself as a prominent atheist, but that doesn't endow him with any particular abilities as a debater. I watched the debate between Hitchens and Craig, and I would say that Craig won, from a technical debate judging point of view. Hitchens was much more skilled at polemics than Dawkins will ever be, but even superior polemic ability is not particularly effective when it comes to debate. Winning debates has to do with ability to marshal argument and with effective time management, not appeal to emotion, nor even whether one's position is "superior."

[En_Route]

I find it disappointing that Dawkins, one of THE biggest names in Atheism today,,,,

Atheism is a philosophical position, not some kind of skill or accomplishment at which you can outshine others. You can't be brilliant at Atheism. Maybe you can be brilliant at elucidating the justifications for Atheism, which Dawkins  alas certainly isn't. He is admittedly one of THE loudest exponents of Atheism today and possibly one of Christianity's most effective recruiting-sergeants.

[AnimatedDirt]

I find it disappointing that Dawkins, one of THE biggest names in Atheism today would shy away from a debate in which he claims to have the superior position...backed by science.  Whether Craig is a "professional" debator or not should make no difference.   Dawkins should be able to easily circumnavigate the globe of delusion that is religion and all its claims.  It's the "Thrilla-in-Manila" that seems may never happen.

I like a comment one Dawkins supporter mentioned, :engage with the idiot and demolish him in as humiliating a manner as possible."

The "Dawkins supporter" is factually incorrect, and delusional. Craig is no idiot, but an intelligent person who has been honing his debating technique for decades. There is no chance that Dawkins would "demolish him" in any manner. It wouldn't be a "Thrilla-in-Manila." More like a boxing match between a yoga instructor and a professional cruiserweight. Yoga may be healthier than boxing, but the yoga instructor will only demonstrate that indirectly by getting thoroughly bruised and bloodied. (Poor analogy, but I enjoyed the image.  )

A skilled and prepared debater can win a debate against somebody with no real background in debating, even when defending a position with no unequivocal evidentiary support (let alone one which has thousands of years of tradition and sophistry to support it). I don't understand why you feel justified in your assertion that Craig's status as a professional debater is irrelevant to the outcome of this theoretical match-up.

Dawkins may have made a name for himself as a prominent atheist, but that doesn't endow him with any particular abilities as a debater. I watched the debate between Hitchens and Craig, and I would say that Craig won, from a technical debate judging point of view. Hitchens was much more skilled at polemics than Dawkins will ever be, but even superior polemic ability is not particularly effective when it comes to debate. Winning debates has to do with ability to marshal argument and with effective time management, not appeal to emotion, nor even whether one's position is "superior."

Interesting then that Dawkins would say that he doesn't debath anyone "who's only claim to fame is that they are professional debators.  They've got to have something more than that, I'm busy"  That would mean that Craig debates on many and any subject.

Is it the supporter of Dawkins' thinking that it is not wise to debate a Craig?  If the points that Craig brings to a debate are so easily debunked, why hasn't Dawkins stepped up to do so especially after having written "The God Delusion"?  Dawkins says,

I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine".

The truth is that debating Craig and demolishing Craig as "professional debator/I'm too busy" would suggest he thinks he can, would be the notch most people are wanting him to have.

Atheism is a philosophical position, not some kind of skill or accomplishment at which you can outshine others.

Great!!...and Craig is a Professor of Philosophy.  It's a match made in heaven.