Dawkins calls Pope "a Nazi"

[acornuser]

Thanks for the video. He was definitely referring to Pius. I can see how wires got crossed, given the fuss the British media made about the "Nazi pope" (the Indy article linked elsewhere said he was supposedly forced to join the Hitler Youth!?). It also says:
All miracles automatically false
All religious people the same (any supernatural belief delusional)
All ur historiez are belong to us!

But seriously, I think it is forgivable for Dawkins to get the Pope's name and history wrong. Likewise, correcting errors, especially where commonly held, is also important. It's a pity that these errors are so widely abroad.

[Al Moritz]

Mar 18, 2010 0:24:35 GMT timoneill said:

Again, I’ve seen Craig’s debates and he seems to be more style than substance. I watched the one he had with Hitchens which Christians generally regarded he “won”. Sorry, but perhaps I was seeing a different debate to them. Either way, I don’t think those types of encounter prove very much apart from who has the more polished patter. Or who can pander to the inclinations of the crowd there on the night better.

Actually, Luke Muehlhauser on commonsenseatheism.com also said that Craig won -- by a mile:

"Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child."

commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230

[eckadimmock]

An encounter between Craig and Dawkins might be interesting, since both are practiced public speakers and quite eloquent. Craig could make a better fist of the theological arguments than most of Dawkin's opponents, but Dawkins would hammer him if he brought up ID, I suspect.

Dawkins is at his weakest when he takes on other scientists who can take him on when he presents his own views as science. He didn't come off well against John Lennox, for instance. I'd be interested in hearing him debate Ken Miller or Francis Collins.

That said, I agree with Tim that the format depends more on style and making your audience laugh than cold logic. If you look at political debates, for example, you see that being taller or better looking than an opponent is just as important as any content.

[deef]

Mar 18, 2010 0:24:35 GMT timoneill said:

[

Mar 17, 2010 23:49:01 GMT deef said:

No, but I don't think many christian apologists could provoke an enthusiastic ovation of their crowd by making Nazi-comparisons.

Hmm, I think you may be overestimating human beings.

Perhaps... but I tend to think that the Dawkins camp is generally a bit more contemptuous towards the christian camp than vice versa. That's my experience at least.

Mar 18, 2010 0:24:35 GMT timoneill said:

I don’t believe he was talking about whether they were worth “debating”. He was noting that he’s accused of only “going after the easy targets” and not taking on wise and sober theologians. He’s pointing out that these theologians believe things which are every bit as silly as the “easy targets”.

And he's completely incorrect.. At best he is pointing out that conservative catholic theologians believe silly things. What about the protestant theologians he continues to refuse to debate?

The accusation "Dawkins refuses to debate the best the opposition has to offer" still stands.

Mar 18, 2010 0:24:35 GMT timoneill said:

Again, I’ve seen Craig’s debates and he seems to be more style than substance. I watched the one he had with Hitchens which Christians generally regarded he “won”. Sorry, but perhaps I was seeing a different debate to them.

Nah, I think you're quite right about this. I thought the debate was rather weak, mainly because Craig and Hitchens are completely different debaters and they were talking passed each other. Craig is more an analytical, reasoning debater, building his case on arguments while Hitchens case seems to be primarily based on 'pathos'.

Mar 18, 2010 0:24:35 GMT timoneill said:

Either way, I don’t think those types of encounter prove very much apart from who has the more polished patter. Or who can pander to the inclinations of the crowd there on the night better.

I tend to agree, but of course there are actual arguments involved so it's not all just 'show'.
But more so than enlightening, I think it would be very entertaining and exciting.

[Deleted]

Mar 18, 2010 10:45:18 GMT deef said:

The accusation "Dawkins refuses to debate the best the opposition has to offer" still stands.

Anthony Flew has voiced a similar critique at two places in his review of The God Delusion:

The fault of Dawkins as an academic (which he still was during the period in which he composed this book although he has since announced his intention to retire) was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine which he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form.

This whole business makes all too clear that Dawkins is not interested in the truth as such but is primarily concerned to discredit an ideological opponent by any available means. That would itself constitute sufficient reason for suspecting that the whole enterprise of The God Delusion was not, as it at least pretended to be, an attempt to discover and spread knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God but rather an attempt – an extremely successful one – to spread the author’s own convictions in this area.

[teajay]

Yeah it appears that I jumped to the conclusion that this report was worth reporting because of my bias against Richard. I'm disappointed in myself because I should have known that the Herald-Sun wasn't going to get things right.

Thanks for settings things straight with the link too Tim.

[perplexedseeker]

Mar 18, 2010 0:24:35 GMT timoneill said:

Sorry, but perhaps I was seeing a different debate to them.

This is exactly the problem I have with public debates in general. There was a lovely psychology article published a while ago about how people who watch contests (it may even have been debates) starting with different viewpoints tend to percieve it completely differently. I'll post the link if I can find it.

At best, public debates are just a fun excuse to fire up your supporters. At worst, they leave everyone who watches them more reinforced in their previous views than they were already.

[Al Moritz]

Mar 22, 2010 14:49:12 GMT perplexedseeker said:

There was a lovely psychology article published a while ago about how people who watch contests (it may even have been debates) starting with different viewpoints tend to percieve it completely differently.

Yet he same holds for reading books too. People perceive them differently according to their different view points. They also perceive both speculative scientific hypotheses and hard scientific data presented in them differently, and often in a prejudiced way. That is why I don't buy the atheist argument that atheists "just follow the evidence". Many times I have seen them allegedly do so, and I am not convinced by the outcomes.

[elephantchang51]

Surely this problem extends way beyond public debates and reading books,we all bring the totality of our personal experiences to bear on all our interactions with the world,everything is to this extent subjective,both for atheists and everyone else.

[unkleE]

Mar 22, 2010 17:23:12 GMT elephantchang51 said:

Surely this problem extends way beyond public debates and reading books,we all bring the totality of our personal experiences to bear on all our interactions with the world,everything is to this extent subjective,both for atheists and everyone else.

I agree. But I think the point needs to be made because contemporary atheists often characterise their own conclusions about God as based on total rationalism, and theists' beliefs as totally irrational. If they could see and agree that all of us conclude based on a mixture of many reasons and causes, we could have a little more charity in the discussion, and we could discuss sensibly all those causes.

[elephantchang51]

Well Unklee we can only show sensible discussion is not only desirable but very possible.Anyone who fatuously supposes they are totally rational is at best mistaken.The adversarial positions taken on both sides are distasteful and counter-productive.At the end of the day it is only opinions!

[turoldus]

“Should the pope resign?” No. As the College of Cardinals must have recognized when they elected him, he is perfectly – ideally – qualified to lead the Roman Catholic Church. A leering old villain in a frock, who spent decades conspiring behind closed doors for the position he now holds; a man who believes he is infallible and acts the part; a man whose preaching of scientific falsehood is responsible for the deaths of countless AIDS victims in Africa; a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence: in short, exactly the right man for the job. He should not resign, moreover, because he is perfectly positioned to accelerate the downfall of the evil, corrupt organization whose character he fits like a glove, and of which he is the absolute and historically appropriate monarch.
No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign. He should remain in charge of the whole rotten edifice – the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution – while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100031796/richard-dawkins-pope-benedict-is-a-leering-old-villain-in-a-frock/

[aslancub]

Mar 17, 2010 23:20:51 GMT timoneill said:

Mar 17, 2010 21:55:15 GMT deef said:

I love it how the crowd goes completely nuts because Dawkins called Pius XII a Nazi.

Do you think if a Christian speaker made a similar crack about Dawkins to a Christian conference you'd get dignified silence?



The argument is that he only deals with people who believe really silly things and should debate theologians who don't. He's giving an example of theologians who do believe extremely silly things and showing that this is not the preserve solely of Creationists and suicide bombers.

I'd love to see Dawkins debate someone like William Lane Craig.

I find it odd the way Craig keeps getting invoked as some kind of potential Dawkins killer - I've seen some of his debates and it seems he uses the same old tired stuff. Dawkins won't debate people like Craig because he believes in denying Creationists and their fellow travellers the oxygen of publicity.

The disingenuous part of what Dawkins does is to lump all Christian thinkers in with young earth creationists. Craig is more like Francis S. Collins than he is like any fundamentalist.

[aslancub]

Mar 22, 2010 17:23:12 GMT elephantchang51 said:

Surely this problem extends way beyond public debates and reading books,we all bring the totality of our personal experiences to bear on all our interactions with the world,everything is to this extent subjective,both for atheists and everyone else.

Indeed you are correct. This is precisely the point made by Douglas Wilson in the movie Collision, in which he and Christopher Hitchens go on tour promoting the book of their online debate. He calls it a collision of worldviews. Sometimes the collision can be instrustive as well as entertaining.