Richard Dawkins vs Conall and Donall

[Archaeopteryx]

This thread started with a video clip from a Lutheran Pastor who creates satirical videos about religious topic and about areas of dispute between religious and non-religious views of truth and the world.

I think that the clip has some salient points to make about evidence used in debates about the scientific method, religious beliefs, and atheist views.

It's a short, amusing, pithy summary of some objections to the sorts of things that Professor Richard Dawkins actually says in interviews, televised discussions, and lectures about religion and atheism.

If you don't like what the video clip says then point to the specific parts you dislike and state your reasons for disliking it. Generalities will not help.

For example, I like the point made 50 seconds into the clip and up to 63 seconds. The resurrection stories in the four canonical gospels are significant for Christians. One cannot expect to argue the point saliently simply by dismissing the possibility of resurrection.

Conall points to Jesus' resurrection as evidence for God's existence.

Similarly one cannot make a sound argument my dismissing the four canonical gospels are unreliable or irrelevant because one wishes to treat them as pious mythology. Something more substantial is needed. Thus the usefulness of the analogy about Barium samples and the existence of Barium in the clip at 117 seconds up to 160 seconds.

There really isn't much to respond to in the video. Conall and Donall assume their conclusion and argue from there.

 

[KCfromNC]

The resurrection stories in the four canonical gospels are significant for Christians. One cannot expect to argue the point saliently simply by dismissing the possibility of resurrection.

The fact that they are significant to believers isn't evidence for their accuracy.

Similarly one cannot make a sound argument by dismissing the four canonical gospels as unreliable or irrelevant because one wishes to treat them as pious mythology.

Is this really the reason people dismiss the gospels as unreliable?

 

[essentialsaltes]

For example, I like the point made 50 seconds into the clip and up to 63 seconds. The resurrection stories in the four canonical gospels are significant for Christians. One cannot expect to argue the point saliently simply by dismissing the possibility of resurrection.

IIRC, cartoon Dawkins flatly states that 'people don't come back from the dead' and therefore the gospels are untrue.

Real Dawkins says "There have been many people who allege that they see fairies. The fact is that we just don't believe them. We think they're hallucinating, or lying. Now, I don't know where the story of Jesus rising from the dead comes from. The actual documentary evidence is very bad as historical evidence goes, and so, given its enormous inherent implausibility, I'd be much more inclined to suspect it."

Now one could (and people do) argue about whether or not the gospels have enough evidence to be trustworthy, but Dawkins' position is not a mere flat denial (though acknowledging its implausibilty, as with fairies). What, if anything, distinguishes the Resurrection from the Cottingley Fairies?

 

[bhsmte]

Not at all, evidence is the basis for coming a conclusion of whether something is true or false.

I agree.

What is the objective verifiable evidence that the gospels are accurate historical accounts?

 

[bhsmte]

That would be a pity for even Mr Dawkins seems to acknowledge in a debate with John Lennox that there was a historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth.

Most NT historians would agree Jesus was likely a real historical figure and at this point, I would also agree he was likely a real person.

Now, whether Jesus was a real person and what he actually said and did are two completely different historical issues, that require different historical evidence.

I have heard the arguments of a Richard Carrier and although I would disagree with him, his arguments are far more compelling, than those who will state the gospels are completely reliable and a true historical account of history.

I don't expect you to believe the resurrection at an early stage in examining the evidence, some things would come first, belief in God, and in the historical personage Jesus of Nazareth.

If it is required to believe in a God first, that is not the best method to take an objective approach. In reality, it has been one of the main issues why the gospels have not enjoyed an objective analysis, because the majority of NT historians and scholars, are Christians and with skin in the game to reach certain conclusions. This has changed slowly over time though, with even Christian scholars and historians admitting; the gospels are more a work of theology, as opposed to an accurate historical account.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think the real Richard Dawkins might have caught on to Conall and Donall's shenanigans: https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/598133235902713857

 

[HammerOfThor]

I think the real Richard Dawkins might have caught on to Conall and Donall's shenanigans: https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/598133235902713857

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think the real Richard Dawkins might have caught on to Conall and Donall's shenanigans: https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/598133235902713857

It was Conall's learned argument

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It was Conall's learned argument

Yeah. https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/598133048987787264

 

[HitchSlap]

Yeah. https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/598133048987787264

Checkmate atheists!

 

[MoreCoffee]

I ought to journal this; argument by sarcastic tweet!

 

[HitchSlap]

I ought to journal this; argument by sarcastic tweet!

It will segue way nicely with cartoon argument by strawman.

 

[dms1972]

Most NT historians would agree Jesus was likely a real historical figure and at this point, I would also agree he was likely a real person.

Now, whether Jesus was a real person and what he actually said and did are two completely different historical issues, that require different historical evidence.

I'll let you figure it out for yourself then. I don't need to wait or discuss it further as I am reasonably confident in the reliability of scripture and its historical content and the transmission of the eye-witness accounts. Additionally any remaining issues I will resolve through studying the latest research - such as Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by [Richard] Bauckham. If there are still issues I don't need to let it dissolve my confidence in what I have become convinced of the truth of. You'll find a similiar attitude in some science as some evolutionists hold to their theory despite at least two other competing theories in biology, and a whole load of competing models to explain metabolism and such. Plus they have a lot of books published that they might have to re-write chapters of.

If it is required to believe in a God first, that is not the best method to take an objective approach. In reality, it has been one of the main issues why the gospels have not enjoyed an objective analysis, because the majority of NT historians and scholars, are Christians and with skin in the game to reach certain conclusions. This has changed slowly over time though, with even Christian scholars and historians admitting; the gospels are more a work of theology, as opposed to an accurate historical account.

All that required is to recognise when its revealed that you are suppressing the truth in a state of unrighteousness, and pray for help in your unbelief and go on studying the bible, following your conscience.

My other comments were not addressed to you - as you say you were a christian and convinced of the evidence then for some reason became unconvinced, perhaps you never took a step of faith. But didn't you realise that its a matter of holding on to that which you are once convinced by reason to be true. But you waste your time and others making your mind unclear again. Not a position from which to be helping others while you are in.

I mean if you want to know about becoming a christian, you ask a christian, or go to a church, right? Just as if you want to know about your health you ask a doctor, or if you want to know about how to mend a car you ask a mechanic. Not that there is any precise analogy between the three, but basically you ask someone who knows about it, took some steps and started to see the truth and didn't go back, not someone who never has had any certainty or taken a step. I wouldn't take my car to a mechanic who gave up fixing engines because it was too hard and he could not understand the manual.

 

[bhsmte]

I'll let you figure it out for yourself then. I don't need to wait or discuss it further as I am reasonably confident in the reliability of scripture and its historical content and the transmission of the eye-witness accounts. Additionally any remaining issues I will resolve through studying the latest research - such as Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Michael Baukham. If there are still issues I don't need to let it dissolve my confidence in what I have become convinced of the truth of. You'll find a similiar attitude in some science as some evolutionists hold to their theory despite at least two other competing theories in biology, and a whole load of competing models to explain metabolism and such. Plus they have a lot of books published that they might have to re-write chapters of.

Who were these eye witnesses and who has their direct testimony and how has it been verified?

All that required is to recognise when its revealed that you are suppressing the truth in a state of unrighteousness, and pray for help in your unbelief and go on studying the bible, following your conscience.

Precisely why I am no longer a Christian, I couldn't suppress reality (the truth) any longer.

My other comments were not addressed to you - as you say you were a christian and convinced of the evidence then for some reason became unconvinced, perhaps you never took a step of faith. But didn't you realise that its a matter of holding on to that which you are once convinced by reason to be true. But you waste your time and others making your mind unclear again. Not a position from which to be helping others while you are in.

Never took a step of faith? Yea, that is a common response from some Christians. If you moved away from Christianity, you were never a true Christian. It is easy and a good temporary defense mechanism.

I mean if you want to know about becoming a christian, you ask a christian, or go to a church, right? Just as if you want to know about your health you ask a doctor, or if you want to know about how to mend a car you ask a mechanic. Not that there is any precise analogy between the three, but basically you ask someone who knows about it, took some steps and started to see the truth and didn't go back, not someone who never has had any certainty or taken a step. I wouldn't take my car to a mechanic who gave up fixing engines because it was too hard and he could not understand the manual.

To learn about Christianity, I peeled back the layers and went right to the source and devoured the work of those who study it for a living. Listening to individual Christians to learn about how valid the faith is, is just a tad bias, but I do understand why some go that route.

 

[dms1972]

Most NT historians would agree Jesus was likely a real historical figure and at this point, I would also agree he was likely a real person.

Now, whether Jesus was a real person and what he actually said and did are two completely different historical issues, that require different historical evidence.

I'll let you figure it out for yourself then. I don't need to wait or discuss it further as I am reasonably confident in the reliability of scripture and its historical content and the transmission of the eye-witness accounts, and I am not trying to win an argument. Additionally any remaining issues I will resolve through studying the latest research - such as Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Michael Baukham. If there are still issues I don't need to let it dissolve my confidence in what I have become convinced of the truth of. You'll find a similiar attitude in some science as some evolutionists hold to their theory despite at least two other competing theories in biology, and a whole load of competing models to explain metabolism and such.

If it is required to believe in a God first, that is not the best method to take an objective approach. In reality, it has been one of the main issues why the gospels have not enjoyed an objective analysis, because the majority of NT historians and scholars, are Christians and with skin in the game to reach certain conclusions. This has changed slowly over time though, with even Christian scholars and historians admitting; the gospels are more a work of theology, as opposed to an accurate historical account.

All that is required is to recognise when its revealed that one is suppressing the truth in a state of unrighteousness, and pray for help in your unbelief and go on studying the bible, following your conscience.

My other comments were not addressed to you - as you say you were a christian and convinced of the evidence then because of something became unconvinced, perhaps you never took a step of faith? But didn't you realise that its a matter of holding on to that which you are once convinced by reason to be true. But you waste your time and others making your mind unclear again. Not a position from which to be helping others while you are in.

I mean if you want to know about becoming a christian, you ask a christian, or go to a church, right? Just as if you want to know about your health you ask a doctor, or if you want to know about how to mend a car you ask a mechanic. Not that there is any precise analogy between the three, but basically you ask someone who knows about it, took some steps and started to see the truth and didn't go back, not someone who never has had any certainty or taken a step. I wouldn't take my car to a mechanic who gave up fixing engines because it was too hard or he could not understand the service manual.

 

[dms1972]

Who were these eye witnesses and what has their direct testimony and how has it been verified?

It amazes me, but what is coming over most is your arrogance in thinking you can keep someone debating with you, who wasn't even talking to you in the thread, and who already provided some sources. Richard Bauckham studies it for a living, there is somewhere for you to begin or continue in your studies.

No one is compelled to keep discussing with you.

Never took a step of faith? Yea, that is a common response from some Christians. If you moved away from Christianity, you were never a true Christian.

Well I was asking a question.

 

[bhsmte]

It amazes me, but what is coming over most is your arrogance in thinking you can keep someone debating with you, who wasn't even talking to you in the thread.

Figure it out for yourself. No one is compelled to keep discussing with you.

Cool, I'm good with that.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread had a small clean up of off topic flaming.

If you think someone is flaming, report it and do not respond.​

 

[MoreCoffee]

I watched some debates with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris. Interesting people, clever, but strangely inadequately prepared for serious discussion about holy scripture and theology.

I watched this clip with a mixture of admiration for the clear statement and well thought out arguments on scrience and complete bemusement at the ignorance demonstrated of scripture and theology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7IHU28aR2E

Do any of you, my interlocutors, think that these four clever men do themselves a disservice when you demonstrate such profound misunderstanding of their opponents' positions?

 

[bhsmte]

I watched some debates with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris. Interesting people, clever, but strangely inadequately prepared for serious discussion about holy scripture and theology.

I watched this clip with a mixture of admiration for the clear statement and well thought out arguments on scrience and complete bemusement at the ignorance demonstrated of scripture and theology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7IHU28aR2E

Do any of you, my interlocutors, think that these four clever men do themselves a disservice when you demonstrate such profound misunderstanding of their opponents' positions?

I would watch them in debates against Christians, who use scripture as part of their argument. Then, you will get a better feel of their knowledge of scripture.