This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

yourmaninamsterdam's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by yourmaninamsterdam

I actually very much enjoyed this conversation.
For quite a long time I'm waiting for someone of the religious to present some kind of reasonable argument.
Last time I was satisfied with someone it was the Bishop of Oxford (can't remember his name, but names are not my thing to remember anyway).

Let me in short explain, why...
Although I personally am an atheist and second Richard Dawkins' opinion strongly, there are some people (whom I know personally, but also around here in the forums), who militantly block all arguments from people who are Christians, or actually religious whatsoever.
I just don't think it is right.
I do not believe in God, as the Bishop of Oxford or Alister McGrath, but as I cannot prove the non-existence of God in any way, I am perfectly open to hear the opinion of other people on that matter, as long as it is presented without fundamentalistic claims or any kind of unreasonable kind-of-argument. That is why I try to understand what people think instead of blocking them in their belief.
If you say something like "Oh, come on, your talk is nothing more than the usual Creationism-bullshit", then don't expect to be understood or respected.
There are lots of Creationists on the web, who simply argue so badly that it is not worth to think about it for a long time to realize that they somehow do not know what they are talking about. But there are also some people who obviously are not that stupid.

I want to say something in support of all the competent theologists, whom Richard Dawkins has argued with or maybe in the future.
If you see any inconsistencies in their argument (and I clearly *don't* want to state there are none), don't understand that as a proof of stupidity, general falsehood or (worse) a reason to generally bash them.
These lacks of consitency may also be your misunderstanding, or technically your lack of understanding (note that I also *don't* want to state, that I have this understanding).
It is just that those people have spend quite a long time thinking about that matter and figuring out what they believe is right. But this doesn't make them capable to argue everything ad-hoc in a manner which appeal to everyone who comes along.
When it comes to my feeling, my intuition, or any sort of very complex ideas or matter, which I can answer for myself, it does *not* mean that my thoughts on it can clearly and 100-percent-correctly be transfered into words.

To give a rather simple example of what I mean (out of the usual context):
I spend some of my time programming (I study Computer Science). After some time one gains a intuition, feeling or name it whatever you want, what to do, and especially HOW to to something in special cases. I CAN do that correctly right in the first try, I CAN suggest or even give advice to do it that way, but I often CANNOT say, why this is so... there are things which come as you progress in your experience...
I hope, you could get what I'm up to...

There's another thing which I enjoyed to see in this interview, and that is Richard Dawkings being asked a question.
When I think about it, I really would like to see Richard Dawkins being interviewed on that matter, not alway him interviewing other people (and I don't mean some television moderations without a clue what they are talking about, asking the same questions over and over again).

Thu, 31 May 2007 12:02:00 UTC | #43638