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

Comment

← "The nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin"

Axulus's Avatar Jump to comment 298 by Axulus

Just finished watching the archived video. I have to say that it didn't seem like much of a debate. It seemed like 50% of the conversation was just clarifying and specifying what both Richard and Dr. Williams believe to be true about the world, which they both agreed with and, quite frankly, was not in any way controversial. Another 25% was the AoC speaking as a "murky", saying nice sounding mumbo jumbo that is hard to pin down in clear and cogent language. Another 15% of the debate was the professor in the middle (sorry, too lazy to look up what his name was as I forgot it) interrupting and speaking in philosophical mumbo jumbo. Yes, I'm sure what he had to say was philosophically interesting, but the audience listening to the debate (including myself) are not trained philosophers. FFS, even Richard was a bit confused on what exactly the guy was saying and the relevance of what he was saying. If you can't speak to an intelligent audience in clear and unambiguous terms, what good are you in the discussion? The final 10% of the debate was wwhere the AoC and Richard genuinely disagreed upon, and the only portion of the conversation that could be considered a "debate". However, it was cut short by the professor in the middle interjecting during the most interesting parts! What the hell? When we finally reached a point where Richard had a real disagreement with the AoC's theology on the point of looking to Genesis for insights to modern day questions, he was cut short by the professor in the middle!

While many intelligent things were said throughout the debate/conversation, I can't say I really felt like I learned any new insights. There were several moments of frustration I felt and it seemed like Richard was feeling as well. To me, it seemed like pretty basic arguments, largely due to the fact that neither side really had a chance to go deep on any one topic. When Richard attempted to go deep on any particular subject, he was rudely interrupted and either cut short or not given a response.

Finally, was I the only one bobbing my head in boredom at the concluding speech by the guy behind the podium? Yes, I definitely appreciate all the various individuals who played a part in making this conversation/debate a reality and laughed a little at the joke, but does it really take 5 minutes to talk about how great/important the debate/conversation was? I guess I'm just so used to the idea that it is so much more satisfying and sincere when one conveys meaning/apperciation/humor/wit as succiently as possible, and not ramble on so much longer than necessary (there's no better individual that exemplifies this that I can think of than Christopher Hitchens).

While overall it was enjoyable to watch, I seems that way too much was left unsaid and the conversation was not nearly as deep as it could have been had the conversation been allowed to progress more naturally. It left me feeling unsatisfied, which I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling.

Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:53:00 UTC | #921711