RE: The debate is over
June 29, 2012 at 4:18 am
(This post was last modified: June 29, 2012 at 4:20 am by Tempus.)
I think there's better things to do than recommend The God Delusion, personally. If they're the kind of person who still uses bad arguments after they've been dismantled in person, what makes you think encountering the same arguments dismantled in book form will have any different effect? If they're the kind of person who is open to honest discussion then it's worth at least talking to them. Also, although I didn't mind it and there were good points in it, there are simply better books out there.
It's often been my experience that somebody, let's say Person A, comes along with a great argument, however Person B won't accept it, much to A's frustration. This is typical of many [internet] debates on religion. Person B might not be accepting the argument for a number of reasons. A lot of atheists make the assertion that their opponent is being wilfully ignorant, but I don't agree with that. I'd suggest that it's more often than not because they just don't have the requisite knowledge to understand why it's a good argument. They may not understand what constitutes valid and invalid lines of argumentation, they may not understand probability, etc. If you're confronting someone who, for example, doesn't value evidence, you need to start there -- you need to make them value evidence. There's no point making an evidence based argument against someone who doesn't value evidence. It may be that you end up engaging on some point which has nothing to do with religion in order to establish a later point; so be it.
I don't find them very compelling
It's often been my experience that somebody, let's say Person A, comes along with a great argument, however Person B won't accept it, much to A's frustration. This is typical of many [internet] debates on religion. Person B might not be accepting the argument for a number of reasons. A lot of atheists make the assertion that their opponent is being wilfully ignorant, but I don't agree with that. I'd suggest that it's more often than not because they just don't have the requisite knowledge to understand why it's a good argument. They may not understand what constitutes valid and invalid lines of argumentation, they may not understand probability, etc. If you're confronting someone who, for example, doesn't value evidence, you need to start there -- you need to make them value evidence. There's no point making an evidence based argument against someone who doesn't value evidence. It may be that you end up engaging on some point which has nothing to do with religion in order to establish a later point; so be it.
(June 29, 2012 at 3:36 am)Micah Wrote: The debate is most certainly not over. Google any debates with William Lane Craig or John Lennox. Both are highly intelligent Christians who have held there own against the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens. I may not agree with them, but they make compelling cases.
I don't find them very compelling
