As you might know, although he seems to have a lot to say about how bad the arguments for God’s existence are, Richard Dawkins has always refused the open offer from William Lane Craig to have a debate on the subject. Well, I just spotted this on William Lane Craig’s Facebook page:
I am currently in Mexico to participate in a conference called Ciudad de las Ideas, which is a conference modeled on the TED conference in the US. It features lots of high tech people, sociologists, psychologists, economists, scientists, etc.
As part of the conference they´re having a panel of six of us debate on the question ¨Does the Universe Have a Purpose?¨ Well. to my surprise, I just found out that one of the three persons on the other side is Richard Dawkins! It´s true! I met him the other night. When he came my way, I stuck out my hand and introduced myself and said, I’m surspised to see that you’re on the panel.
He replied, And why not?
I said, ¨Well, you’ve always refused to debate me.
His tone suddenly became icy cold. I don´t consider this to be a debate with you. The Mexicans invited me to participate, and I accepted.¨ At that, he turned away.
¨Well, I hope we have a good discussion,¨ I said.
I very much doubt it,¨ he said and walked off.
So it was a pretty chilly reception! The debate is Saturday morning, should you think of us. I´ll give an update after I get back.
This should be very interesting!
Similar Posts:
- Bill Craig, Richard Dawkins and the “Empty Chair”
- Name that Fallacy! Dawkins v Craig
- Craig vs Hitchens
- The other Dawkins Delusion
- D’Souza vs Loftus: Does the Christian God exist?
- Bill vs Bill: Is belief in God a delusion?
Tags: Debates
I’m sure that Dawkins will be as out of his element delving into metaphysics as Craig would be discussing evolutionary biology. That being said, I am keen to hear (or watch) the outcome of the exchange.
I’ve met Dawkins and he has the social skills of a plant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@The Atheist Missionary.
I have to disagree with you regarding Dawkins’ social skills. You see, plants generally don’t have grating personalities. At the worst they give you hayfever.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Vrye, touché.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Looks like an interesting conference – a great range of speakers . Craig seems really out of place in such a line up and I had a hard time finding him.
However, the panel Craig refers to is:
Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins
vs
Rabbi David Wolpe, William Lane Craig, Douglas Geivett
The video of the debate is at Debate – La Ciudad de las Ideas 2010 – Does the Universe have a purpose? I guess the speakers use English – but the running translation probably interferes.
I don’t know whether plants have great social skills or not but I have always been impressed by Dawkins honesty and fairness – not great skills for debaters. I met him at a book signing and he certainly does give his time willingly for those sort of things. Far more than I expected as it must be very demanding. The queue of people wanting signatures went back to the big bang.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What did Craig ever do to Dawkins to receive such a cold response? He acts all friendly toward people like Alister Mcgrath, at least on TV but then acts like a total douche bag to WLC. Dawkins is a coward and a prick, no doubt about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ken, I’m a little surprised that you’d think William Lane Craig was out of place in this. With a topic like “Does the Universe Have a Purpose?” I would have thought that a zoologist like Dawkins would really be a fish out of water.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good grief! What a theatrical production. I’ll wait until the Spanish commentary is removed, but it will still be difficult to work through all of the over the top schtick.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, Glenn, I can understand why he was dragged in for that panel. But he and Geivett are not listed on the programme – presumably because they are not giving separate talks. Ridley, Shermer, Dawkins and the Rabbi are. And many of the other speakers on the programme for the conference (the panel is only a tiny part) are first class. The quality usually found at TED conferences.
By the way the question of purpose is a philosophical question resolved in the scientific revolution. It’s actually central to Dawkins’ specialty and Darwins writings (where Dawkins has a lot if understanding a familiarity). It’s really a very old debate but I guess a central one in today’s culture wars.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This staging seems one step away from Lucha Libre! God bless the Mexicans.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The scientific revolution resovled the question of purpose in the universe? Not even close. Science can’t even put its hands on that question because it lays beyind the domain of the scientific. It’s like science attempting to answer the question of whether or not the universe was intended. It has nothing to say.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Scientism: an atheist presumption that the natural sciences “resolved” a problem that is clearly beyond the aegis of naturalism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, the organizers of this conference and the panel discussion obviously don’t have such a hostile attitude or naive attitude towards science. It’s noticeable that the three panellists on one side have all written books on evolutionary science. The question of purpose is central here as the bias of the ancients had to be overcome to make any progress in understanding life. Dennett expressed it quite well in his contrast of sky hooks and cranes in his own book on Darwins contributions. So the organizers obviously saw these three could make an important contribution – as I said Dawkins seems an obvious choice having written so much on this subject.
As for “scientism” I like Russell Blackford’s recent article where he expresses the belief that peoe who use that word ate usually guilty of intellectual dishonesty.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As for “scientism” I like Russell Blackford’s recent article where he expresses the belief that peoe who use that word ate usually guilty of intellectual dishonesty.
Yes, he “expresses the belief” but offers no argumentation– other than to say it’s wrong to use the word equivocally, but of course can’t give one example of anybody actually doing that.
Allow me to express the belief that Russell Blackford is intellectually dishonest– I apparently don’t need to give any reasons for actually thinking that’s the case. Maybe some guys on my little “team” will “like” my blog comment.
Next.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ron, you must lead a very sheltered life (and be new here) if you aren’t aware of examples of how this word is dishonestly used as a term of abuse (and avoidance of the real issues).
If you think Russell is intellectually dishonest why not go over to his blog and let him know. he is, after all, the one to discuss the issue with. I am sure Russell is more than capable of giving you examples.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The word “scientism” is perfectly acceptable and is easily defined as the belief that science is the only way to acquire knowledge.
I find that those who don’t like the word are simply people who have at one time or another been guilty of scientism and would rather not have people point it out. Interestingly here, the idea that a biologist – by virtue of his scientific background – is capable of addressing the religious and philosophical (not scientific) question of whether the universe has a purpose is to exhibit scientism. it effectively says “well he’s a scientist, so of course he can answer it!” The fact that biology cannot even in principle answer questions of the purpose of the universe seems not even to occur to some people.
Next people will think that zoologists can tell us whether or not God exists! Oh wait…. they’re already saying this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How facile. Instead of giving a substantive response to what I said, you merely appeal to common sense and call me names. I especially like how you appeal to his un-argued assertion here, and when it’s challenged here, you tell me to leave and do it somewhere else.
You are intellectually dishonest Ken, and everybody here totally knows it! /sarcasm
I find it amusing when people who clearly think they’re something apparently don’t know how to craft a basic argument. Clearly it matters not, because their little sheep are usually right there cheering them on: “I like what you just said!”
You’re obnoxious. If you disagree you must be sheltered and new here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That’s how you define the word, Glenn – others define it differently. Eg, my on-line dictionary says “the belief that science alone can explain phenomena, or the application of scientific methods to fields unsuitable for it.”
But the point is that it is almost always used inappropriately – to describe people who do not say that science should be used in areas which are clearly inappropriate. Usually the people using the word are actually trying to ring-fence reality to exclude science from what is a legitimate area of study – such as the formation of the universe, the origins and development of life, consciousness, origins and sources of morality, etc. And yes – usually the users are trying to claim those areas for their religion.
I see it as dishonest because its an argument by default. if people believe their religion or philosophy is adequate to investigate a phenomenon – then they should argue the case, justify it. Not set up a straw man, claiming that a scientist is making a claim she isn’t and then using the “scientisim” label.
As I say – it’s a cop out.
If you want to argue that the universe “has a purpose” then do so. But do it positively, provide your reasons, give your evidence. Don’t argue by default using straw men or denying others input.
Biology has no need to derive “a purpose for the universe”. It gets along swimmingly without postulating one. In fact those who postulate purpose in this area (eg special creationists and design merchants) have been incapable of making any progress. Evolutionary science has made incredible progress by adopting the crane, rather than skyhook approach. By ignoring “purpose.” Before doing so it was held back from any understanding.
And not just biology.
Human investigation used to be hamstrung by this imposed “purpose”. The history of science is really the struggle to look to reality, use evidence and validation against reality, instead of relying on a dictated “purpose.” As this evidential demand became more pronounced science made more progress. That is essentially the nature of the scientific revolution (and incidentally the source of the science-religion conflict of today). (This is what I taker from Hawking’s and Mlodinow’s rather poetic claim that “philosophy is dead”).
I have developed these ideas in more detail in my review of Carniero’s book The Evolution of the Human Mind: From Supernaturalism to Naturalism – An Anthropological Perspective (see The human mind – a history).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ken you are right. Science is how humans know things not religion i don’t know why u waste ur time with religious ppl. If scientism is the belief that only science gives us knowledge then all atheists are believers in scientism as we should be. Empirical proof or it’s not true.
Give them hell ken!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If scientism is the belief that only science gives us knowledge then all atheists are believers in scientism as we should be.
Thank you Donald for making our point better than any of us could!
And to repeat what I said above:
Clearly it matters not, because their little sheep are usually right there cheering them on: “I like what you just said!”
Or in this case, “i lyk wat u just sed!”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But the point is that it is almost always used inappropriately – to describe people who do not say that science should be used in areas which are clearly inappropriate. Usually the people using the word are actually trying to ring-fence reality to exclude science from what is a legitimate area of study – such as the formation of the universe, the origins and development of life, consciousness, origins and sources of morality, etc. And yes – usually the users are trying to claim those areas for their religion.
We all know you’ll never actually substantiate these claims.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OK Ron – here’s a practical test.
Richard Dawkins has often been accused of “scientism.” He is often quoted out of context or misquoted to convey that impression.
Do you think he is guilty of “scientism?”
If so have a look at the video I am posting tomorrow (see Dawkins answers questions), note down where you think he is guilty of “scientism” and pass your comments on.
We will all have the evidence in front of us so should be able to check out your claims.
Alternatively you could search back through some of the comments here to see where I have been accused of “scientism” and check out those claims with me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ken, substantiate your own claims. Stop attempting to shamelessly shift the burden in my direction, as if I’ve positively asserted anything here about scientism. I’m sure the word is used both correctly and incorrectly. I’m sure some people aren’t even sure what it means and have to check wikipedia to find out. I’m sure it’s been used in a dishonest way, and I’m sure it’s been used appropriately, but still objected to by dishonest people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ken don’t be silly. The fact that Dawkins employs scientism does not mean that he does it every time he opens his mouth. How ridiculous, to select a clip and say “note down where you think he is guilty of “scientism” and pass your comments on.” Who, precisely (and be specific) has claimed that in that clip Dawkins endorses scientism? Somebody? Nobody?
What childish false bravado.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, Ron, it was ropata who introduced “scientism”. He seems to have run off and I don’t know why you decided to have a go on the issue.
Ropata is continually accusing me of “scientism” – always inappropriately of course. His problem is that he can’t accept that my beliefs on religion are different to his and resorts to name calling to avoid the real issues being debated.
Yes, I agree most people don’t really understand the term. I think it’s really best in such situations to deal with real
Issues instead of name calling.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn, I guess this: ” The fact that Dawkins employs scientism” is one of the “properly basic beliefs” you guys have! Some people use words like “fact” and “truth” very loosely
I have usually found this claim evaporates as soon as real examples are considered.
It’s just that this particular interview dealt with examples where people have misrepresented Dawkins in the past. It’s also very interesting because he comments on Sam Harris’s ideas on morality and science.
Neve mind – it’s just that these claims can only be tested using specific evidence.
But no skin off my nose.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Properly basic belief? What a load of irrelevant twaddle you talk Ken.
Ken, I don’t believe in communist retrials. Eventually when someone is challenged for the hundredth time to back up a claim, he ill say no. I have done it before, and the tactic of trying to wear me down by asking me to back it up again is a bit weak. I am not the only one to have noticed what Dawkins has said. I’ve done it before, and I have no need to do it again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I didn’t specifically accuse anyone of scientism in this thread. Merely offered an interpretation of the word. It seemed relevant after reading your blog Ken. I am having trouble reconciling some your recent comments about the purity of science not needing purpose, and the earlier (surprising) one that “the question of purpose is a philosophical question resolved in the scientific revolution”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And you weren’t convincing before either. And no you aren’t the only one making the “scientism” charge – but I do notice the common ideological comitments that these people have.
But Dawkins is big enough to look after himself (and I guess he doesn’t concern himself with s blog like yours) and he certainly has his support – overwhelming support.
There is no skin off my nose that some people have this hang up. mam not asking you to discuss it at all. I don’t give a stuff that you don’t like Dawkins – why should I?
I am prepared, however, to debate with anyone who uses such silly accusations against me. Ropata had done so and run away when I mentioned Russell’s observation about intellectual dishonesty. I certainly don’t know why you should have stepped in for him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ropata, so you return after I had given up. I don’t understand what you are saying which suggests you are misinterpreting me. However, have a look at the book review I mentioned above for a bit more depth.
Now, you have often accused me of “scientism”. Are you changing your mind? And do you think such charges are honest?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What does liking Dawkins have to do with anything? I was merely noting a knee jerk reaction to somebody’s use of the word scientism. It’s a helpful and clear word, and in Dawkins’ case it is accurate.
Whether I “like” Dawkins or not has no bearing on things. See Ken, you are the one who tries to steer these things into a war of personalities.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
He seems to have run off and I don’t know why you decided to have a go on the issue.
I didn’t “have a go on the issue”. I merely stated the fact that the blog article you were apparently so impressed with never actually presented an argument for its conclusion. I then pointed out that you similarly did not (and would not) substantiate your own claims.
Nothing to see here folks, move along now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
and he certainly has his support – overwhelming support.
The fact that this excites you makes me chuckle.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
FWIW I think scientism is a pejorative term that denotes some kind of ideological prejudice. I think it is an appropriate description for the antics of some atheists who like to use science-y arguments as some kind of philosophical bludgeon against theism. However as Ken notes “Biology [and any other natural science] has no need to derive “a purpose for the universe”. It gets along swimmingly without postulating one.” So you agree that the hard sciences do not speak to meaning, purpose, ethics or love.
However the interpretation of a result such as the Big Bang certainly does have deep implications – but this is venturing beyond the domain of physics/chemistry/biology etc into philosophy. Amateur delving into metaphysics can be really fascinating and fruitful and I enjoy it.
But a faith based assertion that “science” is the only valid knowledge is indeed scientism. If material/empirical “reality” is the only valid premise then a conclusion of atheism is just a tautology.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ropata, you are in fine form tonight. What a load of theological bafflegab – rubbish.
I think Russell is perfectly correct. Most people who rely on the pejorative term “scientism” are intellectually dishonest. You are certainly demonstrating this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ropata: Ken is understating the facts. It’s not just that biology doesn’t need to derive a purpose for the Universe. Biology cannot do so. Nor can any oof the other sciences. That’s why it’s strange that someone like Dawkins would presume to anser this philosophical and religious question.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think Russell is perfectly correct. Most people who rely on the pejorative term “scientism” are intellectually dishonest. You are certainly demonstrating this.
Ken, in Russell’s poorly written and poorly argued blog post, he asserts very specifically that people who use the term “scientism” are often intellectually dishonest because they use the term equivocally. That is, he claims, they start with some general pejorative meaning in mind, but switch to a specific, non-pejorative technical meaning when challenged.
Ropata clearly hasn’t done this. You probably didn’t even read Russell’s silly little article and merely gleaned enough to be able to triumphantly state, “Russell says that people who say “scientism” are dishonest. HE IS RIGHT!”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Butt out, Ron. Ropata and I have a bit of a history in this conflict. He is always misrepresenting and emotionally attacking me. I quite enjoy it – and especially like to provoke him. These sort of silly attacks really don’t worry me at all. It’s a sport.
But of course he is using the word completely inapropristely and dishonestly. It’s a way of avoiding the real issues – as the derogatory labeling of people usually is.
It basically comes down to him being unhappy that someone can have different ideas to him and that he can’t effectively challenge them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Butt out, Ron.
It’s understandable that you don’t want me pointing out your blatant errors because you don’t have the tools to effective challenge anything I say. If you don’t like it, you can stop posting here. I guarantee you won’t be missed.
He is always misrepresenting and emotionally attacking me. I quite enjoy it – and especially like to provoke him. These sort of silly attacks really don’t worry me at all. It’s a sport.
Nobody cares. Nobody is impressed.
But of course he is using the word completely inappropriately and dishonestly.
But of course you are unable to actually present an argument and so resort to merely asserting that such is the case. You don’t seem to understand that making contentious claims while offering no evidence or argumentation is not persuasive. This is why I usually don’t take people whose academic or professional background is science very seriously (unless they are actually discussing science).
Lightweight. Go play with test tubes or something.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m amused that back in comment 17, Ken said that Glenn’s definition of scientism is not the only one – and then proceeded to quote another definition that is very similar to Glenn’s. Not a WHOLE lot of difference between “science is the only way to acquire knowledge” and “science alone can explain phenomena.”
You’ll notice that the definition Ken quotes also includes somewhat of the pejorative form of the word as well. Maybe all those “dishonest” people are just using the same online dictionary as Ken is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Interesting, CPE – you missed out “the application of scientific methods to fields unsuitable for it.” And this is the meaning that is commonly used and that ropata keeps using.
Covering up something?
There is also a completely unpejorative meaning – just the act of doing science. But we all understand in what sense the word is used here. Clearly pejorative. And considering the specific uses it is intellectually dishonest.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In some other discussions I have noticed that atheists tend to assume their intellectual superiority and then signally fail to understand some simple points. Probably deliberate in Ken’s case, I could make a perfectly factual comment about something on his blog and then face half a dozen self-serving and didactic denials and a few insults for good measure (usually from others). I hope that is not representative of the academic community.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ah, ropata – you have to say that, don’t you. Got to hate those atheists!
After all your god says ( Psalm 14:1:
“The fool says in his heart,
‘There is no God.’
They are corrupt, they do
Abominable deeds,
There is none who does good.”
So that settles it. You have got to hate them.
Mind you one could be more charitable and recognise that the internet brings out the worst in people (bit like like cars). How often do you find that lone individual who tries to make an honest point and the heavy mob moves in to surround her, kicking her in the guts.
But ropata – you are not one of them – you say some incredibly stupid and hostile things (I can understand Cedric as I agree sometimes the only way to treat fools is ridicule).
Perhaps I should put together a list of you gems in one place where people can see how silly you have been in your comments on my blog. Bit like Dawkins reading his hate mail – eh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ken, Ken, Ken. How on earth could you possibly think I was ignoring the second part of that definition when I point out that “the definition Ken quotes also includes somewhat of the pejorative form of the word as well”? The definition you quoted has both. Furthermore, it’s not hard to see how someone could conflate the two without any sort of dishonesty – one merely has to think that there are areas in which scientific methods do not apply, and ta-da! The assertion that science is the only way to knowledge pretty simply implies that attempts to apply it to those areas are inappropriate.
And where on earth does anyone define “scientism” as “the act of doing science?” It’s certainly not anywhere in the definition you quoted! Or any other I’ve ever heard.
Sounds on par with redefining “atheism” to mean “agnosticism” to make it less offensive. You aren’t fooling anyone.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ken, thank you for so elegantly demonstrating my point.
I admit I have made some intemperate comments on your blog, usually after a long discussion that has descended into farce despite my efforts to communicate using stuff called “evidence” and “logic”.
I hope Dawkins tries your tactics in the upcoming debate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hmm – seem to have lost my reply to CPE. Must have been the boozy afternoon yesterday.
CPE the first part of the Word on-line dictionary definition for “scientism” is:
“the use of the scientific method of acquiring knowledge, whether in the traditional sciences or in other fields of enquiry”
I must say I never hear people use this definition – perhaps because it is not pejorative whereas those using the term usually mean it negatively.
Just a small question (and putting aside the elephant in the room about how sensible it is to ask what the purpose of the universe is):
If you think there is a purpose to the universe, why do you think so? What is your evidence? How did you determine your answer?
Everyone here seems to be so busy attacking science as a way of understanding reality – they say absolutely nothing about the “other way of obtaining knowledge” that they claim to use. The old argument by default, eh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Alright, thanks for corroborating.
I suspect that one reason why people tend to use “scientism” mostly in a negative sense is that the neutral sense, well, has more common terms. Like, “doing science.”
These people who are supposedly “dishonest” in their use – when confronted on their pejorative use and asked for a definition, which definition do they use? If it’s the definition of simply “doing science,” then that’s silly of them. But if it’s the belief that “science is the only way to know, y’all” then there is no inconsistency, is there?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OK CPE. But what about my questions? What are these other ways of knowing? Which one is used to claim a purpose for the universe? How was that question answered? What evidence was considered?
Isn’t talk of “scientism” just a cover? For the fact that one can’t think io a credible other way to know? Nor can one refer to evidence to justify the claim of purpose?
And WTF is that purpose you have detected, anyway?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ken, if it’s not “sensible” to ask whetgher or not there is purpose in the Universe, then why do you think Dawkins is well equipped to answer the question?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn, I expected a little better than that. A blatant avoidance if my questions.
Your a faking it, aren’t you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
lol, thats not an avoidence, its a “good question” ™.
Your inability to answer it is “avoidence”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0