Dawkins admits case for deistic god

[zenthinker]

Richard Dawkins has admitted that a good case for a deistic god can be made. Is Dawkins on the run due to the increasingly high quality of counter arguments to his absolutist materialistic views. The article can be read here :

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2543431/is-richard-dawkins-still-evolving.thtml

[Mulder]

No doubt Dawkins has his own position that he can defend himself. I somehow doubt that he now thinks that religions have a more accurate idea of the origins of man or the universe than science. Attacking a person's ideas don't change a thing in the real world.

[NorthernSoul]

Possibly a quote mine, can't say for sure without a recording of the debate.

[Tim the Mage]

Tell him to go off and read David Hume again and everything will be OK (or rather be perceived as OK).

[Mongrel]

1) Melanie Phillips - an very biased source regarding Dawkins

2) A good case can be made for Russell's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot), doesn't mean it's anything more than a thought exercise

[Matt]

She quote Anthony Flew.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Or rather his christian appologist ghost writers. I get riled.

[Sarama]

What an absolute load of rubbish.
And what a complete crap attempt at journalism, her own obvious bias seething through. Her use of the word Evolution in her headline alone suggests that she lacks basic understanding of the word Evolution (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=evolution) itself, not to mention the meaning of Debate (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/debate). Her appalling misinterpretation and failure to disclose any sound bites from the actual discussion itself in order to substantiate what is clearly her perception and get away with publishing such an article is proof enough for me that there is no god, at least not in the editorial room.

[Pebble]

She quote Anthony Flew.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Or rather his christian appologist ghost writers. I get riled.

If I read this article correctly, the gent now has alzheimer's and is being abused by 'christians' to create the appearance of conversion.

[Matt]

If I read this article correctly, the gent now has alzheimer's and is being abused by 'christians' to create the appearance of conversion.

That's certianly one take on the matter. Another one is that a decline in his mental accuity has allowed him to be fully convinced. Of course he could be in full command of his faculties and be nonetheless fully convinced.

Whichever it is his early work stands in it's own right as far more convincing (to me) than the more recently co-authored apollogia.

[Mulder]

There is no 'scientific case' for deities. Science isn't about making cases for anything. It is about examining evidence and forming testable theories from them. Since the existence of a deity is not testable it has never been proposed as part of science.

Religious folk, like believers in lots of other stuff for which there is little or no evidence, are always bothering scientists because they have an uneasy feeling they might just be wrong. It is not the job of science to make these people happy. Let them sort out their own beliefs.

[Mojo]

Richard Dawkins has admitted that a good case for a deistic god can be made.


Actually, according to the article he said "a serious case could be made for a deistic God". Without the context it's impossible to tell exactly what he meant by this, but one reading of it is that the use of the word "could" implies that while he thinks such a case could be made, he has not yet seen such a case. It certainly doesn't imply that he thinks a convincing case for a deistic god has been, or indeed can be, made.

See also his reaction to Mel's interpretation of what he had said, later in the same article:
Afterwards, I asked Dawkins whether he had indeed changed his position and become more open to ideas which lay outside the scientific paradigm. He vehemently denied this and expressed horror that he might have given this impression.

[Dubious Dick]

Actually, according to the article he said "a serious case could be made for a deistic God". Without the context it's impossible to tell exactly what he meant by this, but one reading of it is that the use of the word "could" implies that while he thinks such a case could be made, he has not yet seen such a case. It certainly doesn't imply that he thinks a convincing case for a deistic god has been, or indeed can be, made.

See also his reaction to Mel's interpretation of what he had said, later in the same article:

Exactly Mojo!! Maybe Dawks goes for a rebuttal, although one could say that taking Phillips seriously enough to rebut may give her more credibility than she deserves. One problem with her is that because she seems superficially eloquent and serious she gets far too much attention.

[Trinoc]

When a journalist says "a serious case could be made", it is a weasel way to try to make the reader believe a proposition without actually stating it as such. When a scientist says "a serious case could be made", it means exactly what it says ... an argument for the statement could be made without self-contradiction or blatant disregard for facts (of which there are none in this case). Perhaps if journalists spoke the same language as real people then we would not have these problems. Or perhaps they would just find other ways to try to mislead us.

[Tim the Mage]

When a journalist says "a serious case could be made", it is a weasel way to try to make the reader believe a proposition without actually stating it as such. When a scientist says "a serious case could be made", it means exactly what it says ... an argument for the statement could be made without self-contradiction or blatant disregard for facts (of which there are none in this case). Perhaps if journalists spoke the same language as real people then we would not have these problems. Or perhaps they would just find other ways to try to mislead us.

...and science journalists? This post is an example of the former - journalistic weaselness - rather than the latter - the perfecting of the scientist - even though I tend to agree with it (on the basis of no facts at all, hey ho). Oh and it's scientists who have the language problem not journalists - who're usually pretty good wi'words. P'raps that's why they get away with talking rubbish? Only a scientist can make a perfectly sound argumant sound like a mountain of pointless piffle.

Now I know y'all want to believe scientists are the highest point of human evolution - fine men and women unblemished by prejudice, clear and unbiased in their presentations, joyous in their exploration of the world, respectful of other's choice of search, free from the use of jargon and motivated by the greater good of humanity and the planet on which it dwells. BUT THIS IS BOLLOCKS (and in your quieter moments you all know that too).

[Trinoc]

Now I know y'all want to believe scientists are the highest point of human evolution - fine men and women unblemished by prejudice, clear and unbiased in their presentations, joyous in their exploration of the world, respectful of other's choice of search, free from the use of jargon and motivated by the greater good of humanity and the planet on which it dwells. BUT THIS IS BOLLOCKS (and in your quieter moments you all know that too).
So, which sense do you think Dawkins intended when (if) he said it?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Actually, according to the article he said "a serious case could be made for a deistic God".

I think he may have meant that they weren't being funny on purpose. Just a guess.