Comments on: Douglas Wilson vs Christopher Hitchens

By: Yet There Is Method In It » Blog Archive » Douglas Wilson vs Christopher Hitchens 2

Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:22:22 +0000

[...] got though the discussion of Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens you had mentioned. I found it refreshing to actually read an open attack on Atheism from Douglas Wilson. Most of the [...]

By: Anti Citizen One

Anti Citizen One — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:07:21 +0000

Yes it is an interesting debate. Thanks for bringing it up. I am just quibbling over the quote you picked (as usual!).

It will take me a while to digest the debate they had. I am slightly wondering if DW expends on his David Hume related point.

“The apparent gap between “is” statements and “ought” statements, when combined with Hume’s fork—the idea that all items of knowledge are either based on logic and definitions or on observation—renders “ought” statements of dubious validity.” (Wikipedia)

Doesn’t this actually destroy both CH and DWs moral systems? Isn’t DW hoisted on his own patard? I will read into this some more.

AC1

By: El Sordo

El Sordo — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:15:56 +0000

Absolutely, but their (full) debate is interesting. Which was my sole reason for posting.
And some arguments against CH stick, certainly the ‘ought’ ‘is’ one. Which lends some weight to the criticism of amateur polemics. i.e. Dawkins.
As an example, I can discuss with you basic elements of the sciences, and can relate to a certain amount that you may state. However as I am not a trained scientist I can only talk with any authority on science to a certain limit, beyond which I am talking without authority, and relying faithfully on the textual work of others or the benevolent guiding hand of someone who knows such as you.

Comments against Dawkins (sorry to use him as my scapegoat here) from Prof Alister MacGrath
“Dawkins works on the assumption that his readers know very little about Christianity. He asserts that if you believe in evolution then you cannot believe in God, because evolution is by definition atheistic. But that is a very inaccurate interpretation. Dawkins also interprets a Christian’s ‘faith’ as ‘blind trust’. To him ‘faith’ means running away from evidence. But that’s not a Christian definition of faith… People like simple answers to hard questions. That’s why Dawkins is so popular.”

Then from Terry Eagleton a Marxist literary scholar
“Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds,” Eagleton wrote, “and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.” That was only the first sentence.

More in this interesting article:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/06/news/atheist.php

I believe Dawkins has tried to defend himself by almost using the language game theory, ‘well no I’m not a theologian i’m a biologist therefore I only write using the terms of a biologist’…
which begs the question, why not stick to biology then?

By: Anti Citizen One

Anti Citizen One — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:27:47 +0000

mmm. This is a rhetorical passage criticizing CH as being rhetorical. There is little solid content for me to comment on frankly.

In several places, he is verging on ad hominem. e.g. “You write like a witty but acerbic tenth-century archbishop with a bad case of the gout”, “You are like the minister”… etc.

AC1