Ociotube - Buscador de vídeos

Hitchens v. D'Souza - FF08 - 1 of 10

Descargar vídeo Duración: 9:51

What I love about Christopher is his resiliance and his ability to be both sophist and rationalist simultaneously. Dinesh shares this quality though I don’t know how to extract his religious intonation and find the research- or science-based philosophy that he constantly purports to use. Both individuals have their flaws. One need not go further than their debate over C-SPAN on October 22 in New York to see how Hitchens will curl up into his mental past and resort to “I think”-s and “we can only suppose”-s. Dinesh nevertheless demonstrates the same degree of ridiculous logic in his assessment of the “god of the gaps.” His examination of the anthropic principle is mind bogglingly dull and over rated. He equivocates in an area where he has absolutely no jurisdiction and yet he accuses R. Dawkins of doing the very same. I’m not expecting perfection out of either of these people, and my analysis of either individual says nothing about the arguments at hand. I have always agreed that both are excellent debaters and I think the frequency with which both seem to meet attests to this fact. What I am wondering is whom can we trust the most? Though I applaud Desouza for his honesty, I think he misses the deeper point of science as a nonscientist: 1- The mind is able to partition beliefs so well as to have someone like Francis Collins admit the existence of God evidenced by observation of a frozen waterfall in the Appalachians while using more proven and beneficial tools of proof in rational thought for the human genome project. He is an example of countless scientists (both physical, theoretical etc) who will use methods of observation in the office that they would find strange to use at home or in a religious context. 2- Many important scientists have been Christian including Newton, Kepler et al. This does not mean that Christianity has had a good relationship with evidence based thinking (take Galileo), and just because many of the world’s greatest minds were Christian, doesn’t give slightest amount of credence to the truth of the belief. Most people in history have plucked chickens while also practicing religion, that doesn’t mean one must believe to pluck. There are many reasons for being a Christian, and one can be dishonest about the truth claims Christians make. Those who were honest about it, like Ben Franklin, feared at most for their lives and at least social standing to admit their disbelief. Notice in this, nevertheless, that the idea that science and Christianity can coexist has been slowly eroded over many years of research. Christianity cannot anymore escape mounds of evidence that cast doubt on scientific propositions made by Christians such as virgin birth, flight without the aid of technology, or even making water into wine with only the touch of a finger. The mounting evidence about nature and physics has made atheism finally possible. One can now have good scientific reason to doubt the existence of God, added to any immoralities or inconsistencies God will show in verse. That said, enjoy the show... leave comments at will and expect a rebuttal on my part as is customary. -Alecs