Anti-Dawkinite to give talk in Fife village pub

[Cath B]

David Robertson, Scottish Free Kirk Minister and author of The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths (Mass Market Paperback) (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dawkins-Letters-Challenging-Atheist-Myths/dp/product-description/1845502612) is due to settle himself down at a pub half a minute from my door with a wee dram or whatever he drinks on April 21st and attempt to refute the points made in The God Delusion.

And a Christian friend of mine (who's a friend of a friend of the said David Robertson) is very keen that I should come along and engage in debate.

Though an atheist myself I'm not fully convinced that belief in God or Gods is necessarily a Bad Thing at all times and in all situations. I do at least entertain the possibility that religious belief, rather than simply being a harmful meme virus, may have given or give an evolutionary edge to some folk some of the time. This (in addition to some degree of sloppy-mindedness) means that I may not be the best person to counter Robertson's arguments. I do however hope to reread The God Delusion and read some of Robertson's reply before the meeting.

So any less wishy-washy Scot who fancy a pub debate in a Fife seaside town is welcome to join me: just post here or p.m. me.

And I'd welcome comments from anyone who's read any of Robertson's arguments.

[perfessor]

Though an atheist myself I'm not fully convinced that belief in God or Gods is necessarily a Bad Thing at all times and in all situations. I do at least entertain the possibility that religious belief, rather than simply being a harmful meme virus, may have given or give an evolutionary edge to some folk some of the time.
I haven't read The God Delusion, but having seen some of Dawkins' exchanges with theists, I believe he tends to concede that religion may have benefits, but that doesn't make it true.

So, don't get suckered into defending a "religion is evil" POV.

[trendkill]

Interesting, I just randomly ran across this particular anti-Dawkins book on Amazon today. From the reviews it sounds like it's somewhat long on assertion and preaching and short on arguments.

[lpetrich]

If I was in such a position, I'd discuss Plato's Royal Lie theory of religion. Plato invented a religion for his Republic's citizens to believe in, a religion which he considered false yet useful for making them good citizens. Plato also proposed that his Republic's rulers practice eugenics on its citizens while maintaining a pretense of marrying them by lot.

And Plato has been far from alone -- Polybius, Strabo, Machiavelli, etc. have had this view of religion, and most recently, Leo Strauss and the Straussians.

That's something like Daniel Dennett's "believing in belief", but expressed in very unflattering terms.

[Lucretius III]

You may want to look at his church's forum to see what sort of questions he has been already asked (and more importantly how he responds)

http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?board=2.0

[Cath B]

Many thanks to those who've replied. That link will be handy Lucretius III

Ipetrich, thanks for pointing me in the direction of some of the proponents of "religion as a means of keeping the populace in order" concept. This is an idea any Free Kirk Minister who knows his sect's history will be aware and wary of. The Free Kirk formed initially in rebellion of an attempt of the Government to impose ministers of its choosing on the congregations. Congregations get to chose their own ministers and the umbrella of the church is coordinated by Moderators who stay in office only briefly - I think just a year. I As I understand it these are intended as safeguards to try to prevent any group or individual creating a power base. The Kirk has a fundamentalist outlook, concentrating on biblical teaching.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Cath, if you've only read the hardback edition of TGD, you need to read the preface to the paperback, where RD responds to the main counterclaims. and even if you have read it, you might like to revisit it with Dawkins reading it 'live', especially since the Q&A afterwards is excellent too:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1305,The-new-preface-to-The-God-Delusion-paperback-and-QampA,Richard-Dawkins

[Cath B]

Many thanks Oolon: I'm listening now, just before I go to the talk.

[Cath B]

I duly went to David Robertson's talk on Monday. There were about forty or fifty folk - a good audience for the room size. David was affable but very verbose.

He claimed that belief should be based on evidence, not blind faith, yet insisted that there was evidence for the resurrection without proper citation.

He claimed to disapprove of the "God of the Gaps" approach, but this did not stop him doing so with regard to the origin of the Universe.

He claimed that the question "If God created the Universe, how was God created?" was old-fashioned and childish but did not explain why.

He claimed that children from most Christian families (including the children of ministers) were free to question and reject their parents' faith - probably true with regard to the Christians in his audience and in much of the U.K., but less true in areas where the local community is predominantly Christian.

There was little chance to ask questions because his replies to those that were asked were very long-winded and rambling - very much a contrast to Dawkin's pithy and pertinent replies to questions in the link from Oolon's post above, but I did manage to point out some problems with his "God of the Gaps" approach.

[Ray Moscow]

^^ In other words, Robertson is another blowhard preacher with nothing interesting to say?

[Oolon Colluphid]

There is a tendency for people to equate their verbiage with saying something, and for many others to believe it. We see it all over, from The Other Michael to this guy (in the 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing' category), and the suck-up choir like Alcyonian and the average credulous theist (the accepters of grammatically-constructed streams of drivel).

[Cath B]

I found him fine to talk to on a one-to-one, as I did for a while afterwards, but frustrating to listen to him as a speaker. His lengthy replies to my question left me feeling guilty for monopolising the question time and thus reluctant to say more.

But I'm sufficiently susceptible to flattery to have been fair chuffed when my daughter reported an overheard conversation afterwards in which someone said that my views sounded interesting and he'd have liked to have heard more from me.

[Ray Moscow]

I found him fine to talk to on a one-to-one, as I did for a while afterwards, but frustrating to listen to him as a speaker. His lengthy replies to my question left me feeling guilty for monopolising the question time and thus reluctant to say more.

But I'm sufficiently susceptible to flattery to have been fair chuffed when my daughter reported an overheard conversation afterwards in which someone said that my views sounded interesting and he'd have liked to have heard more from me.

I'll bet you would have flattened him in any actual debate.

[SteveF]

I found him fine to talk to on a one-to-one, as I did for a while afterwards, but frustrating to listen to him as a speaker. His lengthy replies to my question left me feeling guilty for monopolising the question time and thus reluctant to say more.

But I'm sufficiently susceptible to flattery to have been fair chuffed when my daughter reported an overheard conversation afterwards in which someone said that my views sounded interesting and he'd have liked to have heard more from me.

What did you ask him?

[Cath B]

I queried his scathing dismissal of all multiverse hypotheses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse) out of hand, though, as I freely admitted, my grasp of the subject is extremely limited.