Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Richard Dawkins vs Quentin Smith

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 11:22:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I disagree with a lot of what Quentin says but he has a unique mind, thinks outside the box, and is refreshing to listen to. When I hear someone like Dawkins speak he just does not seem intellectually enlightening when dealing with issues pertaining to God. He seems to just bash religion and appeal to ridicule a lot. His books on evolutionary biology are extremely well done, but his philosophy regarding Atheism is lacking. One paper from Quentin Smith makes Richard Dawkin's work look like Child's play in my opinion.

Basically, Quentin and Richard are two completely different types of Atheists. My question to both Atheists and Theists is who do you respect/ like better?
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 11:59:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I respect Quentin Smith a whole lot more. Richard Dawkins is not even in his league.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Vulpes_Inculta
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 12:07:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Quentin Smith is a million times the intellectual that Dawkins is. Quentin is a very respectable person who has interesting and unique things to say. Dawkins doesn't understand any of the relevant philosophy and shouldn't be considered a serious thinker.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 12:42:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I wouldn't go so far as to say that Dawkins isn't a good thinker. It's just that the philosophy of religion is not his field. If the subject were biology, then I would probably have a lot more respect for Dawkins. But as far as I know, Quentin Smith has never attempted to write books on biology.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 1:06:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Pretty sure everyone'll agree with you there, Rational_Thinker. Quentin's a trained philosopher.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 1:27:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Dawkins point about it has traditionally been the "Emperor's New Clothes" argument, which I think has some fairly decent validity. To use that analogy: It's not the needs to understand Hypothetical Haberdashery, necessarily, it's that he needs to have more rigor and discipline in his philosophy. If that makes sense.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 2:12:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 1:06:26 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Pretty sure everyone'll agree with you there, Rational_Thinker. Quentin's a trained philosopher.

This does not mean everyone will agree with me. Jerry Seinfeld was not really a trained on-screen comedic actor (he was a trained stand up comedian who just ended up acting on-screen), but I still liked him better than many well trained on-screen comedic personalities.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 2:20:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 2:12:00 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/27/2013 1:06:26 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Pretty sure everyone'll agree with you there, Rational_Thinker. Quentin's a trained philosopher.

This does not mean everyone will agree with me. Jerry Seinfeld was not really a trained on-screen comedic actor (he was a trained stand up comedian who just ended up acting on-screen), but I still liked him better than many well trained on-screen comedic personalities.

That's a good point, really. The thing is -- people can be naturally funny. People can be naturally smart, or naturally philosophical, too, but to understand the great advances philosophy of religion has made in thousands of years takes a good amount of studying, whether it's by oneself or in a formal classroom. But I agree that "everyone" was a bit of an exaggeration. We've talked about popular atheism v. philosophical atheism in the past, and it's generally agreed upon that at the very least, philosophers who can actually attack arguments where they're vulnerable are more worthwhile to listen to than popularizers who spew mediocre nonsense everywhere they go.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 1:19:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 2:20:53 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 5/27/2013 2:12:00 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/27/2013 1:06:26 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Pretty sure everyone'll agree with you there, Rational_Thinker. Quentin's a trained philosopher.

This does not mean everyone will agree with me. Jerry Seinfeld was not really a trained on-screen comedic actor (he was a trained stand up comedian who just ended up acting on-screen), but I still liked him better than many well trained on-screen comedic personalities.

That's a good point, really. The thing is -- people can be naturally funny. People can be naturally smart, or naturally philosophical, too, but to understand the great advances philosophy of religion has made in thousands of years takes a good amount of studying, whether it's by oneself or in a formal classroom. But I agree that "everyone" was a bit of an exaggeration. We've talked about popular atheism v. philosophical atheism in the past, and it's generally agreed upon that at the very least, philosophers who can actually attack arguments where they're vulnerable are more worthwhile to listen to than popularizers who spew mediocre nonsense everywhere they go.

I guess it all depends. If you are used to debating YEC's then Dawkins may be favorable due to his knowledge on evolution. If you are used to debating the more sophisticated OEC's then someone like Smith would be favorable.