According to Phillips, the first debate between the two caught Dawkins off guard because Lennox used science to combat Dawkins' use of biology in the debate, a tack Dawkins appeared not to have expected, one on his own ground.
Apparently the second debate took a different tack, with Dawkins early on making the following statement:
"A serious case could be made for a deistic God."This blockbuster statement is now being hotly debated - and any significance denied - on Atheist websites.
Another amazing revelation in the interview:
"Even more jaw-droppingly, Dawkins told me that, rather than believing in God, he was more receptive to the theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing intelligence – but one which had resided on another planet."Dawkins is admitting that rational thought leads away from abiogenesis. And he concludes that pre-existing life from outer space is more probable than an intelligent first cause of the universe. The panspermia/alien theory is a fable, of course, created to draw attention away from the absurdity of abiogenesis. It not only cannot be proved, if it were true it would not solve the Atheists' problem: where did THAT life come from? An infinite regress solves nothing, especially within a finite timeframe.
It is common for those encumbered of an agenda to rationalize, rather than succumb to rationality. Dawkins is a past master at this art of self-deception. But maybe he is now forced to acknowledge a rational crack in the limits of his reality. Or maybe he just messed up.
The first debate is on video here; presumably the second debate will also be released on-line. I'm hoping for a transcript of both since my dial-up won't download that much video in this lifetime.
No comments:
Post a Comment