In eSkeptic, Gary Whittenberger analyses the God vs Science debate that appeared in Times last November, and concludes,
From the perspective of style or mode of expression, perhaps Collins won. At times, Dawkins seemed to come across as a bit testy and abrasive. He not only referred to fundamentalists as “clowns,” but several times he accused Collins of presenting “cop outs.” Collins, on the other hand, seemed more self-assured and gentlemanly in his interpersonal style. From the perspective of content or validity of argument, Dawkins won the debate hands-down. He made many points that Collins seemed helpless to rebut. Collins failed to show that he has found a satisfactory conciliation between religion and science, between faith and reason, or even that such a project is possible. Overall, the debate provided useful insights into the currently hot, but perennial issue of science versus religion.
While we are on the topic, you might also want to take a look at the first chapter of God, the failed hypothesis (pdf).
Both the links are via PTDR.
August 19, 2011 at 1:03 am |
A biased review. You are correct about Dawkins resorting to insults but your comment that Dawkins won hands down was an over-statement to say the least. There are areas that Dawkins simply will not respond in a professional manner, and there are areas that Collins did not respond to because it was not relevant to the points he was trying to make. Overall, it was a very good debate to listen to from both sides, but I don’t think either side was decisive enough to convert adherents of either line of thought.