Richard Dawkins / Bill O’reilly Interview

All in all, in a technical and stylistic sense, considering it was a three-minute-debate (I like longer, by preference) I thought it went *very* well. Things stayed calm and polite; it was nice seeing two people that *weren’t* constantly interrupting eachother in the middle of points, like most debates or interviews I seem to see these days. They moved through topics well and didn’t get ‘caught’ on any particular disagreement, which is always good to see. The whole “Hitler, Stalin, Mao” bit particuarly impressed me; Dawkins gets points for not interrupting and letting O’Reilly finish (with both a Godwin, *and* a 45-second speech a three-minute interview, I’m impressed he didn’t), and O’Reilly gets points for mentioning the Crusades and Al’Queda in particular in the next breath and thus getting the debate beyond “Let’s compare lists of murderers, and see who wins.”

In terms of the points made… hm. I know I came in biased (agnostic bordering on athiest, here), but I’ve still got to give it to Dawkins. The telling points for me were when O’Reilly began talking about how it’s “True for him.” That one was a bit of a head-scratcher for me. “Religion makes me a better person” isn’t actually an argument that proves “There is a God” true or false. They’re two separate topics.

And in general, I find the “founding fathers” argument silly on multiple levels. Because 1) yes, a good portion of them were deists and secularists. 2) Even if they were highly, fundamentally religious, that would just be a basic logical fallacy, appeal to authority; it’s not like they had access to more information than we do, in fact they had less when it comes to what science is capable of. And 3) Because Dawkins is *British*. O’Reilly is appealling towards a national pride that, by definition, Dawkins *can’t* have.

Oh, and in terms of the response above… er… I don’t think it’s a very good response, honestly. It’s true that Dawkins answered most or all of these objections in his book. But that’s ’cause… well… it’s a *book*. It had hundreds of pages to answer almost every possible objection to Atheism. I’m sure apologetic christian books answer most of *Dawkins’* points too. That’s how books work. They cover everything. It’s up to the reader to determine how well they do so, and make their own opinion based on that.

His ‘first’ point, it’s true that stereotyping athiests as immoral is silly. But not because “I’m an atheist, and not immoral” ((anecdotal evidence at *best*)) One just has to look at the statistics. Atheists don’t have a higher crime rate. Pretty much end of story. And as for world leaders, it *is* perfectly fair to mention these people like Stalin and Mao (though I’d avoid Hitler. He’s… debatable). *Are* there prominent atheist world figures that have done horrible things? Sure. But… funnily enough, they largely come from atheist *countries*, like USSR. Religious countries sometimes get horrible, evil religious leaders. Atheist countries sometimes get horrible, evil atheist leaders. And generally, I don’t think that the non-religious have particuarly been more heinous than the religious, both in the past, and currently. So it’s important to understand the context. Atheism does *not* breed immorality (and, even if it *did*, that wouldn’t mean it was false, or that it was true. It’d just be a statement on human psychology)

For the ’second’ point. Er, *as* an Atheist, I deny I was born an atheist. Generally, small children have no problem accepting or *generating* supernatural explanations for something; they naturally anthropomorphise. I mean, children aren’t born Christian either, obviously. But they’re *certainly* not born Atheist. Even if they *were*, that would be a meaningless statement. The fact that a five year old believes something in no way makes for a good argument. Atheism, if one does come to it, *should* arrive from careful study and consideration of all the alternatives, not because ‘it feels right and natural’. That’s a poor argument in the best of circumstances.

And as for his last argument… well, it’s true. Simply believing something because it makes the world better to believe it, doesn’t make that thing *true*. and it’s true O’Reilly drifted a bit into that territory once in the interview. But I’ve seen the argument phrased better.

Jeez, Nathan. It’s like tossing a raw steak to a pack of hungry dogs…

I’m not an atheist, but clearly O’Reilly is no apologist either. I don’t think he really even understands the issues.

I’ve known a handful of atheists in my life and all of them have been intelligent and very “moral” people. The issue is not about morality or intelligence. The issue is over the Truth.

I don’t believe in a relativistic view of truth (ie. what’s true for me may not be true for you). What is that? How does that philosophy make any sense? If it’s true, then it’s always true. For everyone. If that’s not the case then please, for heaven’s sake, don’t call it truth! Yes, of course, let’s all be nice to each other about it. But, being nice (tolerant) and compromising the truth are two different things.

I believe in God because: 1) He has proven Himself to me with evidence in my own life that I cannot deny, 2) what I read of Him in the Bible has proven itself to be true over and over again, 3) He has proven Himself in the lives of those around me, 4) the historical evidences throughout the history of the church, and 5) His “fingerprints” in nature.

Atheism relies on human intellect and understanding as its foundation. “If I can’t explain it, it can’t be true.” I find that to be an incredibly arrogant perspective. History has born out that human intellect and understanding is always too narrow and vulnerable to all sorts of whims and fancies. Even science. To trust our eternal fate to such flimsy and unreliable means is risky at best.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating vapid blind faith here. We should be asking questions, exploring science, understanding more. But to make THAT the foundation of our belief system cannot be the answer.

In the words of Agent Molder: “The TRUTH is out there.”

Atheism relies on human intellect and understanding as its foundation. “If I can’t explain it, it can’t be true.”

I would say the opposite is true, as in fact evidenced by O’Reilly. Probably half of Christian apologetics relies on placing God into the gaps in our scientific knowledge. Religion is an abject inability to accept that we simply don’t know the answers to certain questions about the nature of the universe. Atheism says nothing like “If I can’t explain it, it can’t be true.” It isn’t about whether we can explain God or not; if we had some evidence (by which I mean evidence that anyone could check) that God was real, it wouldn’t matter if we could explain his existence or not. Atheism (for me, at least) is nothing more than a provisional conclusion. When I say “there is no God”, I mean simply that I have concluded based on available evidence (which is zero either way) that there is no God. As Dawkins pointed out, the onus is always on the ones making a positive assertion to support their claim. If you can’t support it, I’m going to come to the provisional conclusion that you aren’t correct. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is simply a decision not to draw such a provisional conclusion. Both atheism and agnosticism are, in my opinion, equally logical, but agnosticism has the drawback of being generally impractical. We can’t be agnostic about every claim ever made; we all come to provisional conclusions about the nonexistence of fairies, Russell’s teapot, Sagan’s Dragon, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, invisible pink unicorns, etc.

To trust our eternal fate to such flimsy and unreliable means is risky at best.

That sounds suspiciously like Pascal’s Wager to me. What other means should we trust to? If you trust your eternal fate to Christianity, the odds are against you (assuming one of our religions is in fact true). If you trust any one religion, the odds are against you, because any of the thousands of other religions might as easily be true, and most of their gods don’t take kindly to infidels.

Now no one is arguing we should be beings of pure science. Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. But that doesn’t lend any justification for taking on faith alone unsupported assertions about the way the universe works.

In the words of Agent Molder: “The TRUTH is out there.”

Right, but you’re not looking for it because you’re convinced you’ve already got it.

On the interview:

I don’t think this was Dawkins at his best, but it was far too short and O’Reilly, while polite, has a habit of talking over his guests, especially when he disagrees with them. You could tell that Dawkins realized he wasn’t going to be able to really say anything and was just amused by the vapidity of O’Reilly’s thinking. Dawkins didn’t get to destroy O’Reilly’s points because he didn’t really make any. O’Reilly seemed not to be informed about much of the last 50 years of intellectual advancement in apologetic arguments, and it was fairly obvious he hadn’t actually read any of Dawkins’ book.

For anyone interested in the arguments of the ‘New Atheists’, I’d also recommend reading Sam Harris’ The End of Faith

George,

When I say “there is no God”, I mean simply that I have concluded based on available evidence (which is zero either way) that there is no God.

This is part of my point. The only evidence atheism is willing to accept is evidence verifiable by a scientific method. What of faith, spirituality, and everything else that is currently outside the reach of measurable science? I see your problem. God cannot be measured and quantified. Therefore, you choose to believe he does not exist (you would probably say “I choose not to believe that He does exist”). What I have a problem with is the insistence that what cannot be measured or quantified is not evidence.

Religion is an abject inability to accept that we simply don’t know the answers to certain questions about the nature of the universe.

I have to call foul here. That would be true, IF there really is no God. Your atheistic assumption is what makes that statement hold water. If God exists, and He is who He says He is, then my “religion” is not an “abject inability to accept” what I don’t understand, but rather it is a real answer to questions we are all asking!

There’s an awful lot I don’t understand. I’m the first to admit that. In fact, I’d venture to say that because I believe in God there is MORE I don’t understand. Being a Christian doesn’t simplify things! On the contrary. Anyone intent on following Jesus will tell you that.

Now no one is arguing we should be beings of pure science. Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. But that doesn’t lend any justification for taking on faith alone unsupported assertions about the way the universe works.

Aren’t you making just as many assumptions? Your assumptions are just different from mine. Your assumption is that your “provisional conclusion” is correct. Mine is that my “positive assertion” is correct. Both are still assumptions from which we are basing an argument.

Right, but you’re not looking for it because you’re convinced you’ve already got it.

You’re correct that I’m convinced I already have it. It wouldn’t be worth having, if I didn’t believe it to be true. But don’t assume that my belief causes me to lay back and turn my mind off. I enjoy science because it often verifies my faith (though it does not serve as it’s foundation). Where there are contradictions, I have no answer other than to wait and see. Just like you certainly have unanswered questions.

Thanks for the lively debate. I hope my comments are not coming off too strong… My wife says I can be a little too opinionated.

Aren’t you making just as many assumptions? Your assumptions are just different from mine. Your assumption is that your “provisional conclusion” is correct.

I don’t see how. A provisional conclusion is not the same as an assumption. Do you assume that fairies don’t exist?

This is part of my point. The only evidence atheism is willing to accept is evidence verifiable by a scientific method. What of faith, spirituality, and everything else that is currently outside the reach of measurable science?

The problem is that once you invoke faith, you end all possibility of discourse. It is, as Sam Harris points out, a conversation stopper. I have to take your faith, as it were, on faith. I can’t question it without accusing you of lying. I have no way to determine the veracity of your claim; I must simply accept it. And of course, people can make all manner of unreasonable assertions and hide behind ‘faith’. This is at best an unreliable path to knowledge.

I can’t prove whether fairies exist or don’t exist. The implication is that God and fairies carry the same weight of evidenciary support. I don’t think that’s a particularly valid comparison, do you? People haven’t believed in fairies for centuries. Nor was there a fairy Messiah, or miracles performed in the name of a fairy. There’s no historical record of a fairy church.

I just don’t buy the provisional conclusion argument here. I’ve heard this for years, and it still makes me scratch my head. It only works if you ignore the experiences of every Christian who has ever lived. You must ignore every recorded miracle, every conversion, every personal witness of God’s reality, every life changed in order to stand on that argument.

It’s a very convenient argument. It allows you to sit back and argue every point by saying “prove it” and then mention fairies and purple dragons. My contention is that there IS evidence of God’s existence, but it is found in people’s lives and personal accounts more than it is found in a science lab.

Why a conversation stopper? Because the conversation leads us both to a point of belief or unbelief? A point of risk?

Maybe the Lord will soften both Bill’s heart as well as Richard’s?

Let us hope for both of their sakes…

I just don’t buy the provisional conclusion argument here. I’ve heard this for years, and it still makes me scratch my head. It only works if you ignore the experiences of every Christian who has ever lived. You must ignore every recorded miracle, every conversion, every personal witness of God’s reality, every life changed in order to stand on that argument.

I could as easily make the same argument for belief in any other religion, or indeed in UFOs or ghosts. Why is eyewitness testimony valid evidence for Christianity but not for any of these things? When I am confronted with hundreds of mutually contradictory claims, each claiming to be the Truth yet possessing roughly equally little substantiation, why should I take any of them seriously? No, I’m not going to accept your personal experiences as evidence, because then I’d have to admit all the Hindus’ experiences, and all the Muslims’ experiences, and so on.

As for miracles, I’d like to see just one instance of God miraculously restoring an amputated limb. That would be quite powerful evidence for his existence, don’t you think?

As for miracles, I’d like to see just one instance of God miraculously restoring an amputated limb. That would be quite powerful evidence for his existence, don’t you think?

FAITH: “belief that is not based on proof”

I guess many are called, but few are chosen huh?

Tis the one bad thing about me being a “Calvinist”, you just gotta accept the fact that some will not make it. And that is quite saddening. But the Lord’s Omniscience knows better than I…

FAITH: “belief that is not based on proof”

Then why are so many theists trying to prove it?

Then why are so many theists trying to prove it?

Because they don’t have Faith?

Miracles? I’ve personally witnessed the following: 2 people with one leg severely shorter than the other received prayer and I watched as one leg lengthened to match the other. I saw one family friend receive prayer for cancer that was killing her. She went the the Dr. the next day and ALL of it was gone. No trace. And it never returned. My own mother had a documented heart valve defect. We prayed for her, she went back to the Dr. and it was gone. Normal heart. The doctors are still baffled.

One of my best friends saw at least 3 blind people healed, and one crippled woman get up and walk as though nothing was ever wrong when he was in Romania.

These are just a handful of first or second hand accounts. There are many more documented events like these if you do a little reading on the subject.

Read about the life of George Mueller who saw cancers removed, limbs grow back, even the dead raised. That was no fairy dust! Again, it’s all in how you define “evidence”.

As for UFOs… Nearly every case of UFO sightings have been explained as either hoaxes or mistaken identity.

Poster 13’s definition of Faith may be a little incomplete, in my view. It implies that faith is blind and unfounded. Not so. It’s just that it’s one thing to believe in a religious system, but another to believe in a person. Christianity is about living in a relationship with God. This is where Faith comes in (and perhaps the “conversation stopper” George mentioned). I can’t prove to you that what I have experienced is true. You can’t see the wind, only its effects. The sound, the trees moving, windmill turning, etc. All I can do is say, “I know the wind personally.”

There is a point where the quantifiable evidence ends, and belief begins. That will never change in this life. Atheists stop here and say, “Prove to me He exists, and then I’ll meet Him.” I’m saying, “Just meet Him.”

Read about the life of George Mueller who saw cancers removed, limbs grow back, even the dead raised. That was no fairy dust! Again, it’s all in how you define “evidence”.

Show me a credible source for this. A google search turns up plenty about Muller witnessing supposedly miraculous healings, but no regeneration of limbs or raising of the dead. I don’t mean no credible sources. I mean no sources at all. You had better back up this claim. Regrowing limbs, if substantiated, would certainly count as evidence for miracles. Curing cancer doesn’t, because cancer can go into remission or even be cured simply by medicine, or even go away on its own, and it seems to happen at about equal rates whether you pray or not, whichever religion you pray for.

In his documentary The Root of All Evil?, Richard Dawkins visits Lourdes, where millions have come in search of miraculous healing, and according to the clergyman he meets there, eighty have received definite ‘miraculous’ cures. Eighty out of millions. And not one of them involved the regeneration of a limb; some may have been unlikely, but none were things that couldn’t possibly happen on their own. Do you really think that drastically less than eighty out of every million people will receive unlikely cures if they don’t pray?

You should also check out this: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=4acf338be4900000&ex=1301461200

You’d be hard-pressed to claim this study is biased against prayer- it was funded by the Templeton Foundation. Of course one might object that God doesn’t like being manipulated, which is fair enough, but on the whole it seems you’re no more likely to be healed if you pray. Yes, unlikely recoveries happen. But they happen at about the same rate whatever religion or nonreligion you subscribe to.

Poster 13’s definition of Faith may be a little incomplete

Not at all.

Before conversion, the Holy Spirit is required to soften the heart, then the seed is planted via a “witness”, then further softening to lead the person towards the so-called “Sinners Prayer”

“Faith” is a gift from God, given to the child of God by “Special Revelation” Once the Holy Spirit enters the body after conversion, it is the obligation of the “local church” to teach, and baptize.

And by local church, I mean the Body of Christ” where the new believer can be found. (Not walls, cement, wood, iron…) God will lead that new believer to others after conversion (If not done in the midst of them)

My Online Church starting in May is a perfect example. I will encourage anyone who has prayed for salvation to email me, and I will go out of my way to help that person find a local assembly of believers in their area, no matter the demonination.

“Individual Responsibility” applies not only to religion, but to science, society, family, & friendships as well. Something both Bill “The GOP Spin Zone” Oreilly, and Richard “Humans are God & I am bitter” Dawkins as well.

The interview was a load of manure, for both sides.

Bill waffled on a public commitment to Christ’s Deity, and Richard simply said “we are working on it” and Deity name dropped as a rebuttal.

Neither were there to support a position, just enrage the viewership via it’s fears. (The only thing FOX knows how to do is prey on man’s fears)

I have chatted with real athiests, who are NOT BITTER, and they are always the first to admit, that if anything, religion does bring to light the need for a moral code of sorts that can assist the populace in establishing a civilized system that keeps chaos amongst the masses in check.

It is not the system of religion that they do not “believe” in, it is simply the existance of an “invisible God”

Poster 18… I didn’t mean that your definition of faith was wrong just incomplete - not fully developed. I understand what you are saying about Special Revelation, Regeneration, etc. I’m a Calvinist myself. But those are theological ideas. Theology presupposes that you already believe in 1) the existence of God, and 2) the infallibility of Scripture.

I don’t think this discussion has gotten that far yet… I think we are still in apologetics territory.

Faith doesn’t require proof as it’s foundation, but it also doesn’t ignore the facts either. If I’m having a bad day, I admit it. Then I trust God to get me through the difficulty. That’s faith.

George:

I have George Mueller’s biography at home where he talks about the regeneration of limbs. I’ll dig it out and find a quote tonight (I’m at work).

I haven’t read Dawkins’ book, so my response won’t be very specific. However, I’ll say that in the area of miraculous healing there is a LOT I don’t understand. I don’t understand why sometimes God heals, and other’s He doesn’t. Jesus gives us some clues, like when He says that He did no miracles in his home town because of their little faith (”a prophet is without honor in his own home…”). He often said things like “Your faith has healed you.” This suggests that perhaps the healing is in some way dependant on the faith of the sick one. Other places there is evidence of God healing someone who clearly had NO faith whatsoever. Like I said in an earlier comment, being a Christian doesn’t simplify your life.

All that to say, I don’t think you can answer the frequency of miracles question without using theology. We can’t do that without using scripture because that is the foundation of any theological argument.

I think that, regardless of their frequency, the fact that miracles DO HAPPEN should be enough to at least put a crack in your argument of a “provisional conclusion”?

I think that, regardless of their frequency, the fact that miracles DO HAPPEN should be enough to at least put a crack in your argument of a “provisional conclusion”?

Uh, no, because the ‘miracles’ that do happen are exactly what we would expect if there were no God. All your ‘miracles’ are things that are simply rather unlikely to happen in any given instance; but when we examine the larger picture and check just how often these unlikely events occur, we find that while individual instances are unlikely, the data set as a whole is not. Given a very large number of chances, we would expect to find a few drastically unlikely events. We find a few. Not many, a few, and no more than we would expect from pure probability. Do you believe that every single time a cancer spontaneously goes into remission, it is a miracle? That God has directly intervened? If so, then we’ve certainly seen a number of true miracles. But if not, and only some incredible recoveries are actually miraculous, then such events are merely unlikely, not impossible. And again, given enough chances, unlikely events will happen.

Jesus gives us some clues, like when He says that He did no miracles in his home town because of their little faith.

This smacks strongly of the type of language used by mediums to explain why they can’t perform their communions with the dead with the lights on, or in the presence of skeptics. Why is this sort of excuse reasonable for Christianity, but not for any other religion or belief? Is God hiding?

All the miracles you reported in your own life are also reported, and with about equal frequency, by those of every other religion and no religion. Miraculous healings are reported by Christian TV faith-healing charlatans, by ‘mystic’ or New Age faith-healers, by UFO ‘abductees’. Christiniaty is in no way special in this regard. Christian healings aren’t more complete, or faster, or more convincing, or more common. Christian testimony of communion with their God, of spiritual healing and positive life changes, are no more convincing than testimony from any other religion. Why doesn’t this say something to you? Does God not care that unbelievers are praying to false deities? Does God not care that two-thirds of us do not believe in Him?

Does God not care that two-thirds of us do not believe in Him?

Actually he expects it! Satan is alive and well in the end-times, and he is a master at what he does best!

It is indeed sad that most choose the Prince of the Power of the Air for a short season, but ours is only to try and find as many elect as possible in our short season.

As I have said before… “Many are called, but few are chosen.”

See, now we are asking a different question altogether. We’re not asking “does God exist” but rather “why does He do what He does”. Like I said, I don’t have a definitive answer to why Suzie was healed and Joey wasn’t. This isn’t a cop out. There are some things about God that we will not ever understand. I can’t fix that, though I wish I could. I have an opinion, but it’s a theological hair split at this point.

I know cancer goes into spontaneous remission. But tumors don’t disappear in a matter of days never to return. It’s too easy to discard that and call it “unlikely”! There’s a reason for these things. I understand that statistically the frequency of these events is not enough to prove it. I get that. But that still does not explain how they happen.

See, now we are asking a different question altogether. We’re not asking “does God exist” but rather “why does He do what He does”.

In my view the second question is integral to the first, because it seems to me that, if he exists, he’s doing exactly what we would expect him to do if he didn’t.

I know cancer goes into spontaneous remission. But tumors don’t disappear in a matter of days never to return.

Actually there’s recently been several experiments wherein the test animals, after being given certain chemicals (for instance, estrogen in guinea pigs), they rapidly develop apparently cancerous tumors; when the chemical is removed, the tumor clears up. But the vast majority of reports of tumors suddenly disappearing are probably either hoaxes and urban legends, or mistaken diagnoses. If any remain, they are easily attributable to pure chance. Our bodies sometimes get rid of these things on their own.

The fact that miracles happen exactly as often and as conclusively as we would expect them to if there no God isn’t evidence against God. You can explain any set of facts when you’re dealing with the supernatural. But the amount of rationalization required to account for these facts should tell you that your ‘miracles’ aren’t in the slightest sense real evidence for your god.

Basically, you can do two things that any reasonable person should consider good evidence. Either find a well documented case of a prayer resulting in something blatantly impossible happening (like spontaneous limb regeneration), or else present rigourously controlled research showing a clear and significant trend of those who pray more often receiving cures and such.

There’s a reason for these things. I understand that statistically the frequency of these events is not enough to prove it. I get that. But that still does not explain how they happen.

That’s like me saying, “I understand that statistically the frequency of someone winning the lottery is not enough to prove that God specifically chose me to win it. I get that. But that still does not explain how it happened.” When you say “there’s a reason for these things”, it isn’t because there’s actually a good reason for thinking that; you say it because you want it to be true. That isn’t good enough for me.

Well, I think we are at an impasse here.

We have both argued our presuppositions and clearly neither one of us is going to budge.
At this point we’re just rehashing the same points. Congrats on getting the last word!

Very interesting debate. I must admit, though, the most important thing here is the fruit or seed of your belief system. The problem with being an athiest is that you must first assume that you know everything, because the athiest says, “there is no God”. The agnostic believes that they don’t know if there is a God. If you draw a circle and have this represent all knowledge and ask anyone how much they know, it would be a dot at most for anyone. Since a person can’t know everything in the circle, it is really a stretch to say, “I know there is no God.” There must be a God simply because ethics exist, He becomes the moral compass for life. Good and evil is based on that fact that God exists. Why? Because what God says is good is good and what God says is bad is bad. An example of this is the ten commandments. I find it interesting that in the video commentary, there was no mention of Niche. Since Niche was the driving force for the athiests at one point in time. I’d recommend listening to a guy who has his spent his life talking and writing about athiests and Christianity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcNH4fue-_I

Lame.

At least Dawkins kept his cool.