Peter Higgs vs Richard Dawkins...

Geomy

Would it be a good debate ?

Knasher

What would they debate over? This being A&A, I remind you that they are both atheists.

Geomy

Knasher wrote: »

What would they debate over? This being A&A, I remind you that they are both atheists.

I googled them both at once I think Higgs doesn't like Dawkins approach in debates..

Ziphius

Geomy wrote: »

I googled them both at once I think Higgs doesn't like Dawkins approach in debates..

So it would be a debate about debating style?

keane2097

Geomy, I like your threads. Please make many more.

Knasher

I googled and the main point of contention between them is that Higgs believes that science and faith can coexist whereas Dawkins doesn't.

There are well respected scientists who are deeply religious, e.g. Francis Collins, head of the human genome project and evangelical christian. So it is possible to be both and I think this is what leads to Higgs conclusion.

On the other hand I think Dawkins would take a more fine grain approach. There are conclusions you can draw from faith and there are competing conclusions you can draw from science, sometimes these conclusions will be in conflict. Take the age of the earth for example, some christians believe it to be 6000 years old, imagine a world where religion was the only one offering an answer to that question, I think it would be reasonable to accept that all christians would accept that age under those circumstances. However science also offers a figure, and I don't think it is possible to simultaneously believe that the earth is 6000 and 4.54 billion years old. Either you are reinterpreting religion to match with science or you are ignoring science over religion, in which case I don't think it is reasonable to agree they are coexisting.

So in most ways is it a question of semantics, which generally doesn't make for an interesting debate.

On the other hand there is the question of what happens when science leads you to pose a question that is already answered by faith. The obvious example of this would be Newton, who concluded that god was the reason for the stability of planetary orbits, instead of regarding it as an open scientific question. One which then eventually solved by a different scientist.

Geomy

keane2097 wrote: »

Geomy, I like your threads. Please make many more.

I only post them when I get a moment of delusion :S

I post them,then read the first few replies....

Oh no where was I when I thought of posting that...

To be honest I'm new to all this A+A debating,wasn't very good at quotations and the Queens English....

Sure A+A is open to allsorts

Isn't it Robin

Gbear

So is the purpose of this thread to answer whether a Higgs/Dawkins debate would be interesting or are you trying to explore the sorts of conflicts that would arise between them?

Religious scientists annoy me, but I'm also annoyed that they annoy me, because ultimately we're all on the "same side" of promoting science and they're usually promoting a fairly benign version of religion.

Ultimately it's about whether a person has the intellectual honesty to truly adhere to their principles as scientists.
I don't think that religious scientists do.

Geomy

Maybe trying to explore the conflicts that might come between them...

I'll read more into it as I don't know much about either of them.

I'd like to see a good debate between Dawkins and someone else.

Maybe a debate where Dawkins has to work harder and he gets a bit muddled or withdrawn...

Dawkins is good at the aul debate

im invisible

i think it could be good, seeing as we found the God Particle there last year, with more confirmation coming from CERN recently......

TheChizler

I'd much prefer Higgs vs Octopus, or Dawkins vs Megashark.

Doctor Strange

This is blunt, but I don't get religious scientists at all. I mean, I know at least one fellow biologist that DOESN'T believe in any form of evolution. I mean, why enter into a field that's going to conflict with your belief system, especially when it's one of the core ideas of said field.

Galvasean

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

This is blunt, but I don't get religious scientists at all. I mean, I know at least one fellow biologist that DOESN'T believe in any form of evolution. I mean, why enter into a field that's going to conflict with your belief system, especially when it's one of the core ideas of said field.

So when you publish nonsense dismissing evolution you can argue from a position of authority.

MrPudding

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

This is blunt, but I don't get religious scientists at all. I mean, I know at least one fellow biologist that DOESN'T believe in any form of evolution. I mean, why enter into a field that's going to conflict with your belief system, especially when it's one of the core ideas of said field.

How does that even work?

MrP

Doctor Strange

MrPudding wrote: »

How does that even work?

MrP

I genuinely wish I knew. It's not like it's a small part that can be ignored if you want, it's central to the entire bloody science.

the culture of deference

Galvasean wrote: »

So when you publish nonsense dismissing evolution you can argue from a position of authority.

To me its as conflicting as a serial rapist and abuser genuinely working in a battered womens shelter.

badspealler

Nah...

Debates between pro and pro never muster the same vitriol as pro vs con, unless you're living in the People's Republic of Socialistic Anti-Capitalistic Nihilistic North Korea, where there are no debates at all...

Boxing match anyone?