My main contribution is at 39 mins 30sec.
(nb. Dawkins is at 1hr 18 min 20 sec [he has a pop at Swinburne and me] and my response to Dawkins at 1hr 24 min 30 sec).
I posted on this before, shortly after the recording. Go here.
This included quite a good discussion on the nature and value of philosophy, I thought.
6 comments:
Very dodgy misrepresentation by Atkins on Swinburne!
Atkins is so philosophically naive. It`s shame. That`s why he lost his first debate with Craig and gone bad in the second.
"Dawkins is at 1hr 18 min 20 sec [he has a pop at Swinburne and me]"
Ha!
It was good to see a panel with such disparate views. I found myself agreeing and disagreeing with all of them at some point. The sound's not the best. I found the discussion you had with Ard Louis particularly difficult to follow towards the end. But overall, I thought it was very thought-provoking.
Regards, Paul.
Excellent debate, I think its rather clear that Atkin's position is naive at best.
We need more online videos of Stephen Law engaging in various topics, I always learn so much from them and yet there are so few.
Regarding important examples of philosophical thinking; would the topic of how to interpret the notion of probability not perhaps be a more convincing example to use against people like Atkins and Dawkins?
Regards
Post a Comment