Richard Dawkins vs Karen Armstrong debate on God and Dawkins' objection to skeptic Michael Shermer's Last Law. Who's the greatest and brilliantest atheistic thinker?

Michael Shermer is a well-known skeptical writer. One of the reasons why he so well-known is by being debunked in his own TV debunking program by master of Eastern Wisdom and vedic astrologer Jeffrey Armstrong, who passed sucessfully Shermer's skeptical test, as you can watch here:

The results of Shermer's test with Armstrong implies one of the following possibilities:

-Armstrong is a fake psychic/astrologer/paranormalist, and he passed Shermer's test because he fooled Shermer. In this hypothesis, Shermer is an incompetent scientist and skeptic, who is unable to design correctly a scientific test in which no fraud can be made. This incompetence is even more objectionable, since his Tv program was designed to promote skepticism and exemplify proper controls while testing paranormal claims.

-Armstrong is a true astrologer with paranormal knowledge, in whose case Shermer's skepticism regarding the paranormal has been refuted. In this case, Shermer is not being intelelctually honest in admitting this, and he's misleading the public about  the paranormal.

-Armstrong is fake but he passed the test just because he had luck. In this case, intellectual honesty demands that Shermer tests Armstrong again, something which Shermer didn't dared to do. Moreover, if a single test is inconclusive, then the same can be said of the other single tests made by Shermer in which negative results for paranormal claims were gotten (otherwise, an unscientific double standard would be being applied in order to favor the skeptical position).

By the purpose of this post is not to evaluate Shermer's pseudoskepticism. Rather, I'm interested in Shermer as a thinker or intellectual. I've commented before that, in my humble opinion, Shermer is the less sophisticated and most crude thinker among  professional"skeptics". He tries to look like an expert in everything (from spiritualism, to UFOs, to alternative medicine, to parapsychology, to biblical criticisms and New Testament scholarship, to religion, etc.), but he deals with them in a very superficial level. 

For example, in a previous post, I discussed about the so-called Shermer's Last Law, which states "Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God"

Shermer's law is amazingly inept, and it is telling of the point I'm making about him. Even the crudest atheists will realize this.

One of such atheists is Richard Dawkins. In his written debate with religious pluralist Karen Armstrong, Dawkins wrote this:

But, however god-like the aliens might seem, they would not be gods, and for one very important reason. They did not create the universe; it created them, just as it created us. Making the universe is the one thing no intelligence, however superhuman, could do, because an intelligence is complex—statistically improbable —and therefore had to emerge, by gradual degrees, from simpler beginnings: from a lifeless universe—the miracle-free zone that is physics.

Even such an crude thinker like Dawkins realizes that whichever other properties we posit to "God", one of such essential properties is being the CREATOR of the material universe. In fact, the most sophisticated and discussed philosophical argument for God's existence is precisely the kalam cosmological argument for the universe's beginning and putative creation:

Since an essential property of God, if He exists, is that He is the creator of the material universe; and since it is NOT essential to the concept of advanced aliens to be the creators of the material universe (because, among other things and presumibly atheists will agree, aliens are material beings who are the product and effect of a material universe), it follows that that, contrary to Shermer's Law, God is conceptually distinguishable from advanced aliens.

So, Dawkins' point, despite of its intellectual crudity, is correct: Shermer's Law is false.

The above point underlies my initial contention about Shermer: Intellectually, he is even below crude atheists like Richard Dawkins. What is obvious to even intellectually unsophisticated thinkers is far beyond the reach of Shermer.

You can watch Shermer's crudity at its best in his debate about God's existence with John Lennox:

Regarding the debate between Dawkins and Armstrong, I was dissapointed by Armstrong's arguments (some of which were self-refuting) and not much need to be added to the exchange between them.

The Pseudo-Science of Richard Dawkins: On Richard Dawkins's ultimate atheistic credulity

For more on Dawkins' pseudoscientific and pseudointellectual beliefs (mostly based on atheistic faith and wishful thinking), see these posts.

The great debate: Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox

[DEBATE] Deus, Um Delírio: O Debate - Richard Dawkins & John Lennox from Deus em Debate on Vimeo.

In my opinion, Lennox clearly destroyed Dawkins in this debate pretty easily. In fact, some people suspect that Dawkins' coward refusal to debate William Lane Craig was caused, in part, by the beating that Lennox provided to him. Dawkins realized that, if Lennox destroyed him in public, Craig (who's a more experienced debater) would sweept the floor with him.

Currently, Dawkins has received a new debating challenge from Patrick Coffin, to debate with Christian philosopher Edward Feser (the author of Aquinas and the The Last: Superstition: a Refutation of the New Atheism). This challenge will prove again Dawkins' cowardice, because he WON'T accept.

And if he accepts, then we will enjoy a new intellectual beating of Dawkins.

Patrick Coffin's open invitation and the cowardice of Richard Dawkins: Is Dawkins afraid of Edward Feser too?

All the world already knows that Richard Dawkins is an intellectual coward. He used not less than 12 excuses for not debating William lane Craig:

Now, Patrick Coffin, the host of the Catholic Answers Live radio program, has published an open invitation to Richard Dawkins to debate Christian philosopher Edward Feser (the author of the book The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism).

An Open Invitation to Richard Dawkins

Dear Dr. Dawkins: Last week, on November 28, 2011, we devoted an hour on Catholic Answers Live to “Deconstructing Atheism,” with philosopher Edward Feser, author of The Last Superstition and other philosophical works. I invited you, albeit last minute, to call the show and you replied that it was too late in the UK but that you would deputize an American representative from your foundation, Sean Faircloth, who did call in the show. Dr. Feser and I tried to steer Mr. Faircloth back to the central question of whether God exists, and extract from him an answer as to why you refuse to debate William Lane Craig, the Christian philosopher and apologist. Mr. Faircloth had no answer, although he did exhibit above average question-dodging. What a disappointment. After the show aired, you emailed me to complain that Feser and I misrepresented the truth, that you indeed did debate William Lane Craig on national Mexican television in 2010, and that you hoped I would make an on-air correction to set the record straight.

Firstly, to put it charitably, it is a stretch indeed to call the Cuidad de Las Ideas event in Mexico a “debate with William Lane Craig” since there were six panelists, including you and Craig, on the question of whether the universe has a purpose. I watched the whole thing on YouTube, and there was no direct Q&A interaction between you and Bill Craig (who, by the way, blogged at the time that you told him to his face that you did not consider it a debate with him).

Second, I read with interest your essay in The Guardian titled, “Why I Refuse to Debate William Lane Craig.” I am no logician, Dr. Dawkins, but I do know that these propositions cannot both be true. I also note your willingness to confront lightweights like Rev. Ted Haggard, actor Kirk Cameron, or non-philosophers who happen to be English archbishops. I hereby invite you to set the record straight and debate Dr. Edward Feser on whether or not God exists. I know your dismissive line about the CV, and perhaps you’ll play that card here. But I hope not. Edward Feser is also not a professional debater (neither is Craig, but that’s another matter) but a philosophy professor. He’s not asking for a debate. I pitched the idea, and he accepted. As you know, even fellow atheists such as Oxford’s own David Came are recognizing a pattern of ducking substantial one-on-one debates when he sees one. We all see it. One atheist commenter on your website called on his fellow atheists to “inundate” our phone system as a protest against Catholic Answers Live. This is intellectual discourse? I posted an invitation there for any atheist to call and voice his or her arguments. None have taken me up on my offer. This is known as chicken hawk behavior, or: courage in speech, cowardice in deed. The Dawkins-Feser debate would be taped and released thereafter.

Either way, you would be free to upload the debate on your website both as proof of your victory and as the occasion to make your critics fall silent. Finally, because you live in the UK, we would be happy to accommodate you with a reasonable time of day. We would go with our preference. I believe the world is ready for an updated version of the famous 1948 BBC debate between Bertrand Russell and Fred Copleston, SJ. Please let me know. This is a sincere invitation.

Patrick Coffin
Host Catholic Answers Live radio program
www.catholic.com/radio

Having read most of Edward Feser's books, I know he's an intellectually honest, serious, erudite and rigurous thinker; in contrast with Dawkins, who's at most an intellectual lightweight and an inconsistent thinker. (Dawkins' main virtue is that his books are very readable, this is true. But people familiar with intellectually sophisticated thinkers would instantaneously recognize that Dawkins is not a great thinker. He's more like a sophist. See this post as evidence for this conclusion).

As consequence, I'm pretty sure that Feser would destroy Dawkins very easily in a debate about God's existence.

I predict that this debate won't happen, because Dawkins (if he knows who Feser is) won't accept the challenge. Dawkins will chicken away again.

But if (and this is a big IF) that debate happens, for sure Dawkins will be intellectually humilliated.

Why is there something rather than nothing? Intellectual genius Richard Dawkins responds the fundamental question of philosophy!

To be fair, you have to realize that Richard Dawkins is not a philosopher, he's a zoologist. So, Dawkins' response is completely out of his intellectual training and expertise.

What is astonishing to me is that Dawkins has not been able to recognize the fallacy of his answer (It suggests either intellectual dishonesty or simply stupidity on his part, or both). He seems to believe that has gotten a knock-down argument against the existence of God (or God as an explanatory hypothesis).

Oxford Atheist philosopher Daniel Came (being academically trained in philosophy) comments on Dawkins' main argument (which he repeats in the above video in a modified version in order to response the fundamental question of philosophy):

Dawkins maintains that we're not justified in inferring a designer as the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe because then a new problem surfaces: who designed the designer? This argument is as old as the hills and as any reasonably competent first-year undergraduate could point out is patently invalid. For an explanation to be successful we do not need an explanation of the explanation. One might as well say that evolution by natural selection explains nothing because it does nothing to explain why there were living organisms on earth in the first place; or that the big bang fails to explain the cosmic background radiation because the big bang is itself inexplicable.

As Came's realizes, if Dawkins' argument were correct, then:

-Natural selection explains nothing because it doesn't explain why there were living organisms on earth in the first place.

-The big bang theory explains nothing because the big bang itself doesn't have any explanation.

I'd add the following couple of examples:

1-In 1983/84, when HIV was discoveried and the HIV theory of AIDS was formulated, the origin of HIV was unknown and hence unexplained. Therefore, the HIV theory of AIDS explains nothing! Or to use Dawkins' phraseology and stupid way of thinking: "Even if HIV were postulated to exist, it doesn't explains absolutely anything because you left without an explanation of HIV itself." (Is it a good scientific or philosophical objection to the HIV theory of AIDS? Do you need an explanation of HIV itself in order to conclude, if the evidence is good, that HIV is the "probable cause of AIDS" as Robert Gallo declared in 1984? Obviously not. Only atheists like Dawkins and his "fans" would accept such an intellectually ridiculous and spurious objection, what tell us something about the psychology of atheists and their intellectual powers).

2-After his debate with John Lennox, Dawkins was interviewed and asked about the origin of life on Earth. Dawkins reportedly said that "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."

Now, using Dawkins' own assumptions in his argument against God, we could say "Dawkins, your alien creationist hypothesis doesn't explain absolutely anything because the aliens in question remain themselves unexplained"

Reflecting hard and in a charitable way about Dawkins' argument, I've concluded that Dawkins is stupid in the literal sense of the word (stupid = very dull in mind). He's simply incapable of sophisticated intellectual thinking and even of recognizing obvious fallacies. He's stupid. (And by extension, I assume until proved wrong that most of Dawkins' "fans" are stupid too, because it is irrational and stupid to be an intellectual fan of an intellectually stupid person).

I've found a similar stupidity in other atheists (remember the "What caused God" objection posed by some of them against the cosmological argument), and this "atheistic stupidity pattern" strongly suggest something about the psychology of hard-core atheists. This why currently I'm convinced that hard-core atheists have a kind of intellectual and cognitive impairment, which makes them incapable of thinking rationally.

Their intelligence only reach to the most superficial level on difficult topics.

I'll comment more on the psychology of atheists in future posts.

Richard Dawkins supports infanticide of innocent babies with incurable diseases

Richard Dawkins says that rape is morally arbitrary

The transcript:

Justin Brierley: When you make a value judgement don't you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say that the reason this is good is that it's good. And you don't have any way to stand on that statement.

Richard Dawkins: My value judgement itself could come from my evolutionary past.

Justin Brierley: So therefore it's just as random in a sense as any product of evolution.

Richard Dawkins: You could say that, it doesn't in any case, nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.

Justin Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we've evolved five fingers rather than six.

Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah.

End of the transcript.

Compare with naturalist and philosopher of biology Michael Ruse:

The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. Michael Ruse, The Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics, in the Darwinian Paradigm (pp. 262-269. Emphasis in blue added.)

Or naturalist and philosopher of biology Alex Rosenberg: "One source of meaning on which many have relied is the intrinsic value, in particular the moral value, of human life. People have also sought moral rules, codes, principles which are supposed to distinguish us from merely biological critters whose lives lack (as much) meaning or value (as ours)... Scientism must reject all of these straws that people have grasped, and it’s not hard to show why. Science has to be nihilistic about ethics and morality. Alex Rosenberg, in his article "The Disenchanted Naturalistic Guide to Reality". Emphasis in blue added.