Richard Dawkins' God Delusion Argument Refuted by Agnostic Sir Anthony Kenny (and his Razor)!

preview_player
Показать описание
This happened too quickly for most people to notice, but agnostic Sir Anthony Kenny exposed a fallacy of equivocation in Richard Dawkins' Central "Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit" Against God, during his dialogue with Rowan Williams in Oxford's Sheldonian Theatre (2012). The argument confuses complexity of structure (the statistical improbability of the universe's physically exhibiting the appearance of design) with complexity of function (God's thoughts and powers). Dawkins, despite claiming in The God Delusion that his argument is "unrebuttable" and "devastating", had no response, and appeared to be left bitter about this incident, as evidenced in an extract from his film "The Unbelievers" (2013).

Clips used under fair use for commentary, non-profit.
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

I like all these Dawkins fanboys in the comments trying to call one of the greatest philosophers of our time stupid because Dawkins couldn't grasp a simple analogy.

huskydragon
Автор

If Dawkins wasn't a white British man, I promise you he wouldn't be as intelligent as people think he is. Its all in the accent people.

staceyboomboom
Автор

It seems Richard was the only one who was confused, as the entire audience laughed at his inability to see the philosopher’s simple point.

Volmire
Автор

Can't tell Dawkins anything, right? He knows everything. What a fabulous mind. 😏. He's not an atheist, he's an anti-theist.

Paul-qrhu
Автор

The lesson is, 'don't take an electric razor to a knife fight.'

ryangarritty
Автор

In my view there is a creepy quality about Dawkins. The funny little smile, the entitlement, the way he, seemingly, believes to convey unquestionable truth, the patronizing or humiliating of his oponents, the fact that he has oponents to begin with. He looks to me more like a bully, a selfsatisfied individual that is utterly unwilling to question himself. Therefore, not a true scientist anymore, if he ever was.

francochianale
Автор

Dawkins' argument here is the sort of thing that a child might ask and they would quite possibly understand the answer. It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask, but for someone who wrote a book where he thought he had demonstrated to the whole world 'why there is almost certainly no god', it's pretty embarrassing.

randomusername
Автор

The one thing i ve never seen dawkins do is to admit that his opponent has a point. I mean common this is not a movie and he is nt tom cruise nd this is notmission imposible. Only a moron can be that certain of himself in real life

sonu
Автор

He used science to explain his interpretation of God lol. Well, well, well

mikey
Автор

what an arrogant foolish person!! what he means by saying its not clear to him is since he doesn't understand ( or more like not willing to understand ;) ) then its not worthy of understanding. Kenny means a structurally complex thing doesn't necessarily have capability of complex effect and structurally simple things doesn't necessarily have simple effect. the analogy wasn't that good tho but enough to make the point. sigh

krazynut
Автор

Atheists should not listen to Dawkins. There are more serious and respectable atheists out there that has much better arguments than him.

awesomefacepalm
Автор

DNA provides information
Information comes from Intelligence
DNA is very Complex.

whoneverknow
Автор

This is more proof of how philosophically inept Dawkins actually is and how he uses rhetoric and memorized scientific explanations to confuse and bedazzle the audience into believing that his atheistic position holds any intellectual virtue, when it is in fact null and void of any rational content and therefore comprehension relies solely on the presupposed position that Dawkins knows what he s talking about and the emotional inclination of the atheist to seek out anything or anyone to give them the emotional satisfaction of pseudo-intellectual fruits. It boils down to appeal to authority.

Too bad the fruits are all rotten and the authority is intellectually backwards.

dadush
Автор

So a silly analogy is what people think is so brilliant and that Dawkins dismayed at the silliness shows them he is somehow dumb?! Delusional.

brianmccloskey
Автор

I understand what he's saying but it doesn't account for something that can be both complex in function and structure like a smartphone. It's complex in structure insofar as it needs many components to make it work. Even though it's simple to use for web related activity, you can still use it as a self defense weapon as well by throwing it at someone and possibly hurt them to get away for example. This makes it complex in function.

The answer to both of these individuals' problems is easy. Nothing is complicated for an infinitely intelligent agent such as God and is all simple to Him.

Notthisagain
Автор

I don't see how anything was destroyed here.

CsabaVas
Автор

Dawkins regards himself to be something more than a simple biologist. He does not understand what the philosopher was saying when he tried to illustrate the points on complexity of structure and complexity of function which attributes to the nature of the God of the Bible. He does not grasped philosophical explanations and yet he debates with people more scholarly than he will ever be on, evolution, existence of God and other issues. He might as well shut up and concentrate on teaching or just retire so people will not have to waste time watching his videos.

danstenmou
Автор

Dawkins lacks the thinking skills to grasp God.

rickypastille
Автор

Happened too quickly for most people to notice... or maybe you find what you want to see.

timeWaster
Автор

What a load of rubbish.

Complexity is is there a need for an analogy at all ?
God stil doesnt exist...so complicate it all you want.
That is Dawkins point in every argument against god i`ve ever seen him have.

hansenbee