Richard Dawkins -vs- Billy Graham

#51
#51
VOLatile said:
Richard Dawkins because he's actually intelligent. There's no contest, either.
Click to expand...

Didn't read whole thread so may have been addressed but:

What makes you say that Graham is not actually intelligent as well?

I don't know enough about either to say who is more intelligent. Have we seen the IQ scores?
 
#52
#52
rjd970 said:
My opinion of Graham, Falwell, etc...is they are cons running a racket. I have faith this is so. So don't bother arguing it, any evidence presented otherwise or asking me for reasons outside of my faith is insulting.
Click to expand...

I see a world of difference between Falwell and Graham. I see zero con game with Graham.
 
#53
#53
AJeray4TN said:
Just ask yourself...

wwjd-as-in-joel.gif
Click to expand...

Azz clown joel

$$$$$$$$$$$$
 
#55
#55
volinbham said:
Didn't read whole thread so may have been addressed but:

What makes you say that Graham is not actually intelligent as well?

I don't know enough about either to say who is more intelligent. Have we seen the IQ scores?
Click to expand...

Silly, hes a christian
 
#56
#56
PKT_VOL said:
Dawkins. It's is not even a contest. TV evangelicals are a complete sham. I hope the Christians on the board can understand that. If you seek any creditably in your faith, you should run from them as fast as you can.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that Graham is getting lumped in with TV evangelicals. There's a big difference and I believe Graham was completely sincere.

I've still seen no facts relating to his intelligence - just supposition that if he has faith he can't be too bright (which is absurd).

It seems to be coming down to who do you agree with - if you are religious Graham is more intelligent if you aren't then Dawkins is. We have no real evidence either way (of who was more intelligent).
 
#57
#57
volinbham said:
I'm surprised that Graham is getting lumped in with TV evangelicals. There's a big difference and I believe Graham was completely sincere.

I've still seen no facts relating to his intelligence - just supposition that if he has faith he can't be too bright (which is absurd).

It seems to be coming down to who do you agree with - if you are religious Graham is more intelligent if you aren't then Dawkins is. We have no real evidence either way (of who was more intelligent).
Click to expand...

I've made my case for Dawkins, no one's made a case for Graham other than he has faith and that makes him more intelligent.

Graham is a good public speaker, much like Obama. That's about all I see from him, nothing that suggests he has any skills beyond that.

Dawkins is well respected in the science world. I just so happen to equate intelligence with observable knowledge.
 
#59
#59
Bill O'Reilly is such a horrible representative for the faithful... but makes some of the same arguments as the majority do. He has more "gotchas" than Sarah Palin.
 
#60
#60
volinbham said:
I see a world of difference between Falwell and Graham. I see zero con game with Graham.
Click to expand...

Both were religious entrpreneurs, no?. At base they are peddling religious idealism. Graham harboured some different poltical views, but they are cut from the same cloth.

I see con game with both, they both got rich preaching their respective religious idealogies.
 
#61
#61
volinbham said:
I'm surprised that Graham is getting lumped in with TV evangelicals. There's a big difference and I believe Graham was completely sincere.

I've still seen no facts relating to his intelligence - just supposition that if he has faith he can't be too bright (which is absurd).

It seems to be coming down to who do you agree with - if you are religious Graham is more intelligent if you aren't then Dawkins is. We have no real evidence either way (of who was more intelligent).
Click to expand...

Really? I fully believe Dawkins is capable of doing what Graham did, I find it hard to believe the opposite. Dawkins went to Oxford and has a PhD. Throw that aside as a bad indicator of intelligence all you want, but that shows tangible evidence the dude can intelligently think through problems and conduct independent research. Not saying Graham isn't intelligent...not anymore than any other evangelist...just saying Dawkins is smarter, easily.

Both are/were outspoken about different issues and reach a big audience. The difference is Dawkins has intellectual and academic backing to what he is saying. Graham is going to fall back to faith, Dawkins is going to fall back on detailed understanding of the evidence supporting his position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#62
#62
VOLatile said:
I've made my case for Dawkins, no one's made a case for Graham other than he has faith and that makes him more intelligent.

Graham is a good public speaker, much like Obama. That's about all I see from him, nothing that suggests he has any skills beyond that.

Dawkins is well respected in the science world. I just so happen to equate intelligence with observable knowledge.
Click to expand...

Thought I laid it out pretty well back on page 1, didn't mention faith at all.

However, I will posit that belief in a deity and belief in no deity are just opposite sides of the same coin.

Graham chose to study one area and not only did he speak well, he wrote exceptionally well. The difference is that he writes for common man so his writing is simple and easier to understand, but that doesn't mean it is simplistic. He's tackled some very deep philosophical issues and boiled them down to laymen's level. In my view that takes real intelligence.

Dawkins audience is primarily the academic and scientific world. He is highly intellectual but that doesn't necessarily make him smarter.

Observable knowledge seems to mean knowledge that you agree with. The interesting twist that the OP put in this comparison is that he knew people would glom onto the issue of faith vs science rather than debate the intellectual merits of either man. That seems to be the case here.
 
#63
#63
rjd970 said:
Really? I fully believe Dawkins is capable of doing what Graham did, I find it hard to believe the opposite. Dawkins went to Oxford and has a PhD. Throw that aside as a bad indicator of intelligence all you want, but that shows tangible evidence the dude can intelligently think through problems and conduct independent research. Not saying Graham isn't intelligent...not anymore than any other evangelist...just saying Dawkins is smarter, easily.

Both are/were outspoken about different issues and reach a big audience. The difference is Dawkins has intellectual and academic backing to what he is saying. Graham is going to fall back to faith, Dawkins is going to fall back on detailed understanding of the evidence supporting his position.
Click to expand...

So then you are saying the only way to prove your intelligence is through academic degrees? Some of the most intelligent people I know don't have the paper to back it up, but I would throw any problem at them and trust them to come up with a viable solution. Some of the stupidest people I know have a wall full of diplomas.

This is borderline intellectual snobbery, imo.
 
#64
#64
I think it is more an issue of what one considers legitimate indicators of intelligence than it is of faith vs. science.

Knowing what we know of the credentials for both, it isn't even close for me.
 
#65
#65
rjd970 said:
I think it is more an issue of what one considers legitimate indicators of intelligence than it is of faith vs. science.

Knowing what we know of the credentials for both, it isn't even close for me.
Click to expand...

got it.:hi:
 
#66
#66
YorkVol said:
So then you are saying the only way to prove your intelligence is through academic degrees? Some of the most intelligent people I know don't have the paper to back it up, but I would throw any problem at them and trust them to come up with a viable solution. Some of the stupidest people I know have a wall full of diplomas.

This is borderline intellectual snobbery, imo.
Click to expand...

Go ahead and call it intellectual snobbery if you want.

The bottom line is not everybody has the intellectual capacity to achieve what Dawkins has. It is what it is.

And I'm not saying Graham isn't smart, even con men are intelligent to a degree. I'm just going to bet if in a hypothetical situation both went head to head on some intelligence test, it wouldn't be close.

Whether you find it insulting or not, faith is a crutch for people that either can't, or don't want to examine evidence for themselves and be fine with the answer "we don't know".

For young earth creationist, who believe man was fashioned from God in a garden 10,000 years ago...would you say faith is the only thing they are relying on? Is it can't or won't that is keeping them from looking at the evidence otherwise? They are using faith as a crutch.
 
#67
#67
These threads always turn into Christians are not bright etc. and atheists are well-reasoned, intelligent and thoughtful. Everyone is falling for the troll's tricks here imo. He wanted to cause a stir and he did. Just because you don't agree with someone's faith doesn't make you more or less intelligent... you just disagree.

As far as Graham, I tend to agree with those who say he's not in the same camp as a lot of the other televangelists. The guy has done some great things and helped out a lot of people in various parts of the world. You don't have to be a Christian to appreciate that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#68
#68
Can we compare philosopher vs. philosopher or scientist vs. scientist then? Why not Richard Dawkins vs. Kirk Cameron? Since Cameron is a champion for intelligent design and young earth? How about (maybe) Christopher Hitchens vs. Billy Graham?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#69
#69
Scientific minds will say Dawkins because his contributions to science are incredible. He is a very, VERY smart man.

Christians will say Graham because his message speaks to them.

I'm a Christian, and I think both are very intelligent in their own right. Why can't it be left at that? And yes, admittedly, Dawkins would beat Graham in a Quizbowl. No need for this to go any farther than that.
 
#70
#70
VOLatile said:
Can we compare philosopher vs. philosopher or scientist vs. scientist then? Why not Richard Dawkins vs. Kirk Cameron? Since Cameron is a champion for intelligent design and young earth? How about (maybe) Christopher Hitchens vs. Billy Graham?
Click to expand...

This would make more sense.
 
#71
#71
rjd970 said:
Go ahead and call it intellectual snobbery if you want.

The bottom line is not everybody has the intellectual capacity to achieve what Dawkins has. It is what it is.

And I'm not saying Graham isn't smart, even con men are intelligent to a degree. I'm just going to bet if in a hypothetical situation both went head to head on some intelligence test, it wouldn't be close.

Whether you find it insulting or not, faith is a crutch for people that either can't, or don't want to examine evidence for themselves and be fine with the answer "we don't know".

For young earth creationist, who believe man was fashioned from God in a garden 10,000 years ago...would you say faith is the only thing they are relying on? Is it can't or won't that is keeping them from looking at the evidence otherwise? They are using faith as a crutch.
Click to expand...

I understand your position, but you need to realize your position is as much faith based as anyone else'. You believe certain things about both men, one is a con man, one is an academic giant. Your beliefs make it impossible for you to assess either one objectively. I don't mean that as an insult but simply as my assessment based on your argument.

For me, had the OP picked anyone but Graham I might have agreed with you. But at the ripe old age of almost 49 I'm in a Master's program in clinical counseling and one of our courses was on grief counseling. In that course I read what Graham had written on the topic and found it to be some of the most insightful writing that I'd come across in a long time. I was not a huge fan of him prior to that course. I changed my opinion based on obvious intelligence that had direct practical application to a real human need. Yes, there was a lot of scripture in his writing as you might expect, but there was also a display of a deeper understanding of human nature that I did not expect.

I would encourage anyone who is interested to read some of his writings before just dismissing him as another televangalist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#72
#72
VOLatile said:
DinkinFlicka, let them have their faith.

Not that you really care, VBN, but William Lane Craig is a joke. Just take a look at the way he handled Dawkins' refusal to debate him in Oxford. Craig sees the Old and New Testaments as historical documents and divine text, meaning all of the Old Testament is still applicable. He uses slippery slopes, strawmen, and logical fallacies in all of his debates. He's a theologian wordsmith, nothing more. He's gained publicity simply off of people refusing to debate him.
Click to expand...

I care, I'm as open minded as anyone. I can respect your opinion, not that I necessarily agree. Like I said I don't get into the debates but I do enjoy listening to the scientific approaches from both sides. If you have a chance you may find a debate between Dawkins and John Lennox at Oxford, which was pretty interesting.
 
Last edited:
#73
#73
rjd970 said:
Really? I fully believe Dawkins is capable of doing what Graham did, I find it hard to believe the opposite. Dawkins went to Oxford and has a PhD. Throw that aside as a bad indicator of intelligence all you want, but that shows tangible evidence the dude can intelligently think through problems and conduct independent research. Not saying Graham isn't intelligent...not anymore than any other evangelist...just saying Dawkins is smarter, easily.

Both are/were outspoken about different issues and reach a big audience. The difference is Dawkins has intellectual and academic backing to what he is saying. Graham is going to fall back to faith, Dawkins is going to fall back on detailed understanding of the evidence supporting his position.
Click to expand...

Have you read any of the numerous books Graham wrote? Do you think Grahams intelligence level is limited to his belief in God. Have you listened to any of his talks - paid attention to his words? You lumped him in with Falwell which is akin to saying Bill Maher and Dawkins are the same since they both are vocal atheists.

Seems we are simply relying on who we agree with as a sign of intelligence. Graham is famous for being an evangelist but is that the sole measure of this intelligence?
 
#74
#74
rjd970 said:
I think it is more an issue of what one considers legitimate indicators of intelligence than it is of faith vs. science.

Knowing what we know of the credentials for both, it isn't even close for me.
Click to expand...

But you are looking at them through one single issue - belief in God. Why is that the measure of intelligence. Graham was a trusted advisor for several presidents (both R and D; Graham is a D) and met with several more. Would he have that access and be sought after if he wasn't intelligent?
 
#75
#75
rjd970 said:
Go ahead and call it intellectual snobbery if you want.

The bottom line is not everybody has the intellectual capacity to achieve what Dawkins has. It is what it is.

How have you determined Graham isn't even close to being able to have done this?

And I'm not saying Graham isn't smart, even con men are intelligent to a degree. I'm just going to bet if in a hypothetical situation both went head to head on some intelligence test, it wouldn't be close.

The fact that you keep referring to him as a con man is telling.

Whether you find it insulting or not, faith is a crutch for people that either can't, or don't want to examine evidence for themselves and be fine with the answer "we don't know".

BS - plenty of scientists also have faith. They can easily do both. You don't - no big deal and I don't see it as a sign of intelligence one way or the another.

For young earth creationist, who believe man was fashioned from God in a garden 10,000 years ago...would you say faith is the only thing they are relying on? Is it can't or won't that is keeping them from looking at the evidence otherwise? They are using faith as a crutch.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you haven't read any of Graham's works or paid any close attention to his talks. You have characterized him as a con man and someone who was anti-evidence and anti-science. None of those things are true as far as I can see.

I have a PhD and am well published. Does that make me smarter than people in this thread with out the same credentials?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top