Richard Dawkins -vs- Billy Graham

#101
#101
volsforever27 said:
So basically they all suck... it's just to what degree.
Click to expand...

Yep.

volsforever27 said:
I've yet to see the results of which you speak. If you can provide proof, I'm more than willing to listen. Somehow, I think that's going to be difficult.
Click to expand...

Results would be anything in which the said person accomplished within their field of study or profession. It would be made up of any thoughts, books, articles, etc. which they are known to be author. Basically, any output of a person would be considered results. I do think "output" is a better word than "results" for this point.

volsforever27 said:
It's called cutting to the chase... go back and reread this thread. That's basically how it can be summed up. That's how I tend to see it. If I'm wrong, then I apologize.
Click to expand...

Other posters or more precisely, your perception of other posters, should not be a reflection upon me. Both you and GS claim to be Christians. I don't group y'all together. I don't know you in real life, all I can do is respond to your post.

volsforever27 said:
Ignoring the semantics (intelligent vs. wise), what possible proof can you provide that Dawkins or anyone else is smarter or more intelligent than Graham? It's opinion. And that's what all of these threads come be summed up as, opinion... not fact. As stated before, if you can find their IQ scores or some other tangible proof, I'm willing to discuss it. Otherwise, it's conjecture.
Click to expand...

Of course it's subjective. The only way to adequately compare them is an apples to apples test which doesn't really exist (even an IQ test is bias). All I can do make a subjective inference based upon their results or output.

Dawkins is one of the leading ethologist and evolutionary biologist. He has wrote extensively on the subject. He revolutionized the idea of gene determinism with particular interest towards animal behavior and natural election. He revolutionized his field of study.

Graham is the most famous Evangelical preacher of all time. He has converted millions of people. Wrote books on the subject. Did some good deeds in civil rights movements around the world.

Graham is hands down way more popular than Dawkins; not really a measure of intelligence. I would classify his civil rights acts as courageous, not really intelligent. So, in an attempt to compare apples and oranges, I think the critical thing is to see who had the biggest impact on their field of study. Dawkins undoubtedly had and continues to have a profound effect on evolutionary biology, ethology, and genetics. However, as far as I know, Graham has not contributed anything of similar status to theology. He is just simply not in the same breath as other famous theologians Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, Saint Anselm, Descartes, etc.

Again, just my opinion. However, a strong argument can be made for Graham being a very wise man.

volsforever27 said:
Too tired to discuss anymore. I will blame my poor work performance on you tomorrow (actually today). Have a good morning.
Click to expand...

I hope your not too tired today. Being on the opposite side of the world I keep odd hours relative to EST. Hope your day is splendid :hi:
 
#104
#104
VOLatile said:
Just saying, writing a book doesn't make one intelligent.

I've never stated that Billy Graham is not intelligent, either. Just that saying he has faith doesn't help his case, at all.
Click to expand...

You implied it in your first post when you said Dawkins because he's "actually intelligent"
 
#105
#105
Wow, that's 5 minutes of my life I can't get back. I saw where this was going and still jumped in. Stupid me...

FWIW, science cannot prove everything. It does not prove how we got here. It does not prove how the world works.

The same can be said for believing in God. We have faith that He created us and has a plan for everything but we can't prove that

Both require a great deal of faith and just because you believe in one does not automatically make another person wrong. It's just their opinion. It's not like one person saying 2+2 is 4 and another saying it equals 5.

I do find it ironic that most non-Christians will get up in arms about openness and letting people believe what the want to believe. Except for those that want to believe in Christ and divine intervention....
 
#106
#106
PKT_VOL said:
If the shoe fits, wear it. He might not be as mendacious as other TV evangelicals, but is still a TV evangelical. He became a multi millionaire via spreading the evangelical gospel on radio/TV/books etc. Very unChrist like; a sham. Call it whatever you like.

What part is the sham? What part is unChrist like? The man delivered what he believed to be God's word to millions. That is very Christlike.

He didn't run scams or shams.

You and RJD are concluding this by starting from a perspective that religion is BS lies.



If you want to take the skeptic view, that's fine. It is logically coherent but opposes experience (common sense).

What experience? Scientists are more intelligent than non-scientists?


There is a stark difference between intelligence and wisdom. I think many in this thread are confusing the two.
Click to expand...

There is confusion. The concept of intelligence is not the same as academic degrees, field of study, believe in God or atheism. It is an individual trait that must be assessed individually.

So far all we've seen on assessment of one individual is that he's viewed as a con man.

Hardly an evidence-based assessment on that individuals intellect.
 
#107
#107
.
The definition of intelligence is controversial. Groups of scientists have stated the following:
from "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" (1994), an editorial statement by fifty-two researchers:
A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.[5]


from "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" (1995), a report published by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association:
Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person's intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions, and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen, somewhat different, definitions.[6][7]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#108
#108
I have faith Dawkins is smarter. To believe otherwise isn't even an option. I have reasons I believe are valid to come to this conclusion, but in the end there is no need to argue it any further, I know I am right and I want to believe this, that is good enough.
 
#109
#109
VBH, I am saying that in this case, Dawkins is smarter. Interesting you are saying his academic achievements isn't a good indicator, and use academic researchers to make your point about this.

According to you, there is no reason to believe the research you just posted. How do I know any of those guys are intelligent enough to comment?
 
#110
#110
rjd970 said:
VBH, I am saying that in this case, Dawkins is smarter. Interesting you are saying his academic achievements isn't a good indicator, and use academic researchers to make your point about this.

According to you, there is no reason to believe the research you just posted. How do I know any of those guys are intelligent enough to comment?
Click to expand...

No - I've said it is an indicator but not a sole indicator.

I've never said Dawkins is not intelligent, even highly intelligent.

I have said those that believe Dawkins easily more intelligent haven't presented convincing evidence of that conclusion. Worse, they are dealing with gross assumptions about Graham without having any real knowledge of his work or his writings.

If we want to apply science to this then the researcher should at least objectively analyze the intelligence related accomplishments, words, writing, etc. of each to draw conclusion. So far that has not happened.

As I've said repeatedly - I simply don't see enough evidence to conclude one way or the other.
 
#111
#111
volinbham said:
What part is the sham? What part is unChrist like? The man delivered what he believed to be God's word to millions. That is very Christlike.
Click to expand...

To the tune of $25 million dollars (current net worth). Who knows how much over his lifetime.


volinbham said:
There is confusion. The concept of intelligence is not the same as academic degrees, field of study, believe in God or atheism. It is an individual trait that must be assessed individually.

So far all we've seen on assessment of one individual is that he's viewed as a con man.

Hardly an evidence-based assessment on that individuals intellect.
Click to expand...

I addressed this in a retort to volsforever.
 
#112
#112
volinbham said:
No - I've said it is an indicator but not a sole indicator.

I've never said Dawkins is not intelligent, even highly intelligent.

I have said those that believe Dawkins easily more intelligent haven't presented convincing evidence of that conclusion. Worse, they are dealing with gross assumptions about Graham without having any real knowledge of his work or his writings.

If we want to apply science to this then the researcher should at least objectively analyze the intelligence related accomplishments, words, writing, etc. of each to draw conclusion. So far that has not happened.

As I've said repeatedly - I simply don't see enough evidence to conclude one way or the other.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day it will still be opinion based. I'm saying I see enough evidence to say Dawkins is the smarter guy. You don't agree, fine.

I would like to know what objective evidence can conclusively show one way or the other. If not than this whole debate is academic. I believe I see enough evidence to say Dawkins is more intelligent. You obviously don't. We will never get a clear answer.

The assumption I am making about Graham ends at him being a religious capitalist, which ins't even really an assumption. That puts him, at the least, in the same conversation as Robertson, Falwell, and the like.
 
#113
#113
rjd970 said:
I have faith Dawkins is smarter. To believe otherwise isn't even an option. I have reasons I believe are valid to come to this conclusion, but in the end there is no need to argue it any further, I know I am right and I want to believe this, that is good enough.
Click to expand...

Just want to make sure people understand my position, and why I believe I am right.
 
#117
#117
rjd970 said:
I have faith Dawkins is smarter. To believe otherwise isn't even an option. I have reasons I believe are valid to come to this conclusion, but in the end there is no need to argue it any further, I know I am right and I want to believe this, that is good enough.
Click to expand...

awesome
 
#118
#118
volinbham said:
No - I've said it is an indicator but not a sole indicator.

I've never said Dawkins is not intelligent, even highly intelligent.

I have said those that believe Dawkins easily more intelligent haven't presented convincing evidence of that conclusion. Worse, they are dealing with gross assumptions about Graham without having any real knowledge of his work or his writings.

If we want to apply science to this then the researcher should at least objectively analyze the intelligence related accomplishments, words, writing, etc. of each to draw conclusion. So far that has not happened.

As I've said repeatedly - I simply don't see enough evidence to conclude one way or the other.
Click to expand...


All day long
 
#125
#125
VOLatile said:
Just saying, writing a book doesn't make one intelligent.

I've never stated that Billy Graham is not intelligent, either. Just that saying he has faith doesn't help his case, at all.
Click to expand...

Bo Jackson wrote a book.....just sayin
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top