For the record, I dislike the title/"motion for" of the debate. Science cannot refute the Abrahamic god anymore than it can refute Zeus. I think a major point about this that D'Souza, Hutchinson and many others don't get is that science doesn't have to. The question of whether god exists is not a stupid question, but the burden of proof lies with the claimant, not the one rejecting the claim. I think the title of the debate and the "motion for" would have been better stated as "Can Science Support the Concept of God (as D'Souza claims) and the answer is clearly no. I don't want to spoil the debate for anyone, but I was once again disappointed that the theist side cannot present anything new or enlightening. I am not kidding about that. I *want* to be shocked into thinking about something I haven't considered before. It just doesn't happen. D'Souza and Hutchinson just ended up trotting out the same old fallacies and misdirections. I will say that I thought Hutchinson made *some* good points not to support the god hypothesis, but in describing the limits of science. Alas, by the end I thought his argument was weak and he used many of the same feeble "just so" statements" and special pleading argument. Oddly, watch out for the Andie MacDowell sighting at 1:17. I take it she doesn't think much of science. Oh, and my loathing of D'Souza grows.
So regarding miracles: at ~50:00 Hutchinson is basically stating that the laws of physics are not completely understood and are incomplete so it is conceivable that the Earth stood still by some now unknown loophole. That is special pleading. A suspension of known reality without probable cause. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
I couldn't help myself. I wrote more about this. Specifically D'Souza's closing sentence.
Post a Comment