Quote:
Originally Posted by Lestat
Not really. If it weren't for the precise (and unique) writing that RD objected to, I'm pretty sure we would still disagree. Right or wrong, I reserve the right to judge someone based on their previous actions. Not just on what they may be saying now.
Oo good - we can argue again!
(Note, I'm not saying we disagree...):
"I reserve the right to judge someone based on their previous actions. Not just on what they may be saying now."
Me too. What I am suggesting is that, if someone's statements contradict their past behaviour it is not right to assume that they are lying. There are a plethora of additional factors which may be weighing into the decision which you are unaware. It would be entirely appropriate to challenge Dawkins and point out that his reason seems to contradict his previous behavior. He could have any number of responses:
"Yeah, I was lying" might be what you and Stu Pidasso think he'd say. However surely he could alternatively have changed his mind. Or perhaps he made a commitment to enter those previous debates without knowing much about who he was debating. Or maybe he'd say "Oh it's not
just because he's an immoral creationist. I'm also worried about the PR effect if he ended up winning the debate".
My claim is that we should take people at their word without very good reason not to - otherwise debates end very quickly and degenerate into ridiculous arguments about what the evidence is for or against someone's statements based on their actions - which doesnt help anything.
The confidence with which people make statements about whether Brad Pitt should have chosen Angelina Jolie or Jennifer Aniston is not indicative of their abilities to judge which is best for him - he is a complicated person and what we read and see of him and other celebrities is the barest fraction of their lives. Similarly, we know next to nothing about Dawkins. What we
do know about him is popularised by press with an agenda (either pro-atheism or pro-religious) - so how can you be at all confident you have enough data from the snippets which are more or less accurately reported as to what he's done and said in order to form a view as to his integrity?
It all just boils down to what seems reasonable from some specific few facts which have been selected. I bet I could provide you with half a dozen facts which would appear to trap Craig in a contradiction if I were to selectively comb through his life, his speeches and his writings. That's not indicative of a weak moral character - it's indicative of a few data points in a complicated situation being a very poor predictor.