Thread: Hugh Hewitt v. Richard Dawkins

I'm not a big Hugh Hewitt fan, but he tackles Richard Dawkins on his radio show in this transcript.

It gets kind of interesting near the end when they begin discussing historical sources for Christianity and Dawkins asks about miracles.

Thanks for posting. It was interesting. I haven't listened to Hugh in a few years but he does, at times, badger his guests (in a friendly way) like a trial attorney. Dawkins doesn't seem to like lawyers.

Has anyone read The Greatest Show on Earth? Is it worth reading as a defense of evolution?

Haha, the discussion about miracles was certainly interesting Dawkins sure has to work to suppress the truth. His attitude was very revealing when, after Hewitt said that he believed Jesus turned water into wine, Dawkins said, "I’ve realized the kind of person I’m dealing with now."

Dawkins seems to do a lot of ad hominem and belittle anyone who doesn't hold to naturalism, which, if they did, would vitiate the entire need to have a discussion or debate. I suppose he considers the glaring logical fallacies in his philosophical and scientific positions not worth discussing, to the point that anyone pointing out the fact that the emperor has no clothes needs to be executed.

My favorite HH quote was "Well, it’s not about what appeals to us, it’s about what is."

I would give my eye to see James White debate Richard Dawkins.

But then it might be difficult to see. :}

I kind of liked Dawkins reluctance to debate anybody on the topic. He would rather spend his time writing books (according to him). Translation: I would rather just spout out my ideas without any critical feedback.

Originally Posted by carlgobelman

I kind of liked Dawkins reluctance to debate anybody on the topic. He would rather spend his time writing books (according to him). Translation: I would rather just spout out my ideas without any critical feedback.

He did make it sound that if he had known HH believed in miracles he may not have consented to the interview. But to be fair, some people are simply not gifted debaters. I don't think he should be crticized for that, in and of itself.

It should also be noted that Dawkins has consented to public debates (though not formal debates) on occasion. For example, he has had discourses with the likes of Alistair McGrath: see here and here.