greentara wrote:Catmoon, I was talking about Archbishop Pell and he doesn't have a Phd and yet I found Dawkins struggling at certain points in the debate. I know a few people who have doctorates, whilst certainly clever and diligent I would be hard pressed to call them brilliant. Dawkins says "How much of what we believe about our world is the result of what we have been conditioned or told to think? To what extent are we influenced by our parents and our surroundings? Or do we believe what we believe because we have actually and quite independently thought it through?" How many of us on this forum come from a Buddhist background? My parents were not Buddhists.
Dawkins has now gathered a huge following and is quite thin skinned, he bristles when challenged. Does he think he's a superstar? I suspect he does. His reaction to criticism shows his flawed nature.
LOL how many archbishops has this guy debated, anyways? Sry about the mistaken ID. But I did watch the entire debate with Archbishop Rowan Williams who does have an Oxford Ph.D, and the debate was calm and civil throughout with significant points being scored by both sides.
It's true not every Ph.D is brilliant, but if you take all Ph.D's in the world, select for the best universities, then select those who went on to professorships at those universities, and again select out those professors who have attained broad recognition as brighter than even most professors from the best universities, gaining global recognition, you are down to perhaps the 100 most brilliant people in the world, and that is the category in which Richard Dawkins sits.
If he is thin skinned and a bit bristly, I don't see how that bears on the truth or falsity of what he says. It may just be as he said, he was having a bad day.
BTW I assume you are speaking of George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney. If so you will find that he too has a Ph.D from Oxford- a DPhil in church history, to be exact, and it was earned in 1971.