Speculating about possible outcomes of a yet to become famous debate
Look at this debate between Richard Dawkings and Rowen Williams, chaired by Anthony Kenny, about the Nature of Being and the Question of Their Ultimate Origin, held at the Oxford University, Februari 23, 2012.
A discussion in the best Western scientific tradition, as the British are so renowned for. I presume that after a hundred years, when bioengineering, neuroscience and computer science have evolved much further, this meeting of controversial ideas will be remembered as of the same importance as the first publication of Darwin´s The Origin of Species.
However, it would be interesting as the chairman had used The Six Hat Thinking Framework to facilitate the exchange of ideas. What would happen?
I will happily ask the members of the deBonoSociety:
1. to speculate about the possible outcomes.Don´t be afraid for examples of the thinking that could be happened when Six Hat Thinking was used instead of the model of debate. Basically, Green Hat Thinking is asked.
And/or
2. to describe and comment the thinking and/or the thinking process as it involved during the debate, from the perspective of Parallel Thinking and the Six Hat Thinking Framework. Essentially, Blue Hat thinking is asked.
Please, indicate which Thinking Hat you wear when giving your contribution.
Look here for the dialogue
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Gijs van Beeck Calkoen on -
Adonis,
imagine that you are in the chair of such an event, how would you schedule it?
-
Permalink Reply by Gijs van Beeck Calkoen on
-
Luis,
a short description of the debate can be found here .
The event has its own website, but a transcription is not (yet) available.
-
Permalink Reply by Gijs van Beeck Calkoen on
-
1. to speculate about the possible outcomes.Don´t be afraid for examples of the thinking that could be happened when Six Hat Thinking was used instead of the model of debate. Basically, Green Hat Thinking is asked.
I would suggest the next sequel of the Thinking Hats to wear by both Richard Dawkings andRowan Williams at the same time. In all circumstances chairman Anthony Kenny would wear the Blue Thinking Hat. For the moment I will imaging that I took that task on me.
Blue Hat
Richard Dawkins and The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams discussed the nature of human beings, the origin of human species and the origin of life on Earth and the origin of Universe
I suggest that the question better was restricted to one question. I had prefered the origin of life as the most concrete and understandable question.White Hat
As chairman I had asked to shortly explain possible explanations of the origins of life.
That way the public was shortly introduced to the main concepts like Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Creationismdelusionand Dawkings´ views on religion as a `delusion`.I had asked the `opponent` not to comment but to improve and enrich the given explanation by the other, in order to esthablish a firm base for understanding the basic concepts. Then I would shortly summarize the alternative explanations of the origen of life, and point to the main differences and assumptions.Green Hat
As chair, I would now ask both gentlemen to develop alternative hypotheses about the origin of life. I would have prepared some questions and suggestions in advance, to stimulate the thinking by both scholars. For instance:- Are there any more alternative explanations conceivable?
- (To provoke the thinking I could eventually refer to the hypothesis that the technologies and religions of many ancient civilizations were given to them by ancient astronauts who were welcomed as gods.)
- Are the given alternative explanations mutually exclusive? What does it take to coincide?
- In what circumstance they would not contradict?
- Do we need the concept of a God to explain the origins of life?
- Do we need the concept of a God to have a moral compass?
- Do we need the concept of a evolutionary biology to explain the origins of life? If not, are there other concepts conceivable, for instance a hypothetical information or conscience field?
- Can we use the concept of an evolutionary biology to have a moral compass?
- What if life and conscience does not have the same origin? Will that make a difference?
As chair I would shortly summarize the result of the joint thinking, to be used as the set up for the next stage. I would explain that the aim of the next stage would be to explore what information would be relevant to say something that makes sense regarding the alternative hypotheses.
White Hat
As chair I would ask both scholars to think about what information would prove the alternative hypotheses as wrong. And what scientific experiments should be set up to reject the alternative explanations.Blue Hat
To conclude the thinking about the origins of life as a chair I would summarize- What the starting question of the debate has been
- The first explanations that have been given
- Alternative hypotheses which were developed
- How the hypothesis were to be rejected
- What to conclude were the results of the thinking
As chair I must keep in mind that an outcome of the discussion could be that the postulated question was incorrectly formulated. For instance. the subject of the debate had better be “Is it possible to research the concept of god scientifically?”
-
Permalink Reply by Gijs van Beeck Calkoen on
-
Never heard of, but for sure it sounds interesting, I will look it up! Thanks
-
Permalink Reply by Kim Jones on -
I have seen so many Richard Dawkins debates by now I can assure you I could probably predict what each of these two would say in this vid. No, I haven't watched it (yet) and may not get around to it, but I can assure you I know exactly where you are coming from, Gijs. Dicky has taken on Rowan many times before this, so I am just wondering why you feel this particular debate is so significant? Have either of these two come up with anything new? Both enter the fray with their minds already made up, so there is of course no possibility of a genuine exploration of the topic.
hHDawkins is the archbishop of the world's newest religion and Williams the archbishop of an old one. Their thinking is remarkably similar. Both would be shocked to realise this because the whole function of debate is to expose how different A's thinking is from B's. Nevertheless, before either have opened their mouths we note that:
Both believe in an Aristotelian universe as opposed to a Platonic one.
Both believe that matter is primary and that a physical universe is the result.
Both believe that science and religion are different disciplines.
Both believe that you only live once.
Both believe that a God being is a logical possibility. Yes - Dawkins has admitted that; well he never really discounted it...
Both believe that the universe had a beginning and will probably have an ending.
Each believes that the world would be better off without the other.
Each finds what he seeks: both can quote scriptures at each other till they are both blue in the face and neither will ever back off one inch.
Where's the debate????? These two guys LOVE each other (actually they are lifelong buddies and have an enormous respect for one another) and have the time of their lives trying to unseat each others' confidence in their chosen beliefs.
Have to go to bed - dropping from tiredness....
-
Permalink Reply by Asa Jomard on -
Wow, Kim, you proved the point clearly!
-
Permalink Reply by Gijs van Beeck Calkoen on
-
Great and inventive comparison Thank you!
-
Permalink Reply by Kim Jones on
-
Thank you to all those thank yous for my comment. I hung back for a while on this thread because I wanted to know who the other Dicky Dawkins fans were out there. Personally I would watch Dawkins debate God any day. To anyone who hasn't yet discovered Richarddawkins.net be it known that intelligent life exists on that planet as well as here amongst us civilised higher-sentient beings.
© 2013 Created by Administrator.
Powered by
