Richard Dawkins Analysis

To begin in the video “Bill O’Reilly SCARED by Richard Dawkins” you see Bill O’ Reilly and Richard Dawkins going back in forth over the belief and evidence for god to exist. In the video you can see clearly that Richard Dawkins does not believe in a god and also tries to present facts to Bill as to why. Vice-versa you can clearly see that Bill O’ Reilly does belive in god and tries to convince Dawkins that god does exist. Now to go on to the main point, in my opion if W.K Clifford the famous English mathematician and philosopher were there he would not completely side with either on the topic, however I feel that he would most likely leen to the side with Richard Dawkins. Before going further into why, W.K Clifford was a man who was known to go against
practical reasoning. Cliford only accepted what he knew based on concreate evidence. Cliford felt it was only right to question subjects that could not be proven with substancial evidence.
Cliford belived that we could not simply accept our senses and what seemed natural because they can often be proved false. Now to explain why he would have accepted richards idea more than bills. When you ask them both to present their case on the existence of god you find that richards arguments will be based more on scientfical evidence and Bills might tend to lean on more so faith in ideas with some small amounts of physical evidence. For example when it comes to the idea of where everything comes from you can see that Richard would try to scientifcally provide evidence which he can do up to a certain degree. Where as with bill he could provide some evidence as to events and religious figures that were real people but a substancial amout of the evidence has to be taken with a degree of faith. I feel that Clifford wouldn’t be able believe in Dawkins one hundered percent only because he does not have full evidence to explain why the way everything is the way it is without a god, but he does have the most suffcient concrete evidence. This evidence is also not purely based on reasoning. Senses, or passed
ideas. The evidence that Dawkins would provide is more concrete than what bill can provide and that’s why over anything Clifford would chose to side with Dawkins. Clifford believed that it was wrong to belive anything upon insufficent evidence and that is the case here in which Dawkins has the the most sufficent evidence while bill does not. You can also see many other things Clifford would disagree with. For example, the fact that bill does not really care to gain any more evidence of god existing and he doesn’t nesscarily open his self up to evidence that could prove his belief wrong. In the end it is simply Dawkins ability to provide more concrete proof and Bills enifecienty to gather substancial evidence that I feel would sway Clifford to Dawkins side.