Richard Dawkins.

[SonicKoala]

snip

And furthermore, could you stop telling me to go back and read your posts? If you want to put a point across, repeat it.

 

[SonicKoala]

snip

And furthermore, could you stop telling me to go back and read your posts? If you want to put a point across, repeat it.

Can you actually read my posts first? Because why should I repeat something for someone too lazy to read it in the first place? Why should I indulge someone being stupid like that?

I have read your original post - all that I extrapolated from it was that there are a wide array of claims which are unverifiable, and therefore these should be considered false until sufficient evidence is presented for them, thus making them worth considering. You then went on to reiterate how "god exists" is a claim which meets that criteria - there is absolutely no supporting evidence for that claim, and therefore considering it is a moot point. If I've missed something, then do tell.

 

[Something Amyss]

How very true. It's so much more immediate (if not necessarily more important) than the more academic fight against religious tomfoolery. At least in the Western world.

Especially with how often alternative medicine kills. Or, at the very least, seriously physically damages people.

I mean, I'm not a fan of religious motivated nutjobs targeting minorities, but you don't even have to hate to hurt someone with alternative medical practices.

though we could combine the two and crusade against faith healers. I caught the end of the 700 club a couple of times, and Pat Robertson would do it via the TV, encouraging people to do stuff like "Throw your inhaler away, you don't need it anymore."

And ostensibly, if you follow that advice and die from an asthma attack, your lack of faith in Jesus was the problem.

 

[SonicKoala]

snip

And furthermore, could you stop telling me to go back and read your posts? If you want to put a point across, repeat it.

Can you actually read my posts first? Because why should I repeat something for someone too lazy to read it in the first place? Why should I indulge someone being stupid like that?

I have read your original post - all that I extrapolated from it was that there are a wide array of claims which are unverifiable, and therefore these should be considered false until sufficient evidence is presented for them, thus making them worth considering. You then went on to reiterate how "god exists" is a claim which meets that criteria - there is absolutely no supporting evidence for that claim, and therefore considering it is a moot point. If I've missed something, then do tell.

How about that your complaint amounts to quibbling over the amount of atoms between two objects when someone is measuring distance.

And that by your standards you can say "Maybe" to pretty much any claim about reality. The logical conclusion of which is that "Nothing is verifiable". Gravity exists? Not verifiable because maybe aliens are making us hallucinate! Your use of words is so ridiculously broad they become useless.

I don't see how my complaint is similar to quibbling over the amount of atoms between objects when measuring distance.

What I'm arguing for is the use of evidence in substantiating a claim. If one does not have supporting evidence to support their claim, they are not justified in asserting that claim is true. Take the theory of gravity - people are justified in claiming gravity exists because we can readily observe it. Evolution? People are justified in asserting evolution took place by citing the fossil record. And actually, if you talk to scientists, this notion that "nothing is verifiable" is, in fact, an opinion held by most scientists. Scientists rarely ever say something is conclusively true, but rather continue to test and experiment, thereby allowing them to further substantiate their claims. Sure, maybe aliens are making us hallucinate into believing gravity exists, but that is highly unlikely, considering the evidence we have to the contrary.

And yes, in fact, you can say "maybe" to pretty much anything - however, if there is no evidence to support that "maybe", then the possibility of that "maybe" being true falls away.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

You cannot honestly expect me to disprove the existence of god.

Such a feat is impossible.

You're not listening. The fact is, there is some evidence which would suggest the possibility of a god which Dawkins ignores, and the arguments Dawkins makes in his books are badly made and generally inaccurate.

The Celestial Teapot was used to show that the burden of proof should be on the one making an extraordinary claim. You missed his point.

No I didn't. My point is he's just repeating things that he's been told and isn't trying to argue back at what arguments for a god there are.

The whole "indoctrination" argument is pretty stupid too since you can be raised religious or atheist.

It really infuriates me when people just talk about "common sense" when it comes to religion.

What is this evidence for God? I'd love to see it. And he isn't just repeating what he is told. The Celestial Teapot is a valid point that he brought up. Have you read any of Dawkins' material by chance? I'll wait for that evidence.

 

[Redemption003]

He's a great Ethologist, but his views on Religion are a little too extreme for my tastes (and this is coming from somebody who considers themselves to be an Atheist).

Also, if you have any interest in genetics and Biology in general, read "The Selfish Gene". Even if you're already read up on the basics of genetics and suchlike, he explains it from a viewpoint that is a little different to what you'd usually find (not to mention an extremely interesting one at that).

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

He's a great Ethologist, but his views on Religion are a little too extreme for my tastes (and this is coming from somebody who considers themselves to be an Atheist).

Also, if you have any interest in genetics and Biology in general, read "The Selfish Gene". Even if you're already read up on the basics of genetics and suchlike, he explains it from a viewpoint that is a little different to what you'd usually find (not to mention an extremely interesting one at that).

I've never seen someone use analogies as effectively as he did. The Selfish Gene should be a companion book for high school biology classes.

 

[Grospoliner]

He's a great biologist but he needs to stay the fuck away from Philosophical debates about God. It's not his field and he should stay out of it.

In that case would you be fine with permitting only scientists to comment on policy regarding science topics then? Like stem cell research, cloning, nuclear energy, alternative energy, global warming?

If you are then you should condemn first, all those who throw their two cents in on any old topic. If not, then you're hypocritical.

That would not make sense. Policy involves more than just science. It involves priorities and ethics.

That's exactly the point. You can't simply say, oh, this is all we're going to look at, only these people are qualified to make a statement on it because they're the only professionals in that field so only they know what they're talking about. That's only looking at the small picture (religion/philosphy/science); we can't do just that we have to ask what's the big picture? (effect on society/individuals/the world)

It's supposed to be the job of those professionals to disseminate the information they discover to the population so the population can learn it. It just so happens that various fields become intertwined. You can't talk about history without anthropology, you can't talk about philosophy without history, or science, or psychology, any of a number of other topics. As people delve into an issue they discover this more and more.

It is no surprise that someone who has worked with evolutionary biology would invariably end up involved in discussions about history, evolution and philosophy. If anything Dawkins is expertly qualified to discuss philosophy.

You can comment on it all you like and have your own opinion etc. But to officially involve yourself in debates with other philosophers/theologians and make programs about Religion and God when you aren't involved in that field is just stupid.

Not at all. How else are we supposed to learn except by exchanging ideas? Everyone deserves equal opportunity to have their thoughts heard and criticized. I might disagree with some points of what someone says, but I don't throw out everything they say simply because they're not the best qualified to make those comments or even because some of those comments they make are obviously wrong. That's fallacy.

 

[Grospoliner]

It is no surprise that someone who has worked with evolutionary biology would invariably end up involved in discussions about history, evolution and philosophy. If anything Dawkins is expertly qualified to discuss philosophy.

Expertly qualified?? How so?

I stated my reasoning in the previous post. All the stuff about interdisciplinary exposure and what have you. Someone engrossed in philosophy can't simply be focused on one topic of life. Ignoring the rest makes them poor philosophers.

 

[Flac00]

Smart guy, smart ideas, bad presentation. I really don't mind if atheists exist or voice their views, they are just like any other belief system (religion). He really just represents the a-hole side of it, just the same as many other represent the a-hole side of other religions.

 

[Flac00]

Smart guy, smart ideas, bad presentation. I really don't mind if atheists exist or voice their views, they are just like any other belief system (religion). He really just represents the a-hole side of it, just the same as many other represent the a-hole side of other religions.

It is not a belief system. It involves a single rejection of a particular belief. That's it.

The lack of belief in something can still be a belief system. People like to conjugate in groups that all seem to follow the same ideas, atheists are like any other people and do so. Thus, they follow a system of beliefs (its a reaaally short system consisting of 1-2 ideas, but still a system). Really the only differences here are semantics and really don't matter.

 

[Grospoliner]

It is no surprise that someone who has worked with evolutionary biology would invariably end up involved in discussions about history, evolution and philosophy. If anything Dawkins is expertly qualified to discuss philosophy.

Expertly qualified?? How so?

I stated my reasoning in the previous post. All the stuff about interdisciplinary exposure and what have you. Someone engrossed in philosophy can't simply be focused on one topic of life. Ignoring the rest makes them poor philosophers.

Your reasoning was vague. You failed to explain how it enhances. I'm asking for specific examples. You claimed it was necessary to consider science for philosophy. But even given that that does not mean knowing science means you're qualified to discuss the rest. That would be like saying that just because I can make a speech I'm expertly qualified to be President because the President has to make speeches. It doesn't work that way, even if I agree with the other things you asserted.

Fair enough. Let me make the simplest comparison I can. I'll just go ahead and use existence of god as the topic. One person is a devout religious person, the other is a scientist who rejects any supernatural reasons as a suitable explanation for phenomena. Now what are the requirements needed for either person to present their argument?

At the very least:

1) The religious individual has to be knowledgeable about Theology.

2) The scientist has to be knowledgeable about Science.

Now, what does theology cover? Where the religion came from (history), how the religion developed over time (anthropology), how the religion applies to the individual (psychology/anthropology) and society at large (social anthropology). From one simple topic we now have multiple topics that must be covered.

So already we can see that the topic is more complex than just "does god exist?" it combines a number of relevant issues that are interwoven and critical to each other. Understanding each in turn is important. Leave out one and you're not considering all the potentials behind the topic. Choose one over another and you're imparting bias into your understanding.

What does science cover? Well, the systematic explanation for various phenomena (the math, the actual science), how those explanations developed over time (history), how they apply to the individual and society at large (psychology and anthropology). So objectively both should cover roughly the same sub-topics.

The key point here, is the effect the topic has on society. The sub-topics relate to one another, because they are a part of society. They all provide influence to, and are subsequently influenced by, the society they belong to.

Perhaps a better explanation would be the car. Without an engine, a car isn't much of a car. The mechanic can work on a car, but he has to know a wide variety of things to identify and fix various problems, he has to have tools to do so.

Philosophy is the same way, it is the culmination of numerous parts that if removed or ignored, will result in the philosophy as it is put forth to fail to work properly (fails to provide a sufficient explanation). A person who crafts philosophy must understand how those parts apply as a whole, else they will be as a mechanic without the tools he needs to work on a car.

So, if you still don't see what I'm trying to say, then I'm sorry, but I haven't the time to explain it any other way.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

I've never read any of his books, and honestly, the only thing I've heard from him is his views on religion, and he comes off as a massive dick.

I don't mind people not agreeing with other people's believes, which is fine, and in that front all I ask is that you be respectful. This dude doesn't, and it rubs me the wrong way. Personally, he comes off as a Baptist preacher, but for atheists.

 

[revjor]

Dawkin's interview with Bishop Coyne is a perfect example of how he conducts himself. Smart and a disrespectful douche.

 

[Frenger]

Dawkins is great. But he's boring compared to Hitchins or Harris when it comes to all things religious. And when people complain that Dawkins is "aggressive", man, those should listen to Hitchins instead. Now, *that* would be entertaining.

Spoiler: Some fluff for those who care, which I guess arn't many

As for my thoughts on the matter, organized religion is a waste of time, but I guess it holds some value to some folks. As long as I don't have to participate or keep silent if my opinion "offends someone". God is a human construct - if there is a "creator" of some sort, it is not within our grasp(yet), and building laws and churches around "it" is just, as I said, a waste of time. I guess that makes me an agnostic atheist? Or agnostic anti-theist? Whatever the term is, god is perfectly useless to me, and I am to "him". And so far, life have been good, so I guess "we" are on good terms.

Anyway, there seem to be some confusion what an atheist really is. It's simply the rejection of a belief in a deity. Or, as the word mean; Without god. If we're to nitpick, atheism is a belief system of sorts, but it simply dismiss the idea of some higher power (for most parts anyway), but that's not important. There are plenty of cults over the years that have replaced god with a person (Lenin, Hitler, Mao) or an object (Apple, lol). Those are just as bad if you ask me.

Anyway, tons of people here have already cleared that up. But, I say this just in case someone can't take a hint.

 

[The Ouroboros of Red]

He's a pop-scientist. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Indeterminacy]

Dawkins seems like the kind of guy I would enjoy talking with casually, but to be honest I can't really engage with any aspect of his work.

The problem isn't really with his views on Religion. By and large, his criticism is something I would stand by, and his opinions vis. obscurantist metaphysics and folklore are largely unquestionable.

What I'm not so sure about is his perspective with regards to scientific realism; specifically that of the Biological sciences. It has never seemed right to me that the biological taxonomies and investigations should all be thought to carve nature at any useful joints. Biochemistry and physiology, I'm postively supportive of, and the explanation of organism development through the information content of genetic sequences is absolutely inspired, but it's when you get to subjects like ecology and structural biology that I have problems understanding why the classifications provided are somehow epistemically privileged; at the least, any more so than, say, economics or political sciences.

Evolution is supposed to bridge the explanatory gap between the molecular level, which I could happily accept, and the theories of why such and such is a distinct species/why certain ecological and environmental effects arise, and I'm not sure that it really works as strongly as convention assumes (even if it is capable of providing post-hoc rationalization for why the "right" taxonomy of biology is what it is). I don't find Dawkins convincing in this regard, which makes me wonder whether we shouldn't really be getting a chemist in to defend Science against Religion as opposed to an evolutionary biologist.

 

[Robert Ewing]

I like him, he knows what he's talking about, and he doesn't beat around the fucking bush. He says what he wants, as he wants to say it. He gets shit done. Good man.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

"People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care"

I think he has yet to learn that. At least that's why I see from him.

 

[AlphonseRomano]

While it can look that way, due to is antagonistic nature, I think he has a bit more standing as he generally backs his opinions up with facts.

Additionally, I think all he's asking is for people to think about things logically, not just straight up believe his opinions. As I said, its the brain-dead sect of his "followers" that revere him so much.

Au Contraire. My memory might be flawed, but I recall that he has been quoted as saying that he doesn't care if people understand him as long as they believe what he says (which seems to me to make him a religion).