Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by jarofthoughts

There is no knowledge to be had about gods whatsoever, which means that anyone is just as qualified as anyone else to speak about them.

That's absurd. That no one is qualified to talk about "god" doesn't mean everyone is.

[BetrayTheArchetype]

There's a line of logic in JarofThought's statement that must be ceded to, Willamena.

There's no empirical data on any god. All we have are biased theological works. Nearly invariably those works describe something that happened so long ago there's no real chance to prove or disprove the claims in those works; at least, when the works are penned there's no method at that time to prove or disprove them.

Given that, it's very easy to make up literally anything you want on the subject. Without any provable method to verify those claims, they cannot be discounted because there's no way to know.

Except, as often misquoted by people on forums, the lack of any evidence IS evidence that such a thing is not real. We can go along all day and say that the lack of evidence saying that unicorns are not real means they could exist.

It does not actually work that way. The statement so often misquoted in forums is just that, misquoted, misunderstood, and maligned. Lack of proof of anything DOES mean it does not exist. Until something can be quantitatively demonstrated or at the least non-psychotically experienced it does not exist.

It lies within the realm of possible, but it does not exist. For something to exist it has to be more than the figment of someone's imagination. Until it is conclusively demonstrated, there's no realism in any concept and thus someone can, quite literally, speak in a qualified manner about anything they want - until they're proven wrong, or they're so absurd that the whole thing falls on its face by its own merit.

Consider this - "God, as the Christians understand him, just married Ahura Mazda. His marriage came to me in a revelation during my sleep. He told me to bear witness about the merging of Zoroastrian religion and Christianity, so here I am telling you."

It's certainly within the realm of possible and given the circumstances I describe I am quite qualified to speak on the matter - god himself ordained me to do so, and the qualifications don't come much better if you're Christian.

The problem, of course, lies in that the whole thing is patently untrue. God didn't, and until I can give any reason whatsoever for people to listen to me and not write me off as a crackpot, there's no reason to consider that it really existed. Since there's no reason to believe it (by design it is an unprovable scenario and no test can be ran to find out) and there's no proof that it did happen - the only statement that it did happen is my own declaration which is NOT proof for it - it's not proof that it did not happen.

It cannot be considered as realistic just because there's no evidence that it didn't happen, though. Otherwise, I'd like you all to bow down now and realize that the only true religion is Zororistianism. There's no evidence it did not happen so it must have happened.

And that, really, is why everyone IS qualified to speak on religion. Anyone can make anything up and it can be reasonable considering the terms of the discussion topic (gods and magic and such that cannot be quantified by physics), but nobody can be taken seriously about any of it.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Willamena

That's absurd. That no one is qualified to talk about "god" doesn't mean everyone is.

But that is not what he said.
He said everyone is just as equally qualified to to talk about god.

Who "isn't" qualified to talk about god?
Why?

[Azihayya]

Originally Posted by jarofthoughts

Depending on the topic, people here (me included) can become quite nit-picky, so you might as well get used to it...



Well, people here want to know stuff, as humans have a tendency to do, when answers aren't forthcoming they tend to speculate.
Also, this is in the debate section of the forums, which means that comments will be scrutinized and analysed, and, if found wanting, picked apart.



Actually, this being a public forum and all, your posts are anyone's business...



That kind of attitude usually only leads to people either ignoring you or picking your comments apart and throwing them in a proverbial ditch.
But hey, I might be wrong; maybe your comments are so profound and influential that that won't happen.

I have no obligation to participate here, I find the scrutiny revolving around my opinions
to be uncredible and fallacious of nature; it seems like the responders that I am getting
who are critically analyzing my statements are only haunting themselves.

[jarofthoughts]

Originally Posted by Azihayya

I have no obligation to participate here,

True, and yet, here you are.

Originally Posted by Azihayya

I find the scrutiny revolving around my opinions
to be uncredible and fallacious of nature;

That may or may not be so, but you have not shown us why that is.

Originally Posted by Azihayya

it seems like the responders that I am getting who are critically analyzing my statements are only haunting themselves.

I'm not sure they see it that way, but hey, I might be wrong.
Why do you think that is the case though?

[paarsurrey]

@ jarofthoughts

Reference your post #675

Please quote the serial number of post where I wrote the following.

Originally Posted by paarsurrey
I find the scrutiny revolving around my opinions
to be uncredible and fallacious of nature;

Originally Posted by paarsurrey
it seems like the responders that I am getting who are critically analyzing my statements are only haunting themselves.

I never wrote that;it must be your mistake, so please correct for everybody

[jarofthoughts]

Originally Posted by paarsurrey

I never wrote that;it must be your mistake, so please correct for everybody

Terribly sorry about that.
I'll fix it right away.

[gerobbins]

I have no doubt that he is a good scientist and as a person he is probably a good person as well.

However, he is of one opinion and all others are wrong in his mind.

[jarofthoughts]

Originally Posted by gerobbins

However, he is of one opinion and all others are wrong in his mind.

How is that different from any other person on the planet?
If he thought his opinion about a subject was wrong he'd just change it...

[paarsurrey]

Originally Posted by gerobbins

I have no doubt that he is a good scientist and as a person he is probably a good person as well.

However, he is of one opinion and all others are wrong in his mind.

I think there are other biologists of his calibre out there but they restrict themselves to their specific field and they don't step out and encroach on religion as does Dawkins.

Please correct me if I am wrong.