Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[McBell]

I am just stating the facts. The burden of proof falls upon those who make the positive claim.

and you think you have not a made a single positive claim in this thread?

Am I giving you to much credit assuming you are playing the devils advocate?

Or perhaps you are merely trying to pull off a strawman?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

and you think you have not a made a single positive claim in this thread?

Am I giving you to much credit assuming you are playing the devils advocate?

Or perhaps you are merely trying to pull off a strawman?

And where is my strawman? So far I haven't created one.

Ok I might as well since I have been accused of it, here is my strawman of Dawkins and his minions:

[youtube]nauLgZISozs[/youtube]
If I Only Had a Brain - The Wizard of Oz (4/8) Movie CLIP (1939) HD - YouTube

Satisfied?

 

[McBell]

And where is my strawman? So far I haven't created one.

Ok I might as well since I have been accused of it, here is my strawman of Dawkins and his minions:


Satisfied?

It seems I gave you far to much credit assuming that you could get past your own ego enough to understand.

My apologies.

I mean, it must have to royally suck never ever being mistaken.

 

[A Troubled Man]

I see, so we're in a bit of a disagreement as to what constitutes religious indoctrination.

"Indoctrination" breaks down into "bringing someone in a doctrine" Doctrine comes from a Latin word meaning "teaching." Therefore, any sort of teaching is to be considered, technically, indoctrination.

We can also look at he definition of 'indoctrination', this one take from wiki...

"Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.As such the term may be used pejoratively, often in the context of education, political opinions, theology or religious dogma."

Notice though, that it quite clearly states that indoctrination is "often distinguished from education", and for the reason of "not to question or critically examine the doctrine" they have learned, in other words, not questioning or examining theology or religious dogma, but instead repeated statements and admonitions being persistently taught with the intention of causing influence to accept it.

Undoubtedly, one of the most important aspects of our brain is the actual use of it, to question and to exam everything, regardless of whether it comes from a scientist or a priest. To not understand and critique without question anything they say is shameful and dishonest to oneself as it defies the very purpose of our minds; thinking. This alone is costly in regards to long lasting mental and emotion effects for the indoctrinated, it is the loss of use of one of the most important organs in the body.

As far as the development of a child's brain is concerned, indoctrination is the worst kind of abuse, destroying the ability to reason and use logic from an early age that usually carries with them their whole lives.

One might as well be a robot.

 

[Riverwolf]

Of course not.

But to be unable to even entertain the thought that this man is incapable of acting unethically or that calling religion child abuse is a bunch of tauri-stinky stuff kind of looks to me as cultish thinking.

But, having actually taken the time to understand what's being said, no one is saying that this guy is incapable of acting unethically, or that religion is, in itself, child abuse.

If they weren't cultish in their beliefs about this man, they would be able to accept and be open-minded about any criticism directed towards him.

So... you judge a man by his followers?

 

[McBell]

So... you judge a man by his followers?

if so, Jesus Christ is certainly ******....

 

[Koldo]

What you and your friends forget is that I'm the critic and the burden of proof doesn't fall on me but on those of posit that somehow Richard Dawkins is a good scientist, good educator or a good human being. And so far that proof is still forthcoming.

Have you forgotten you said you agree that Dawkins is a good scientist?

And, just to make it clear, the one that claims he is a good educator or a good human being has the same burden of proof as someone that claims he is a bad educator or a bad human being.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

But, having actually taken the time to understand what's being said, no one is saying that this guy is incapable of acting unethically, or that religion is, in itself, child abuse.

So this doesn't seem a bit too messianic to you?:

It's funny when folks degrade Dawkins considering he is more interested in mankind and solving it's problems than most here put together.

So... you judge a man by his followers?

The cult members are often a reflection of the cult leader, that's how the dynamics of a cult of personality works.

 

[Riverwolf]

We can also look at he definition of 'indoctrination', this one take from wiki...

I'd take wikipedia definitions of words with a grain of salt.

"Indoctrination

is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.As such the term may be used pejoratively, often in the context of education, political opinions, theology or religious dogma."

Notice though, that it quite clearly states that indoctrination is "often distinguished from education", and for the reason of "not to question or critically examine the doctrine" they have learned, in other words, not questioning or examining theology or religious dogma, but instead repeated statements and admonitions being persistently taught with the intention of causing influence to accept it.

A connotative definition that culture gave to it. I prefer to go by what words mean in themselves based on roots.

Undoubtedly, one of the most important aspects of our brain is the actual use of it, to question and to exam everything, regardless of whether it comes from a scientist or a priest. To not understand and critique without question anything they say is shameful and dishonest to oneself as it defies the very purpose of our minds; thinking. This alone is costly in regards to long lasting mental and emotion effects for the indoctrinated, it is the loss of use of one of the most important organs in the body.

As far as the development of a child's brain is concerned, indoctrination is the worst kind of abuse, destroying the ability to reason and use logic from an early age that usually carries with them their whole lives.

One might as well be a robot.

Uh... cultural indoctrination is nigh unavoidable. I see only hyperbole here, especially in calling indoctrination the worst kind of abuse, as if it's worse than sexual or other physical abuse. Childrens' first need is love and care, and when that's denied, mental scars that are very hard, if not impossible, to remove. Statements like that are often offensive to actual abuse victims, with good reason.

Besides, if what you're saying is true, how come we didn't evolve into robots after 40,000 years?

 

[Riverwolf]

So this doesn't seem a bit too messianic to you?:

So... we should just let humanity's problems fester and remain? As if we only have a choice between narcissistic messiah-wannabes or nihilists?

The cult members are often a reflection of the cult leader, that's how the dynamics of a cult of personality works.

Yet I've seen no indication that there's a cult at work on these forums.

 

[A Troubled Man]

What you and your friends forget is that I'm the critic and the burden of proof doesn't fall on me but on those of posit that somehow Richard Dawkins is a good scientist, good educator or a good human being. And so far that proof is still forthcoming.

Most people who wish to form intelligent opinions of scientists and educators who are well known often read their peer reviewed articles and books or attend their seminars and lectures. If they want to know if they are good human beings, they would probably have to meet them in person and talk awhile. That is, unless they're already known to go good deeds or commit heinous acts. Dawkins doesn't really fit into either category.

Have you watched his early 1990's era lectures, "Growing up in the Universe"? - they are on youtube. Highly recommended. You'll see just how good a scientist and educator Dawkins was even then.

 

[BobbyisStrange]

If he didn't why is this piece of crap on his website?


The End of Religion - Jeff Schweitzer - RichardDawkins.net - RichardDawkins.net

Thanks. I just got threw reading it. What's wrong with it?

I'm with Dirty Penguin on this...what's wrong with this article?? Or did you just read the title and make assumptions??? I'm sorry I have to assume that is all you did.

 

[gnomon]

One of our friends here gave an opinion that Richard Dawkins is not a scientist.

What is your opinion? Please

Was the opinion about whether or not Dawkins is a scientist or if "our friend" is a fool?

 

[A Troubled Man]

I'd take wikipedia definitions of words with a grain of salt.

A connotative definition that culture gave to it. I prefer to go by what words mean in themselves based on roots.

Not really, you just made up your own version based on a generalized Latin translation rather than simply using the correct definition widely known as common knowledge. LOL!

Uh... cultural indoctrination is nigh unavoidable.

So what? Red Herring.

I see only hyperbole here, especially in calling indoctrination the worst kind of abuse, as if it's worse than sexual or other physical abuse.

I never said anything about "physical" abuse. Red Herring.

Childrens' first need is love and care, and when that's denied, mental scars that are very hard, if not impossible, to remove. Statements like that are often offensive to actual abuse victims, with good reason.

Loving and caring for children would not include indoctrinating them and no is saying anything about denying love and care. Another Red Herring.

Besides, if what you're saying is true, how come we didn't evolve into robots after 40,000 years?

Probably because we'll need another billion or so years to percolate a little more before our cells turn into titanium.

 

[BobbyisStrange]

Have you watched his early 1990's era lectures, "Growing up in the Universe"? - they are on youtube. Highly recommended. You'll see just how good a scientist and educator Dawkins was even then.

I can't tell if your being sarcastic or not, but personally I think that series is great.

 

[A Troubled Man]

I can't tell if your being sarcastic or not, but personally I think that series is great.

I bought the dvd shortly after it became available.

 

[Riverwolf]

Not really, you just made up your own version based on a generalized Latin translation rather than simply using the correct definition widely known as common knowledge. LOL!

I did not make up a definition; I used the roots of the word, as well as the definition from dictonary.com (which is based on reputable dictionaries):

noun the act of indoctrinating, or teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view: religious indoctrination.

However, I also pointed out a common connotation in modern English.

This is how correct definitions of vague words like "indoctrination" can be determined.

You used wikipedia, and didn't cite the sources it used, nor did you say whether or not the page had good ratings. For the record, that page has a trustworthy rating of 2.9 out of 5. As a rule, that's a red flag for me.

In addition, the paragraph you quoted only has two sources cited, neither of them dictionaries.

So what?

You said indoctrination is the worst form of abuse. If cultural indoctrination is nigh unavoidable, then by your statement, abuse is nigh unavoidable.

I never said anything about "physical" abuse.

But you implied it with passionate, yet likely poorly chosen words which stated that indoctrination is the worst form of abuse. Do you not see where I drew the conclusion?

Loving and caring for children would not include indoctrinating them and no is saying anything about denying love and care.

I know that no one is. I'm saying that indoctrination is not inherently abuse in itself, since it doesn't automatically lack the type of love and care that children most need, nor does it inherently have problems.

If indoctrination becomes accepted as a form of abuse by child psychologists(who are the real deciders in this matter), then I would expect it to be far lower on the scale of damage than physical abuse.

Probably because we'll need another billion or so years to percolate a little more before our cells turn into titanium.

I think you know what I mean.

Here's my point: indoctrination does not create robot-like people. You forget a few aspects of psychology, especially that of youths. Adolescents are naturally rebellious, and will naturally question the establishment to determine for themselves if it's true. Those who don't are, by far, the exception rather than the rule.

You also forget the rule that if you want to guarantee that someone will do something, shove in his face that he's absolutely not allowed to do it.

 

[Road Warrior]

and yet, is that not what you and road Warrior have been saying?
that those who disagree with your "assessment" of Dawkin's are brick walls?

I am having problems figuring out which is more comical.

Obviously not all are "brickwalls", but what I find comical is the across-the-board denial that any are brickwalls. The message seems clear, if a person is an atheist, they can do no wrong. If they are not a through-and-through atheist, then they are treated case-by-case. If they are a theist, they are incessantly hammered until they either shut up, leave or surrender. It's a commonly repeated pattern I've seen both here and other forums. While it's sad, it's also illuminating about the mindset of atheists.

Just another reason why this is true: In Atheists We Distrust: Scientific American

Atheists are one of the most disliked groups in America. Only 45 percent of Americans say they would vote for a qualified atheist presidential candidate, and atheists are rated as the least desirable group for a potential son-in-law or daughter-in-law to belong to. Will Gervais at the University of British Columbia recently published a set of studies looking at why atheists are so disliked. His conclusion: It comes down to trust.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Obviously not all are "brickwalls", but what I find comical is the across-the-board denial that any are brickwalls. The message seems clear, if a person is an atheist, they can do no wrong. If they are not a through-and-through atheist, then they are treated case-by-case. If they are a theist, they are incessantly hammered until they either shut up, leave or surrender. It's a commonly repeated pattern I've seen both here and other forums. While it's sad, it's also illuminating about the mindset of atheists.

Just another reason why this is true: In Atheists We Distrust: Scientific American

Congratulations, Road Warrior. You just used fear and prejudice against atheists as justification for your own fear and prejudice against atheists. Your broad, baseless generalizations do nothing but show that you are utterly ignorant and poorly equipped to deal with the debate between theism and atheism with a basic level of understanding or maturity. Instead, you misrepresent, distort, infer, deflect and make bigoted statements like what you've just said above. Your own hyperbolic reaction to people like Dawkins - despite showing no understanding whatsoever of their actual point of view and making zero effort to do so - clearly displays a hateful and extremely fearful underside to all your anti-atheist ranting.

 

[darkendless]

Obviously not all are "brickwalls", but what I find comical is the across-the-board denial that any are brickwalls. The message seems clear, if a person is an atheist, they can do no wrong. If they are not a through-and-through atheist, then they are treated case-by-case. If they are a theist, they are incessantly hammered until they either shut up, leave or surrender. It's a commonly repeated pattern I've seen both here and other forums. While it's sad, it's also illuminating about the mindset of atheists.

Just another reason why this is true: In Atheists We Distrust: Scientific American

Nice stereotyping there sir.

I can do it too: "another disgruntled theist who is sick of not having the philosophy treated with care by the rest of the world."