Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[BobbyisStrange]

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.

I don’t see why being a biologist or a scientist has any bearing on being an atheist…sure, biology and the fact of evolution may have lead him to the conclusion that God doesn’t exist, but I have never heard Dawkins say, I am a scientist and you should listen to me because I have a degree in biology. He provides evidence for his conclusions and it’s up to the individual to accept it or leave it. Dawkins is a bit outspoken but his degree(s) in science has nothing to do with atheism or his fight on religion.
I have heard Dawkins give many talks on biology without God being brought up.
Dawkins has every right to speak against religion, just as Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller have every right to talk about their faith in God...are you suggesting that since Francis Collins and Ken Miller are scientists that shouldnt talk about the possible existence of God?

 

[paarsurrey]

I don’t see why being a biologist or a scientist has any bearing on being an atheist…sure, biology and the fact of evolution may have lead him to the conclusion that God doesn’t exist, but I have never heard Dawkins say, I am a scientist and you should listen to me because I have a degree in biology. He provides evidence for his conclusions and it’s up to the individual to accept it or leave it. Dawkins is a bit outspoken but his degree(s) in science has nothing to do with atheism or his fight on religion.
I have heard Dawkins give many talks on biology without God being brought up.
Dawkins has every right to speak against religion, just as Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller have every right to talk about their faith in God...are you suggesting that since Francis Collins and Ken Miller are scientists that shouldnt talk about the possible existence of God?

So, you agree with me that when he speaks on religion; he should be considered a lay man like others. Am I right to conclude this?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[jarofthoughts]

So, you agree with me that when he speaks on religion; he should be considered a lay man like others. Am I right to conclude this?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Everyone is a layman when it comes to theology simply because there is no knowledge to be had about any god or gods.
It continues to amaze me that certain people continue to call themselves theologians when they might just as well call themselves faeriologists or unicornians.

What he can speak on though, is some of the truth claims made by various religions, and being an expert evolutionary biologist, he can indeed address some of them with more credibility than most.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So, you agree with me that when he speaks on religion; he should be considered a lay man like others. Am I right to conclude this?

I agree. And he should be listened to because of the power of logic and evidence marshaled for his case. I leave it to the religious to evaluate arguments based on the authority of the speaker, rather than the speaker's logic and evidence.

 

[Skeptisch]

Scientists have an analytical and critical mind that always asks for evidence. This tends to make it easier to deny a supernatural God, especially the one of the Abrahamic kind.

 

[BobbyisStrange]

So, you agree with me that when he speaks on religion; he should be considered a lay man like others. Am I right to conclude this?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I believe I asked you a question, dont shift it. But yes, Dawkins is not an expert on religion...he doesnt need to be in order to speak against irrational thoughts and superstition.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I believe I asked you a question, dont shift it. But yes, Dawkins is not an expert on religion...he doesnt need to be in order to speak against irrational thoughts and superstition.

This.......:yes:

 

[McBell]

So, you agree with me that when he speaks on religion; he should be considered a lay man like others. Am I right to conclude this?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

You can use whatever excuse you want to dismiss things you do not like to hear.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I agree. And he should be listened to because of the power of logic and evidence marshaled for his case.

What evidence do you speak of? By your own admission: you can't prove or disprove a negative. His logic is nothing but bigotry disguised by pseudo logic. You have to exhibit a lot of faith to follow his line of reasoning. His followers are just as dogmatic as any religious cult. For them, if he said it, it must be logical. He bashes theists in a way that makes his faithful giddy and thinking "I wish I had said that!" He's no better than Penn and Teller.

A good scientist never, ever draws conclusions based on their personal beliefs and bias. They rely on evidences. As of yet, he has produced no evidence to affirm or deny the existence of God. After all, how can you prove negative or an absolutely null quantity? Trying to disprove the spiritual with the physical is a fool's errand.

 

[dust1n]

What evidence do you speak of? By your own admission: you can't prove or disprove a negative. His logic is nothing but bigotry disguised by pseudo logic. You have to exhibit a lot of faith to follow his line of reasoning. His followers are just as dogmatic as any religious cult. For them, if he said it, it must be logical. He bashes theists in a way that makes his faithful giddy and thinking "I wish I had said that!" He's no better than Penn and Teller.

A good scientist never, ever draws conclusions based on their personal beliefs and bias. They rely on evidences. As of yet, he has produced no evidence to affirm or deny the existence of God. After all, how can you prove negative or an absolutely null quantity? Trying to disprove the spiritual with the physical is a fool's errand.

I'm not sure Richard Dawkins ever did what you are suggesting here. On the contrary, in The God Delusion, he writes somewhat of the opposite.

Russell's teapot demonstrates that the ubiquity of belief in God, as compared with belief in celestial teapots, does not shift the burden of proof in logic, although it may seem to shift it as a matter of practical politics. That you cannot prove God's nonexistence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything. What matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn't) but whether his existence is probable. That is another matter. Some undisprovable things are sensibly judged far less probable than other undisprovable things. There is no reason to regard God as immune from consideration along the spectrum of probabilities. And there is certainly no reason to suppose that, just because God can be neither proved nor disproved, his probability of existence is 50 per cent.​

​

http://www.debsh.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Richard.Dawkins.-.The_.God_.Delusion.2006.pdf

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Scuba Pete,

I believe dust1n has answered your questions.

One claim Dawkins actually makes in The God Delusion is that the experience of faith is not valid evidence for the objective existence of things. A striking piece of evidence supporting this claim is the book's description of cargo cults.

For more examples of the logic and evidence to which I referred, I encourage you to try reading a chapter of The God Delusion. Evidently you have not read it, although that has not prevented you from judging it.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Evidently you have not read it, although that has not prevented you from judging it.

Except that I have read the entire book. Who's delusional? He's hawking snake oil. He's feeding off the fears of people who distrust theists. He's pandering to his faithful that hang on his very word as if it were scripture. He's fighting faith by creating faith. It's hilarious to see the irony in all of that.it's

Edit: since it's been awhile, I'll try to read it again while I am in Cozumel this next week. I hope it's on Kindle. I remember him as being intellectually dishonest and rather juvenile in his approach. Like I said... he was selling nothing but snake oil.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I'm not sure Richard Dawkins ever did what you are suggesting here.

Sure he did. Can he quantify the probability of God? It would be easier to quantify the improbability of God. It's nothing but faith. Faith that this man is making sense and not talking out of his ****. His argumenta ad absurdum to the contrary, the acceptance or denial of any supernatural entity requires faith. Only the truly agnostic can ascribe to have none. Everyone else relies on it to make their way through life. Appeals to logic, to evidences or even to intelligence are moot once you have taken a stand either way. There is no superiority for those who claim to believe or disbelieve. Even the agnostics claim indifference more than anything else.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Except that I have read the entire book.

Well then you should know, as dust1n pointed out, that Dawkins does not claim to "prove a negative" or "disprove the spiritual", as you insinuated in post #689.

If you look at what Dawkins actually argues, he does indeed bring logic and evidence to the table. You may not agree with his conclusions, but it's not fair to say no supporting evidence is offered (the cargo cults are one of many examples).

 

[Scuba Pete]

Well then you should know, as dust1n pointed out, that Dawkins does not claim to "prove a negative" or "disprove the spiritual", as you insinuated in post #689.

You're twisting what I wrote. Re-read it with careful attention as to my assertions. Dawkins dances around evidence as it suits him. His conclusions are flights of fancy and cleverly designed to appeal to fear and hatred of all things theistic. He's a fear monger: a snake oil salesman.

If you look at what Dawkins actually argues, he does indeed bring logic and evidence to the table.

As much as any theist does.

You may not agree with his conclusions, but it's not fair to say no supporting evidence is offered (the cargo cults are one of many examples).

As I have pointed out: his evidences are just as compelling as any theist's. No more and no less. If he were a theist, he would be the one preaching hell and damnation.

Again, the use of the natural to prove or disprove the supernatural is impossible. It's like trying to measure the world with a thermometer or explore the oceans with a pair of tweezers. It's easier to believe in invisible pink unicorns than to follow such logic.

 

[PolyHedral]

His argumenta ad absurdum to the contrary, the acceptance or denial of any supernatural entity requires faith.

You will note, if you actually have read the book, that Dawkins does not deny anything with certainty. He merely states that it is very unlikely that the Abrahamic God exists. That does not require faith.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You will note, if you actually have read the book, that Dawkins does not deny anything with certainty. He merely states that it is very unlikely that the Abrahamic God exists. That does not require faith.

You twist words and logic better than a Republican. You're almost as adept at it as Dawkins. I'll rate you as a Bishop in the church of Dawkinology!

 

[McBell]

You twist words and logic better than a Republican. You're almost as adept at it as Dawkins. I'll rate you as a Bishop in the church of Dawkinology!

And you dodge a direct point better than Clinton dodged the draft....

 

[Scuba Pete]

I'm glad I am re-reading this. Dawkins considers atheism a religion and sees himself as being religious. How many atheists here on RF have refuted this very notion. I find his distinction between an Einstienian God and a Supernatural God as being nothing short of self serving. It's a prolonged appeal to popularity by those he sees as being intellectually superior. It's name dropping at it's worst. BTW, if you don't see things as he does, you're being intellectually dishonest. Gimme a break! Well, its a great cure for insomnia. Good night, y'all.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I find his distinction between an Einstienian God and a Supernatural God as being nothing short of self serving.

It's not just his distinction, it's Einstein's distinction. Note the quotations from Einstein.