Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[PolyHedral]

You must not have read the same book. He's pandering to those he respects. "Oh, YOUR God is OK... I just hate THEIR God." Again, the question has to be "Why?" He's being dishonest and trying to justify his bigotry. Nothing more.

They are different gods. That is why.

 

[mycorrhiza]

You must not have read the same book. He's pandering to those he respects. "Oh, YOUR God is OK... I just hate THEIR God." Again, the question has to be "Why?" He's being dishonest and trying to justify his bigotry. Nothing more.

It's about theism versus pantheism/spiritual atheism. Totally different concepts of God, one being supernatural, the other being natural.

 

[Scuba Pete]

It's about theism versus pantheism/spiritual atheism. Totally different concepts of God, one being supernatural, the other being natural.

It's more than a slippery slope. Atheism means without God. Not without only THIS or THAT God. Without any God.

Go up to any person and tell them that they are delusional. See how that impacts them. It's inflammatory at best and most would take it as nothing but an insult. Dawkins needs to grow a pair and stop pandering to his intellectual superiors. There's no need to justify his bigotry and it's nothing less than that.

 

[outhouse]

Go up to any person and tell them that they are delusional. See how that impacts them. It's inflammatory at best and most would take it as nothing but an insult.

the truth hurts

but do we let children run around believing in Santa??

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Oh, it's fine for Dawkins to castigate theists for having the same amount of faith he has, but "unfair" for me to expose his dishonesty? Cry me a river! It would be easier to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster than to accept his petulant attempt to semantically insulate people he happens to respect.

Dawkins isn't semantically insulating anyone. Read the Einstein quotes. If anyone "semantically insulated" Einstein's conception of God from a personal God, it was Einstein himself. Are you saying that when Einstein rejected a personal God, that was just semantics? There's no difference between a personal God and Spinoza's God? Come now, surely you can comprehend the distinction between these ideas is not just semantics.

 

[mycorrhiza]

It's more than a slippery slope. Atheism means without God. Not without only THIS or THAT God. Without any God.

The God of Hawking and Einstein isn't a God in the traditional sense of the word. It is neither personal, supernatural nor transcendent. You can be an atheist and a pantheist at the same time, for example.

 

[work in progress]

He is a brilliant biologist, no doubt. But outside of that he seems to be too eager to flaunt they faulty notion that science disproves God. He also made himself look like a pompous ******* with his videos of him reading his hate-mail, especially because some of the messages were not hateful at all.

I may have mentioned a few times on other threads that I'm not a fan of Dawkins-the-philosopher, and I've noticed of late, that there are some science bloggers who focus on biology that feel it's time for him to retire.

Ever since his debates and challenges to Stephen J. Gould, it has been apparent that he is going to go after every theory that strays from his vision that natural selection forces only advance through selfish genes trying to make as many copies of themselves as possible. He has rejected and tried to marginalize theories such as Symbiosis - offered up by Lynn Margulis (which simply proposes that cooperation may be as great or even a greater principle than competition in natural selection), and has had a long running two front battle with David Sloan Wilson, and E.O. Wilson - who have been trying to get multilevel selection theories up for consideration. And apparently the war still goes on:
Richard Dawkins in furious row with EO Wilson over theory of evolution Book review sparks war of words between grand old man of biology and Oxford's most high-profile Darwinist

I know little about biology, and can't wade into a debate between academics on this subject. But, from previous exchanges I am sympathetic to the case of the Wilson's, because Dawkins's Selfish Gene theory doesn't do anything to explain cooperative behaviour and evolutionary development of the social insects that the Wilsons have spent their lives studying. How have ants become colony animals that are so highly specialized between workers, scouts, soldiers etc., when only a few of the colony reproduce? After awhile, Dawkins starts looking like Bishop Samuel Wilberforce in his attempts to stamp out new heresies in his field of study.

As for Dawkins the philosopher, most of my dissatisfaction begins long before "The God Delusion", with the Viruses Of The Mind essay he wrote 20 years ago, back when he was really gungho about applying selfish gene theory to the realm of how ideas and concepts are propagated in society. In the "infected Mind" subheading, we learn that religious devotion is a sign of someone having their mind's overrun by dangerous mind viruses. He doesn't seem to be willing to acknowledge that religion may be too complex to fit into a nice, neat little package and define as always viral, and always harmful to the individual.

Today, memetics seems to be going nowhere now that Daniel Dennet and Susan Blackmore have given up working on developing a meme theory, and that may be why it seems that Richard Dawkins has climbed down from some of the strident rhetoric he was using a few years ago.

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't know much about Dawkins, nor I've read any of his works.

But as far as I know, he is a biologist, has his MA and PhD in his chosen fields, and he is a professor, therefore he is indeed a scientist.

Do you really doubt his qualifications and experiences?

Like I've said, I haven't read his books. But according to many here, who have read his works, he was an excellent scientist, and that he explained evolutionary biology quite well. And since I have not read his books, so I can't judge him if he is a good scientist or not.

Have you read Dawkins' books? If not, then how can you judge if he is good scientist or not?

If you doubt it, then it is your bigotry and ignorance speaking.

Please read the following post:

#747work in progress :I'm not a fan of Dawkins-the-philosopher, and I've noticed of late, that there are some science bloggers who focus on biology that feel it's time for him to retire.

I did not read his book "God delusion"; I don't find anything that will interest me reading from those who have read it. And now time of his retirement has been suggested.

I think I had mentioned in some of my posts that I believe in the process of evolution started by the the one true creator God and for that I have read Darwin's theory explained by others. I am not in the loop of science, to be very clear.

I have not read any of his; that is why I asked other's opinion. Perhaps I was restrained by "God delusion"; which is not a book of science, in my opinion; it seems to be a book of fiction, to me; its name suggests.

Further, I don't find any field of science specified for "searching god" and don't see any peer reviewed article in a reputed real science journal for that. If there is one please mention so that those who have not read it; may be motivated to read this book.

 

[McBell]

Please read the following post:



I did not read his book "God delusion"; I don't find anything that will interest me reading from those who have read it. And now time of his retirement has been suggested.

I think I had mentioned in some of my posts that I believe in the process of evolution started by the the one true creator God and for that I have read Darwin's theory explained by others. I am not in the loop of science, to be very clear.

I have not read any of his; that is why I asked other's opinion. Perhaps I was restrained by "God delusion"; which is not a book of science, in my opinion; it seems to be a book of fiction, to me; its name suggests.

Further, I don't find any field of science specified for "searching god" and don't see any peer reviewed article in a reputed real science journal for that. If there is one please mention so that those who have not read it; may be motivated to read this book.

Your ratification skills are most impressive.

 

[gnostic]

I did not read his book "God delusion"; I don't find anything that will interest me reading from those who have read it. And now time of his retirement has been suggested.

I think I had mentioned in some of my posts that I believe in the process of evolution started by the the one true creator God and for that I have read Darwin's theory explained by others. I am not in the loop of science, to be very clear.

I have not read any of his; that is why I asked other's opinion. Perhaps I was restrained by "God delusion"; which is not a book of science, in my opinion; it seems to be a book of fiction, to me; its name suggests.

Further, I don't find any field of science specified for "searching god" and don't see any peer reviewed article in a reputed real science journal for that. If there is one please mention so that those who have not read it; may be motivated to read this book.

I think you are forgetting the topic of this thread which you've created yourself. You only ask if Dawkins is a good scientist, but since then, you've changed the goalpost into about Dawkin's atheism and his criticism against religion, which is a totally different subject.

Your dispute now is about atheism, which is not the same as science. Science don't deal with religion or with theism, PERIOD!!! Religion and theism are both school of theology, not science.

So, I don't give flying craps about science in not about "finding god". I've never said it was. You want to find bl@#dy god, then go to god-bl@#dy-damn church, mosque, temple or synagogue.

...IN FACT, science don't even deal with the issue of atheism.

Do you want to debate if he is a good scientist or not? Or do you want to debate if Dawkin is a good atheist or not? Which is it?

Is this thread still about Dawkin's status as scientist or not?

 

[paarsurrey]

Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

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

What is your opinion? Please

Post #1 "One of the posters in this forum commented that Richard Dawkins is not a scientist."

Perhaps it was because he thought that a scientist should not give his opinion on the matters which are not related to science or if he has such opinion he should not publicize it; it is unbecoming of a scientist to do such things. I am not in the loop of science. I thought I should ask our friends’ opinion about this.

Newton, a great scientist, perhaps much greater than Dawkins, I think everybody will agree with me, he also as a hobby had an interest in alchemy; and I have observed that his pre-occupation with it is always made a point of ridicule and derision by the atheists/agnostics/skeptics and they say he only wasted his precious time in this hobby and also in religion; in other words they think a good scientist should be out of such preoccupations; and if he does he should do it privately and not publicly otherwise he should be mocked about like any other person on the globe.

I think I mentioned in some of my posts that I believe in evolution in a sense so I don’t have any difference with Dawkins in this connection but not because of Dawkins but because of Darwin; though there are also other scientists who worked on this before him but he is considered to be the pioneer formally; and I have no objection to it.

Humans are not machines so discussing on a thing they naturally have different opinions; even if they keep the goalposts in their mind.

 

[outhouse]

Newton, a great scientist, perhaps much greater than Dawkins,

this i would agree


Newton is also a classic example of how theism can ruin excellent scientific knowledge by placing a god in one's gaps of one's knowledge, instead of information.

Neil Degrasse Tyson goes into this perfectly and remaisn unrefuted by anyone.

 

[paarsurrey]

this i would agree


Newton is also a classic example of how theism can ruin excellent scientific knowledge by placing a god in one's gaps of one's knowledge, instead of information.

Neil Degrasse Tyson goes into this perfectly and remaisn unrefuted by anyone.

Is it al-right if I say?:

Likewise Dawkins, in my opinion, is also an example of how atheism can ruin excellent scientific prowess of a person by filling gaps of information with unrelated stuff by denying the attributive one true creator God without any truthful arguments that could disprove His existence since they fall out of the realm of science and fall in the realm of religion.

 

[outhouse]

Is it al-right if I say?:

Likewise Dawkins, in my opinion, is also an example of how atheism can ruin excellent scientific prowess of a person by filling gaps of information with unrelated stuff by denying the attributive one true creator God without any truthful arguments that could disprove His existence since they fall out of the realm of science and fall in the realm of religion.

False again, you give theist a bad name by refusing common knowledge most high school science classes are made aware of.

there is nothing EVER that can be attributed to a creator. TO DATE creation is known mythology.

 

[outhouse]

Is it al-right if I say?:

No its not

its passing on mytology as a replacement for known science.

its based on ignorance and refuasal of knowledge due to theistic brainwashing from a early age.


because YOU cannot accept known FACTS is not a excuse to spread misinformation

 

[gnostic]

Likewise Dawkins, in my opinion, is also an example of how atheism can ruin excellent scientific prowess of a person by filling gaps of information with unrelated stuff by denying the attributive one true creator God without any truthful arguments that could disprove His existence since they fall out of the realm of science and fall in the realm of religion.

Repeating yourself with this - "denying the attributive one true creator God" - doesn't help your point.

It is simply your biased opinion to think that this ONE TRUE CREATOR GOD should be attributed with understanding or mechanisms of the natural world.

For any scientist to attribute any natural phenomenon to a god, he (or she) must prove beyond doubt that there are physical evidences for the existence of god, and tested...and that other scientists should be able to find similar evidences (and repeated tests) will bore out and verified and validated the original evidences that such-and-such a god exist.

And that's before the scientist can link the god with the natural phenomenon, because then he'd need tons of new evidences and tests - to prove the connection between the two.

There are no evidences to support your imaginary claims of ONE TRUE CREATOR GOD, nor his imaginary attributive responsibly to his "creation".

Your bl@#dy ONE TRUE CREATOR GOD is no more falsifiable than the unicorn, fairy, ghost, or any other god that man - past or present - has believed in.

 

[McBell]

Is it al-right if I say?:

Likewise Dawkins, in my opinion, is also an example of how atheism can ruin excellent scientific prowess of a person by filling gaps of information with unrelated stuff by denying the attributive one true creator God without any truthful arguments that could disprove His existence since they fall out of the realm of science and fall in the realm of religion.

Except it is not on Dawkins to prove god does not exist.
It is on theists to prove goes does exist.

nice try though.

 

[paarsurrey]

Except it is not on Dawkins to prove god does not exist.
It is on theists to prove goes does exist.

nice try though.

Is Dawkins or other atheist/agnostics/skeptic on leave that they don't have to prove? Are they finished with their arguments?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Is it al-right if I say?:

Likewise Dawkins, in my opinion, is also an example of how atheism can ruin excellent scientific prowess of a person by filling gaps of information with unrelated stuff by denying the attributive one true creator God without any truthful arguments that could disprove His existence since they fall out of the realm of science and fall in the realm of religion.

Outrageously funny and spot on! However, you're shaking their faith in their intellectual superiority!

They claim that God of the gaps is bad and yet they fully embrace the science of the gaps with equal energy and try to make it sound reasonable, intellectual even.

There's a lot we don't know and there is probably a lot we will never know. A good scientist, like Einstein, knows when to draw that line and remain tentative and skeptical about their own beliefs/intuitions. A bad scientist, like Dawkins, tries to force the conclusion and passes off his speculations as science. It's nothing but snake oil and the easily deceived latch on to it like a philosophical teat, sucking down every last drop of it.

Einstein was interested in seeking truth and order.
Dawkins is more interested in showing he has the truth and order.

 

[gnomon]

Oh Pete.

Are we going to talk about bridges again?