Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[Sunstone]

So, Pete, would it be rash of me to say that you don't like Dawkins?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm glad I am re-reading this. Dawkins considers atheism a religion and sees himself as being religious.

Care to specify where?

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.

... Except for the fact that it was Einstein himself who made the distinction.

It's a prolonged appeal to popularity by those he sees as being intellectually superior. It's name dropping at it's worst.

No, it isn't. Einstein's name is often dropped by theists using his comments out of context to support the notion that Einstein is a theist, which he was not. Dawkins only ever seems to bring up the subject in order to dispel the myth.

 

[Scuba Pete]

So, Pete, would it be rash of me to say that you don't like Dawkins?

I don't despise the man. Well, not near as much as he despises theists.

I do find his writings to be quite emotionally charged and devoid of any real logic so far. They seem to be based on his underlying hatred of all things theistic. That's his right, but I am not impressed by it. IOW, I'm not drinking his koolaid. It's like reading an eloquent George Wallace from the 60's. The bigotry, the fear and the animosity is palpable. You can feel it ooze from each and every paragraph.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Care to specify where?

Did YOU even read the book? It's in the very first chapter. You can't miss it!

... Except for the fact that it was Einstein himself who made the distinction.

There is NO quote where he refers to an "Einsteinian God". That's as much an extrapolation as you accuse theists of. I find the quest to pigeonhole Einstein from either side to be stoopid and a mixture of an appeal to popularity and to authority. Hey I get it. Who doesn't want him on "your" side? That he carefully avoided either extreme is significant and shows his intellectual honesty as compared to Dawkins' lack thereof.

No, it isn't. Einstein's name is often dropped by theists using his comments out of context to support the notion that Einstein is a theist, which he was not. Dawkins only ever seems to bring up the subject in order to dispel the myth.

So, two rights make a wrong? Claiming something for Einstein that the man AVOIDED claiming for himself is nothing but shenanigans. I don't care if you're a theist or an atheist, it's just stoopid to put words in his mouth. Moreover, his belief/disbelief in God is evidence for what? Nothing, nada and squat! Dawkin's underlying premise that you have to be stupid to be a theist has yet to be proven much less supported one whit.

Just to sum up my impressions of "The God Delusion" so far (Chapter 1):

No evidence has been presented
The logic used has been nothing but fallacious.
The conclusions drawn by Dawkins so far are all based on emotions.
Unless it gets better, I would suggest changing the name of the book to "The Dawkins Delusion".

One last caveat... Dawkins rails against the "special protection" given to religion. Here in the US, the protection given to religion is also our protection from being ruled by religion. In his definition, atheism is as much a religion as is any church, mosque or synagogue. Take away that protection and we open ourselves to being subject to religious extremists, including Dawkins.

So it's clear, I am packing for a trip to Cozumel and I leave Saturday so I may not get a chance to read more until I am on the plane. I think it was the VOR who got me to read it the first time but it was during my RF hiatus. Hopefully, the chapter by chapter critique of his book bears on whether he is a "good scientist". After all, I would hate to be accused of being OT.

 

[Scuba Pete]

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

I did, and did not come up with the same conclusion. Dawkins is arguing that there is a "Good God" and a "Bad God" and that Einstien's Good God is nothing short of atheism. It's intellectually DISHONEST to attribute something to Albert that he took great care to avoid doing during his life.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Did YOU even read the book? It's in the very first chapter. You can't miss it!

Which book? Can you provide a direct quote?

There is NO quote where he refers to an "Einsteinian God". That's as much an extrapolation as you accuse theists of. I find the quest to pigeonhole Einstein from either side to be stoopid and a mixture of an appeal to popularity and to authority. Hey I get it. Who doesn't want him on "your" side? That he carefully avoided either extreme is significant and shows his intellectual honesty as compared to Dawkins' lack thereof.

Where the hell did you get that from? Where did I - or Dawkins - ever claim that Einstein was an atheist? The point is theists use Einstein's numerous references to "God" as being proof that he is a theist, when Einstein himself does not consider himself a theist, nor does he believe in a "God" in the sense that they claim he does.

Seriously, that whole rant just came out of nowehere.

So, two rights make a wrong?

???

What?

What's "wrong" about correcting people who say that Einstein is a theist by using Einstein's own words on the subject? What are you talking about?

Claiming something for Einstein that the man AVOIDED claiming for himself is nothing but shenanigans.

Which is exactly the point.

I don't care if you're a theist or an atheist, it's just stoopid to put words in his mouth. Moreover, his belief/disbelief in God is evidence for what? Nothing, nada and squat! Dawkin's underlying premise that you have to be stupid to be a theist has yet to be proven much less supported one whit.

Again, you don't seem to be arguing against anything Dawkins has actually said, nor have you said anything Dawkins would disagree with. What is your point?

Just to sum up my impressions of "The God Delusion" so far (Chapter 1):

No evidence has been presented

Of what? What claims is Dawkins making that he fails to present evidence of?

The logic used has been nothing but fallacious.

Such as...?

The conclusions drawn by Dawkins so far are all based on emotions.

Such as...?

Unless it gets better, I would suggest changing the name of the book to "The Dawkins Delusion".

Witty.

One last caveat... Dawkins rails against the "special protection" given to religion. Here in the US, the protection given to religion is also our protection from being ruled by religion. In his definition, atheism is as much a religion as is any church, mosque or synagogue. Take away that protection and we open ourselves to being subject to religious extremists, including Dawkins.

This doesn't make any sense. Dawkins talks about "special protection" meaning people generally react badly to any negative opinion of the Church, and special permission is often given by individuals or groups for Churches to do practices that would otherwise be considered morally corrupt, logically unsound or (in some cases) even illegal on the basis that they are justified by being of a "religious nature". He's not denouncing freedom of religion or freedom of expression. He explains this at great length in the opening of the book. Did you completely miss it?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Did you completely miss it?

Apparently you did.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Apparently you did.

You're going to have to give me a few hours to conjure up a suitable response to that incredibly intelligent point there. Honestly, you might have me beat.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I did, and did not come up with the same conclusion. Dawkins is arguing that there is a "Good God" and a "Bad God" and that Einstien's Good God is nothing short of atheism. It's intellectually DISHONEST to attribute something to Albert that he took great care to avoid doing during his life.

For the record: if you read Einstein's numerous books, articles, letters, interviews, and symposium addresses, you'll find Albert actually did the opposite. He took great care during his life to distinguish his beliefs from conventional theism. A good summary is Einstein and Religion.

Some Einstein quotations:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. ... The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

"I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. ... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility and beautiful harmony of the structure of this world—as far as we can grasp it. And that is all."

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature."​

Here's part of an article Einstein wrote for the New York Times, "Science and Religion" in which he advocates a "cosmic religious feeling":

Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.
...
How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes.
...
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.

It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research.​

It's clear from Einstein's extensive writings that when he refers to his own conception of God (e.g., his famous assertion "God does not play dice"), he is referring poetically to this "cosmic religious feeling", or awe of the universe. This is similar to the way one might refer to "Mother Nature" when discussing biology or the environment. Other famous physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, do the same thing.

It's also interesting to read the many letters religious people wrote to Einstein, criticizing his anti-religion views and accusing him of inappropriately straying from his field of expertise. They remind one of the complaints leveled at another famous scientist who wrote about religion ...

 

[Sunstone]

It's also interesting to read the many letters religious people wrote to Einstein, criticizing his anti-religion views and accusing him of inappropriately straying from his field of expertise. They remind one of the complaints leveled at another famous scientist who wrote about religion ...

When a scientist says something about deity and religion, he or she is "straying from their field" and "obviously not qualified to know what they are talking about."

But when the average Christian, who -- according to polls -- is very likely to have never even read the Bible, says something about deity and religion, few people say he or she is "straying from their field" and "obviously not qualified to know what they are talking about".

So far as I know, Dawkins has at least read the Bible. That puts him ahead of 80% of American Christians. I wouldn't call him an expert, but let's be honest -- how hard would it be for Dawkins or anyone to be more knowledgeable of Christianity than most Christians? Seriously. As a whole, Christians are infamously ignorant of their own religion. And that is born out by Christian polling, such as the polling done by the Barna Group.

 

[Scuba Pete]

For the record: if you read Einstein's numerous books, articles, letters, interviews, and symposium addresses, you'll find Albert actually did the opposite.

That's not quite an "opposite" to what I posted. I have no problems that Einstein did not believe in a "personal God", but I have never read where he refers to himself as an agnostic or an atheist. Dawkins makes the very same mistake he accuses theists of making.

As a GOOD scientist, Einstein refused to draw conclusions based on his emotions or feelings. As a charlatan scientist, Dawkins not only draws these types of conclusions, he embraces them shamelessly. He is trying to pawn them off as science and they are anything but. I was at a car dealership earlier and read the next chapter for a few minutes. I startled the poor lady beside me when I laughed at loud at his subterfuge. He reminds me of Rush Limbaugh in a way. He can't possibly believe this crap. He must only be doing it for the money. I think I would even respect him more if I felt his motivations were actually pecuniary rather than based in fear and hate. More on that to come...

 

[BobbyisStrange]

That's not quite an "opposite" to what I posted. I have no problems that Einstein did not believe in a "personal God", but I have never read where he refers to himself as an agnostic or an atheist. .

Einstein responds to the accusation that he was converted by a Jesuit priest: "I have never talked to a Jesuit prest in my life. I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."

 

[Scuba Pete]

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest..."

How about his view point? He never labeled himself an atheist. Does it even MATTER? If so, ask yourself why.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I have no problems that Einstein did not believe in a "personal God", but I have never read where he refers to himself as an agnostic or an atheist.

See my previous post for such a quotation (see links for quotations where he refers to himself as agnostic, too). Furthermore, Dawkins' book does not claim Einstein was an atheist per se. The book merely clears up a common misunderstanding that Einstein was a theist.

 

[BobbyisStrange]

It doesn't matter to me

 

[PolyHedral]

As a GOOD scientist, Einstein refused to draw conclusions based on his emotions or feelings. As a charlatan scientist, Dawkins not only draws these types of conclusions, he embraces them shamelessly.

Dawkins and Einstein came to the same conclusion: the Abrahamic God probably does not exist. The only difference is that Einstein then appropriated the word "god" to refer to something entirely different.

 

[Scuba Pete]

From a 1930 interview:

I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things

As I said earlier, he took great pains to not be identified either way. Unlike Dawkins and many other atheists, he shows incredible humility. As a GOOD scientist, he refuses to make declarations of fact based on emotions and conjecture.

Who is the better scientist: Dawkins or Einstein?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Who is the better scientist: Dawkins or Einstein?

To answer my own question, I have to say "It's relative!" :yes:

 

[BobbyisStrange]

Who is the better scientist: Dawkins or Einstein?

This is an unfair question...Einstein was a better physicist and Dawkins was a better biologist.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If one bothers to actually read The God Delusion before passing judgment on it, one finds that Dawkins is in no way suggesting that Einstein's beliefs on the god question prove or disprove anything. The purpose of talking about Einstein was just to define the intended meaning of terms and clarify before jumping into the rest of the book:

"My title, The God Delusion, does not refer to the God of Einstein and the other enlightened scientists of the previous section. That is why I needed to get Einsteinian religion out of the way to begin with: it has a proven capacity to confuse. In the rest of this book I am talking only about supernatural gods, of which the most familiar to the majority of my readers will be Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament." - page 41.