Richard Dawkins - friend or foe.....

ddraver

what are people 's opinions on the current force od science that is riachard dawkins and his voice of truth and sensibility

personally i think hes amazin and needs to be trumpeted from the rooftops (except that bit of natural selection and a multiverse....too far rich!)

Have at it....

CarlosFerreiro

I think his points make sense and he has good theoretical explainations for his views, but that his presentation and manner is guarenteed to put people off, rather than win them over.

fidbod

I find myself agreeing with most of what he has to say, in my case he is preaching to the choir.

As Carlos says, his manner is guaranteed to offend - even as a sympathiser I generally find his works at time difficult to stick with because I get so bored with the ranting.

david2

I agree with his notion that we should be considering things on the basis of reason rather than mumbo jumbo. I'm not sure that I agree with him that the general population are drifting toward a belief in nonsense over reason. Sure there are still alot of people that do, probably most, but I'm not sure that they are a growing proportion or have a growing influence on everything we do. While they are still to powerful I do believe that the age of reason is still on its way. Its going to take a long time to make sure everybody is educated enough to be able to think rationally.
Where Richard Dawkins seems to believe that the free exchange on information through the internet is allowing a resurgence of ridiculous thought I tend to think it actually allows people to see alternative opinions. It allows individuals to make value judgements on those opinions. Of coure this depends on people being educated enough to be able to do so.
Afterall I've heard Archbishop Rohan Williams make similar claims about the messages being published on the net about religion to those being made by Dawkins about statements on science.

Random Vince

he makes assumptions and jumps to conclusions based on half the data / info needed to make his claims.

he starts out assuming he's rigght and everyone else is wrong, its 1950's style athism when it was progressive to mock religion.

Big Red S

ddraver wrote:

personally i think hes amazin and needs to be trumpeted from the rooftops (except that bit of natural selection and a multiverse....too far rich!)

What, like Jesus?

ddraver

aaah i see what ur doing red.....

well maybe not dawkins himself...but the simplistic message and way of thinking

CarlosFerreiro

I think he does raise interesting issues, but it is usually others that do interesting work on them to follow up.

iainf72

CarlosFerreiro wrote:

I think he does raise interesting issues, but it is usually others that do interesting work on them to follow up.

I like him. I've seen people say he's dogmatic, but he does write in his books if someone can prove something he believes is wrong, he will change his mind. Witness some of the folks on the Enemies of Reason being proved wrong but finding many excuses why it didn't count.

Derren Brown's book is also excellent for a bit of debunking action. He really can demonstrate how powerful those techniques can be for conning people.

driverpm

Sharp guy, seems to have a really keen mind, writing style is good too. I'm glad that he's getting some screen time - makes a change actually choosing to tune in to a show rather than turning off another edition of celebrity-reality-dancing like a masterchef. Part of me wishes he'd up the ante and really go for it and make the bullsh**ers squirm - I guess that's not really his style and it's probably better that questions are raised about what they do and we can then form our own opinions based on their answers, or lack thereof. 8)

Crapaud

Dawkins is a breath of fresh air as far as I'm concerned. I like what he says and how he says it. I've been atheist for years since reading up, in a serious manner, all kinds if superstitious stuff. Dawkins bebunks them all with well reasoned arguement, particularly religion.

I think the problem with his TV presentation is that he only has a (very) limited amount of time to present his arguement and he tries to get too much across in too short a time, giving the impression of being blunt and combatative. Of course, he is blunt and combatative to a degree, but that comes in part from him being very precise in his questioning. His books are far better - here's my conclusion, here's how I've come to it and here's why the arguements against it them are wrong - no bull, no fluff, no spin.

Random Vince wrote:
he makes assumptions and jumps to conclusions based on half the data / info needed to make his claims.

he starts out assuming he's rigght and everyone else is wrong, its 1950's style athism when it was progressive to mock religion.

In everything I've seen of Dawkins on telly, heard on the radio and read by him, I've found no evidence for these assertions.

Big Red S

It's like whenever anyone pushes their beliefs - if you want to see holes in it, you will. If you don't, you won't.

I've not seen any of his recent TV appearances/shows, but he's never struck me as any more right-minded than anyone else trying to convince the world that his religion is right and everyone else's is wrong.
But I do try to avoid people who do that, unless they can give me comical leaflets and flyers.

Red Panda

I really rate his intellect. Plus I like the way he so brilliantly debunks the pontificating 'how dare you question me and therefore God' religious types, whose fervent views about everything seem to be set as concrete yet based on relative superstition and hearsay.

John Stevenson

Big Red S wrote:

It's like whenever anyone pushes their beliefs - if you want to see holes in it, you will. If you don't, you won't.

I've not seen any of his recent TV appearances/shows, but he's never struck me as any more right-minded than anyone else trying to convince the world that his religion is right and everyone else's is wrong.

Except that's not what he's doing.

Dawkins isn't promoting a religion. As someone cleverer than me has said, atheism is no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Big Red S

john_stevenson wrote:

Big Red S wrote:

It's like whenever anyone pushes their beliefs - if you want to see holes in it, you will. If you don't, you won't.

I've not seen any of his recent TV appearances/shows, but he's never struck me as any more right-minded than anyone else trying to convince the world that his religion is right and everyone else's is wrong.

Except that's not what he's doing.

Dawkins isn't promoting a religion. As someone cleverer than me has said, atheism is no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

I'd disagree with that.

I'd say atheism is a religion; it is agnosticism which fits the stamp analogy. Or, at the very least, atheism has at is centre the same concept as any religion. It's just missing all the organisation of organised religion. So maybe it's just a belief, then, I suppose.

Categorically stating that there is no God is, so far as I can see, no better grounded in logic than categorically stating that there is one, aside from the small point that, in general, we presume something doesn't exist until we see evidence that it does.

John Stevenson

Big Red S wrote:

Categorically stating that there is no God is, so far as I can see, no better grounded in logic than categorically stating that there is one, aside from the small point that, in general, we presume something doesn't exist until we see evidence that it does.

That's a bit more than a small point. It is, in fact, the crux of the matter.

There are no pink elephants at the bottom of my garden.

I can state this categorically because there is exactly zero evidence for them, and the only sane way of viewing the world is take the position that things don't exist if there's no evidence for them.

Otherwise you have to admit the possibility of the existence of everything, however desperately unlikely: faeries, the Loch Ness monster, honest politicians and merged forums where loads of people don't flounce out because they don't like the new colour scheme.

Big Red S

john_stevenson wrote:

Big Red S wrote:

Categorically stating that there is no God is, so far as I can see, no better grounded in logic than categorically stating that there is one, aside from the small point that, in general, we presume something doesn't exist until we see evidence that it does.

That's a bit more than a small point. It is, in fact, the crux of the matter.

But there is this wodge of evidence. The popularity of religion, and the droves of people that keep telling me that they can feel God.

It is reasonable to believe that, say, blue whales exist purely on the basis that people who've seen them* tell me they do, but not to believe that some form of God might exist on the same grounds?
A huge amount of science, which currently seems to be what the right-minded blindly believe in, is taken by the general public on evidence no stronger than that which religion is derided for producing. Less, perhaps, since for the most part it is felt that there is no need to question scientific conclusions.

(*or, rather, people who tell me they've seen them)

jibi

john_stevenson wrote:

Otherwise you have to admit the possibility of the existence of everything, however desperately unlikely: faeries, the Loch Ness monster, honest politicians and merged forums where loads of people don't flounce out because they don't like the new colour scheme.

I believe in faeries
I believe there "may be" Loch Ness monster.

Therefore I accept that people have the right to believe, or rather have faith that , there is a god, gods, or a supreme being

Honest Politicians ? Oxymoron

but the last one, now I am beginning to lose my grip on reality

Its just a meme, meme, meme, society.

george

fidbod

Big Red S wrote:

john_stevenson wrote:

Big Red S wrote:

Categorically stating that there is no God is, so far as I can see, no better grounded in logic than categorically stating that there is one, aside from the small point that, in general, we presume something doesn't exist until we see evidence that it does.

That's a bit more than a small point. It is, in fact, the crux of the matter.

But there is this wodge of evidence. The popularity of religion, and the droves of people that keep telling me that they can feel God.

It is reasonable to believe that, say, blue whales exist purely on the basis that people who've seen them* tell me they do, but not to believe that some form of God might exist on the same grounds?
A huge amount of science, which currently seems to be what the right-minded blindly believe in, is taken by the general public on evidence no stronger than that which religion is derided for producing. Less, perhaps, since for the most part it is felt that there is no need to question scientific conclusions.

(*or, rather, people who tell me they've seen them)

Hi Big Red S,

I would argue in counterpoint that popularity of religion is not evidence to support the existence of a divine being. In the same way the popularity of a football club does not provide an objective assessment of their footballing abilities. Equally people "feeling god" is not evidence, at best it is hearsay at worst hsysterical.

Science is tested - ever serious piece of science is published in journals and if another scientist cannot replicate your results then they will counterpublish and call you a liar - could fusion being a perfect example of a peer tested advance that scientists discredited themselves

ddraver

But there is this wodge of evidence. The popularity of religion, and the droves of people that keep telling me that they can feel God.

It is reasonable to believe that, say, blue whales exist purely on the basis that people who've seen them* tell me they do, but not to believe that some form of God might exist on the same grounds?
A huge amount of science, which currently seems to be what the right-minded blindly believe in, is taken by the general public on evidence no stronger than that which religion is derided for producing. Less, perhaps, since for the most part it is felt that there is no need to question scientific conclusions.

(*or, rather, people who tell me they've seen them)[/quote]

I can go to the Natural History Museum down the road and see a skeleton of a blue whale...thats proof enough for me...however i can't see one of the loch ness monster, tinkerbell or of any god...in fact i can see more evidence for faries and nessie than god

As a geologist i can prove that the earth was created 4.6 billion years ago, rathwer than 6000 as (one ofmany different) religion would have me believe

JustRidecp

ddraver wrote:

I can go to the Natural History Museum down the road and see a skeleton of a blue whale...thats proof enough for me...however i can't see one of the loch ness monster, tinkerbell or of any god...in fact i can see more evidence for faries and nessie than god

As a geologist i can prove that the earth was created 4.6 billion years ago, rathwer than 6000 as (one ofmany different) religion would have me believe

Way-hey! I thought I was the only one!!

Big Red S

fidbod wrote:

Hi Big Red S,

I would argue in counterpoint that popularity of religion is not evidence to support the existence of a divine being. In the same way the popularity of a football club does not provide an objective assessment of their footballing abilities. Equally people "feeling god" is not evidence, at best it is hearsay at worst hsysterical.

That's a little innacurate. The popularity of a football club is a good indication that this football club exists. The popularity of a religion is not a good measure of the potency of whichever deity they believe in.

Science is tested - ever serious piece of science is published in journals and if another scientist cannot replicate your results then they will counterpublish and call you a liar - could fusion being a perfect example of a peer tested advance that scientists discredited themselves

Yes. I know. But how many people that take something given as fact, like, for example, the existance of the atom, or the negative charge of an electron, or the existance of DNA, actually do go through this and test it? How many of the people who're saying they've come to a scientific and objective conclusion that there can be no god are basing this judgement on no more than the books-and-scholars system that they criticize religion for being based on?

I, personally, have never seen or replicated any evidence to support the 'fact' that the earth revolves around the sun. Yet I believe it does, since my teacher, who I am told is more learned than me on the subject, tells me I do. And books, which I am told are reliable, agree with them.
Yet, if I decided that I was going to believe in the 'fact' that God flooded the earth and told Noah to build an ark, based purely on the evidence that my teacher, who I am told is more learned than me on the subject, told me He did, and I found some books, which I am told are reliable, I would be told that this is stupid, since I'm just believing what's written in a book.

This is why I have a problem with Atheism, especially Atheism-because-science-says-so - it is a belief based on faith in exactly the same way any other religion is. It's just based on faith that there is no God, rather than faith that there is one.

ddraver wrote:

I can go to the Natural History Museum down the road and see a skeleton of a blue whale...thats proof enough for me...however i can't see one of the loch ness monster, tinkerbell or of any god...in fact i can see more evidence for faries and nessie than god

But why believe the Natural History Museum when they tell you that it's a skeleton of a Blue Whale, but not believe the Church when they tell you God made it?

As a geologist i can prove that the earth was created 4.6 billion years ago, rathwer than 6000 as (one ofmany different) religion would have me believe

Only by making an awful lot of assumptions. I'd say 'suggest' rather than 'prove', if we're taking the stance that there is no proof of a God.

ddraver

well what else is it a skeleton of?!

and no a geologist does not make assumptions when determining the age of the earth (well thats not true - we don't know we ve found the oldest peice of rock), and even the small assumptions we have made are based on other examples that have been tested over and over again in different contexts and uses

you can look at how the sun posistion changes in the sky to calculate that the sun goes round the earth...no such process exists for proving the existence of god

that YOU HAVE NT done the calculations does not make the calculations wrong

And i do not believe in science, I evaluate methods with an awful lot of proof and work behind them and see that they work - a scientific equation will proove itself, it is not a guess

JustRidecp

Hi Big Red.

First of all, I applaud your reasoning and approach to science.

It is true that the very nature of a scientific theory depends on the falsifiable hypothesis. In short, a scientific theory cannot be proven, it can only be disproven.

So by applying this approach the current geological evidence we have gives the age of the Earth as 4.6Ga until proven otherwise. The only big assumption in this current theory is assuming that half life decay is constant over time. So far, all evidence points to this case.

I found some of your analogies a little sloppy however.

With regards to the earth revolving around the sun. I personally would class this as a given of nature rather than a theory. This is a motion that can be observed and measured in real time. We have two solstices and two equinoxes a year. We have people orbiting the earth at this minute that can watch and measure it in real time.

Also, with regards to atoms, electrical charge and DNA, we dont have powerfull enough microscopes to see these but we can however document their behaviour and build up a best fit image of how they'd look. I personally dont think you could say because you cant see them, they dont exist. Electricity is powering your computer and your house. The study of DNA is allowing us to map the human genome, help forensic study, clone sheep, etc. When you close your eyes, the world doesn't go away.

Big Red S

ddraver wrote:

and no a geologist does not make assumptions when determining the age of the earth (well thats not true - we don't know we ve found the oldest peice of rock), and even the small assumptions we have made are based on other examples that have been tested over and over again in different contexts and uses

OK, my mistake. The vast majority of geologist, obviously yourself excluded, have not proven to themselves the validity of radiometric dating, and of course the physics behind it. Most take it as a given that it works, since that's what's accepted.

you can look at how the sun posistion changes in the sky to calculate that the sun goes round the earth...no such process exists for proving the existence of god

I can see that the sun goes across the sky, yes. Having not yet done it, I couldn't tell you whether what you are saying is true.
Similarly, having not yet done whatever it is that you're required to do in order to 'find' God, you cannot tell me there isn't one - you haven't looked.

that YOU HAVE NT done the calculations does not make the calculations wrong

No, it doesn't. But it does call into question the reasoning behind my belief in them - evidently, I am believing in their usefulness for some reason other than any proof of it.

And i do not believe in science, I evaluate methods with an awful lot of proof and work behind them and see that they work - a scientific equation will proove itself, it is not a guess

Yeah, scientific equations are always 'provable', since they're just a description. Proving an equation is like proving a map.
It's the models that are difficult to prove.
Few people have gone into enough depth in the sciences to believe in much of it for any reason other than faith. This is no different to the people who believe in religion without actively seeking proof of it's validity themselves - for whatever reason they choose to believe that there's an ozone layer or a man with a beard on a cloud. Bizarrely, the former is seen as entirely reasonable, the latter as irrational.

I am not doubting for a minute that you have demonstrated to yourself that everything you believe in to be fact. But that would mean that either you've spent an awful lot of time (and probably money) carrying out these tests and experiments, or you're believing some things based on faith.

ddraver

but all these things build up into an intergrated working model of how the earth and life on this earth works

science today is just sorting out the small details now

and the assumptions behind radiometric dating are nullified by the process workin over and over and over again - it takes a damn site more faith to believe that they are wrong than that they are right?!

Big Red S

ddraver wrote:

and the assumptions behind radiometric dating are nullified by the process workin over and over and over again - it takes a damn site more faith to believe that they are wrong than that they are right?!

But we don't know that it works over and over again - unless there's an ancient rock somewhere that's got the date it was made stamped into it or something?

And, more to the point, do /you/ know it has worked repeatedly? How many times have you, yourself, tested it?

ddraver

Big Red S wrote:

ddraver wrote:

And, more to the point, do /you/ know it has worked repeatedly? How many times have you, yourself, tested it?

taking this point (cos i'm not going into a discussion on radioetric dating) you seem to require that every induvidual person in the world goes out and proves for themselves that every scientific theory is true...prove that F = ma, E = mc^2, radiometric dating, plate tecronics, gene theroy, the human genome, evoloution, the workings of the human body, that ion exchange reactions do occour etc etc etc

however, if a person cannot induvidually prove centuries (or even millenia) of scientific reaserch because of lack of money, facilities, time or whatever then they must allow the significant possibility that god exists. why do you give god this power...you must admit that this is a massive double standard

one must personally prove the whole of science, or failing that...allow the existance of god an equal shout on nothing more than a whim

THIS is where dawkins has been so effective (to drag it back to my OP) - this is the argument of the flying spaghetti monster, you can't disprove it, but that does not mean that you should allow time for it to exist, why is god afforded this get out of jail free card (by god i mean a divine creator, not specifically jesus' father or allah etc..)

Big Red S

Big Red S wrote:

ddraver wrote:

And, more to the point, do /you/ know it has worked repeatedly? How many times have you, yourself, tested it?

taking this point (cos i'm not going into a discussion on radioetric dating) you seem to require that every induvidual person in the world goes out and proves for themselves that every scientific theory is true...prove that F = ma, E = mc^2, radiometric dating, plate tecronics, gene theroy, the human genome, evoloution, the workings of the human body, that ion exchange reactions do occour etc etc etc

No, that's not what I meant.
I'm more asking why religious people are mocked for their lack of proof, when those doing the mocking have generally not seen any proof of what they believe in either.

however, if a person cannot induvidually prove centuries (or even millenia) of scientific reaserch because of lack of money, facilities, time or whatever then they must allow the significant possibility that god exists. why do you give god this power...you must admit that this is a massive double standard

Not really.
I see no reason to believe either way, given insufficient evidence to decide.

THIS is where dawkins has been so effective (to drag it back to my OP) - this is the argument of the flying spaghetti monster, you can't disprove it, but that does not mean that you should allow time for it to exist, why is god afforded this get out of jail free card (by god i mean a divine creator, not specifically jesus' father or allah etc..)

I can't categorically state that there isn't a FSM, no, since I have no proof. And I don't believe that one exists. Similarly, I cannot prove that God exists, and I don't believe he does. But at the same time, I cannot demonstrate that either do not exist, so it is only reasonable to allow for the possibility that they might.

ddraver

well this is reasnoble faith or blind faith.......and no one can answer your point, because you will always be able to find another level that science has nt yet got to

should we have sent fred and rosmary west to prison?! we cannot catagorically prove they were guilty?!

John Stevenson

JustRidecp wrote:

geologist

Way-hey! I thought I was the only one!!

Hardly - half the guys I ride with seem to have trained as rock-botherers of one sort or another.

I think it's the way earth sciences combine science with an excuse to go yomping about in the hills for weeks on end.