Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[Mr Spinkles]

No need to get upset. I'm simply postulating that Dawkins' is more popularly known for his anti-religious views and books as opposed to his science books. How often is "The Extended Phenotype" quoted here as opposed to "The God Delusion", for example?

I'm not upset, I thought I was being polite and matter-of-fact....

Sure Dawkins may be more popularly known for his anti-religious views, and his book about religion is most often cited on these religious forums (of all places). Nevertheless, being (in)famous as an atheist does not preclude one from also being an outstanding science educator. That would be like saying Richard Feynman wasn't an outstanding physics researcher, since he was more popularly known for his philosophical musings and funny anecdotes than for his actual work on quantum electrodynamics. Some people are big enough to be famous in multiple areas at once.

Secondly, just writing books doesn't make a person a "good educator". Rush Limbaugh wrote two books and both were #1 on the New York Times list. Ann Coulter has written 8 books with over 3 million copies sold. Are you saying they are "good educators" too?

No. I'm saying (1) most of Dawkins' work conveys science to the public, (2) his work in this area is "damn good", which is why he is widely regarded as a damn good science educator (in addition to being famous and controversial as an atheist).

Obviously, writing lots of books doesn't make one good at anything. In Dawkins' case, his books about science and evolution happen to be outstanding.

 

[paarsurrey]

Nevertheless, being (in)famous as an atheist does not preclude one from also being an outstanding science educator.

Like Isaac Newton was engaged in science, religion, alchemy. Atheists ridicule Newtons engagement in alchemy; but they appreciate Dawkins "alchemy".

Dawkins as a scientist excepted here, please.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Like Isaac Newton was engaged in science, religion, alchemy. Atheists ridicule Newtons engagement in alchemy; but they appreciate Dawkins "alchemy".

Dawkins as a scientist excepted here, please.

Except that we know alchemy is nonsense, whereas Dawkins is almost certainly right in his critique of the Abrahamic religions.

 

[Scuba Pete]

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

What is your opinion? Please

He's a good scientist and a great bigot.

Anyone who tries to prove/disprove God with Science has an agenda that has nothing to do with science. On the other hand, the converse is just as true.

 

[Road Warrior]

Sure Dawkins may be more popularly known for his anti-religious views, and his book about religion is most often cited on these religious forums (of all places). Nevertheless, being (in)famous as an atheist does not preclude one from also being an outstanding science educator.

Agreed on these points. Also agreed that Dawkins made a good mark on advancing evolutionary biology. Was or is he the best? I don't know. Was his work "damn good"? Not sure. Good yes, but I'd like to see more evidence that he is the best in the field or among the top 10 before putting him on a pedestal. There are a lot of "damn good" geneticists and educators out there. Most don't have the notoriety of Richard Dawkins. After all, they are scientists first.

Yes, sir. We are agreed you are being polite and matter-of-fact. Thanks. Looking forward to more discussions with you on a wide variety of subjects.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Was or is he the best?

Is it important?
I don't think I know enough evolutionary biology to even come close to making that call anyway, but his work is cited and well known, so he must have done some decent work.

Was his work "damn good"?

He was "damn good" in my book due to the fact that I have learned a lot from him and his books, and, it appears, I am not the only one.

Good yes, but I'd like to see more evidence that he is the best in the field or among the top 10 before putting him on a pedestal.

I don't like pedestals much.
I try to avoid them as well as putting people on them.
People are people and what arguments they make should stand on their own merit.

 

[Road Warrior]

He was "damn good" in my book due to the fact that I have learned a lot from him and his books, and, it appears, I am not the only one.

Understood. Are you working as a geneticist or just a hobbyist?

 

[paarsurrey]

On the other hand, the converse is just as true.

I don't get the converse.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I don't get the converse.

O rly?

Anyone who tries to prove/disprove Science with God has an agenda that has nothing to do with God. (There, I spelled it out for you.)

The natural cannot explain, rationalize, prove or disprove the super natural.

The super natural has no need to explain, rationalize, prove or disprove the natural.

 

[paarsurrey]

O rly?

OK

 

[jarofthoughts]

Understood. Are you working as a geneticist or just a hobbyist?

Neither.
I'm a science teacher.

 

[jarofthoughts]

O rly?

Anyone who tries to prove/disprove Science with God has an agenda that has nothing to do with God. (There, I spelled it out for you.)

The natural cannot explain, rationalize, prove or disprove the super natural.

The super natural has no need to explain, rationalize, prove or disprove the natural.

Except, there is no reason to think that there even is a supernatural...

 

[Scuba Pete]

Except, there is no reason to think that there even is a supernatural...

O rly? Then why do so many people believe in the Super Natural? I find lots of reasons to believe in something other than the natural. But then, I am known for my brutal honesty. It gets me in trouble sometimes.

 

[jarofthoughts]

O rly? Then why do so many people believe in the Super Natural? I find lots of reasons to believe in something other than the natural. But then, I am known for my brutal honesty. It gets me in trouble sometimes.

'Reason' in this context meaning objective empirical scientific evidence.
People's subjective and anecdotal notions about the subject is irrelevant.

Science is the best and most powerful idea we humans have ever devised for figuring out how reality works, and so far every mystery ever solved has turned out to be...not magic.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Science is the best and most powerful idea we humans have ever devised for figuring out how reality works, and so far every mystery ever solved has turned out to be...not magic.

There is no greater faith in all of Israel than you have displayed here. Well done! Your conversion is complete... you are a master of the Science of the Gaps.

 

[jarofthoughts]

There is no greater faith in all of Israel than you have displayed here. Well done! Your conversion is complete... you are a master of the Science of the Gaps.

So, I guess that means you have no evidence for the existence of anything supernatural? :sarcastic

Duly noted.

 

[Scuba Pete]

So, I guess that means you have no evidence for the existence of anything supernatural? :sarcastic

Why do main stream atheists and main stream Christians excel at putting words into the mouths of others and then get all smug about it? You demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between evidence and proof or that you are too lazy to make the differentiation.

There is a butt load of evidence that supports the existence of God. None that I know of are Scientific in nature. That does not stop them from being evidence, that only demonstrates that they can be interpreted in more than one way.
Fact: we exist.
Interpretation: God exists and is responsible for our existence.
Interpretation b: We just "are" and God does not exist.

Duly noted.

Your ability to jump to conclusions in spite of evidence to the contrary, or was there something else?

Hey, I get it. The most appealing aspect of atheism is the feeling of intellectual superiority. You contend that you don't rely on "faith" when in all actuality: YOU DO! Even in the face of evidence to the contrary, you contend that you do not rely on faith. The funny and duly noted part is that it's irrefutable evidence since it comes directly from you. It's like a guy on a bridge telling us that he doesn't believe in bridges.

How many actually have researched any of the science you profess to believe in? No, I don't mean research it on the interwebz. I mean how many of you have performed the experiments and validated the results? There will be a few self deluded individuals who will assert that they have, but if you are intellectually honest (which few people are; theist and atheist alike) you'll easily see that you accept a lot on sheer faith. What's funnier? I have faith in your human nature that you will get all apoplectic trying to debunk this. Have fun!

Faith: it's not a four letter word!

 

[mycorrhiza]

There is a butt load of evidence that supports the existence of God. None that I know of are Scientific in nature. That does not stop them from being evidence, that only demonstrates that they can be interpreted in more than one way.
Fact: we exist.
Interpretation: God exists and is responsible for our existence.
Interpretation b: We just "are" and God does not exist.

Interpretation c: Magic gnomes are responsible.
Interpretation d: The painting hanging on my wall is responsible, because it has hidden powers that cannot be seen by scientific method.

What you presented isn't evidence of God, it's an unsubstantiated claim. That it's possible to believe that a God created humanity isn't evidence of the existence of this God. This is why there is a need for scientific evidence if one wants to prove that God exists, because the existence of an idea is not evidence that the idea itself is true.

Could you provide any further evidence?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Why do main stream atheists and main stream Christians excel at putting words into the mouths of others and then get all smug about it? You demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between evidence and proof or that you are too lazy to make the differentiation.

Oh, I know the difference.
Which is why I've asked for evidence.

There is a butt load of evidence that supports the existence of God. None that I know of are Scientific in nature. That does not stop them from being evidence, that only demonstrates that they can be interpreted in more than one way.

Fact: we exist.
Interpretation: God exists and is responsible for our existence.
Interpretation b: We just "are" and God does not exist.

Or, interpretation C: We do not have any reason to think that any god or gods exist yet since there is no evidence for it, thus we do not believe that until such evidence can be found and presented.

Your ability to jump to conclusions in spite of evidence to the contrary, or was there something else?

What?

Hey, I get it. The most appealing aspect of atheism is the feeling of intellectual superiority. You contend that you don't rely on "faith" when in all actuality: YOU DO! Even in the face of evidence to the contrary, you contend that you do not rely on faith. The funny and duly noted part is that it's irrefutable evidence since it comes directly from you. It's like a guy on a bridge telling us that he doesn't believe in bridges.

How many actually have researched any of the science you profess to believe in? No, I don't mean research it on the interwebz. I mean how many of you have performed the experiments and validated the results? There will be a few self deluded individuals who will assert that they have, but if you are intellectually honest (which few people are; theist and atheist alike) you'll easily see that you accept a lot on sheer faith. What's funnier? I have faith in your human nature that you will get all apoplectic trying to debunk this. Have fun!

Faith: it's not a four letter word!

This again...
Look, the 'faith' in scientific results and conclusions is nothing like the faith people have in god or gods.
Science has demonstrable results that works no matter whether you believe in those results or not.
Also, while I have generally contended myself with theoretical knowledge, as a science teacher I have done experiments that confirm basic scientific notions.
And if I, at some point, should decide that I think a result or a conclusion in science is incorrect, I have the option to educate myself sufficiently and do the tests myself.
Which is a hell of a lot better than 'god moves in mysterious ways' or some-such cop-out.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Interpretation c: Magic gnomes are responsible.
Interpretation d: The painting hanging on my wall is responsible, because it has hidden powers that cannot be seen by scientific method.

Do we really have anyone who suggests that they believe in c and d? Ah, an appeal to ridicule is one of the oldest fallacies around. Surely you could do better than this.

What you presented isn't evidence of God, it's an unsubstantiated claim. That it's possible to believe that a God created humanity isn't evidence of the existence of this God. This is why there is a need for scientific evidence if one wants to prove that God exists, because the existence of an idea is not evidence that the idea itself is true.

Could you provide any further evidence?

You're confusing the evidence (society exists) with the interpretation (God exists). Do you deny that society exists? Of course not, so the evidence stands as it is. Now you have to apply your faith to determine if God exists or not. Agnostics are the only ones who can claim to be without faith in this respect. Of course, they rely on faith for other things so they are not intellectually superior either. To state that God does or does not exist requires the same amount of faith and is usually based on the very same evidence. Neither side has an intellectual or even moral advantage.