Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[Riverwolf]

LOL! Adding your own personal bias is not translation.

I was showing where Cynthia got the terms. I, myself, do not agree with them. Perhaps I should have said so.

I do not think this approach will succeed, but I don't think there's any malice behind it, and I don't think Dawkins's followers are "minions", since he is not in that kind of position.

However, the point is, how you refer to things will demonstrate what you see, and what others will think of what you're looking at.

 

[paarsurrey]

he is an excellent pitch man for his books and knows how to excite a crowd of his followers. In this regard, I put him on par with folks like Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson.

You mean his more indulgence in his "extra-curricular" activities make him an atheist preacher/priest.

His role in science excepted.

Am I right

 

[paarsurrey]

Richard Dawkins' as a scientist excepted; any one strong and valid reason against revealed religions he could provide in any of his books or speeches?

 

[Road Warrior]

You mean his more indulgence in his "extra-curricular" activities make him an atheist preacher/priest.

His role in science excepted.

Am I right

Yes. One really has nothing to do with the other. Dawkins has successfully played his "I'm a scientist so you can trust me" card but his anti-religious rants and position as a "High Priest" of New Atheism (aka militant atheism) have little to do with science since faith has little to do with science.

Dawkins believes there is no God. Fine, but when he proclaims there is no God as if he has definitive proof, then I'm skeptical of his scientific methodology.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Dawkins believes there is no God. Fine, but when he proclaims there is no God as if he has definitive proof, then I'm skeptical of his scientific methodology.

Could you quote him as saying such?

 

[Road Warrior]

Could you quote him as saying such?

Don't read much Dawkins or follow him? You might take a look. He's a hoot! A raging maniac on the flip-side of the Pat Robertson coin, but he can still be entertaining.....just not very scientific.

Here's a sample. His website is full of this, ummm....stuff.

Why there is no God - Richard Dawkins / The Times (UK) - RichardDawkins.net

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Great scientist but a rotten human being

Have you met him....?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Don't read much Dawkins or follow him? You might take a look. He's a hoot! A raging maniac on the flip-side of the Pat Robertson coin, but he can still be entertaining.....just not very scientific.

Here's a sample. His website is full of this, ummm....stuff.

Why there is no God - Richard Dawkins / The Times (UK) - RichardDawkins.net

Aside from the title (something Dawkins rarely has any control over) there doesn't appear to be any such claim in that article. Could you be more specific and make a direct quote?

 

[A Troubled Man]

Don't read much Dawkins or follow him? You might take a look. He's a hoot! A raging maniac on the flip-side of the Pat Robertson coin, but he can still be entertaining.....just not very scientific.

Here's a sample. His website is full of this, ummm....stuff.

Why there is no God - Richard Dawkins / The Times (UK) - RichardDawkins.net

The link only shows Dawkins discussing how the brain operates and how gullible people can be and offers a couple of personal examples himself. I would suspect it is you who does not read much Dawkins but can certainly fabricate wild accusations about him.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What about commanding his minions to go forth and mock others?

We've already established in that other thread that his suggestion to mock others is moot because it has and will be done regardless of what he said. We all mock for one reason or another.

 

[Road Warrior]

Aside from the title (something Dawkins rarely has any control over)

Dude, it's his website and it's his article. Are you seriously suggesting Dawkins has no control of either? Now I really am skeptical of both him and you.

If you want to deny Dawkins never declared there was "no God", go for it. I know most of the time he wussed out by declaring himself a "6.9" on his how belief scale instead of a 7, but that's because most intelligent people know he doesn't know anymore if there is a God or not than Pat Robertson. Again, not very scientific.

In fact, the only real scientific position for a scientist is agnostic; "I don't know. There is no evidence either way and it is beyond the scope of the Scientific Method. Therefore, I have no opinion on the matter."

 

[jarofthoughts]

Yes. One really has nothing to do with the other. Dawkins has successfully played his "I'm a scientist so you can trust me" card but his anti-religious rants and position as a "High Priest" of New Atheism (aka militant atheism) have little to do with science since faith has little to do with science.

Dawkins believes there is no God. Fine, but when he proclaims there is no God as if he has definitive proof, then I'm skeptical of his scientific methodology.

In 'The God Delusion' he makes a point of saying that he considers himself to be a 6.9 on his scale of theism/atheism where 1 is an absolute belief in god (people who say they know there is a god) and 7 being an absolute atheist (people who say they know there is no god).

 

[McBell]

In fact, the only real scientific position for a scientist is agnostic; "I don't know. There is no evidence either way and it is beyond the scope of the Scientific Method. Therefore, I have no opinion on the matter."

What a load of ****.
Following the same logic you should have no opinions of anything that you do not absolutely know, right?

yet here you are spouting opinions left and right.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Dude, it's his website and it's his article. Are you seriously suggesting Dawkins has no control of either? Now I really am skeptical of both him and you.

Do you really have to get personal? The original article is from The Times - it says so right there at the top of the link.

If you want to deny Dawkins never declared there was "no God", go for it. I know most of the time he wussed out by declaring himself a "6.9" on his how belief scale instead of a 7, but that's because most intelligent people know he doesn't know anymore if there is a God or not than Pat Robertson. Again, not very scientific.

You seem to be more into personally insulting the man than taking down, acknowledging or even understanding his opinion. You have yet to provide any source in which he makes such a claim. Your baseless postulation that he only does so because he "wusses out" has no more credibility to it than it would if I were to accuse you of "wussing out" of providing an accurate source.

In fact, the only real scientific position for a scientist is agnostic; "I don't know. There is no evidence either way and it is beyond the scope of the Scientific Method. Therefore, I have no opinion on the matter."

Which is a position Dawkins has repeatedly expressed. He has always expressed near-certainty, not certainty or knowledge. You don't seem to have made any statements which contradict Dawkins' views.

 

[McBell]

Dawkins believes there is no God. Fine, but when he proclaims there is no God as if he has definitive proof, then I'm skeptical of his scientific methodology.

So all of a sudden scientists are not allowed to have personal beliefs and opinions?
Does this mean that we should be skeptical of the scientific methodology of every scientist who is also a theist?

 

[Road Warrior]

So all of a sudden scientists are not allowed to have personal beliefs and opinions?

Not at all. They just shouldn't act like their beliefs are science any more than a Creationist "scientist" should. It's clear to many here that Dawkins is trading on his background as a scientist when he rants about religion. It's a non sequitur. That's like Donald Trump saying "I'm rich so believe me when I say Obama's birth certificate is fake". One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

[youtube]-_2xGIwQfik[/youtube]
Dawkins vs. Tyson - YouTube

What's the point here..seeing as though he didn't say anything wrong...

 

[Road Warrior]

Do you really have to get personal? The original article is from The Times - it says so right there at the top of the link.

What's personal? Is it or is it not his website and his article? He can title it anything he likes. It's clear he liked the title even though he didn't back it up in the text. This is a standard propaganda technique.

If I wanted to be provocative and attract attention I could title an article on my own website "Why all atheists suffer from cranial rectal inversion" then blather on about atheists in general without ever really backing up my claim. Would you hold me responsible for the title or the fact the title and the text don't exactly match? Or would you let me skate like Dawkins?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not at all. They just shouldn't act like their beliefs are science any more than a Creationist "scientist" should.

Where has Dawkins ever claimed his beliefs are science?

His being a scientist has more to do with his qualifications with regards to naturalistic explanation of the Universe rather than the question of whether or not their is a God. He believes the question of God's existence is a scientific one, in that it is a claim about the cause and function of the Universe that should be well within the realms of logical inquiry, but he does not claim that his atheism is itself scientific.

You seem to be doing nothing but constructing strawmen.

 

[Road Warrior]

What a load of ****.
Following the same logic you should have no opinions of anything that you do not absolutely know, right?

yet here you are spouting opinions left and right.

You might try reading the post with a clear, unbiased, less predisposed mind; "the only real scientific position for a scientist..." Obviously on a personal level, just like Dawkins, you, he, me or anyone can have their personal opinions. The line is drawn in trying to link those opinions with scientific fact by inference, not actual fact. I sincerely hope you can tell the difference. If not, c'est la vie!