Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[1robin]

I wasn't speaking of abiogenesis. Anybody with a basic understanding of science would know that.

I am done explaining it...

My abiogenesis claim was not supposed to address a certain claim of yours. You are failing it by a test you made up that it is not subject to.

I already gave a clear and not to mention illustrated explanation that a 4th grader could comprehend...
You refused to acknowledge it as relevant. That is on your own ignorance.

I can say 2 + 2 = 4. A fourth grader can understand that as well and it is mathematically true. To suggest that illustration does anything to clear up complex mathematical issues is a waste of time. Your example does not solve any of the issues I have raised even though it might be as true as anything can be.

Yes we know, all atheists say this and it is so condescending... blah blah blah.
Rather than whine because we don't accept your arguments, maybe you should try and figure out why, and I do not mean go read another apologetics article to reaffirm your beliefs.

I am not objecting because you do not agree. I am objecting because you do not see to even understand the arguments. I know what the issues are that are debated among the professionals. I know what is considered valid, conceded, problematic and simple fact. I do not get the impression you and they are on the same page. When evolution is challenged no one ever produces an example of what you did. That is my complaint against Dawkins and theology. If you are inept enough to suggest who created God is a valid challenge you do not understand the issues or even the common arguments.

You have to want to be wrong to find the truth...
Most people do not want to be wrong.

I did not create the truth and am not threatened by whatever it is. I for example use the most popular Bible critics’ numbers for Biblical error % to avoid meaningless contention. I did not write the Gospels I have no loss of face if they were false. Outside this I have no idea what context will make your statement relevant here.

It is where many people fall short. Even some scientists are defeated by their own arrogance.
Darwin challenged his faith. The entire world he knew was shattered.
Our greatest discoveries come with the territory of admitting we were once wrong.
God, creation, and the bible are old stories that originate from ancient pagan fables. They are only myths and legends.

Hold the phone. All of us are born without a faith in God. Only Christians have adopted a completely different position than they were born with. I do not think you can possibly suggest Christians have gained faith by not risking being wrong. That is ridiculous. In fact the very first thing a Christian must do to become one is admit they have been wrong in the most shameful ways possible. I was at one time the most virulent anti-God person possible. My mom (a Christian) died and the roots of my faith were non-existent so I hated God even if he did exist. Now I hold the exact opposite conclusion. Are you claiming that Dawkins was born again at one time? I have never heard him suggest that.

While you feel sorry for Dawkins, all atheists including feel sorry for those who are not skeptical of everything.

Did I say I was sorry for Dawkins? I am sorry for the people who he misleads not for him. He is an agent of misinformation not the victim of it. I have grown weary of this.
I said Dawkins is incompetent concerning theology. My examples are:
1. He suggests that the origin of God must be explained to allow for the claim God is the first cause.
2. And he offered a drawing in answer to a request for evidence the eye evolved.
Please either explain why those points are valid (and one is even biological) or I will conclude there is no defense for his mucking up the issues and rest the case.

 

[Matthew78]

I am coming very, very late into this thread but I thought I would add my two cents.

Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist? I don't know. I am not a scientist and I lack the expertise to judge his scientific research. I have no formal, technical training in any of the life sciences so I am limited to reading his books. Do I think that Dawkins is a good science writer? I do. I read his book Garden out of Eden and I thought it was well-written. I wasn't, however, impressed with his book The Blind Watchmaker and while I thought it was well-written I do not think it was well-argued.

I read parts of his book The God Delusion and the parts that I read were badly argued, especially his critique of "Intelligent Design". I plan to finish reading this book but I am not expecting to be impressed with it. I haven't read his book The Greatest Show on Earth although I plan to. I respect Dawkins as a science writer but I wish he wouldn't venture into the philosophy of religion. I haven't seen anything from Dawkins that gives me any confidence that he has mastered the philosophy of religion to such an extent that he is entitled to write a book like TGD.

It's my impression that Dawkins wrote this book to please his atheist and antireligious fans who believe that science is the best, if not the only method of discovering facts, and believe that religion is a delusion at best, and a malignant cancer at worst, that needs to be surgically removed from society if we expect to become just and free.

Matthew

 

[1robin]

I am coming very, very late into this thread but I thought I would add my two cents.

Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist? I don't know. I am not a scientist and I lack the expertise to judge his scientific research. I have no formal, technical training in any of the life sciences so I am limited to reading his books. Do I think that Dawkins is a good science writer? I do. I read his book Garden out of Eden and I thought it was well-written. I wasn't, however, impressed with his book The Blind Watchmaker and while I thought it was well-written I do not think it was well-argued.

I read parts of his book The God Delusion and the parts that I read were badly argued, especially his critique of "Intelligent Design". I plan to finish reading this book but I am not expecting to be impressed with it. I haven't read his book The Greatest Show on Earth although I plan to. I respect Dawkins as a science writer but I wish he wouldn't venture into the philosophy of religion. I haven't seen anything from Dawkins that gives me any confidence that he has mastered the philosophy of religion to such an extent that he is entitled to write a book like TGD.

It's my impression that Dawkins wrote this book to please his atheist and antireligious fans who believe that science is the best, if not the only method of discovering facts, and believe that religion is a delusion at best, and a malignant cancer at worst, that needs to be surgically removed from society if we expect to become just and free.

Matthew

That was an articulate example of exactly what I have been claiming. He is a good biologist but a bad theologian and philosopher. Apparently by saying that I have insulted someones prophet or something based on the responses I have gotten. Secular sacriledge. What a concept.

 

[Matthew78]

That was an articulate example of exactly what I have been claiming. He is a good biologist but a bad theologian and philosopher. Apparently by saying that I have insulted someones prophet or something based on the responses I have gotten. Secular sacriledge. What a concept.

The problem is made worse by the fact that by arguing that God is a delusion, he's making the case for naturalism. Yet he doesn't even engage with very serious philosophers who argue against naturailsm. For instance (you may know already 1robin), the analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga has constructed an argument called "the evolutionary argument against naturalism". If Dawkins wants to show that classical theism is deluded, this is exactly the kind of argument he needs to study up on and rebut. Victor Reppert has formulated the "argument from reason". These are two arguments that Dawkins needs to seriously refute if he's going to successfully make the case for secular naturalism.

And these are only evidentalist attacks on naturalism. Some Christians argue using a presuppositional approach to apologetics. Take a modern day presuppositionalist like John Frame and have Dawkins debate him and I can only imagine Dawkins having a deer-in-the-headlights look on his face. I don't recall seeing Plantinga, Reppert, or Frame (or Greg Bahnsen for that matter) addressed in Dawkins' book. Yet all three men are serious philosophers who have proposed serious challenges to naturalism.

It's not helping Dawkins' case that he refuses to debate or answer William Lane Craig, especially on the kalam cosmological argument. Dawkins, IIRC, has stated that he refuses to debate anyone who will argue that the Bible is inerrant, which includes the military conquest stories of Joshua. Yet, why even enter into the philosophy of religion, which happens to be Craig's speciality, to rebut Abrahamic theism? Isn't this the whole purpose of TGD? If Dawkins is appalled at Craig's belief that Joshua and the armies of Israel carried out divine orders, fine, don't debate that topic. Stick to the cosmological argument.

I think part of the problem is that Dawkins simply got carried away. He has been praised as a brilliant defender of evolutionary biology. He's confident. I think, however, that his successs went to his head and he got too sure of himself. He thinks that theism is the biggest obstacle to people accepting evolutionary biology. Fine. But for him to try his hand at the philosophy of religion only to make a clown of himself with an ignorant grasp of Christian theology is shameful. It's not just me who is saying this. Alister McGrath (a Christian and a scientist) took him to task for this. So you have a Christian philosopher of religion like Platinga and a believing scientist like McGrath both criticizing Dawkins for his ignorance.

I don't feel sorry for Dawkins, really. He had it coming. Perhaps now that he knows that there are some serious and highly educated minds in the Christian church, maybe that will inspire him to admit ignorance and try to correct it by actually learning from theologians and philosophers of religion and try dialoguing with them before entering their terrain again. I will always be grateful for Dawkins' educational efforts, especially when it comes to defending and explaining evolution. But Dawkins' foray into philosophical theology is like Noam Chomsky's attempt to portray himself as an expert in America's foreign policy. Both people have made fools of themselves and they need to learn to stick to their own area of expertise.

Matthew

 

[Looncall]

The problem is made worse by the fact that by arguing that God is a delusion, he's making the case for naturalism. Yet he doesn't even engage with very serious philosophers who argue against naturailsm. For instance (you may know already 1robin), the analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga has constructed an argument called "the evolutionary argument against naturalism". If Dawkins wants to show that classical theism is deluded, this is exactly the kind of argument he needs to study up on and rebut. Victor Reppert has formulated the "argument from reason". These are two arguments that Dawkins needs to seriously refute if he's going to successfully make the case for secular naturalism.

And these are only evidentalist attacks on naturalism. Some Christians argue using a presuppositional approach to apologetics. Take a modern day presuppositionalist like John Frame and have Dawkins debate him and I can only imagine Dawkins having a deer-in-the-headlights look on his face. I don't recall seeing Plantinga, Reppert, or Frame (or Greg Bahnsen for that matter) addressed in Dawkins' book. Yet all three men are serious philosophers who have proposed serious challenges to naturalism.

It's not helping Dawkins' case that he refuses to debate or answer William Lane Craig, especially on the kalam cosmological argument. Dawkins, IIRC, has stated that he refuses to debate anyone who will argue that the Bible is inerrant, which includes the military conquest stories of Joshua. Yet, why even enter into the philosophy of religion, which happens to be Craig's speciality, to rebut Abrahamic theism? Isn't this the whole purpose of TGD? If Dawkins is appalled at Craig's belief that Joshua and the armies of Israel carried out divine orders, fine, don't debate that topic. Stick to the cosmological argument.

I think part of the problem is that Dawkins simply got carried away. He has been praised as a brilliant defender of evolutionary biology. He's confident. I think, however, that his successs went to his head and he got too sure of himself. He thinks that theism is the biggest obstacle to people accepting evolutionary biology. Fine. But for him to try his hand at the philosophy of religion only to make a clown of himself with an ignorant grasp of Christian theology is shameful. It's not just me who is saying this. Alister McGrath (a Christian and a scientist) took him to task for this. So you have a Christian philosopher of religion like Platinga and a believing scientist like McGrath both criticizing Dawkins for his ignorance.

I don't feel sorry for Dawkins, really. He had it coming. Perhaps now that he knows that there are some serious and highly educated minds in the Christian church, maybe that will inspire him to admit ignorance and try to correct it by actually learning from theologians and philosophers of religion and try dialoguing with them before entering their terrain again. I will always be grateful for Dawkins' educational efforts, especially when it comes to defending and explaining evolution. But Dawkins' foray into philosophical theology is like Noam Chomsky's attempt to portray himself as an expert in America's foreign policy. Both people have made fools of themselves and they need to learn to stick to their own area of expertise.

Matthew

You are aware that Dawkins isn't the only critic of religion aren't you? These so-called sophisticated theologians and philosophers are being rebutted all over the place these days. Why should Dawkins bother with debating these clowns when others are already taking them apart?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Matthew78,

Thanks for your well-argued critique of Dawkins. I respect your point of view, but I don't agree with it for a number of reasons.

First, you object that Dawkins doesn't engage with serious philosophers who argue against naturalism, William Lane Craig, and Christian "presuppositional" apologists. Indeed, we could go further and note that Dawkins doesn't address solipsism. In fact he concentrates on Abrahamic religions, and the Abrahamic god, and only popular arguments relating thereto. As I recall, Dawkins dutifully informs the reader that this is his limited scope and purpose, at the very beginning of the book. I see no problem with this.

Every book, in order to fit on a bookshelf and maintain the interest of most readers, must limit its scope and intended audience. In The God Delusion, Dawkins is writing, as always, for a popular audience. The actual reasons most people are given by religious authority figures to believe in God and/or religion, and the reasons people actually accept as persuasive, have little to do with the endless parade of abstruse monographs written by "experts" on religion--yesterday's monks, that is, scribbling away in their cells, or today's theologians.

Sticking appropriately to this audience and this purpose, then, Dawkins fills a void that so-called "serious philosophers" on religion and theologians have purposefully left empty: he plainly informs a lay audience of some unpleasant facts about what the Bible actually contains. He forces us to compare what we say we believe (e.g., God's genocidal orders in the OT were right) to what we actually believe (e.g., genocide is wrong).

And let me say something about genocide and William Lane Craig, because it illustrates an important point in general. Most of us would believe something like genocide is wrong no matter how far beyond all recognition wordsmiths like William Lane Craig contort the matter. The fact is that virtually the entire world condemns genocide, and this is enshrined in international and national laws, without any exception for people following God's commandments. And yet, officially and uncomfortably, the belief that God ordered genocide as described in the OT comes along for the ride in most believers. This demonstrates that popular beliefs in the Old Testament can only survive through cognitive dissonance. Contorted arguments from the likes of Craig are just an emergency measure, designed to bring back into the circle of faith those few believers who slip through the cracks of reason. With much brow-furrowing and square-circling, he can help determined individuals climb back out again. But the rest of us won't be persuaded by the inexhaustible mental gymnastics of the apologists, and that is why for the rest of us, cognitive dissonance is necessary to ensure continued faith. Dawkins is perfectly justified in breaking the barrier that allows such cognitive dissonance to continue, without addressing the laborious attempts of apologists to put all the pieces back together.

This applies not just to the issue of genocide, but to all issues of cognitive dissonance which arise in the Abrahamic faiths, e.g. the dissonance between believing in science and believing that Jesus exorcised demons and cast them into a herd of pigs; and so on. The experts on God, when speaking to popular audiences, tip-toe around these contradictions. They keep the two parts of our brains carefully separated from each other. And they suppress embarrassing facts about Abrahamic religion, which are allowed to hide in the background instead of being brought out into the light, scrutinized, and rejected.

I speak from experience. When I was growing up, I heard many sermons from Presbyterian ministers, Catholic priests, and teachers in Bible study and church history. Unlike Dawkins, these were ostensibly "experts" on God, speaking strictly within their field of expertise. They were not experts on physics, biology, politics and history, and believe me--it showed. Making good use of this limited, narrow expertise, they suppressed certain embarrassing passages of the Bible. There was no genuinely critical comparison to other religions. There was only occasionally superficial questioning, strictly within the context of ultimately teaching us the importance of faith, the folly of doubt and questioning, the "mystery" of nonsensical things such as the trinity, etc.

So, finally, I somewhat disagree with your vision of "experts". First, supposing that there is such a thing as an expert on morality, there is no such expertise in Abrahamic religions which cannot be matched by anyone, including Dawkins, or even most children. Secondly, the experts of God routinely invoke cosmology and other subjects in which they do not possess official expertise. Third, most of the people who actually hold sway in the minds of laypeople on issues of God are experts in persuasion, and maintaining certain beliefs in their followers. They are not scholars, or intellectuals--or at least, that is not their role when they preach to popular audiences. The real intellectual work is saved for the priests and preachers and apologists who are in-the-know, so they can appropriately fashion a more marketable product for general consumption. In contrast, when Dawkins writes about God and Chomsky writes about foreign affairs, they are acting--or at least, striving to act as--intellectuals. Being an intellectual with broad, liberal knowledge of many things, and not just an expert in one narrow field, is key to being a writer, journalist, or social activist on any subject--religious, political, cultural, or otherwise. Intellectuals have always been accused of straying from their narrow fields of expertise, going at least as far back as Galileo.

 

[Matthew78]

You are aware that Dawkins isn't the only critic of religion aren't you? These so-called sophisticated theologians and philosophers are being rebutted all over the place these days. Why should Dawkins bother with debating these clowns when others are already taking them apart?

Of course I am aware. I have read a number of critiques of religion over the years of varying quality. Some are really good, most are mediocre, and a few are of such low quality, I can only shake my head in amazement that they found their way to the printing press.

As for why should Dawkins bother debating with Christian scholars you consider to be "clowns"-you could very well ask why he would bother even writing such a book as TGD? Why did he do such a thing if apologists are just so beneath him? He wrote it because he had a point to make and folks like myself are within their rights to judge his work. It's not my fault he didn't write the best book that could be written on the subject.



Matthew

 

[gnomon]

I find it completely ridiculous that on this forum, a religious education forum, that this thread is so long regarding the scientific credentials of a well established scientist rather than the religious credentials of well established religious leaders.

 

[Matthew78]

Matthew78,

Thanks for your well-argued critique of Dawkins. I respect your point of view, but I don't agree with it for a number of reasons.

Mr Spinkles, I appreciate your input as always. I appreciate your respect even if you disagree with my post. My reply will follow the portions I have quoted from your post.

First, you object that Dawkins doesn't engage with serious philosophers who argue against naturalism, William Lane Craig, and Christian "presuppositional" apologists. Indeed, we could go further and note that Dawkins doesn't address solipsism. In fact he concentrates on Abrahamic religions, and the Abrahamic god, and only popular arguments relating thereto. As I recall, Dawkins dutifully informs the reader that this is his limited scope and purpose, at the very beginning of the book. I see no problem with this.

Don't get me wrong here- I realize that Dawkins informs the reader that his book is limited in scope. He's not writing an encyclopedic work and naturally he can't address every single argument under the sun. I wish, however, that he would've addressed the best arguments out there. The problem is that the arguments that I wrote about in my previous post are not just arguments that are debated in peer-reviewed philosophy journals using technical jargon. These Christian philosophers have written for a popular audience and these are considered the best arguments that Christian minds can produce.

The fact that Dawkins doesn't address them could be taken as an indication that Dawkins prefers frying small fish and either doesn't know enough or is just too intimidated to go after the bigger fish in the lake. To be fair to Dawkins, I realize that the most popular arguments are not always the best arguments but why not just go after the best arguments and only address the more popular ones if some theists start bellyaching by saying "Well, you didn't address my argument and show what's wrong with it!".

Every book, in order to fit on a bookshelf and maintain the interest of most readers, must limit its scope and intended audience. In The God Delusion, Dawkins is writing, as always, for a popular audience. The actual reasons most people are given by religious authority figures to believe in God and/or religion, and the reasons people actually accept as persuasive, have little to do with the endless parade of abstruse monographs written by "experts" on religion--yesterday's monks, that is, scribbling away in their cells, or today's theologians.

The problem here is that theists could argue that this ignores a distinction between delusional beliefs and delusional reasons for belief. If a belief is delusional then there really is no good reason for that belief, no matter how cleverly worded or how well-phrased an argument for it is. It's possible to believe the right thing but for the wrong reasons. The actual reasons that people may have for believing in God or other religious doctrines may be very poor but that doesn't go to show that a belief in God is delusional. It just goes to show that regardless of how rational a belief in God could be, people will always have silly reasons for believing in God.

Sticking appropriately to this audience and this purpose, then, Dawkins fills a void that so-called "serious philosophers" on religion and theologians have purposefully left empty: he plainly informs a lay audience of some unpleasant facts about what the Bible actually contains. He forces us to compare what we say we believe (e.g., God's genocidal orders in the OT were right) to what we actually believe (e.g., genocide is wrong).

I have no problem with this. But Dawkins can still do this and go after the best arguments put in favor of God.

And let me say something about genocide and William Lane Craig, because it illustrates an important point in general. Most of us would believe something like genocide is wrong no matter how far beyond all recognition wordsmiths like William Lane Craig contort the matter. The fact is that virtually the entire world condemns genocide, and this is enshrined in international and national laws, without any exception for people following God's commandments. And yet, officially and uncomfortably, the belief that God ordered genocide as described in the OT comes along for the ride in most believers. This demonstrates that popular beliefs in the Old Testament can only survive through cognitive dissonance. Contorted arguments from the likes of Craig are just an emergency measure, designed to bring back into the circle of faith those few believers who slip through the cracks of reason. With much brow-furrowing and square-circling, he can help determined individuals climb back out again. But the rest of us won't be persuaded by the inexhaustible mental gymnastics of the apologists, and that is why for the rest of us, cognitive dissonance is necessary to ensure continued faith. Dawkins is perfectly justified in breaking the barrier that allows such cognitive dissonance to continue, without addressing the laborious attempts of apologists to put all the pieces back together.

I realize that Dawkins is breaking barriers and I applaud his attempts. However, I disagree about not having to address the spin of apologists; I think that addressing the spin of folks like W.L. Craig is exactly what is needed to help bring down the barriers once and for all.

This applies not just to the issue of genocide, but to all issues of cognitive dissonance which arise in the Abrahamic faiths, e.g. the dissonance between believing in science and believing that Jesus exorcised demons and cast them into a herd of pigs; and so on. The experts on God, when speaking to popular audiences, tip-toe around these contradictions. They keep the two parts of our brains carefully separated from each other. And they suppress embarrassing facts about Abrahamic religion, which are allowed to hide in the background instead of being brought out into the light, scrutinized, and rejected.

No disagreement from me here.

So, finally, I somewhat disagree with your vision of "experts". First, supposing that there is such a thing as an expert on morality, there is no such expertise in Abrahamic religions which cannot be matched by anyone, including Dawkins, or even most children.

I didn't say anything about expertise in regards to morality. My problem is that Dawkins is not a philosopher of religion which is the best guarantee of expert knowledge, IMO. However, Dawkins could still have some expert knowledge on the arguments against naturalism if he took the time to really do his homework. I haven't seen this and I could be surprised if Dawkins knows more than I am thinking he does.

Secondly, the experts of God routinely invoke cosmology and other subjects in which they do not possess official expertise.

I agree. And that is where Dawkins' expertise helps to refute them. But even then I was appealing to philosophers who construct philosophical arguments for God. Now Dawkins, if he's well read on cosmology and other subjects, could point out how philosophers like W.L. Craig abuse cosmology to support their pet arguments. I would have no problem with this.

Third, most of the people who actually hold sway in the minds of laypeople on issues of God are experts in persuasion, and maintaining certain beliefs in their followers. They are not scholars, or intellectuals--or at least, that is not their role when they preach to popular audiences.

I agree; when preaching to their audiences, it's spin but believers tend not to realize it.

The real intellectual work is saved for the priests and preachers and apologists who are in-the-know, so they can appropriately fashion a more marketable product for general consumption.

I don't quite follow. From what I have seen, many apologists use the same arguments when preaching to fellow believers as they do when trying to convince skeptics that they are wrong. This is my observation with regards to apologists like McDowell and Craig.

In contrast, when Dawkins writes about God and Chomsky writes about foreign affairs, they are acting--or at least, striving to act as--intellectuals. Being an intellectual with broad, liberal knowledge of many things, and not just an expert in one narrow field, is key to being a writer, journalist, or social activist on any subject--religious, political, cultural, or otherwise. Intellectuals have always been accused of straying from their narrow fields of expertise, going at least as far back as Galileo.

I wouldn't have a problem with either Dawkins or Chomsky going outside of their narrow field of expertise if they knew what they were talking about. As long as they do their homework, I'm fine with them speaking on other topics. But Chomsky has been exposed as not just an ignorant hack-he has-but also as a liar. Dawkins has, at best, a superficial grasp of Christian apologetics, in my opinion, and not an admirable grasp of philosophical arguments used by theists. Unlike Chomsky, however, I have always known Dawkins to be very honest and very ethical.

Look, in complete fairness to Dawkins, I happily admit that I could be wrong and I am out of my league in criticizing him. I have no problem apologizing to Dawkins or his fans if this proves to be the case. I have been proven wrong before and I can admit to it.

 

[Windwalker]

I have not participated in this thread. Seeing that it has been going on for 6 months and 1,548 posts on the question if Richard Dawkins is a good scientist, I think the REAL question is, is he controversial as a non-scientist social commentator!? That should be obvious.

What scientist speaking of science generates this level of response???

So, Dawkins appears something else. Some on the order of Rush Limbaugh, it seems!

 

[Warren Clark]

My abiogenesis claim was not supposed to address a certain claim of yours. You are failing it by a test you made up that it is not subject to.
I can say 2 + 2 = 4. A fourth grader can understand that as well and it is mathematically true. To suggest that illustration does anything to clear up complex mathematical issues is a waste of time. Your example does not solve any of the issues I have raised even though it might be as true as anything can be.

I am not objecting because you do not agree. I am objecting because you do not see to even understand the arguments. I know what the issues are that are debated among the professionals. I know what is considered valid, conceded, problematic and simple fact. I do not get the impression you and they are on the same page. When evolution is challenged no one ever produces an example of what you did. That is my complaint against Dawkins and theology. If you are inept enough to suggest who created God is a valid challenge you do not understand the issues or even the common arguments.
I did not create the truth and am not threatened by whatever it is. I for example use the most popular Bible critics’ numbers for Biblical error % to avoid meaningless contention. I did not write the Gospels I have no loss of face if they were false. Outside this I have no idea what context will make your statement relevant here.

Hold the phone. All of us are born without a faith in God. Only Christians have adopted a completely different position than they were born with. I do not think you can possibly suggest Christians have gained faith by not risking being wrong. That is ridiculous. In fact the very first thing a Christian must do to become one is admit they have been wrong in the most shameful ways possible. I was at one time the most virulent anti-God person possible. My mom (a Christian) died and the roots of my faith were non-existent so I hated God even if he did exist. Now I hold the exact opposite conclusion. Are you claiming that Dawkins was born again at one time? I have never heard him suggest that.
Did I say I was sorry for Dawkins? I am sorry for the people who he misleads not for him. He is an agent of misinformation not the victim of it. I have grown weary of this.
I said Dawkins is incompetent concerning theology. My examples are:
1. He suggests that the origin of God must be explained to allow for the claim God is the first cause.
2. And he offered a drawing in answer to a request for evidence the eye evolved.
Please either explain why those points are valid (and one is even biological) or I will conclude there is no defense for his mucking up the issues and rest the case.

I don't remember claiming that Dawkins was once religious.
You did at one point in this thread say that you were sorry for Dawkins.

Most people like Dawkins has explained are born into a culture of which is indoctrinated at a young age of a specific religion.
Many find it hard to leave behind what they were already were taught was the truth.

Like I said before...
He basically says there is no case for there being a God.
There is no proof of it any where and the burden of proof is due to be shown by those who claims what ever it is they are claiming actually exists.

Dawkins never claimed that there is absolutely positively no chance of a "god" existing. In fact he has admitted over and over that the chance of intelligence behind the start of everything is possible.
This is where I get confused with you talking about abiogenesis.
Dawkins is not in the field of abiogenesis, he is in the field of evolutionary biology.
His stand isn't against "God".
His stand is against religion infiltrating the educational system and indoctrinating young minds.
He is concerned when people assume there is a god with out substantial scientific evidence.
Then claim science got it wrong with evolution when they don't fully understand evolution in the first place.
But it is all the same as fairies and unicorns.
One would not claim that they existed because they would have no way to show or explain how they know they did.
While scientists have presented a clear presentation for the case of evolution and it can be studied.
We have used evolution of organisms to study viruses and diseases to create vaccines and medicine.

When an organism that is previously vulnerable to something and later becomes immune to it, that is evolution.
You can call it what you want, but it will always be the same evolution that bridged the difference between us and our ancestors.

Yes, Dawkins wrote a few books in response to critics of evolution.
They were perfect illustrations and explanations.

I used to be one of those people who would use examples such as irreducible complexity and "lack of proof". That was until I studied more about what Dawkins was talking about in his books.
I read scientific journals about new medical research and biological discoveries. Whether or not these organisms we haven't encountered until could have existed before we discovered them and how they might have survived.

Evolution is constantly on trial in the scientific community. However, the theory of evolution still stands because it has not failed yet.

 

[1robin]

I don't remember claiming that Dawkins was once religious.

You have me here. You said Darwin and I saw Dawkins. As this is not the issue I will not comment further.

You did at one point in this thread say that you were sorry for Dawkins.

I probably meant for his argumentation or something. I would have to see the context. Why does this matter?

Most people like Dawkins has explained are born into a culture of which is indoctrinated at a young age of a specific religion.
Many find it hard to leave behind what they were already were taught was the truth.

I agree to some extant but this is far far more complex than you are making it here. Why does this matter?

Like I said before...
He basically says there is no case for there being a God.
There is no proof of it anywhere and the burden of proof is due to be shown by those who claims whatever it is they are claiming actually exists.

I have no objection to stating disbelief. I object to the terrible argumentation he uses and the credibility in another field being imported to one he has no competence in. It has a net negative effect on the debate its self.

Dawkins never claimed that there is absolutely positively no chance of a "god" existing. In fact he has admitted over and over that the chance of intelligence behind the start of everything is possible.

I agree.

This is where I get confused with you talking about abiogenesis.
Dawkins is not in the field of abiogenesis, he is in the field of evolutionary biology.
His stand isn't against "God".
His stand is against religion infiltrating the educational system and indoctrinating young minds.
He is concerned when people assume there is a god with out substantial scientific evidence.
Then claim science got it wrong with evolution when they don't fully understand evolution in the first place.

I disagree. He seems to resent the prospect of God. As this is based in language use it is hard to argue. Why is it that theories like multiverses and string theory that have no evidence whatsoever and do not even have any potential evidence possible called science and allowed in universities yet the much evidenced theory of God is deemed off limits. Both are faith based and religion has more evidence. This is unjustifiable but I am not arguing for religious education in public schools even though the entire institution was began by Christians for the purpose of understanding the Bible. Continued below:

 

[1robin]

But it is all the same as fairies and unicorns.
One would not claim that they existed because they would have no way to show or explain how they know they did.

They are not the same at all. When the most studied and cherished book on earth is written by fairies then that would be a start. When Christ can be substituted by fairies or unicorn in these statements then they it is a little closer:
"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.
No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish TheologianJames Stuart

While scientists have presented a clear presentation for the case of evolution and it can be studied.
We have used evolution of organisms to study viruses and diseases to create vaccines and medicine.

I agree with most of the premise but there is no conclusion in the context of God here.

When an organism that is previously vulnerable to something and later becomes immune to it, that is evolution.

That is without a doubt often not the case unless you think they just happened to develop the exact resistance necessary at the exact moment it was needed. It is the case sometimes but not always.

You can call it what you want, but it will always be the same evolution that bridged the difference between us and our ancestors.

Prove that. Good luck. There is not a single event in this sequence that meets the scientific method. You are operating by faith.

Yes, Dawkins wrote a few books in response to critics of evolution.
They were perfect illustrations and explanations.

The "God delusion" is anything but a defense of evolution. This was quite a desperate claim.

I used to be one of those people who would use examples such as irreducible complexity and "lack of proof". That was until I studied more about what Dawkins was talking about in his books.
I read scientific journals about new medical research and biological discoveries. Whether or not these organisms we haven't encountered until could have existed before we discovered them and how they might have survived.

You are a glutton for punishment. True or false the minutia of papers about evolution is boring. There are quite a few very well educated biologists and geneticists that disagree with Dawkin's. I am not debating his biological credentials anyway.

Evolution is constantly on trial in the scientific community. However, the theory of evolution still stands because it has not failed yet.

Academics is notoriously hostile to any idea against the accepted norm. It takes a long time to overcome current models and many times the attempt has not even been allowed, employment terminated, academic prejudice applied, or just plain rejection on principle. If you are looking for purity of motivation academics is about the last place on earth (except government) I would look. You mean an entire theory which requires a law of biology that has no exceptions ever observed (abiogenesis) be circumvented, probabilities so small they are considered zero by physicists, and which can't even be made to happen in a lab with optimal conditions and intelligent intent has not failed. Godless evolution does not even have a chance until many very solid obstacles can be overcome. Keep in mind the Bible said evolution existed long before Darwin ever drew his first breath. It is evolution without God that is the debate and that debate does not belong in this tread. I said Dawkin's is a bad theologian and that is the case no matter the truth of evolution.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

When the most studied and cherished book on earth is written by fairies then that would be a start.

Actually, even Christianity concedes that fairies have written as many books as God, and Jesus--that is, zero. A more appropriate and fair challenge would be for you to say, "When the most studied and cherished book on earth is written by men, about fairies, then that would be a start."

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.
No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish TheologianJames Stuart

This reminds me of our discussion from before, about the rights of man as envisioned by American revolutionaries, and your claim that this vision is incompatible with atheists like Richard Dawkins. I recently re-read Thomas Paine's pamphlet, The Age of Reason. It's interesting that an American atheist like myself can read it and agree with 99% of it, while at the same time, it almost certainly contradicts 99% of what is believed by the likes of your Scottish theologian.

 

[Ouroboros]

Actually, even Christianity concedes that fairies have written as many books as God, and Jesus--that is, zero. A more appropriate and fair challenge would be for you to say, "When the most studied and cherished book on earth is written by men, about fairies, then that would be a start."

True.

There are many books written about orcs, hobbits, wizards, magic, and such. Lord of the Rings has been studied many times over. Harry Potter has been a source for books about philosophical questions. Even Startrek and other books/stories/shows/movies.

I think the argument "it must be right because so many think/believe/read/study it" is an argument ad populum (or something like that).

 

[1robin]

Actually, even Christianity concedes that fairies have written as many books as God, and Jesus--that is, zero.

What are you talking about? The word fairies do not appear in God's word. Unicorns do but it has another meaning than the one you do. I know this was a joke but it has no premise.

A more appropriate and fair challenge would be for you to say, "When the most studied and cherished book on earth is written by men, about fairies, then that would be a start."

No that would be a more convenient (for you) claim and not be result of any logical conclusion nor fact. The men who wrote it said it was done by the inspiration of God. There are three choices for who wrote the Bible (ultimately):

1. Dishonest men. Dishonest men do not record their own sins and invent laws that condemn themselves.
2. Honest men. The honest men who penned the Bible said God instructed them to do so.
3. Therefore God produced the content of the Bible.

The only other possability is the unlikely choice of critics:

4. Anything or anybody of any type or any kind that does not imply that I am accountable.

In a book that does not mention fairies, claims that that is what it is about are less than worth the typing required. Humor is less than funny without context or premise.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

1robin, I believed you missed the point of what I said. You admitted yourself: "The men who wrote it said it was done by the inspiration of God." Emphasis added. Therefore, even if we accept the claims of Christianity, God has written no books, God has only inspired men to write books. So, your challenge about fairies writing books is excessive, since if fairies wrote books so they would not only equal, but actually exceed the literary evidence attributed to God.

 

[1robin]

1robin, I believed you missed the point of what I said. You admitted yourself: "The men who wrote it said it was done by the inspiration of God." Emphasis added. Therefore, even if we accept the claims of Christianity, God has written no books, God has only inspired men to write books. So, your challenge about fairies writing books is excessive, since if fairies wrote books so they would not only equal, but actually exceed the literary evidence attributed to God.

You seem more interested in winning a word fight by a technicality than making comments that have relevance to the subject. The meaningful point is that the authors claimed and many of the claims allow for no other explanation for the text than God is responsible for the content. That is the meaningful issue. Whether a man wrote or typed, or they magically appeared, or the coalesced out of the ether makes no difference. I do not remember any claims about fairies writing anything. Are you attempting to claim that fairies and God are equally evidenced entities? I sure hope not. I have given a few of the countless examples why the concepts are not equal. Until you can show them false you can’t justify such a strange claim.

 

[McBell]

You seem more interested in winning a word fight by a technicality than making comments that have relevance to the subject. The meaningful point is that the authors claimed and many of the claims allow for no other explanation for the text than God is responsible for the content. That is the meaningful issue. Whether a man wrote or typed, or they magically appeared, or the coalesced out of the ether makes no difference. I do not remember any claims about fairies writing anything. Are you attempting to claim that fairies and God are equally evidenced entities? I sure hope not. I have given a few of the countless examples why the concepts are not equal. Until you can show them false you can’t justify such a strange claim.

Unfortunately for you, not everyone holds your beliefs as any standard, let alone "the" standard...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You seem more interested in winning a word fight by a technicality than making comments that have relevance to the subject.

That is projection on your part. I made a comment which is self-evidently relevant to the subject, a point you admit is true: man, not God, wrote the Bible, and indeed God has not written anything. This of course does not resolve the question of whether the man-made collection of books that is called the Bible was inspired by God. I do not pretend otherwise. But it's indisputably a relevant fact to consider.

Interestingly, although you dismiss the fact that man (not God) wrote the Bible as being insignificant, none other than Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, thought it a most significant fact. So did Thomas Paine, whom Jefferson greatly admired. It's quite remarkable how different your values are from those men, considering that earlier in this thread, you accused Richard Dawkins (and atheists in general) of being unable to justify their natural rights on the grounds laid out by such thinkers as Jefferson. One is tempted to reverse your argument and level the same charge at Christians. I wouldn't credit such a charge, of course ... but it would be as plausible as the original one you put forward.