Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[Kilgore Trout]

Now this is a real news flash. I can see the headlines now: "Famous Sophist Claims Dawkins Argument 'Worst Ever', Declares Self Winner: Atheists Declare Day of Mourning"

Resorting to hyperbole and absolutes often seems to be used to attempt to bolster weak arguments and positions. Sadly, those who use such tactics rarely see that this only makes the weakness of their arguments even more apparent.

 

[1robin]

I'm just poking a little fun at what you described as "extraordinary things that should end the debate". I confess, as I await your reasons I do not hold my breath; but I do not preemptively reject anything, either.

Well I have a problem. Omniscient science is not so omniscient when it must work in reality instead of a think tank or never land. I have several $250,000 dollar rubidium oscillators, SAs, and Form C relay trees that never work correctly and are not working at all today so I might be tied up a bit. To be fair they are on the back side of their life cycle. That reminds me of the debate between G K Chesterton and Clarence Darrow. Chesterton's wit had Darrow spitting mad. He banged his hand on the podium and yelled science sir, is where hope must be placed. At that moment the microphone went out and the crowd and Chesterton laughed themselves silly. Irony is amazing.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Irony is indeed amazing. After they finished laughing at placing hope in science, did the crowd and Mr. Chesterson go pray for the discovery of penicillin?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That reminds me of the debate between G K Chesterton and Clarence Darrow. Chesterton's wit had Darrow spitting mad. He banged his hand on the podium and yelled science sir, is where hope must be placed. At that moment the microphone went out and the crowd and Chesterton laughed themselves silly. Irony is amazing.

So a faulty, 1930's-era microphone is somehow supposed to encapsulate and represent all of science?

I think I see where your problem lies.

 

[1robin]

Irony is indeed amazing. After they finished laughing at placing hope in science, did the crowd and Mr. Chesterson go pray for the discovery of penicillin?

Quit trying to steal my irony thunder. Actually it was invented by a Catholic in a Christian Hospital who was educated at a Christian school, by accident, so prayer may not be that bad of a guess. The irony is back in my corner I believe.

 

[1robin]

So a faulty, 1930's-era microphone is somehow supposed to encapsulate and represent all of science?

I think I see where your problem lies.

If it did or that is what I was saying then that is what I would have said. I was in an ironic mood and that story popped in my head. I am sorry for the sacrilege against omniscient science.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Apparently the argument between religion and science in this regard is - what is more useful for humanity when it comes to understanding the world we live in? The demand to be absolutely right? Or the willingness to be wrong and to learn from our mistakes?

One could start from the usefulness of falsifiability. And which side of the argument stems from an oversized ego.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If it did or that is what I was saying then that is what I would have said. I was in an ironic mood and that story popped in my head. I am sorry for the sacrilege against omniscient science.

You should be more sorry for your sacrilege against irony, humor, and aptly applied anecdotes.

 

[1robin]

You should be more sorry for your sacrilege against irony, humor, and aptly applied anecdotes.

Show me the standard by which that sacrilege may be judged and I might.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Show me the standard by which that sacrilege may be judged and I might.

I could take my dog to the art museum to see the Monet's, but he'd probably just sniff around the floor and eventually pee in the corner.

 

[1robin]

I could take my dog to the art museum to see the Monet's, but he'd probably just sniff around the floor and eventually pee in the corner.

That was not a standard and you have not made a meaningfull and relevant point concerning any issue being discussed for so long, I give up on you for now.

 

[McBell]

That was not a standard and you have not made a meaningfull and relevant point concerning any issue being discussed for so long, I give up on you for now.

and yet here you are. replying to it even when you said you wouldn't?

Good lord man, you make it so easy...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That was not a standard and you have not made a meaningfull and relevant point concerning any issue being discussed for so long, I give up on you for now.

I strongly doubt you'd recognize meaningful and relevant even if meaningful fell on your head and relelvant sat on your face.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Quit trying to steal my irony thunder. Actually it was invented by a Catholic in a Christian Hospital who was educated at a Christian school, by accident, so prayer may not be that bad of a guess. The irony is back in my corner I believe.

Hmm well I'm not sure that's the full story of penicillin. But I had better not steal Christianity's irony thunder, since Benjamin Franklin already stole its irony lightning.

 

[Skeptisch]

That was not a standard and you have not made a meaningfull and relevant point concerning any issue being discussed for so long, I give up on you for now.

The most essential part of trolling is convincing your victim that either a) truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous, or b) give your victim malicious instructions, under the guise of help.
Trolling requires decieving; any trolling that doesn't involve decieving someone isn't trolling at all; it's just stupid. As such, your victim must not know that you are trolling; if he does, you are an unsuccesful troll.

 

[1robin]

The most essential part of trolling is convincing your victim that either a) truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous, or b) give your victim malicious instructions, under the guise of help.
Trolling requires decieving; any trolling that doesn't involve decieving someone isn't trolling at all; it's just stupid. As such, your victim must not know that you are trolling; if he does, you are an unsuccesful troll.

I have no idea what this is about. Why it was written. What it was in response to. or Why trolling was mentioned. I never accused anyone of trolling. I know very little pop culture terms. LOL, IMHO, LMAO, and trolling are not things I am too familiar with. The word trolling has never appeared in any post I have ever made that I can recall until now. I have never accused anyone of it. I have been accused of other things but not this. I do not understand the relevance. Trolling sounds like it requires intent and planning. I do not think the comments I complained against even rose to that level. They seem to be random, meant to annoy, and the result of personal frustration in general and no desire to actually discuss anything of meaning. I will just ignore them if I need to, I have no desire or plans to officially accuse anyone of anything.

 

[1robin]

Hmm well I'm not sure that's the full story of penicillin. But I had better not steal Christianity's irony thunder, since Benjamin Franklin already stole its irony lightning.

I am sure there is more to it but those are the essentials, I believe. Now that we have gotten all the irony, ironed out, I will try and find a new topic.

 

[Warren Clark]

You have me here. You said Darwin and I saw Dawkins. As this is not the issue I will not comment further.
I probably meant for his argumentation or something. I would have to see the context. Why does this matter?
I agree to some extant but this is far far more complex than you are making it here. Why does this matter?
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.
I agree.
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:

I think we are coming closer to an understanding...

However, everyone says that Atheists have it out for "god". When really we wish it were as easy as just having faith in an invisible entity.
But there is no proof that it exists. And if it were true that an entity such as the Christian god existed it would be more likely that the god has less interest in us at all. (The scientific theory that sort of sparked Scientology is that there was intelligence behind our "design" or "creation" and that they (possibly aliens or other "entity") will come back later...)
The theories are separate from the multi-verse theories etc.
Originally the multi-verse theory is the yang to string theory. The idea that a series of events happen in a straight line of time... while multi-verse is the idea that "space and time" is more 4 dimensional-ish with every choice and chance that happens the other chance happens in another universe.
All because time is only a relative figure we give to a series of events that we witness.
These theories are left in science fiction at the moment but there are scientists that study these theories in depth beyond what we could understand in hope of clearly understanding the way the universe actually works a little better.
One of the greatest discoveries in support of some of these theories was the Black Hole.
If we can understand how a Black Hole works exactly, we might unlock a few pieces to a couple of our puzzles.

The point is, we aren't out against god.
But we are open to suggestions other than one specific mystical one.
Its not going to be practically none existent to our experience.
We will be able to find what was the beginning of everything.
Definitely not anytime in our lifetime, but what we learn now will help those that succeed us find the answer.
Whether they are mistakes or correct findings they can be learned from.

But there is no ominous thing out there that decides when we are lucky and not or when we deserve to die or fall ill.
It all happens by the chance of cause and effect.
We are hoping to find the beginning cause of it all.
Saying "god did it" doesn't help us. Inside or outside of the class room.

 

[1robin]

I think we are coming closer to an understanding...

I hope so.

However, everyone says that Atheists have it out for "god".

I don't nor do I know anyone that does. I claim the majority of atheists do not believe for reasons outside evidence and that within atheism there is a much smaller group that literally hates the concept of God. I do not think most atheists are after God.

When really we wish it were as easy as just having faith in an invisible entity.
But there is no proof that it exists. And if it were true that an entity such as the Christian god existed it would be more likely that the god has less interest in us at all. (The scientific theory that sort of sparked Scientology is that there was intelligence behind our "design" or "creation" and that they (possibly aliens or other "entity") will come back later...)

There is nothing easy about belief in God. It is a constant battle that requires vigilence and a continous effort to search out truth. I have no idea where you got the interest idea. The BIble promotes theism. Theism is a personal God. Deism is not derived from evidence, theism is. In fact the universe and everything in it would either be eternal or never have existed in deism. Whatever created the universe had the power to choose (theism). Scientology is not just garbage but evil garbage and I usually avoid it.

The theories are separate from the multi-verse theories etc.
Originally the multi-verse theory is the yang to string theory. The idea that a series of events happen in a straight line of time... while multi-verse is the idea that "space and time" is more 4 dimensional-ish with every choice and chance that happens the other chance happens in another universe.
All because time is only a relative figure we give to a series of events that we witness.
These theories are left in science fiction at the moment but there are scientists that study these theories in depth beyond what we could understand in hope of clearly understanding the way the universe actually works a little better.
One of the greatest discoveries in support of some of these theories was the Black Hole.
If we can understand how a Black Hole works exactly, we might unlock a few pieces to a couple of our puzzles.

I do not credit these scientists with the omniscience many do. I find no merit in fantasy regardless of how scientifically it is dressed. Theory based on well established facts are valid but not guesses devoid of any evidence what so ever. All actual evidence points to a finite universe, absolutely. Science fiction has no imapct on it. I believe we are claose to agreement here to I will drop it.

The point is, we aren't out against god.
But we are open to suggestions other than one specific mystical one.
Its not going to be practically none existent to our experience.
We will be able to find what was the beginning of everything.
Definitely not anytime in our lifetime, but what we learn now will help those that succeed us find the answer.
Whether they are mistakes or correct findings they can be learned from.

I can't remember our previous discussion but the post gives me no indication you are against the concept of God.

But there is no ominous thing out there that decides when we are lucky and not or when we deserve to die or fall ill.
It all happens by the chance of cause and effect.
We are hoping to find the beginning cause of it all.
Saying "god did it" doesn't help us. Inside or outside of the class room.

Let me back up. You claim several things here that you have no possible access to. There is no data that would allow these conclusions and much that refutes them Instead of me guessing, why don't you tell me why you have assumed things that you have no justification to assert? BTW the Bible says that supernatural intervention is the rare exception not the governing dynamic. The last claim is one that I always found rediculous. Dawkins said even if God did it the idea is useless. No science can be done. God does not exist to allow science to be done. That is like saying cars are useless because they can not paint a house. I will not get into the fact that God is scientifically valid and an almost inescapable imperative. Many debators argue for God using only science and never quoting a scripture. Most professional debates are in an acedemic not theological context and the issues are settled by logic, philosophy, science, and reason not faith. Every single effective Bible debator is a respected professional in a scientific field that I can think of, not theology.

 

[1robin]

Now this is a real news flash. I can see the headlines now: "Famous Sophist Claims Dawkins Argument 'Worst Ever', Declares Self Winner: Atheists Declare Day of Mourning"

I apologize as I do not have the time to do what I wished to do. I will instead give the bare bones and see if there is any REASONABLE counter position possible.

Craig is a well-respected philosopher by both sides. He said and is qualified and in the position to know that not only has Dawkins been wrong many times about theology (and sometimes biology, I claim) but the level of incompetence is so marked that he said:

"Dawkins has made the worst argument against God in the entire history of western thought"

It just so happens ironically enough, that even though I was unfamiliar with this statement we were both indicating the same argument as an example of Dawkins theological incompetence. A cause for the uncaused first cause which invariably results in an infinite chain of causation argument that does not even apply here.

There are just so many options:
1. Craig is not competent to make such a claim: It is a bit hyperbolic but the incompetence that inspired the statement is obvious. Crag is very well credentialed, well respected by scholars on both sides, extremely professional, and probably the most feared debater on the faith side. Sam Harris said he is the one that can put the fear of God into an atheist more so than any other. His credibility depends solely on the merit of his statements, and he is well aware of this and has a reputation as a master of logic and reason. I cannot think of his equal on either side of the aisle in this context. I do not think a claim of incompetence in the context of his statement has any validity.

2. He is competent but this claim was not: He gives a detailed and step by step philosophically valid argument for every claim Dawkins makes in his absurd "where did God come from" question. There are few that are even capable of critiquing his argument and I doubt any of them are on this forum. Every point has sound philosophical basis. However no sophisticated philosophy is necessary to know that for an explanation to be determined to be the best available it is not necessary to explain where it came from especially if the concept is an uncaused one. The question does not even make sense.

3. That craigs faith has produced the statement alone: There is no evidence for that any where. He has a repuatation for the opposite and the philisophical 101 arguements he uses to tear Dawkins argument apart are valid and secular (not to mention simple common sense).

4. That the spirit of his claim is based in fact and sound reason. I am going with this one as the only available candidate.
In summary, there is no reason to conclude that Dawkins argument is undeserving of the spirit of Craig's statement. Combine that with my and the countless consistent opinions of scholars saying the same thing and the conclusion is unavoidable. Dawkins effect on the debate about God is a net negative.