• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

Jared Jammer

Jared Jammer

Member
I've seen no indicators that he's an actual scientist, let alone a good one.

An extremist? Sure. A fanatic? There's no doubt about it. A propagandist? Absolutely.

A scientist? Eh... I lean towards no. The laboratory research and peer-reviewed publication just isn't there. Even if I were to charitably label Dawkins a scientists, in no way could he ever be called a good scientist. His agenda-driven ranting and attacks against anyone who rejects his Darwinian faith is the type of polarizing attitude that sullies science. Couple that with the fact that he's brought nothing to the table as far as research and discovery goes, and it's impossible for any reasonable person to call him a good scientist. Those who do so consist entirely of his like-minded fanatics.
 
Kilgore Trout

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
Jared Jammer said:
I've seen no indicators that he's an actual scientist, let alone a good one.

An extremist? Sure. A fanatic? There's no doubt about it. A propagandist? Absolutely.

A scientist? Eh... I lean towards no. The laboratory research and peer-reviewed publication just isn't there. Even if I were to charitably label Dawkins a scientists, in no way could he ever be called a good scientist. His agenda-driven ranting and attacks against anyone who rejects his Darwinian faith is the type of polarizing attitude that sullies science. Couple that with the fact that he's brought nothing to the table as far as research and discovery goes, and it's impossible for any reasonable person to call him a good scientist. Those who do so consist entirely of his like-minded fanatics.
Click to expand...

This post was clearly not fantatical-sounding rhetoric. It was obviously well-balanced and objective in its arguments, and in no way sounded like a frothing-mouth rant.
 
Jared Jammer

Jared Jammer

Member
Nothing I said was untrue. Dawkins is a nut with next to no contributions to scientific discovery. He's a popular writer and speaker, best known for his red-in-the-face atheistic sermons, and nothing more.
 
S

Skeptisch

Well-Known Member
1robin

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Skeptisch said:
Why would an omnipotent God permit all these immoral things and then go on to tell the president to go to war in Iraq, killing over 4000 US servicemen and an estimated 500000 Iraqis?
George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' | World news | The Guardian
Click to expand...

What?
You must first determine if Bush was speaking metaphorically or literally and if literally if it was true. Your question is basically why would God combat evil even if his children suffer? I think the answer is obvious. If he didn't your side would and does say “why does not God stop this or that”. It's a silly heads you win tails God loses argument. I doubt God told Bush anything directly but would not rule it out.
 
1robin

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Jared Jammer said:
Nothing I said was untrue. Dawkins is a nut with next to no contributions to scientific discovery. He's a popular writer and speaker, best known for his red-in-the-face atheistic sermons, and nothing more.
Click to expand...
I think he is a competant scientist but agree with the rest of your estimation.
 
ArcNinja

ArcNinja

Member
Jared Jammer said:
I've seen no indicators that he's an actual scientist, let alone a good one.

An extremist? Sure. A fanatic? There's no doubt about it. A propagandist? Absolutely.

A scientist? Eh... I lean towards no. The laboratory research and peer-reviewed publication just isn't there. Even if I were to charitably label Dawkins a scientists, in no way could he ever be called a good scientist. His agenda-driven ranting and attacks against anyone who rejects his Darwinian faith is the type of polarizing attitude that sullies science. Couple that with the fact that he's brought nothing to the table as far as research and discovery goes, and it's impossible for any reasonable person to call him a good scientist. Those who do so consist entirely of his like-minded fanatics.
Click to expand...

Someone needs to be extreme about these things to get it through peoples' thick skulls.
 
I

InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect

Member
Jared Jammer said:
I've seen no indicators that he's an actual scientist, let alone a good one.

An extremist? Sure. A fanatic? There's no doubt about it. A propagandist? Absolutely.

A scientist? Eh... I lean towards no. The laboratory research and peer-reviewed publication just isn't there. Even if I were to charitably label Dawkins a scientists, in no way could he ever be called a good scientist. His agenda-driven ranting and attacks against anyone who rejects his Darwinian faith is the type of polarizing attitude that sullies science. Couple that with the fact that he's brought nothing to the table as far as research and discovery goes, and it's impossible for any reasonable person to call him a good scientist. Those who do so consist entirely of his like-minded fanatics.
Click to expand...

Your google-fu is weak. Richard Dawkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I should really post that as a LMGTFY but can't be bothered. I could do yoda perhaps: :yoda: Great philosopher he is not but strong in science is this one.

All I get from your post is you don't like Dawkin's or even people that like Dawkins. Heed Pythagoras:

Sooner throw a pearl at hazard than an idle or useless word; and do not say a little in many words, but a great deal in a few.
Click to expand...
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Richard Dawkins was just a guest voice on the Simpsons.
He was in Hell making Catholic Saint stew for Ned Flanders.
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Jared Jammer said:
I've seen no indicators that he's an actual scientist, let alone a good one.
An extremist? Sure. A fanatic? There's no doubt about it. A propagandist? Absolutely.
A scientist? Eh... I lean towards no. The laboratory research and peer-reviewed publication just isn't there. Even if I were to charitably label Dawkins a scientists, in no way could he ever be called a good scientist. His agenda-driven ranting and attacks against anyone who rejects his Darwinian faith is the type of polarizing attitude that sullies science. Couple that with the fact that he's brought nothing to the table as far as research and discovery goes, and it's impossible for any reasonable person to call him a good scientist. Those who do so consist entirely of his like-minded fanatics.
Click to expand...
Who agrees with Jared Jammer's viewpoint?
Regards
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
paarsurrey said:
One of our friends here gave an opinion that Richard Dawkins is not a scientist.

What is your opinion? Please
Click to expand...
He is most definitely a scientist. But, recently he has been focusing on strong atheism and the harm that religion causes. But, that doesn't effect his scientific credentials in the least, as they aren't related to science.
 
Noa

Noa

Active Member
To the original topic: I do not know Dawkin's original field at a professional level so I cannot comment on his work.

But I do maintain that he is not gifted as a writer or speaker. Which is his primary function at this point in time.

Edit: Love him or hate him, Hitchens was an incredibly gifted writer (he is often put on a short list of best essayists of his generation) and that is something the antitheist movement is currently lacking.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Eseka said:
To the original topic: I do not know Dawkin's original field at a professional level so I cannot comment on his work.

But I do maintain that he is not gifted as a writer or speaker. Which is his primary function at this point in time.
Click to expand...
Why do you feel this way? I think he is a pretty decent speaker.
 
Noa

Noa

Active Member
leibowde84 said:
Why do you feel this way? I think he is a pretty decent speaker.
Click to expand...

He is bleacher preacher. He speaks for his own audience and has little mastery of rhetorical tools. He lets his emotions get the best of him in all of the wrong situations for a public speaker that cares what anyone besides those that are already his supporters think of him.

And that is not to say his speaking has no value -- it just is not his strong suit. He is not 'good in a room' as they say. And when he first started becoming known I tried to read his book and I could not finish it. The writing was very stilted and inconsistent. I am guessing that back then it was largely ghostwritten. That is very hard to do without the end product suffering.
 
Monk Of Reason

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Jared Jammer said:
Nothing I said was untrue. Dawkins is a nut with next to no contributions to scientific discovery. He's a popular writer and speaker, best known for his red-in-the-face atheistic sermons, and nothing more.
Click to expand...
His work in evolutionary biology has significant merit. Two of the most important things, both of which tie into each other, is the popularization of the term Gene as the primary unit in which evolution occurs and secondly the work on how genes evolved over time. His most famous work, having nothing to do with god, is the selfish gene which was published in the 70's.

I don't think he has done anything in recent years with science which is a shame but it is ignorance to say he hasn't produced any contributions to scientific discovery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top