Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Reasoning and logic are abandoned at the point where faith takes over. The theist may use them elsewhere, but sets them aside in order to take that leap of faith.
That would explain your (and others) emotional response to the idea of a God. It would repel most anyone who accepted your 'truism' of having to give up their intellectual integrity to contemplate the possibility of God.

Obviously I disagree and so now ask for your proof of that absurd notion.

Again, careful about reading emotion into others' posts. It's very likely to be a projection of your own.

Faith is assertion without sufficient evidence. This is not reasoning. This is emotion. Reasoning in the face of insufficient evidence would lead to agnosticism, whether it's regarding a god or a hypothetical subatomic particle.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

leadfoot Quote:
"The known universe is to the reality of God as a Pyrex beaker is to the research chemist. The glassware is interesting but knowing everything about it reveals nothing about the experiment being conducted. Ultimately, it's the evidence of an experiment going on that convinces me, not how the beaker is made. "

OK, little clarification of what I was rambling on about there in my own view of reality. It was no attempt at convincing anyone BTW.

The universe is just the container that the creator is running this experiment in. We do interact with it to some extent (mainly observation) but it has very little to do with the purpose. Trying to learn something about the experiment by studying the universe is like mice studying the maze the behavioral scientist set them running in. Even if they develop the ability to analyze the wood it is made from, find out that it came from naturally occuring trees, map it's every twist and turn, figure out how to get the cheese at the end, etc, they are several levels of abstraction away from knowing the purpose it serves and why they are in it. I'm just crazy or deluded enough to think that we mice can figure out what lies beyond the maze.

No need to comment unless you wanted to, I was just rambling. But I'm sure Set & FBM will have a ball with my illusions that there is an experiment going on.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

ok, I now understand. Of course you know that I dont agree with it. But thats the whole point of these discussions.
I find that a respectful understanding of the views from our separate plateaus aint bad.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I'm sure Set & FBM will have a ball with my illusions that there is an experiment going on.

The only reason I might give you a hard time would be if you were trying to convince everybody else to agree with you, or if you represented a group of people who did so. Then I would just revert to the same old strategy of asking for evidence. I don't have anything against you personally, and I don't consider what goes on between your ears as any of my business unless you invite me, either explicitly or implicitly, to do so.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Again, careful about reading emotion into others' posts. It's very likely to be a projection of your own.

Faith is assertion without sufficient evidence. This is not reasoning. This is emotion.

I'll try not to read emotion where there is none, but I can't help thinking you put a negative connotation on 'emotion'. I was without any for a time in my life and it really sucked.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I can't help thinking you put a negative connotation on 'emotion'.

This is a good example of the need for caution, I think. I didn't intend any negative connotation on 'emotion' when I wrote it. It didn't even occur to me that someone might have a negative attitude towards it. If I'd intended to diminish the role of emotion, I'd have written 'just' or 'mere emotion.'

2 Replies

I find that people online employ a charge of giving an emotional response in an attempt to suggest that they speak from a calm, rational point of view, and that their interlocutor's statements are crippled by an emotional response. It's just a cheap shot, in the end.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I've noticed that, too. I'm not saying LF is doing that now, but I've seen it happen lots of times.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

The only reason I might give you a hard time would be if you were trying to convince everybody else to agree with you, or if you represented a group of people who did so

I definitely don't represent any group and I'm not sure it's possible to convince anyone of what I've been saying, let alone everyone.

But haven't you set an impossibly high standard? I assume you accept the same for yourself. Don't you want to convince everyone to be inoculated against preventable diseases and eliminate unnecessary deaths of children with medical care?

Or more relevant to the OP, imagine you were Charles Darwin and you made a discovery that could change the entire world's view of existence and you had evidence to back it up. Even if you knew it would make you the target of hatred, wouldn't you feel a responsibility to convince the world of its truth? Even some who he convinced, like Dawkins, feel that way, although I think his motivation was not quite that pure.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
The only reason I might give you a hard time would be if you were trying to convince everybody else...
I definitely don't represent any group and I'm not sure it's possible to convince anyone of what I've been saying, let alone everyone.

But haven't you set an impossibly high standard? I assume you accept the same for yourself. Don't you want to convince everyone to be inoculated against preventable diseases and eliminate unnecessary deaths of children with medical care?

Or more relevant to the OP, imagine you were Charles Darwin and you made a discovery that could change the entire world's view of existence and you had evidence to back it up. Even if you knew it would make you the target of hatred, wouldn't you feel a responsibility to convince the world of its truth? Even some who he convinced, like Dawkins, feel that way, although I think his motivation was not quite that pure.

Emphasis added to key points.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

This is a good example of the need for caution, I think. I didn't intend any negative connotation on 'emotion' when I wrote it. It didn't even occur to me that someone might have a negative attitude towards it. If I'd intended to diminish the role of emotion, I'd have written 'just' or 'mere emotion.'

I think that 'mere emotion' can be a deceptive and destructive tool if that's what you mean. I've been studying an extream case of that for the past 5 years or so. It's actually hard to watch but I'm interested in the mental progression of people who use emotion in that way.
There is a sizable group of people who are so enamored with generating mere emotion within themselves that they are completely immune to logic and reason and often view 'thinking' as an evil force that they must avoid. Some in the group are obvious hucksters in it for the donations but for many it's real.
Check out goldenageofgaia.com for an example if interested.

0 Replies

@FBM,

I see what your point is, but are you not trying to promote your own views?

As far as evidence: The evidence for many things, scientific and otherwise, is beyond the understanding of much of the population. I, as much as anyone, appreciate how futile it can be to make others comprehend in the absence of understandable evidence.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

If I'm trying to promote a view (arguable), it would include ideas such as that without the requirement of evidence, anybody can claim anything and then it's just a matter of charisma and historical accident as to who gets the most followers.

Also, the greater the claim, the greater requirement for evidence. If I told you that I had $10 in my pocket, I doubt you would care enough to even ask me to show it to you. If you want a car loan, the bank will damn sure want to see evidence of your collateral. By the time we get to claims on the magnitude of the origin of the entire universe, you'll need a whole lot more than an old book of Bronze Age stories, traditions, and heart-felt, catchy rhetoric. It's really very simple and very commonsensical.

As for evidence regarding the origin of the universe, I point to the known physical laws and the standard cosmological model, which neither require nor suggest a supernatural creator. If a theist wishes to promote a creator hypothesis, then s/he'll have to come up with something as robust and comprehensive as what science has produced. I'm fine with whichever way it turns out. But to be intellecutally honest, I have to say that the scientists are holding all the cards at the moment. Thus, my repeated requests for evidence from theists. As you've already admitted that you have none, our dialog is pretty much just treading water.

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

As you've already admitted that you have none, our dialog is pretty much just treading water.

None that you recognize. To use Farmer's excellent euphemism, our islands are very far apart.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

As for evidence regarding the origin of the universe, I point to the known physical laws and the standard cosmological model, which neither require nor suggest a supernatural creator.

To point there is to point to utter ideologically-driven metaphysical speculation of the most questionable kind. Shows how little FBM actually knows about the "science" he pimps for 24/7, eh?

Quote:

If a theist wishes to promote a creator hypothesis, then s/he'll have to come up with something as robust and comprehensive as what science has produced

.

Heh, multiverses (with no evidence for them, but designed to defeat the appearance of a teleological purpose as part of the universe). Imaginary "forces" being created, "space" expanding at millions of times the speed of light, and all kinds of ad hoc fictitious inventions designed to achieve a pre-conceived goal.

"Robust and comprehensive," sho nuff. The faith of a fundie Christian might equal, but it could not exceed, that of the zealous devotee of the ideology of scientism.

1 Reply

@layman,

Thanks for saying that, I didn't have the heart and it would have sounded too emotional for him anyway.

And who is that brave soul that follows us around dutifully voting us down for even the most innocuous posts? Makes me laugh every time! There I go again getting all emotional...

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

It's fanmail, eh?

I wish I had more fans, though. I want to set the all-time record for racking up thumbs-down votes in a single post, ya know?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

There is one member, and maybe more, who comex around in the morning (N. America, Eastern time zone) and votes down one post after another, consecutively. It's really a so what situation.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
As you've already admitted that you have none, our dialog is pretty much just treading water.
None that you recognize. To use Farmer's excellent euphemism, our islands are very far apart.

None that science would recognize. As long as you start with your favorite conclusion and work backwards to try to cobble together something to justify it, you will be at odds with the scientific method.

3 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

As long as you start with your favorite conclusion and work backwards to try to cobble together something to justify it, you will be at odds with the scientific method.

Feel free to repost my post on this topic if ya want, Leddy. FBM can't see it--he has me on ignore (for good reason if he doesn't want his scientism questioned).

0 Replies

Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know