Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

Dogmatic atheists . . . ha! **** like that cracks me up. What is a dogmatic atheist, a Buddhist?

Ah-hahahahahahahahahaha . . .

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Naw, Buddhists don't give a **** about anything. It one of their commandments.

Omm.... Omm....

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

I kinda like Buddha. He likes to party and guzzle a lot of Colt 45, I figure. Where else would he get that beer belly?

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

That sounds like a false dichotomy to me. Why can't a person be both a scientist and an entertaining writer? And why can't a person be both a scientist and an advocate for his or her beliefs about the presence or absence of any gods in the universe? In your opinion, did Kenneth Miller stop being a leading geneticist when he published a book professing his beliefs as a Darwinist Catholic? If not, how does that differ from Dawkins professing his beliefs as a Darwinist atheist?

I relize Im impugning a reputation here and it could be shown to be in poor form. BUT, Ill step in further.

Ken Miller and Richard Dawkinw dont have anything in common really. Miller teaches a full load and does his research which is published for review and comment (Peer review doesnt mean its RIGHT, it means that , aaccording to the standards of that crft, the work should be read ,discussed and judged. MANY pwer reviewed articles get lambasted by colleagues and the author must , once he gets out of the hospital, reset his sights and his report.

Dawkins, waaaay back, did write for pweer review AND, many scientists felt he should have sent "Selfish Gene" as several separate works as offerings in Genetics or some othr pub like EVOLUTION.

He didnt and he rose to the level of guys like Nick Wade or David Quaman who write a science journalists. (Actually, any real contribution to the literature by DAwkins IMHO was in the early 90's . He still is invited to submit "position papers" (mostly about whether Doctors should be trained in DArwinin thinking).

When Dawkins started assailing the religious folks, he has used his position as a scientist to assume a level of authority and thats disingenuous.

I understand your position about Dawkins, youve spoken in his support before and have always made cogent arguments.
HOWEVER, , when it comes to whether he is a working scientist or a science enetrtainer, we disagree . His net worth is over 150 Million bucks (US) so hes in the neighborhood of Stephen King, or maybe even JK Rowling,

Thats his crowd, IMHO

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Hey Set, new clue about the identity of - The Masked Thumbs Downer. We both got one for daring to criticize Da Budda Man.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Well, it seems that we'd have to imagine/assume/pretend that your god exists in the first place in order to get to know him.

Well ****, all those wonderful talks we had about logic, reason & scientific method were wasted words.

Was there ever a scientist who said "If X is true then ....". But then he would have to be curious about the answer in the first place.

How would someone sit down and have a talk with a hypothetical in order to get to know him? Who would be playing the god role? There would be only one mind involved. Circular reasoning is circular.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Ken Miller and Richard Dawkinw dont have anything in common really. Miller teaches a full load and does his research which is published for review and comment [...]

When Dawkins started assailing the religious folks, he has used his position as a scientist to assume a level of authority and thats disingenuous.

So, did you feel the same way when Kenneth Miller published Finding Darwin's God (describing how his knowledge of neo-Darwinian evolution furnishes his Catholic faith)? If so, why don't I remember you complaining about it? If not, what's the distinction for you between Finding Darwin's God and The God Delusion? Miller's view that Neo-Darwinism furnishes Christian faith seems no more scientific to me than Dawkins's view that it undermines it.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

HOWEVER, , when it comes to whether he is a working scientist

so once someone dies they are no longer considered to be a scientist?

you're heading in an interesting direction with your argument

(the question was not whether Richard Dawkins is a working scientist - you've added that to the definition you apparently want to work against)

2 Replies

@Thomas,

For your information I wasnt impressed with that either. The only cpmments I ever recall making were that Miller described a transcendental being, and I wasnt so impressed.
Actually "Darwins God" is mostly an argument FOR the science behind evolutionary theory (Theres one chapter devoted to isotopic dating which is not even close to his field of expertise) He argues that the religious arguments that "Someone has to be behind all this begatin" are pretty much wrong.

. DAwkins is on the other side of the coin and is unimpressive with his arguments against religion (HEs just NASTY about it) . I said OVER AND OVER AND PERHAPS YOU ONLY READ THOSE PORTIONS THAT GOT YOU ANGRY --"Dawkins has written some really good books as well. JUST as long as he keeps to his science journalism and gets off his horse of being the "god slayer" . He doesnt make compelling arguments AND>>> He just muddies up any communication.

BESIDES--Ken Miller still is a very active biology teacher and researcher in evo/devo. He has not given up his first career as did DAwkins.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

For your information I wasnt impressed with that either. The only cpmments I ever recall making were that Miller described a transcendental being, and I wasnt so impressed.
Actually "Darwins God" is mostly an argument FOR the science behind evolutionary theory (Theres one chapter devoted to isotopic dating which is not even close to his field of expertise) He argues that the religious arguments that "Someone has to be behind all this begatin" are pretty much wrong.

. DAwkins is on the other side of the coin and is unimpressive with his arguments against religion (HEs just NASTY about it) . I said OVER AND OVER AND PERHAPS YOU ONLY READ THOSE PORTIONS THAT GOT YOU ANGRY --"Dawkins has written some really good books as well. JUST as long as he keeps to his science journalism and gets off his horse of being the "god slayer" . He doesnt make compelling arguments AND>>> He just muddies up any communication.

BESIDES--Ken Miller still is a very active biology teacher and researcher in evo/devo. He has not given up his first career as did DAwkins.

0 Replies

@engineer,

the original question seems to have been answered on page one

engineer wrote:

It sounds like Wilson's whole rebuttal to Dawkins is just an ad-hominem attack. I noticed that Dawkins didn't stoop to that level at all. It all sounds like a PhD pissing contest to me. At any rate, Dawkins clearly meets what I think most people would consider a scientist. If Wilson has a problem with Dawkins's critique, he should address it on the merits.

after that the thread seems to have been working over the "PhD pissing contest" rather than the actual question

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

so once someone dies they are no longer considered to be a scientist?

They are no longer considered to be WORKING scientists. (Im unaware of afterlife career options.

You are going in an interesting direction with your rebuttals.
Ill stick with my statements
If Norman Rockwell was trained as an illustrator and then after a few years gave up illustration for becoming a folk singing barrista. Would he still be an illustrator

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

screwing with vocaabulary .

precisely what you've done with your response to the question

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

I stated clearly up front--Dawkins WAS a trained scientist who was a working scientist. He remains as one trained in science who is no longer a scientist hes primarily a huckster for atheism . A few of his latest books are quite good (The ANCESTORS TALE and THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH). These books aree entirely discussions of evidence of natural selection and how DARWIN himelf coined the concept of "neutral theory"

Both are powerful science based arguments for evolution as a naturalistic process. They relax DAWKINS recent past stupid arguments with Th e churched"

Id rather this be a battle based on evidence weights and not "nyah nyah nyah" e got the fossils and you dont" ...

Waste my fuckin time .

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Leadfoot quote:
"Was there ever a scientist who said "If X is true then..." But then he would have to be curious about the answer in the first place."

FBM replied:
How would someone sit down and have a talk with a hypothetical in order to get to know him? Who would be playing the god role? There would be only one mind involved. Circular reasoning is circular.

Like I said, you would have to be curious about the answer in the first place.

There would only be one mind involved if there were no God. You are telling me you have already made up your mind that there is not. You can't be curious about something you are certain does not exist.

So it is you who is caught up in circular reasoning if you are serious about wanting to know if there is a God. As I have previously recommended, if you are not curious to know the answer, go on about your life until you are. You will just be going in circles until then.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

You said that in order to know your god, the existence of which is the very question, I'd have to sit down with it and have a talk. That's begging the question, circular reasoning. You have to assume that your god exists in order to have a sit-down with it.

Have you actually sat down with your god in the flesh and had a chat? If so, how about sending it over to my place, then? Otherwise, I have no other option than to imagine what that would be like. I used to imagine that all the time, actually. Escaping that delusion was among the best things that ever happened to me.

Of course, if you could actually produce your god and/or send him over to my place for a chat, that could be reversed. Ball's in your court. Got anything more than new combinations of words? It's your claim, you back it up.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

DAwkins is on the other side of the coin and is unimpressive with his arguments against religion

Maybe not, but he doesn't need to be. The purpose of arguments isn't to impress you, it's to support one's case. On the issue of a creator-god, it just so happens that her existence is an extraordinary claim, and the evidence for her very weak. Middle-school-levels of reading comprehension, logic, and science literacy are quite sufficient to rebut the arguments for her existence. I totally understand if middle school is an insufficient credential to impress you. But it is sufficient to demolish the case for a creator-god, and that's all it needs to be.

farmerman wrote:

I said OVER AND OVER AND PERHAPS YOU ONLY READ THOSE PORTIONS THAT GOT YOU ANGRY --"Dawkins has written some really good books as well.

I am not angry, and I did read these parts of your posts. I just don't see a need to discuss the parts on which we agree already. That's why I focus on the parts on which we don't.

farmerman wrote:

BESIDES--Ken Miller still is a very active biology teacher and researcher in evo/devo. He has not given up his first career as did DAwkins.

And as soon as someone starts a thread titled, "Is Kenneth Miller a scientist?", I will respond with an emphatic "yes". Are you implying that the statements "Richard Dawkins is a scientist" and "Kenneth Miller is a scientist" are mutually exclusive?

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Rockwell is still considered an illustrator. Post active career and post death.

Rockwell was and is an illustrator.

Dawkins was and is a scientist.

___

Resumes are additive.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

You are going in an interesting direction with your rebuttals.

you did that when you answered something other than the original question

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Middle-school-levels of reading comprehension, logic, and science literacy are quite sufficient to rebut the arguments for her existence. I totally understand if middle school is an insufficient credential to impress you. But it is sufficient to demolish the case for a creator-god, and that's all it needs to be.

Dawkins in "The God Delusion" didn't rise to even that level.

One of his arguments against the possibility of a creator God is that it just kicks the 'first cause' can down the road, I.e., then who/what created God?

Not that I believe this but using Dawkins own belief in the spontaneous or random organization of first life, I could postulate that since a God is obviously a totally different life form, he could have formed and evolved in the storm of quarks after the Big Bang and there wouldn't be a thing he or you could do to argue against it.

And that was his best argument. The rest of his arguments were even more juvenile.

1 Reply

Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know