Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

@farmerman,

Will wait for the specifics on what you perceive as my "requirements". The careful stepping around this makes me think layman must be right. Which is ironic since you and FBM have some interest in philosophy. How much does a philosophy weigh?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

I didn't give up looking for the logic. Logic saved me from my backwoods, obsolete upbringing. I stopped assuming from the outset that there was a god, stopped using logical fallacies to prop up my sentimental favorite worldview, and started investigating it with intellectual honesty and without bias. I just started looking at the evidence and evaluating it for what it was. There's nothing credible that points points to a supernatural creator and a lot that points to people's minds being obsessed by fantasies of eternal life, bliss and whatnot, in denial of real-world experience. And a lot that points to the myths having been perpetuated and molded by unscrupulous persons in their bids for political power over the unlearned, gullible masses. Some people man up when faced with that unpleasant reality, others dig deeper into denialism.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

...How much does a philosophy weigh?

How long is a stick? Who/what created your creator?

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Logic saved me from my backwoods, obsolete upbringing.

That (your upbringing) can be a significant handicap. I have always been grateful for my upbringing which I can only describe as 'benign neglect'.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Yeah, my upbringing was to favor blind faith over reasoning and logic. Hard to overcome, but I managed. Wink

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Ill be back later, wve got to unload a couple wagons of hay and its raining

That's the advantage of having cars, motorcycles and airplanes instead of animals for pets.

I'm assume'n but it doesn't sound like you need to farm for a living. Does sound like you enjoy it though.

1 Reply

Since it appears that we have come to an apparent impass, I thought I'd pass along a book I just stumbled on. I've only read a part of the first chapter so far but it parallels virtually all of the subjects, questions and even life stories we have touched on so far but especially the assumed contradiction between science and 'the quest for God'. It addresses the current Dawkins inspired atheism too.

The title is "The Big Question: Why We Can't Stop Talking About Science, Faith and God". It's written by an honest to gosh Oxford educated scientist and former atheist but that can of course be dismissed because maybe he has 'drunk the koolaid' and was at one point ordained as a priest. I might have problems with his theology if he goes there but the process by which he came to see science and God as compatible looks solid to me.

For anyone wanting a third party opinion, I'd recommend it. Might even be useful to read Dawkins along side it if you haven't already.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

For anyone wanting a third party opinion, I'd recommend it. Might even be useful to read Dawkins along side it if you haven't already.

I found a sympathetic review of the book here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/inventing-the-universe-why-we-cant-stop-talking-about-science-faith-and-god-by-alister-mcgrath-book-a6713496.html

About the author:

Quote:

When he went to Oxford to study chemistry (he later gained a doctorate in molecular biophysics), McGrath was a committed atheist. Gradually he came to the conclusion that, although he felt no emotional need for a religion, "belief in God made a lot more sense of things than my atheism did".

The basic subject matter:

Quote:

McGrath points out, rightly in my view, that the New Atheism (championed by writers such as Dawkins) is predicated on an ideology of scientism, which holds that science, and science alone, is able to answer life's deepest questions...

Throughout the book McGrath is clear that he is seeking not to defend science or religion, but to explore what happens when a scientific and a Christian narrative are interwoven...anyone with an interest in the science-religion debate, whatever their level of expertise, will welcome this balanced and thoughtful contribution

2 Replies

@layman,

Just watched the un-edited video of McGrath debating Dawkins that the Wikipedia article on McGrath linked to. It never got used in the TV program that it was to be used on, probably because they were so civil with each other, but it was pretty good.

It was interesting to me that it was only McGrath's commitment to his denominational beliefs that allowed Dawkins to decisively win on one point (the one child saved in the disaster). That could have been answered so much better.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

From the wiki site you mentioned:

Quote:

McGrath holds three doctorates from the University of Oxford, a DPhil in Molecular Biophysics, a Doctor of Divinity in Theology and a Doctor of Letters in Intellectual History.

The guy seems to be "first in his class" in almost everything he did, so he's not stupid by any means.

Quote:

He states that he is not opposed to atheism itself, but rather the views of atheism held by people such as Dawkins. He has been highly critical of Richard Dawkins, calling him "embarrassingly ignorant of Christian theology".

"'As a child I never had any interest in Christianity,' he says. 'I went through the motions of going to church with my parents but neither my heart nor my head was in it. It was while I was at the Methodist College, probably aged around 15 or 16, that I became an atheist - somebody who deliberately and intentionally does not believe in God and thinks that anyone who does believe in God is mentally deficient or seriously screwed up.'"

1 Reply

@layman,

Seems he agrees with me, wxcept for the "blieveing in a god" part. 2 Cents

0 Replies

@layman,

Theres a good point inMcGratth's an Fairbanks observations. Atheism need not be militant or a truncheon on others worldviews since the only place they conflict is in science education.
Atheism does nOT try to insert its humanistic beliefs into religion, o why or why do the Fundamentlist religions still wish to insert thwir beliefs in scince curricula?
This may appear to be a bullshit issue in the rest of the world (ALthough the EU nations are seeing its growth), but it a big deal hre in USA.

SCience must recognize that, just like its theories require a gentle hold, the concept of methodological naturalism is apart of research, not an atheitic challenge to non-scientists.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

My wife has a very successful home business that uses the fibres from her sheep. We now have over 150 ewes and 10 rams, and weve grown to 11 dexter cattle. I also have 22 chickens and its really NOT a hobby. (My chickens are often subjects of my oil paintings)
Field work is hard and necessary and very rewarding (Its a comfort knowing that youve been able, by your own hands, to provide food and keep for your animals for the winter).

Id never ever be able to live in a city again (Maybe NAWLINS where we once lived )

Since you fly, Ive gotta tell ya thqt Ive been in 2 crashes in my life (both in choppers)and consider myself enormously lucky. I figure Ive had enough yet I still hire and fly with a buddy who I use for aerial photography . He has a plane called a Mooney and its a hoot.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I didn't think farming was a hobby, you seem too much a system builder for that. Farms, philosophy, theology and science when successfully implemented are all harmonious systems. These systems in turn are parts of an even larger system. Systems eventually fail when vital parts of them are left out.

I've been in 8 crashes, two in cars, two on motorcycles, two in choppers, two in prototype airplanes. I'd say I was lucky too but I don't know if luck was a factor.

A Mooney is the only Certified airplane I've flown that was enjoyable. Cessnas are honest and reliable but pedestrian. Can't compare to the Experimentals though.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Farms, philosophy, theology and science when successfully implemented are all harmonious systems.

We call ourselves the Jefferson HAirplane

1 Reply

@farmerman,

That is ******* cool!

Hope that didn't sound artfully youthful.

0 Replies

@Tuna,

He is held in much higher regard by the public than by his peers. Many of them consider him a bigoted fundamentalist embarrassment.

Take the Nobel Prize winner (and unbeleiver too) This was in the Daily Mail

Battle of the professors: Richard Dawkins branded a fundamentalist by expert behind the 'God particle'
In an interview with a Spanish paper he accuses Richard Dawkins of concentrating his attacks on fundamentalists - and of being one himself
Dawkins last weekend declared that raising a child in the Catholic church was worse than sex abuse dished out to youngsters by priests

2 Replies

@AugustineBrother,

I thought that only firebrands like Dawkins held the view that parents teaching their children about their belief in God was literal child abuse. I didn't think that idea could ever gain much traction but have met several people on a2k that actually agree.

0 Replies

@AugustineBrother,

agreed, he WAS a good scientist and he argues his evolution quite well. BUT he is kind of a douche bag. BUT HES OUR DOUCHE BAG

0 Replies

Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know