Richard Dawkins: Embarrassingly Bad Thinker,

[dougeaton]

[media=]

[/media]

[Imaginarynumber1]

Dawkins is as much a bad thinker as unicorns are a mode of transportation.

[CommunitarianKevin]

I have taken philosophy classes including philosophy of religion. I have read many books by theologians and I am yet to be convinced by any of the arguments. My professor, a Ph.D. from Harvard, believes the best argument for a god is the teleogical argument (watchmaker analogy) to be the best argument for a god.

That being said, Dawkins probably does poorly with philosophy. This is a common trait among the New Atheists. They worship logic and reason and are quick to point out logical fallacies while making their own in the process. I would agree that most of them have never taken a philosophy class and lack an understanding other than what wikipedia can tell them about a logical fallacy. But philosophers do just as poorly in regards to science. The professor I mentioned above, with a Ph.D. in philosophy from Harvard, would not pass an 8th grade biology course. It works both ways. Someone with a degree in philosophy and nothing else is pretty worthless IMO. I prefer people like Alan Love (BS in Biology with a minor in Philosophy, MA in Biology, Ph.D in Philosophy.) He can actually sort out the arguments on both sides...

My point...stick to your own area. Dawkins should stick to biology and stay away from religion and philosophy, just as theologians and philosophers (unless they have knowledge in the area) should stay out of science.

[Arbenol]

Using the ontological argument you can convincingly argue that the christian god doesn't exist. You can also argue that black is white, and that a chair is a banana.

I think this is what Stephen Hawking means when he says "Philosophy is dead".

Ontology provides a bit of grey matter exercise - it's brain gym. But nobody can convince me that anyone found such a profound answer by just thinking about it.

[CommunitarianKevin]

Using the ontological argument you can convincingly argue that the christian god doesn't exist. You can also argue that black is white, and that a chair is a banana.

I think this is what Stephen Hawking means when he says "Philosophy is dead".

Ontology provides a bit of grey matter exercise - it's brain gym. But nobody can convince me that anyone found such a profound answer by just thinking about it.

So by thinking I am the most awesome person in the world will not convince you of it?

[CommunitarianKevin]

Random drunk thought...is this the type of reasoning Repubs use? If it can be conceived, it must be true?

[Michelle]

Random drunk thought...is this the type of reasoning Repubs use? If it can be conceived, it must be true?

Now I want to take back the like I just gave you. Why does everything have to be a battle between Republicans and Democrats with you? Do you have to label everyone that doesn't agree with you? Believe it or not, people do have independent thoughts, all on their own.

I've been here a long time and I'm just about done with all of the petty labeling of anyone that doesn't agree with them. Between the R's and D's, or the Theists and Atheists this petty bickering is getting to be much more than I can stand.

People think the Bible Belt is bigoted, but I can assure you, the people I know are nowhere close to what I see here, from people all over the world.

It's nothing personal, Hutton, You just happed to be one of the straws that broke the camel's back.

[White Crane Feather]

Using the ontological argument you can convincingly argue that the christian god doesn't exist. You can also argue that black is white, and that a chair is a banana.

I think this is what Stephen Hawking means when he says "Philosophy is dead".

Ontology provides a bit of grey matter exercise - it's brain gym. But nobody can convince me that anyone found such a profound answer by just thinking about it.

So what has dawkins provided that is actual science?

[White Crane Feather]

Dawkins is as much a bad thinker as unicorns are a mode of transportation.

I don't know about his thinking, but his logic is deplorable.

[CommunitarianKevin]

Now I want to take back the like I just gave you. Why does everything have to be a battle between Republicans and Democrats with you? Do you have to label everyone that doesn't agree with you? Believe it or not, people do have independent thoughts, all on their own.

I've been here a long time and I'm just about done with all of the petty labeling of anyone that doesn't agree with them. Between the R's and D's, or the Theists and Atheists this petty bickering is getting to be much more than I can stand.

People think the Bible Belt is bigoted, but I can assure you, the people I know are nowhere close to what I see here, from people all over the world.

It's nothing personal, Hutton, You just happed to be one of the straws that broke the camel's back.

Trust me, I want to be as non-biased as possible. I would love nothing more than to be affiliated with no party. But the truth of the matter is that the more I read and learn the more I agree with the Liberals and the less I agree with Conservatives.

I have a hypothesis, that has not been evaluated scientifically, but I think holds the key to the debate and my world view. That is that there are 2 "types" of "minds." One, is the abductive reasoning type. This relies on abductive reasoning and faith...this is the religious mindset. The second type relys on inductive reasoning. This is the mind set that relies on inductive reasoning, logic, and impiricism...this is the scientific mindset.

I must note that neither is necessarily better than the other, rather they are different. I personally use the second type if mindset. Though I can understand the other mindset, I strongly disagree and their arguments do not sway me because they are using a different type of reasoning, though I do try and listen.

What annoys me is when the different mindsets try to invade the other's when faith based reasoning enters the realm of logic and empiricism. I consier most Conservatives or Repubs to be of the faith based reasoning and Liberals and Dems to the logic and empiricism. When type one tries to use type 2, they look dumb, and vice versa.

I see much of type 1 reasoning as wishful thinking or pseudo-type 2. This is the way my brain works. Obviously this does not work in every case, there are always exceptions, but I agree with this general rule. Though it is probably incorrect of me to label everyone, I do so because it typically works...

[itsnotoutthere]

So what has dawkins provided that is actual science?

Slightly more than all the religious theologians in history have offered as proof for the existence of god.

[White Crane Feather]

Slightly more than all the religious theologians in history have offered as proof for the existence of god.

Is That so? I know he is supposed to be a biologist, but I don't see him doing any biology other than Mabey few papers ages ago to get his credentials. it seems he is more of a show boat now.

Oh by the way you might want to reconsider that statement and look up these folks:

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543).

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884).

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)

George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) 

Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)

[itsnotoutthere]

Is That so? I know he is supposed to be a biologist, but I don't see him doing any biology other than Mabey few papers ages ago to get his credentials. it seems he is more of a show boat now.

Oh by the way you might want to reconsider that statement and look up these folks:

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543).

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884).

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)

George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903)

Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)

Tell you what, just post their proof.

( "I don't see him doing any biology"............priceless)

Edited October 10, 2012 by itsnotoutthere

[Alienated Being]

Is That so? I know he is supposed to be a biologist, but I don't see him doing any biology other than Mabey few papers ages ago to get his credentials. it seems he is more of a show boat now.

Oh by the way you might want to reconsider that statement and look up these folks:

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543).

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884).

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)

George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903)

Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins_bibliography

And, you are correct - he no longer works as a professor.

[Arbenol]

So what has dawkins provided that is actual science?

When it comes to wriring about biology, Dawkins is just about peerless (at least since the death of Stephen Gould). His books have illuminated the subject for millions of people.

[Dr. D]

I haven't seen an argument this profound since reading Alice in Wonderland

[White Crane Feather]

When it comes to wriring about biology, Dawkins is just about peerless (at least since the death of Stephen Gould). His books have illuminated the subject for millions of people.

I don't doubt his biology knowledge, writing about stuff dosnt make one a scientist. My point being is that his soul purpose seems to be a professional skeptic. Of course this predisposes one to one style one side of the coin. A scientist is an investigator and follows the evidence logic, Dawkins is no longer investigating anything, his bread and butter is being a skeptic. Hard evidence could slap him the face, yet he would not budge. this is obvious by his over use of common logical fallacy. It is so clear that he avoids the real arguments presented and pushes ridicule, and ad hominimns, with occasional straw men. It's easy to set op dogmatic religions and knock them down In the place of all spiritual beliefs. It's easy to compare beliefs to rediculouse analogys and extremes, it's easy, to name call. I don't find the man brilliant at anything other than being charismatic. In fact there's are skeptics here that make better arguments than he does. Premise to conclusion without fallacious remarks. Now take Somone like Carl Sagan, or kaku. Real arguments real integrity in them. These are/were REAL scientists. Dawkins is a sad champion for atheists. And only seems like he is makeing decent points on the surface. Under the belly, he is as effective ad a Christian fundamentalists with quite near the same logical capabilities.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Seeker79

[Arbenol]

I don't doubt his biology knowledge, writing about stuff dosnt make one a scientist. My point being is that his soul purpose seems to be a professional skeptic. Of course this predisposes one to one style one side of the coin. A scientist is an investigator and follows the evidence logic, Dawkins is no longer investigating anything, his bread and butter is being a skeptic. Hard evidence could slap him the face, yet he would not budge. this is obvious by his over use of common logical fallacy. It is so clear that he avoids the real arguments presented and pushes ridicule, and ad hominimns, with occasional straw men. It's easy to set op dogmatic religions and knock them down In the place of all spiritual beliefs. It's easy to compare beliefs to rediculouse analogys and extremes, it's easy, to name call. I don't find the man brilliant at anything other than being charismatic. In fact there's are skeptics here that make better arguments than he does. Premise to conclusion without fallacious remarks. Now take Somone like Carl Sagan, or kaku. Real arguments real integrity in them. These are/were REAL scientists. Dawkins is a sad champion for atheists. And only seems like he is makeing decent points on the surface. Under the belly, he is as effective ad a Christian fundamentalists with quite near the same logical capabilities.

You asked about his contribution to science. People tend to regard Dawkins as a professional atheist, but I still think of him as a biologist. I actually think that how much work he's done in the field is largely irrelevant. Most scientists are notoriously crap at communicating with lay people. Dawkins is a rare example of someone with extensive knowledge of the subject and and ability to communicate these ideas clearly for anyone to understand.

His contributions to theology are less illustrious. Whilst I don't disagree with him on most things, neither do I disagree with you. His arguments are often pretty cack-handed and his contempt for the subject is evident. I've always found this approach to be self-defeating. I'm not sure how you can engage someone whilst being offensive. I'm no apologist for religions, but it seems to me if you want to dissuade people from that path then the soft sell would be more effective.