What's Wrong With Richard Dawkins?

Aitch said:
(Hides mustache behind well-thumbed copy of World Domination for Dummies.:o)
Click to expand...

Aha... you outed yourself!

even your avatar has a mustache.

Surely that makes for extra domination intent.

(Is there anyone who thinks any of Dawkins critics are as likable or as inspirational as Dawkins? As right as Dawkins? Would you rather listen to any of them than Dawkins? If so, which one?)
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
Well, no, Randfan was right in the first place, the whole point of science is not simply to gain knowledge but to have a mechanism for deciding whether or not it is true.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Knowledge doesn't even have an attribute called truth, wtf is "true knowledge"? Something like a true Scottsman, I assume. :D

Scientific theories cannot be proved to be true. They might be useful, justified, general, special, good, bad, medioacre etc. But not true.
 
Last edited:
Herzblut said:
Scientific theories cannot be proved to be true. They might be useful, justified, general, special, good, bad, medioacre etc. But not true.
Click to expand...

Firstly, you're confusing "true", and "proved true".

Secondly, under the standard Popperian description of science, as Robin said, theories can be shown to be not true.
 
Jekyll said:
Firstly, you're confusing "true", and "proved true".

Secondly, under the standard Popperian description of science, as Robin said, theories can be shown to be not true.
Click to expand...
Thirdly, you're confusing "true", and "not proved false".
 
Jekyll said:
No I'm not. A theory can be true, we just can't prove it.
Click to expand...
This outright disproves the OP's proposition, namely that science is there to deliver truth. What you called "confusion" is in fact an argument.

And, btw: prove that a theory can be true!
 
GreyICE said:
I would tend to agree. It's too bad that he is deceased, because Stephen Gould was a far better spokesperson than Dawkins.
Click to expand...

Spokesperson for what? Limp apologies for religious stupidity? Gould was a nice guy, and a smart guy, but he was wrong in his approach, IMO.
 
Herzblut said:
This outright disproves the OP's proposition, namely that science is there to deliver truth. What you called "confusion" is in fact an argument.

And, btw: prove that a theory can be true!
Click to expand...

A garbage man's job is to take away garbage, that we can't prove he does it doesn't detract from his work.

Why should science be any different?
 
articulett said:
But [Dawkins] doesn't indicate that religion is bad on the whole because of this-- people just imagine them saying that so they don't have to hear what he's really saying.
Click to expand...
Are we talking about the same Richard Dawkins? The one who produced the series entitled "Root of All Evil?". Referring to religion as the root of all evil in my estimation is quite an accusation. I think evil was around before religion was, and if Dawkins' dream of religion falling away from society ever came to pass, I am quite sure that evil would survive, if not flourish.

I suppose to his credit, you could point out that he added a question mark to that title, but that was probably at the insistence of the publisher.
 
Last edited:
Unalienable said:
Are we talking about the same Richard Dawkins? The one who produced the series entitled "Root of All Evil?". Referring to religion as the root of all evil in my estimation is quite an accusation. I think evil was around before religion was, and if Dawkins' dream of religion falling away from society ever came to pass, I am quite sure that evil would survive, if not flourish.

I suppose to his credit, you could point out that he added a question mark to that title, but that was probably at the insistence of the publisher.
Click to expand...

I believe it was the other way round, the title was what Channel 4 wanted to call it, and Dawkins added the question mark as he didn't agree with the title. I think that's what he says in The God Delusion book when he referred to it, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Egg said:
I believe it was the other way round, the title was what Channel 4 wanted to call it, and Dawkins added the question mark as he didn't agree with the title.
Click to expand...
If that's a fact, then I stand corrected.
 
Last edited:
Unalienable said:
Are we talking about the same Richard Dawkins? The one who produced the series entitled "Root of All Evil?". Referring to religion as the root of all evil in my estimation is quite an accusation. I think evil was around before religion was, and if Dawkins' dream of religion falling away from society ever came to pass, I am quite sure that evil would survive, if not flourish.

I suppose to his credit, you could point out that he added a question mark to that title, but that was probably at the insistence of the publisher.
Click to expand...

Yes... he didn't choose the title-- the broadcasting company did... as I said, the only concession they made to his protest was the ? (question mark) at the end. He has repeatedly said he doesn't consider it the root of all evil. Damn you guys are desparate to extrapolate all kinds of stuff. His film made a great case as to how religion could lead to evil and how faith is not a good way to know stuff-- how certain people can get over such non-evidenciary things.

Ugh... you keep promoting the stereotype and read nothing that will correct it. You want to believe something about Dawkins that isn't true... so you keep spinning things as though it was.

Faith claims to lead to great good-- it seems that it more often leads to evil than good and that it's far from necessary for good.

Sure there are lots of things that motivate people to hurt, judge, and torture other people... but what is the strongest motivator of all-- faith and obedience to an authority who demands that you do so-- to prove your faith and ensure your eternity-- that's what!

Dawkins has the guts to point this out. Religion isn't the nice little peace maker we've been lead to believe. We blind ourselves to the potentials of harm and make the truth teller into the bad guy. I think your accusation is worse than Dawkins-- and it isn't true.
 
JoeEllison said:
Spokesperson for what? Limp apologies for religious stupidity? Gould was a nice guy, and a smart guy, but he was wrong in his approach, IMO.
Click to expand...

I don't think he inspired people quite the way Dawkins has... neither in science, critical thinking, or standing up to religious bullies.
 
GreyICE said:
I would tend to agree. It's too bad that he is deceased, because Stephen Gould was a far better spokesperson than Dawkins.
Click to expand...

He seemed to disagree with Dawkins on many different levels. I notice that most of the people who prefer one to the other tend to agree with the person they think is the better spokesman. A strange coincidence.

However, it didn't take long to see who should be Dawkins' evolutionary scientist popular author and amateur theologian alter ego.
 
Herzblut said:
A job description nobody can be measured against is null and void. Ask HR.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, this sophistry isn't really working for me.
We've got 4 distinct concepts: truth, proof of truth, proof and measure, and at the moment they're all quite easy to tell apart.

If you could go back and edit your posts so that you use the words "knowledge" or "knowing" as a place holder for all of these different concepts, it'd be prime sophism and I'd have much more trouble disagreeing with it.
 
Gould died some time ago... he and Dawkins both agreed not to debate creationists... Gould and his "NOMA" didn't forsee the Discovery Institute and the steady stream of creationist lies that would be infiltrating the US-- and the bigotry they'd spread against scientists, atheists, Darwin, and those who tell the truth.

He'd have become their villain too... heck, Eugenies Scott IS.

And Gould was not really a critic of Dawkins... they disagreed over punctuated equilibria and some of the finer points of evolution-- he didn't call him strident or mean or any of this petty crap.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom