Your Views on Dawkins?

[clemdog14]

Hello everyone. I was just wondering you all think of Richard Dawkins. I am not here to question anyone's beliefs or anything, however, I was wondering what you all think of him.

Is he a poster child for "atheism" or perhaps something else?

Are his works worthy? In other words, do his arguments on several subjects hold up logically? The question is not what he is investigating, the real question is if his arguments hold up based on what he is investigating.

In my opinion, I think that some of Richard Dawkins' viewpoints are sometimes logically invalid. I respect him as a human and a brilliant scientist, however, when he dwells into philosophy, frankly, he is not a good philosopher.

Thoughts? Once again, I'm just curious. I am not here to question anyone's beliefs.

Thanks.

[Faith No More]

I have never cared enough to even hear what Dawkins has to say on religion.

[Jackalope]

I have never cared enough to even hear what Dawkins has to say on religion.

Oh, hush. Everyone knows we worship the man.

[Cato]

Hello everyone. I was just wondering you all think of Richard Dawkins. I am not here to question anyone's beliefs or anything, however, I was wondering what you all think of him.

Is he a poster child for "atheism" or perhaps something else?

Are his works worthy? In other words, do his arguments on several subjects hold up logically? The question is not what he is investigating, the real question is if his arguments hold up based on what he is investigating.

In my opinion, I think that some of Richard Dawkins' viewpoints are sometimes logically invalid. I respect him as a human and a brilliant scientist, however, when he dwells into philosophy, frankly, he is not a good philosopher.

Thoughts? Once again, I'm just curious. I am not here to question anyone's beliefs.

Thanks.

If there are arguments offered by Richard Dawkins that are unsound, then I would like to hear them; immediately followed by your reasons. Otherwise, your assertions are mere unfounded conjecture.

Richard Dawkins was (and still is) an established biologist and a scientist that endeavored to bring his branch of science to the masses. His foray into the 'atheist' debate was only due to the incessant botherings of the so called creation scientists and intelligent design proponents.

You claim a 'philosophical' difference with Dawkins, let's hear your argument. We can then have a discussion. Until then, all I've heard is that you don't like Dawkins without reason.

[Voltron]

In my opinion, I think that some of Richard Dawkins' viewpoints are sometimes logically invalid.

Examples?

[KichigaiNeko]

Hello everyone. I was just wondering you all think of Richard Dawkins. I am not here to question anyone's beliefs or anything, however, I was wondering what you all think of him.

Two threads and you are starting to sound quite disingenuous

Is he a poster child for "atheism" or perhaps something else?

WHY do YOU need a "poster Child or Devil" in the first place clem?

Are his works worthy? In other words, do his arguments on several subjects hold up logically?

Err Have you done any science at all clem??

The question is not what he is investigating, the real question is if his arguments hold up based on what he is investigating.

See above

In my opinion, I think that some of Richard Dawkins' viewpoints are sometimes logically invalid.

And they are??

References please

I respect him as a human and a brilliant scientist, however, when he dwells into philosophy, frankly, he is not a good philosopher.

He doesn't try to be. You need Mr Daniel Dennett for philosophy dearie

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

Thoughts? Once again, I'm just curious. I am not here to question anyone's beliefs.
Thanks.

Cute clem...forgive us while we question yours

Ta Tnx

[clemdog14]

Hello everyone. I was just wondering you all think of Richard Dawkins. I am not here to question anyone's beliefs or anything, however, I was wondering what you all think of him.

Two threads and you are starting to sound quite disingenuous

Is he a poster child for "atheism" or perhaps something else?

WHY do YOU need a "poster Child or Devil" in the first place clem?

Are his works worthy? In other words, do his arguments on several subjects hold up logically?

Err Have you done any science at all clem??

The question is not what he is investigating, the real question is if his arguments hold up based on what he is investigating.

See above

In my opinion, I think that some of Richard Dawkins' viewpoints are sometimes logically invalid.

And they are??

References please

I respect him as a human and a brilliant scientist, however, when he dwells into philosophy, frankly, he is not a good philosopher.

He doesn't try to be. You need Mr Daniel Dennett for philosophy dearie

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

Thoughts? Once again, I'm just curious. I am not here to question anyone's beliefs.
Thanks.

Cute clem...forgive us while we question yours

Ta Tnx

Hello.

I do not claim to be a scientist. I'm just investigating whether or not Dawkin's views hold up logically.

Here is one of the problems from God Delusion. Dawkins incorrectly assumes that one should accept unguided Darwinian evolution over the existence of God. The kicker is that even though he states both are exceedingly improbable, he still concedes that we should accept the former based on that its the "best explanation." This does not follow. Why should I pick the former if both are exceedingly improbable? Couldn't one say that one could remain agnostic on choosing between the two?

Here is my source:

In The God Delusion he argues that the existence of God is monumentally improbable—about as probable as the assembly of a flight-worthy Boeing 747 by a hurricane roaring through a junkyard. Now it is not monumentally improbable, he says, that life should have developed by way of unguided Darwinism. In fact the probability that the stunning complexity of life came to be in that fashion is greater than the probability that there is such a person as God. An explanation involving divine design, therefore, is less probable than the explanation in terms of unguided Darwinism; therefore we should prefer unguided Darwinism to an explanation involving design; but these two are the only viable candidates here; therefore by an inference to the best explanation, we should accept unguided Darwinism.

Clearly a host of considerations clamor for attention here. Concede, for the moment, that unguided Darwinism is more probable than an explanation involving design; does it follow that the former is to be preferred to the latter? There is more to goodness in explanation than the probability of the explanans. And how secure is this alleged inference to the best explanation, as an argument form, or, more likely, maxim? If all the explanations are highly unlikely, am I obliged, nonetheless, to pick and endorse one of them? I hear a great roar from the Notre Dame stadium; either the Irish have scored a touchdown, or an extra point, or a field goal, or a safety, or completed a long pass, or made a long run from scrimmage, or tackled the opposing runner for a loss, or intercepted a pass. Suppose these eight explanations exhaust the field, and suppose the first is slightly more probable than any of the other seven; its probability, on the evidence is .2. Am I obliged to believe that explanation, just because it is more probable than the rest, and even though its probability is much below .5? Whatever happened to agnosticism, withholding belief?

Plantinga, Alvin (2011-10-26). Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (pp. 28-29). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

[Brian37]

Hello everyone. I was just wondering you all think of Richard Dawkins. I am not here to question anyone's beliefs or anything, however, I was wondering what you all think of him.

Is he a poster child for "atheism" or perhaps something else?

Are his works worthy? In other words, do his arguments on several subjects hold up logically? The question is not what he is investigating, the real question is if his arguments hold up based on what he is investigating.

In my opinion, I think that some of Richard Dawkins' viewpoints are sometimes logically invalid. I respect him as a human and a brilliant scientist, however, when he dwells into philosophy, frankly, he is not a good philosopher.

Thoughts? Once again, I'm just curious. I am not here to question anyone's beliefs.

Thanks.

As a scientist and and advocate for science I think he is awesome. The God Delusion is a must read.

I did not however like "The Greatest Show On Earth" because he did, what I hate about textbooks. He wrote it, not for laypersons like me, but for peer level of his ilk.

Outside that he is really not personable to his fans as much as you'd think. He is like many famous people, doesn't mind making money off the fame but hates the public interaction he has to do to sell his wears. At least that is the way he came across to me when I met him in 07 at the Crystal Clear convention in DC.

And to the dismay of many of his message board members, he shut down the message board part of his website.

But over all I really don't care about what he thinks about how fans should interact with celebrities. He is a titan and a very vital part of the protection of science and extremely important.

I care more about what he puts out than what his personal predilections are. He still puts his evolution on one allele at a time.

[KichigaiNeko]

Hello.

I do not claim to be a scientist. I'm just investigating whether or not Dawkin's views hold up logically.

From which perspective?

Scientifically as the man is a Molecular biologist.
Or are you claiming/ assuming that he is a god and one must look at Richard Dawkins arguments philosophically?

Here is one of the problems from God Delusion. Dawkins incorrectly assumes that one should accept unguided Darwinian evolution over the existence of God.

Wonderful!! Have you finished the book?? have you read any of his other works??

How about Hitchens? Harris? Dennett? a bazillion other critics of this abrahamic deity ?

No. Dawkins does not " incorrectly assumes that one should accept unguided Darwinian evolution over the existence of God."

If I remember the book clearly he raises the question of why have a god at all as evolution is clearly demonstrated down to the molecular level.

The kicker is that even though he states both are exceedingly improbable, he still concedes that we should accept the former based on that its the "best explanation." This does not follow. Why should I pick the former if both are exceedingly improbable? Couldn't one say that one could remain agnostic on choosing between the two?

This is the most sense you have made so far...keep coming

---

Here is my source:

In The God Delusion he argues that the existence of God is monumentally improbable—about as probable as the assembly of a flight-worthy Boeing 747 by a hurricane roaring through a junkyard. Now it is not monumentally improbable, he says, that life should have developed by way of unguided Darwinism. In fact the probability that the stunning complexity of life came to be in that fashion is greater than the probability that there is such a person as God. An explanation involving divine design, therefore, is less probable than the explanation in terms of unguided Darwinism; therefore we should prefer unguided Darwinism to an explanation involving design; but these two are the only viable candidates here; therefore by an inference to the best explanation, we should accept unguided Darwinism.

Clearly a host of considerations clamor for attention here. Concede, for the moment, that unguided Darwinism is more probable than an explanation involving design; does it follow that the former is to be preferred to the latter? There is more to goodness in explanation than the probability of the explanans. And how secure is this alleged inference to the best explanation, as an argument form, or, more likely, maxim? If all the explanations are highly unlikely, am I obliged, nonetheless, to pick and endorse one of them? I hear a great roar from the Notre Dame stadium; either the Irish have scored a touchdown, or an extra point, or a field goal, or a safety, or completed a long pass, or made a long run from scrimmage, or tackled the opposing runner for a loss, or intercepted a pass. Suppose these eight explanations exhaust the field, and suppose the first is slightly more probable than any of the other seven; its probability, on the evidence is .2. Am I obliged to believe that explanation, just because it is more probable than the rest, and even though its probability is much below .5? Whatever happened to agnosticism, withholding belief?

Plantinga, Alvin (2011-10-26). Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (pp. 28-29). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

---

[clemdog14]

Hello.

I do not claim to be a scientist. I'm just investigating whether or not Dawkin's views hold up logically.

From which perspective?

Scientifically as the man is a Molecular biologist.
Or are you claiming/ assuming that he is a god and one must look at Richard Dawkins arguments philosophically?

I am looking at some of his arguments philosophically. I am not attacking his scientific expertise.

Here is one of the problems from God Delusion. Dawkins incorrectly assumes that one should accept unguided Darwinian evolution over the existence of God.

Wonderful!! Have you finished the book?? have you read any of his other works??

How about Hitchens? Harris? Dennett? a bazillion other critics of this abrahamic deity ?

I read most of God Delusion, however, the ad hominems got old really quickly. As for the others, I'm getting there ;D

No. Dawkins does not " incorrectly assumes that one should accept unguided Darwinian evolution over the existence of God."

If I remember the book clearly he raises the question of why have a god at all as evolution is clearly demonstrated down to the molecular level.

I understand, I am not looking at the whole premise of the book, rather, I am investigating a claim that he made which appears to be logically invalid.

Once again this: " incorrectly assumes that one should accept unguided Darwinian evolution over the existence of God." was for the evidence that I posted. Not on the whole thesis of the book.

The kicker is that even though he states both are exceedingly improbable, he still concedes that we should accept the former based on that its the "best explanation." This does not follow. Why should I pick the former if both are exceedingly improbable? Couldn't one say that one could remain agnostic on choosing between the two?

This is the most sense you have made so far...keep coming

---

Here is my source:

In The God Delusion he argues that the existence of God is monumentally improbable—about as probable as the assembly of a flight-worthy Boeing 747 by a hurricane roaring through a junkyard. Now it is not monumentally improbable, he says, that life should have developed by way of unguided Darwinism. In fact the probability that the stunning complexity of life came to be in that fashion is greater than the probability that there is such a person as God. An explanation involving divine design, therefore, is less probable than the explanation in terms of unguided Darwinism; therefore we should prefer unguided Darwinism to an explanation involving design; but these two are the only viable candidates here; therefore by an inference to the best explanation, we should accept unguided Darwinism.

Clearly a host of considerations clamor for attention here. Concede, for the moment, that unguided Darwinism is more probable than an explanation involving design; does it follow that the former is to be preferred to the latter? There is more to goodness in explanation than the probability of the explanans. And how secure is this alleged inference to the best explanation, as an argument form, or, more likely, maxim? If all the explanations are highly unlikely, am I obliged, nonetheless, to pick and endorse one of them? I hear a great roar from the Notre Dame stadium; either the Irish have scored a touchdown, or an extra point, or a field goal, or a safety, or completed a long pass, or made a long run from scrimmage, or tackled the opposing runner for a loss, or intercepted a pass. Suppose these eight explanations exhaust the field, and suppose the first is slightly more probable than any of the other seven; its probability, on the evidence is .2. Am I obliged to believe that explanation, just because it is more probable than the rest, and even though its probability is much below .5? Whatever happened to agnosticism, withholding belief?

Plantinga, Alvin (2011-10-26). Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (pp. 28-29). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

---

Thank you.