Richard Dawkins

Ophiolite said:
No. I was unaware of it. This is from one of the reviews:
Thus this book is not so much a critique of Darwinism as a critique of philosophy and ideology masquerading as science. Dawkins should know as well as anyone that science has limits, and questions of God's existence do not fall within those limits. Yet the works of Dawkins are permeated with emotive and irrational attacks on faith and religion. This misuse and abuse of science by Dawkins in this regard is a major theme of this volume.
Click to expand...

Interesting review, but from the same reviewer we find this:

"The fact is, Dawkins has a philosophical precommitment to atheism, and he tries to smuggle this belief system in while piggy-backing of Darwinism.

But it is simply inappropriate for scientists to wade into debates about God's existence or non-existence by means of the scientific method. It is inadequate for such a debate. And it is disingenuous for those who have a beef against religion to seek to use the scientific method to do their dirty work.

The work of the Intelligent Design movement, for example, is not even mentioned in this volume. Yet ID has landed some telling blows on an already shaky evolutionary edifice."
 
Ophiolite said:
Dawkins is an egocentric, emotive, pseudo-charlatan (for shit's sake work out what that means before you go complaining to me about the wrong thing) who purveys weakly substantiated hypotheses under the guise of solidly validated science, demanding acceptance in the same manner we would expect from a young Earth creationist. As I have written elsewhere, I should as soon vomit over him as buy him a hamburger. He is Jean Claude van Damme to Stephen Gould's Ian McKellan.

Later, I may deal with his weak points.
Click to expand...

Careful some would have him burned at the stake (or worse) like other naysayers, philosophers and scientists before him.
 
(Q) said:
The work of the Intelligent Design movement, for example, is not even mentioned in this volume. Yet ID has landed some telling blows on an already shaky evolutionary edifice."
Click to expand...

If any of this was "designed" I see no evidence of intelligence particularly with the introduction of humans. no intelligent being would have let us loose on the blue planet!
 
But it is simply inappropriate for scientists to wade into debates about God's existence or non-existence by means of the scientific method. It is inadequate for such a debate. And it is disingenuous for those who have a beef against religion to seek to use the scientific method to do their dirty work
Click to expand...
If someone insists pink elephants exist, it perfectly valid to say all scientific search has never found them and the mind is such that it can quite easily convince itself of that it wishes to be real, to be real! All one is doing is making something up out of thin air. Like I could pluck out of thin air that a bus load of brunettes are at my door right now with a £billion check with my name on it and an invitation to be ruler of the world. It has a probability of being true but FUCK OFFFFFFFFFFF!

The work of the Intelligent Design movement, for example, is not even mentioned in this volume. Yet ID has landed some telling blows on an already shaky evolutionary edifice."
Click to expand...
LMAO like the irreducable complexity pseudo scientific adaption to evolution I guess he means? :rolleyes: This guy is a joke!
 
imaplanck. said:
If someone insists pink elephants exist, it perfectly valid to say all scientific search has never found them and the mind is such that it can quite easily convince itself of that it wishes to be real, to be real! All one is doing is making something up out of thin air. Like I could pluck out of thin air that a bus load of brunettes are at my door right now with a £billion check with my name on it and an invitation to be ruler of the world. It has a probability of being true but FUCK OFFFFFFFFFFF!
Click to expand...

Boy you are obsessed with those pink elephants aren't you?



This guy is a joke!
Click to expand...

Dawkins, the author or the reviewer?
 
(Q) said:
Interesting review, but from the same reviewer we find this:

"The fact is, Dawkins has a philosophical precommitment to atheism, and he tries to smuggle this belief system in while piggy-backing of Darwinism.
But it is simply inappropriate for scientists to wade into debates about God's existence or non-existence by means of the scientific method. It is inadequate for such a debate. And it is disingenuous for those who have a beef against religion to seek to use the scientific method to do their dirty work.
The work of the Intelligent Design movement, for example, is not even mentioned in this volume. Yet ID has landed some telling blows on an already shaky evolutionary edifice."
Click to expand...
So?
 
(Q) said:
Are you asking because you are unable to make the distinction yourself?
Click to expand...

No I'm writing a book on the detrimental effects of atheism on the scientific process.
 
Ophiolite said:
So?
Click to expand...

I would be interested in the reviewers comments, or yours, in regards to those "telling blows on an already shaky evolutionary edifice" from ID? Or why it is "disengenous" of science to seek evidence in regards to the existence of gods? Or how the reviewer considers atheism as a belief system?
 
samcdkey said:
Do you disagree with ALL the points he made?
Click to expand...
In that I would give the chance of peoples invention of god being right as say 1-10^10000000000000000000000000000000000 but if some atheists say science has disproven god. I would say he has a point and science hasn't disproven god, but big deal!
 
imaplanck. said:
In that I would give the chance of peoples invention of god being right as say 1-10^10000000000000000000000000000000000 but if some atheists say science has disproven god. I would say he has a point and science hasn't disproven god, but big deal!
Click to expand...

So you think that using a philosophical argument in a scientific method is alright?
 
samcdkey said:
No I'm writing a book on the detrimental effects of atheism on the scientific process.
Click to expand...

Really? Could you actually even write a paragraph on that topic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top