Richard Dawkins.

[Indeterminacy]

Dawkins seems like the kind of guy I would enjoy talking with casually, but to be honest I can't really engage with any aspect of his work.

The problem isn't really with his views on Religion. By and large, his criticism is something I would stand by, and his opinions vis. obscurantist metaphysics and folklore are largely unquestionable.

What I'm not so sure about is his perspective with regards to scientific realism; specifically that of the Biological sciences. It has never seemed right to me that the biological taxonomies and investigations should all be thought to carve nature at any useful joints. Biochemistry and physiology, I'm postively supportive of, and the explanation of organism development through the information content of genetic sequences is absolutely inspired, but it's when you get to subjects like ecology and structural biology that I have problems understanding why the classifications provided are somehow epistemically privileged; at the least, any more so than, say, economics or political sciences.

Evolution is supposed to bridge the explanatory gap between the molecular level, which I could happily accept, and the theories of why such and such is a distinct species/why certain ecological and environmental effects arise, and I'm not sure that it really works as strongly as convention assumes (even if it is capable of providing post-hoc rationalization for why the "right" taxonomy of biology is what it is). I don't find Dawkins convincing in this regard, which makes me wonder whether we shouldn't really be getting a chemist in to defend Science against Religion as opposed to an evolutionary biologist.

 

[Robert Ewing]

I like him, he knows what he's talking about, and he doesn't beat around the fucking bush. He says what he wants, as he wants to say it. He gets shit done. Good man.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

"People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care"

I think he has yet to learn that. At least that's why I see from him.

 

[AlphonseRomano]

While it can look that way, due to is antagonistic nature, I think he has a bit more standing as he generally backs his opinions up with facts.

Additionally, I think all he's asking is for people to think about things logically, not just straight up believe his opinions. As I said, its the brain-dead sect of his "followers" that revere him so much.

Au Contraire. My memory might be flawed, but I recall that he has been quoted as saying that he doesn't care if people understand him as long as they believe what he says (which seems to me to make him a religion).

 

[Princess Rose]

Dawkins rails against the evils of following religion and believing in a figure attempting to convey the word of God by...

Asking people to follow his beliefs while being a figure attempting to convey the word of Science.

This. So much this.

OT: I've largely ignored his works, but I can feel his impact. He's turned many Atheists from calm, rational individuals into loud, annoying individuals as bad as the Right Wing people they oppose.

I also find it annoying that he paints all religion with the same brush. It is possible to have faith and not be a nut-job.

 

[goldendriger]

Who?

 

[SonicKoala]

It's as likely as God existing. And yet you keep saying "No, you can't say that's false!"
Your argument is the same as saying "You can't say evolution is true, maybe Satan is tricking us!" You can question the validity of the evidence of gravity or evolution by saying "Maybe *insert random thing here* happened that made you see that!"

Falls away? That's a laugh when you keep trying to argue against the idea of saying "God doesn't exist" when God has no evidence.

I'll reiterate this point one more time - I am fully aware that there is no direct evidence for God, and as a result, the claim that "there is no God" becomes a very likely possibility. Let me re-emphasise that - very likely. See how I used the bold face there? However, without direct evidence proving God's non-existence, the statement "there is no God" cannot be treated as factual. It is not verifiable. Yes, as you've so cleverly pointed out, a huge array of things aren't verifiable. This happens to be one of them.

The entire reason I made my initial post was that it is troublesome to see people use the phrase "there is no God" as if it were fact. It isn't. As you have pointed out, for all intents and purposes, it might as well be, but that doesn't retract from my original point. The point I am trying to make is on the conclusiveness of the matter - this is not a subject which can be concluded, and therefore it is pointless and illogical to claim that either of these statements: "God exists" or "God doesn't exist", are factual. If these sentiments are to be expressed, they should be expressed as beliefs, not as facts. Facts are supported by evidence. Neither of those statements has any evidence whatsoever.

And no, I can't say that about evolution, because evolution is supported by hard evidence. Let's be hypothetical for a moment, and say that I did say "maybe evolution isn't real and Satan is tricking us." At that point, an informed individual could come up to me and show me fossils which clearly trace the evolution of a number of species. Now, all of a sudden, the integrity of that "maybe" has been severely compromised. Instead, the statement can now be re-worded to "evolution probably is real and Satan probably isn't tricking us". In reality, so much evidence has been collected to substantiate evolution that a more accurate description of your original line would be "Evolution is a very well-supported concept with mountains of evidence to substantiate it, while the notion that Satan is tricking us is an unfounded, unsupported claim".

However, let's take the statement "Maybe God exists". What direct, tangible evidence can one provide to either support or refute that statement? The answer would be none. This is a claim which cannot be supported in anyway. However, let's take that phrase's opposite - "Maybe God doesn't exist". What direct, tangible evidence can one provide to either support or refute that statement? The answer would also be none. In this case, we are left with a situation where neither claim can be substantiated. All we have is lack of evidence, and lack of evidence can't prove (and this is a technical term) jack shit. Concluding that God doesn't exist because there is no evidence for his existence is just as logical as concluding that God does exist because there is no evidence refuting his existence.

 

[cheese_wizington]

He's a real smart guy and what he has to say is interesting, but he does come off as a bit of a prick.

 

[fenrizz]

As for this evidence you want I'll have to disappoint you, for there is no evidence against god and religion.

I don't listen to religious leaders because there is no god, simple as that.

Those two statements aren't compatible. It is highly likely that there is no God, but to assert outright that there is no God is fallacious in nature. Please note that I'm not suggesting absence of evidence is evidence in and of itself - all I'm saying is that nobody can say with absolute certainty "there is no God". Surely someone who evidently prides themselves on their use of logic and rationale should be aware of such a thing.

I am aware.

Absolute certainty is not possible in this matter, because the concept of god is by it's very design impossible to prove either way.

I could point out the the bible contains, amongst other things, factual errors, inconsistencies and contradictions.
But one can easily dismiss that on account to it begin written by humans, which according to the bible are inherently flawed.

But no matter what arguments if present, it still boils down to the simple fact that such an extraordinary claim cannot possibly be verified or debunked.

And you're right, one cannot claim with absolute certainty that god does not exist.
But neither can one claim with absolute certainty that there is no unicorns or no flying spaghetti monster.

 

[C. Cain]

<spoiler=SNIP>

Especially with how often alternative medicine kills. Or, at the very least, seriously physically damages people.

I mean, I'm not a fan of religious motivated nutjobs targeting minorities, but you don't even have to hate to hurt someone with alternative medical practices.

though we could combine the two and crusade against faith healers. I caught the end of the 700 club a couple of times, and Pat Robertson would do it via the TV, encouraging people to do stuff like "Throw your inhaler away, you don't need it anymore."

And ostensibly, if you follow that advice and die from an asthma attack, your lack of faith in Jesus was the problem.

Indeed. I totally forgot about those blokes. We don't have to many of them over here.

We occasionally do get some of those devout fanatically deluded parents who won't seek any form of treatment when their children are ill, though. According to them it's their deity's decision whether their own kids should live or die and noone should interfere.

Or parents who attempt to convince others to not vaccinate their children. Mostly because they believe that the Hg compounds found in some vaccines cause Asperger's.

It's depressing to think about.

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

He's brilliant. He's a very smart guy indeed.

 

[RatRace123]

I agree with a few of his points but he just comes off as a self assured jackass to me. He seems perfectly fine to appease those who already think like he does and look down on those who don't.
I don't have any real problems with him, but his methods just seem too extreme, for lack of a better word, in my opinion.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Certain things he oversimplify and he makes a lot of generalsations that I disagree with, but other than that I agree more or less with him.

 

[Womplord]

I believe in Dawkins with all of my heart. I swear to follow the teachings of the omnipotent Richard Dawkins who created the universe and has an indiscriminate love of all His creations.

But seriously, I respect him and think he makes a lot of good points about religion, and I think every scientist deserves respect for dedicating their lives to the advancement of knowledge.

 

[Something Amyss]

Or parents who attempt to convince others to not vaccinate their children. Mostly because they believe that the Hg compounds found in some vaccines cause Asperger's.

Yegads, we have our share of that, too. The crazy is strong with these folks.

 

[C. Cain]

Yegads, we have our share of that, too. The crazy is strong with these folks.

IIRC, it first appeared in the US and was later exported across the Atlantic. I read about it on Respectful Insolence before the first European cases cropped up. Or I might have only become aware of them due to said blog. Who knows? It's crazy either way.

 

[LiftYourSkinnyFists]

Can we PO BOX a copy of his book and or one of his documentary videos to every creationist in the world?

 

[Vivi22]

However, let's take the statement "Maybe God exists". What direct, tangible evidence can one provide to either support or refute that statement? The answer would be none. This is a claim which cannot be supported in anyway. However, let's take that phrase's opposite - "Maybe God doesn't exist". What direct, tangible evidence can one provide to either support or refute that statement? The answer would also be none. In this case, we are left with a situation where neither claim can be substantiated. All we have is lack of evidence, and lack of evidence can't prove (and this is a technical term) jack shit. Concluding that God doesn't exist because there is no evidence for his existence is just as logical as concluding that God does exist because there is no evidence refuting his existence.

The trouble with this line of thinking is that in the absence of any evidence of something existing, we must default to the hypothesis that it does not exist as being the most highly probable scenario. The statement that God does exist is inherently less likely than God not existing since there is no evidence he exists. And from a purely scientific stand point, the hypothesis that there is a God is worse than useless since it doesn't do anything to help further our understanding of how the Universe works, nor is it testable by any known means, and therefore unprovable.

It's a bit like saying that we can't say Unicorns don't exist with any certainty because there's no conclusive evidence that they don't. But no one says they might exist because there's no evidence that they don't. We say that they don't exist because there is no evidence that they do now, or ever have.

So no, we can't prove conclusively that God does or doesn't exist. But until we find some evidence indicating that a God does exist, something that can't be explained in any other way than with the existence of some all powerful Universe creating deity, it's most likely that such a being doesn't exist. At least not in any form worth concerning ourselves about.