Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth

by KateWild 189 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  braincleaned

  By the way, for those who don't need anonymity, please feel free to send me a Facebook request:
  
  https://www.facebook.com/vmdeporter
  
  Vince. :)
• 

  konceptual99

  “It is not presented as gospel. It is not presented as infallible.”

  Not quite. In fact, Dawkins’ fervor is as militant and emphatic as the best of Evangelicals on TV. As I mentioned before, I get the feeling that Dawkins is rather smug about his theories to the chagrin of other scientists. He criticizes Paul Davis (a renowned physicist) for pointing out the failure of science to explain its own foundations (beyond the Anthropic Principle) while Dawkins himself has difficulty justifying his own theories.

  His scientific arguments are not presented as gospel or infallible. He might have opinions or even theories that differ with other scientists but I don't think he is intellectually honest enough to change his views when presented with compelling and properly conducted research.

  What you are really talking about is his position regarding religion and it's impact on education and critical thinking through the world. His personality and approach can give him the appearence of someone with as much fundamentalisim in his blood as any religious zealot but it is disingenous to associate his views on religion and his personality with how fixed his views on any give scientfic theory may be.
• 

  braincleaned

  His scientific arguments are not presented as gospel or infallible. He might have opinions or even theories that differ with other scientists but I don't think he is intellectually honest enough to change his views when presented with compelling and properly conducted research.
  
  I disagree, and so would Lawrence Krauss — who argued against Dawkins publically, that not only accepted he was wrong and changed his opinion, but became close friends with Krauss.
  In fact, you should watch the Four Horsemen videos... he is the most humble one there, and listens more than talks...
  
  I would be so happy if people would not dish on Dawkins with nothing to back up their dislike for him.
  I admire people like Kate that may or may not warm up to him, but are willing to give him the bebfit of the doubt.
• 

  KateWild

  I admire people like Kate that may or may not warm up to him, but are willing to give him the bebfit of the doubt.-braincleaned

  Thanks for that. Made me smile.

  BTW I gave you a friend request on FB, but I am not that good on it - Kate xx
• 

  konceptual99

  His scientific arguments are not presented as gospel or infallible. He might have opinions or even theories that differ with other scientists but I don't think he is intellectually honest enough to change his views when presented with compelling and properly conducted research.
  
  I disagree, and so would Lawrence Krauss — who argued against Dawkins publically, that not only accepted he was wrong and changed his opinion, but became close friends with Krauss.
  In fact, you should watch the Four Horsemen videos... he is the most humble one there, and listens more than talks...
  
  I would be so happy if people would not dish on Dawkins with nothing to back up their dislike for him.
  I admire people like Kate that may or may not warm up to him, but are willing to give him the bebfit of the doubt.

  Arghh! TYPO

  I meant to write...

  His scientific arguments are not presented as gospel or infallible. He might have opinions or even theories that differ with other scientists but I don't think he is intellectually honest enough to change his views when presented with compelling and properly conducted research.

  Hope that clarifies my opinion, although I think the context of what else I wrote also points to the same conclusion.
• 

  konceptual99

  Just to add as well that I think my other posts reflect nothing but respect for the man.
• 

  KateWild

  Owww, K99, I thought I won you over to my side, not really. I thought it was prolly a typo - Kate xx
• 

  braincleaned

  BTW I gave you a friend request on FB, but I am not that good on it - Kate xx
  
  Accepted my friend! ;)
• 

  Etude

  cofty:

  I guess we would be in agreement that just because there are problems with a theory that doesn’t invalidate the entire theory. So, given some aspects important to Evolution (the fossil record, the enormous periods of time, mutations, etc), it’s important to explore the aspects of what we call Evolution, but in particular, Natural Selection. My problem with Dawkins is not in the area of Evolution but in the way he attempts to interpret Natural Selection and the way that clashes with other scientists. Darwin did it empirically (and cleverly so). Today we use genetics to confirm the aggregation and survival of traits in species.

  Dawkins rejection of Group Selection in favor for his own proposals pits him against individuals like David Sloan Wilson and Elliot Sober. Dawkins refers to his hero Darwin as being “schizophrenic” about the idea (even though the term was not used in Darwin’s day) by Darwin’s promotion of inheritance and the distribution of traits over a population. What Wilson and Sober contend is that it’s possible to have both. An article by Wilson titled Beyond Demonic Memes: Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion) takes Dawkins to task for not dealing with the evolutionary aspects of religion as is practiced by an increasing number of scientists and for Dawkins’ alternative theory of Extended Phenotype.

  The more obvious problem is that, from what I’ve read by Dawkins, there is little Evolutionary Biology in his works. What I see largely is an attempt at unifying some of the sciences with his version or suggestions of processes that could explain the outcome. For example, he proposes the “moth flying into the candle” as an example of misguided and suicidal use of an instinct, just like religion. At the same time, he suggests that the misfiring of different brain modules (the trusting module, the coalition forming module, the discriminating module, etc) that normally work cooperatively may be responsible for the irrationality of religion. So, which is it? Some, all of the above? Perhaps yes, all of them. The problem is that, while it may be a nice suggestion, it isn’t fact for several reasons: 1) we can infer that there are modules in the brain but there is not definitive experiment that can clearly identify them, map them and show the relationship to one another; 2) In the case of the Moth, we can strongly infer that it has a navigation system and say that its misuse is responsible for guiding it to a candle or bug zapper. However, that mechanism remains elusive. Bottom line is that Dawkins can suggest all day long, but not come close to verifiable theory. Remember, he is essentially a botanist.

  Along with other fervent proponents of atheism, Dawkins promotes things like Peter Boghossian’s “A Manual for Creating Atheists”. That is more indicative of an aim to sway for one ideology but not by presenting scientific papers or peer reviewed works. In my opinion, the evidence should speak for itself rather than necessitating a how-to manual for atheism. But wait, there’s more! If you go to his website (http://store.richarddawkins.net) you will find every sort of paraphernalia, from jewelry to T-shirts to bumper stickers promoting the A-line. The marketing is worthy of the Kardashians. And let’s not forget that the site asks you to add a monthly donation to the cause. All of that has the same trappings as an Evangelical pitch on TV. I just don’t see most serious scientists doing that. Their work speaks for itself. So, I don’t oppose or criticize Dawkins’ defense of scientific facts. I question some of his proposals as fact and have the argument to support that from several just-as-worthy scientists. If I’m disingenuous about that you can count a lot of other people in that group, including yourself for not seeing both sides of the issue.
• 

  cofty

  from what I’ve read by Dawkins, there is little Evolutionary Biology in his works

  So I take it you haven't read ...

  The Selfish Gene

  A River out of Eden

  Unweaving the Rainbow

  Climing Mount Improbable

  The Blind Watchmaker

  and especially "An Ancestor's Tale"?

  You really need to draw a line between science and atheism. On science he is one of the best writers there is. On atheism he is not among my favourites.