Richard dawkins

NormanPorkinson · 3 Sep 2010 at 20:30

What a breath of fresh air this man is in a world full of madness and irrationality!

Such a humble and polite, well spoken ambassador of reason and thought, with the intellect of a man with 3 heads. His arguments are so articulate and well delivered, he really makes me proud to be British!

What a world we would live in if everyone could reason like this man! A national treasure and I'm happy to have shared my time on earth with such a fine human being!

NormanPorkinson · 3 Sep 2010 at 21:08

manic111 said:
I *think* you're being sarcastic, in which case good call.

Haha I'm not actually but this is why I like him, he gets under peoples skin and most of the time it's just bloody hilarious! I do regret his theological stuff abit but his evolutionary biology is great and is delivered so easily to a non scientist like me.

NormanPorkinson · 3 Sep 2010 at 21:11

Dolph said:
He's as bad as every other fundamentalist...

a lot of people say that but I don't see it! If god appeared tomorrow or some other unquestionable proof, then he has said himself, he would convert to that! That's the difference!

NormanPorkinson · 3 Sep 2010 at 21:16

twist3d0n3 said:
you like big brother, don't you

Hate big brother! Worst thing ever on tv!

Well I'm a lawyer so don't claim to be mr science but his writing makes it easy for me to understand without a scientific background, for that alone he should be commended!

NormanPorkinson · 3 Sep 2010 at 21:41

Dolph said:
Can you prove it, or is that faith speaking?

The scientific truth!!!! That's the only truth I care about and the only truth that can be beneficial to my understanding of the world! I don't care if he's out of his field in theology, theology has no meaning in my life and conveys no benefit to human advancement in my eyes!

NormanPorkinson · 3 Sep 2010 at 21:47

kylew said:
The evidence of "evolution" is simply what is used to back up the theory. As has been said, the evidence of its working isn't there. It's still a theory, and an incomplete theory.

Rubbish - evolution by natural selection has been observed in the lab - it's as proven as gravity!

NormanPorkinson · 3 Sep 2010 at 22:03

AcidHell2 said:
That's just one small part of evolution and has not shown the underlying mechanism. It is also only holds true if you accept the scientific framework as correct.

The scientific framework is a mighty powerful tool, but at the end of the day it's a man made tool with limitations.
It is not a tool for the ultimate truth.

I don't get the point in this argument and it just doesn't mean anything! Nothing can be 100% proven and
any one with a brain can accept this, however, if it's real and it can be seen and it has a lot of evidence in favour of it and it is compatible with the other scientific laws to such an extent that is the observable truth then surely it must be accepted as fact whether it can be proven 100% or not!

NormanPorkinson · 3 Sep 2010 at 22:23

ChroniC said:
They haven't changed based on evidence though, they have changed to fit the will of a person or situation to gain faith or standings in a commmunity.
Religions don't change because of testings and evidence.

It never has been, and isnt suppose to be. Its meant to be there to help improve our lifes by creating testable and recreatable situations. If its part of science then everyone in the world can try it for themselves via the same steps and come to the same conclusion everytime.
The truth is a stupid concept as it has no use to anyone.

Exactly my point - the absolute truth is a meaningless concept! The scientific truth, which in my eyes is the only truth, however, conveys actual benefit to human development and understanding!

NormanPorkinson · 3 Sep 2010 at 22:40

Haiku said:
A brilliant scientific author.

It's a shame many people apparently find his style to be unduly combative. Personally I find it refreshing.

I don't see it at all! I've watched 100's of his stuff and never once have I seen him lose his temper or be anything but a true gentleman - he has a great sense of humour too! Believe me if I spoke to some of the idiots he's had to contend with then I'd probably goes nuts and do something rash! I admit he does poke fun sometimes but that's only with people who believe in talking snakes etc .... Also I've never once seen him say he totally 100% rejects an idea or belief and I'll challenge anyone to show me otherwise!

NormanPorkinson · 4 Sep 2010 at 00:10

Castiel said:
Indeed. simply mentioning Prof Dawkins to illicit exactly this response.

Wasn't my intention to start a big debate about all this, which seems to be mostly philosophy so far, not science! It was bound to happen though as I've seen what happens in other threads. My post was a mere acknowledgement of his work and what I've learnt from a great author!

NormanPorkinson · 4 Sep 2010 at 00:19

vonhelmet said:
Of course it's philosophy - that's the closest common ancestor of religion and science. Where else was the discussion supposed to be centred?

Well science if anything as the purpose of thread was to acknowledge a scientist! It's just everyone started preaching about the philosophy he's been involved in as this seems to stir more interest than science.

NormanPorkinson · 4 Sep 2010 at 01:30

People mistake his intellect for arrogance like being smart and having answer and opinion on everything is a bad thing. People actually miss the humour in a lot of his stuff! Watch him speak to father coyne on yt - such a reasonable man!

NormanPorkinson · 4 Sep 2010 at 10:01

Dolph said:
Science is based on presumptions on nothing when used in a realist context. The method takes many assumptions a priori (that is, without evidence) in order to provide a useful predictive model. To then move to this model providing truth requires faith that those assumptions are how the universe actually works.

I'd suggest you start here:

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

This is all well and good but that philosophical view point of science doesn't have any practical significance when it comes to using science to help mankind! Philosophy is a useless notion for the most part, it's not pointless one but it just doesn't provide anything that is that useful - when we find that an asteroid is heading for earth, which will happen, it's science that will provide the answer, same goes for curing disease or helping us to inhabit other planets!

NormanPorkinson · 4 Sep 2010 at 10:11

AcidHell2 said:
You are not undersnding the argument or what science is. Go read Dolphs links it should make much more sense after that.

It's not a cope out. It's not unworthy. It;s just that any results has to be applied within the scientific context. No one is saying that science is not an extremely powerful tool or that it is not useful.
What we are saying is when people like Darwkins take stuff outside of the scientific context it is no longer scientific and is faith based. That on it's own isn't a problem as long as they realise it is faith based and not scientific.

I don't envisage any other context but a scientific one and believe that science can provide the answer to any question, ok we might not know the answers to 99% of the questions but that's not because science can't answer them, it's just our brains aren't developed enough. As dawkins says if science can't answer the question, do better science!

NormanPorkinson · 4 Sep 2010 at 10:51

One of the problems with the human brain and human society is that we can't be satisfied with not knowing and accepting the limitations of our brains, to such an extent that we'd rather make things up than accept we don't have the answer! Massive piece of illogic!

NormanPorkinson · 4 Sep 2010 at 14:22

Uriel said:
To quote someone I heard in a church based theology class: "don't knock Richard Dawning: we love Richard Dawkins".

I used to be quite impressed by the guy until I read the God Delusion. I hadn't realised quite how breathtakingly clueless about history, philosophy or theology he actually is. Reading it was a bit like reading a young earth creationist's polemic that assumes there's been no significant development of the theory they're criticising since the 19th century.

Could you be so kind to point me to a good book that sucessfully rebukes the gd? I tried the dawkins delusion by the theolgy professor alistair mcgrath but it was pathetic and actually made dawkins arguments look stronger not weaker. Thanks in advance!

NormanPorkinson · 4 Sep 2010 at 16:15

Castiel said:
I have read the book. My brother knows Dawkin's personally and have had the opportunity to meet him on occasion ( he is a very nice, personable and fiercely intelligent man I like him, just don't agree with him). I haven't misrepresented anything, he makes too many assumptions and has little real knowledge of the religions historicity or philosophy that he is criticising, and I am not referring to the book specifically, but generally.

He is not qualified, none of us are to make that judgement over what is supernatural or not. That is where his arrogance comes

I watched a debate on this the other night. It will be interesting to read the book as there is some debate over what Hawking actually said.

I don't get why you have to be a master theologist to disagree with their theories! The main 3 religions ideology is contained in 3 books!

NormanPorkinson · 4 Sep 2010 at 17:40

naffa said:
You're making the fundamental mistake that so many people of your school of thought do. You're confusing what the religious believe, rather than what their respective religions preach.

Also, I really suggest (if you haven't already done so) reading Christopher Hitchens as I think his way of thinking would appeal to you much more than Dawkins' does. I grow tired of hearing Richard speak about religion very quickly, however, I could listen to him speak about ecology and the theory of evolution for days.

naffa said:
I'd be interested in how you've come to that conclusion from what I just posted. Monotheistic religious belief is, by default, a belief in a theistic God. Obviously one can have a theistic belief without the monotheism, but you cannot be a member of Judaism, Christianity or Islam, and not believe in an omnipotent and such, God.

I couldn't agree more, but I would go so far as to say that he's better than Dawkins at every point within that arena. He's much more well read on the Qur'an and the Bible than a lot of Muslims and Christians, and it shows when he debates.

God is not great is a better book than the god delusion in a lot of ways but it's dawkins' work on evolution that was the main point of this thread! Afterall rd has only written one book on this subject at a time when a lot of other people were writing similar books! His evolutionary books do a lot better job at refuting religious doctrine, primarily when it comes to the creation aspect of theology.

NormanPorkinson · 4 Sep 2010 at 17:42

Dolph said:
But you can have a monotheistic (or polytheistic, or deist) belief without religion, certainly without organised, heavily structured religion of the type Dawkins normally targets as being all faith.

Does Dawkins acknowledge that the catholic church and the CoE accept evolution, for example?

Incidentally, you can be Jewish and an atheist, indeed there are whole areas of the structure set up in such a way.

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

There's also a branch of christianity that is atheist, that is they follow the teachings of christ while rejecting the existence of god and the divinity of jesus.

Of course he accepts they do and he's mentioned it on countless documetaries!

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

Indeed.

NormanPorkinson · 4 Sep 2010 at 18:02

Dolph said:
Actually, Dawkins has written many books that mix his science with his philosophy, such as the blind watchmaker, as well as many papers and articles on the subject (such as Virus of the mind).

His evolution work, when he leaves out the philosophical bent, is fantastic. It's just a shame he tarnishes it with the rest of his behaviour.

All of his books contain an aspect of theology/philosophy but it's only really the gd that has mostly theology/philosophy and very little science and that's probably why i regret the gd next to his excellent books on evolution!

The god delusion is mostly his opinion on the problems with religion and one that he is perfectly entitled to in a free country! The gd has invited his arrogant reputation because on most of his interviews and speeches now, the interviewer or questioner seems to always ask him about theology/philosophy even though he might be promoting a book on evolution!