Richard Dawkins

branie

Anyone here read any of his books, and what's their opinion on them? apologies if there are threads on this already.

Zulu

Read the god delusion after it was recommended by a friend.

His arrogance is palpable.

Didn't rate it.

crotalus667

Zulu wrote: »

His arrogance is palpable.
.

which parts did you think where arrogant ???


I liked it but Christopher Hitchens is better (his style is a lot different than in his debates )

vodafoneproblem

The Dawkins Delusion. (Ha!)

Dawkins is a very arrogant man, imo. With a rather small, unevolved head!

This picture from his wiki says it all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ariane_Sherine_and_Richard_Dawkins_at_the_Atheist_Bus_Campaign_launch.jpg

I'd love to know how he calculates the probability of God existing or not. Oh, wait, he's an uninspired copycat biologist flogging books, not a mathematician...

Sam Vimes

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

Dawkins is a very arrogant man, imo.

Zulu wrote: »

His arrogance is palpable.

That doesn't actually make him wrong though does it? Addressing his points successfully would make him wrong. Calling him arrogant is an ad hominem argument

vodafoneproblem

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That doesn't actually make him wrong though does it? Addressing his points successfully would make him wrong. Calling him arrogant is an ad hominem argument

Richard Dawkins is probably wrong. Now start worrying.

antiskeptic

If he stuck to what he is best at (breaking down complex scientific ideas so as to make them accessible to untrained audiences) I'd have no issue with him - indeed, I'd enjoy his books more. His tendency to go off at the deep end, when attacking (what are often straw-men) aspects of faith, tend to try my patience however. What could and should be a good read swiftly renders itself unreadable - a little fundamentalist yeast infecting the whole batch.



In a nutshell? Richard is a faith-head (he believes by faith that the assumptions at the root of his doctrina are true) who makes a career out of knocking other faith-heads (who also believe that the assumptions at the root of their doctrina are true).

Turtwig

Dawkins is a Dick.;)
Given that I expect most of this thread to be full on inflammatory remarks. I thought I'd take away the opportunity for the obvious name related one.:)

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That doesn't actually make him wrong though does it? Addressing his points successfully would make him wrong. Calling him arrogant is an ad hominem argument

The OP asks folk what they think of his books. Arrogance is something that can be delivered in book form.

lmaopml

pml...:pac:

Turtwig

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

With a rather small, unevolved head!

That statement tells me that either you haven't read his books or you didn't really pay any attention to his explanations of evolution.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

The OP asks folk what they think of his books. Arrogance is something that can be delivered in book form.

Yes I know it can and, while I disagree, I recognise that an awful lot of religious believers see Dawkins as arrogant. Once we have established that we should at some point move on to the problems that you see in his arguments, otherwise we're just engaging in ad hominem attacks. To quote Jimmy Carr for the second time in three days:

I'm not arrogant. The word you're looking for is 'correct'

vodafoneproblem

Malty_T wrote: »

That statement tells me that either you haven't read his books or you didn't really pay any attention to his explanations of evolution.

Or it could be a joke. If you can believe in them...

prinz

Malty_T wrote: »

That statement tells me that either you haven't read his books or you didn't really pay any attention to his explanations of evolution.

I think it was meant as a joke :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

To quote Jimmy Carr for the second time in three days:
I'm not arrogant. The word you're looking for is 'correct'

He's a self-obsessed, intellectually arrogant, hypocrit. For a smart man he sometimes fails to see the irony in his own name-calling, put-downs etc.

dlofnep

I read his book. I thought it was great, and I think he has done extremely well when debating the merits of his book. Naturally, depending on what way you view the world - you'll either like his work, or dislike it. I'm an atheist, so there's more chance of me liking it.

I like that fact that he's provoking debate on the issue. It's the most important question from a philosophical standpoint that we can ask.

The Mad Hatter

Anyone got anything more considered to say than "He is arrogant. *points*"?

Ickle Magoo

I'm not sure what kind of response the OP was expecting...I can't imagine any theist is going to suggest Dawkins is a fine author who makes some excellent points.

If you read a book already determined that it's evidence based nonsense about beliefs held dear that don't require empirical evidence, then it's fairly obvious what kind of reviews such a demographic will provide.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

He's a self-obsessed, intellectually arrogant, hypocrit. For a smart man he sometimes fails to see the irony in his own name-calling, put-downs etc.

Fair enough. So what specifically were the problems that you had with his arguments?

Zulu

crotalus667 wrote: »

which parts did you think where arrogant ???

Well the tone really.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That doesn't actually make him wrong though does it?

No it doesn't. That's quite the defensive assumption you've made there. And, for the record, I'm agnostic.

It's a disappointing book because it promised alot but delivered nothing. He picks through the parts of christianity with an arrogant and mocking tone that I (and alot of christians) wouldn't believe or take literally.

He makes a concerted point of trying to claim other scientists (like Einstein) as athiests, when they clearly believe in a concept of "god" - WHICH he recognises himself, but chooses to ignore (and freely admits ignoring) so he can continue his assault on more fundamentalist beliefs. Why?

I'd have prefered if he'd accatually address this concept of a 'god' as this is the concept at the hub of the argument. Alas he's more interested in attacking others than addressing salient points.

Hence I felt the arrogance was palpable. Hence I didn't rate it as a good book.

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

I like that fact that he's provoking debate on the issue. It's the most important question from a philosophical standpoint that we can ask.

Debate is good.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure what kind of response the OP was expecting...I can't imagine any theist is going to suggest Dawkins is a fine author who makes some excellent points.

He's a terrible author. Take the subject matter out of it and he's still a terrible author.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Fair enough. So what specifically were the problems that you had with his arguments?

Mostly the part where he cannot see that he has set himself up as the RCC Church, the same one he criticises for mocking scientists like Galileo as being deluded, misguided etc. Rather ironic that he would then dismiss all opinions contrary to his own in the same manner. Christians/religious have a lot to learn from Dawkins, Dawkins has a lot to learn from them. He castigates the religious folk for not learning from him, and simultaneously mocks the idea of him ever learning anything from a Christian..

Ickle Magoo

prinz wrote: »

He's a terrible author. Take the subject matter out of it and he's still a terrible author.

Again, exactly what you'd expect a theist to say. Here's a man who challenges the core of their beliefs - or at least has the cheek to try to - and now lots of people are reading him and questioning their faith, which must be really galling. It's little wonder theists can't stand him.

I have several of his books and I think they are quite entertaining and make some interesting observations which trigger plenty of debate, which, as you say yourself, is good.

Sam Vimes

Zulu wrote: »

Well the tone really.

No it doesn't. That's quite the defensive assumption you've made there. And, for the record, I'm agnostic.

It's a disappointing book because it promised alot but delivered nothing. He picks through the parts of christianity with an arrogant and mocking tone that I (and alot of christians) wouldn't believe or take literally.

He makes a concerted point of trying to claim other scientists (like Einstein) as athiests, when they clearly believe in a concept of "god" - WHICH he recognises himself, but chooses to ignore (and freely admits ignoring) so he can continue his assault on more fundamentalist beliefs. Why?

No he very specifically doesn't

He says that Einstein and a number of scientists believed in deistic gods and that the book deals only with interventionist type theistic gods

Zulu wrote: »

I'd have prefered if he'd accatually address this concept of a 'god' as this is the concept at the hub of the argument. Alas he's more interested in attacking others than addressing salient points.

Hence I felt the arrogance was palpable. Hence I didn't rate it as a good book.

I think rather than him failing to address certain points, you may have missed the point of the book. It was about theistic gods, not the vague idea of some kind of ill-defined generic being that may or may not have existed before the universe and may or may not have had some hand in its creation

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes I know it can and, while I disagree, I recognise that an awful lot of religious believers see Dawkins as arrogant.

I gather it's not just religious readers that find him abit of a buffoon.

Once we have established that we should at some point move on to the problems that you see in his arguments, otherwise we're just engaging in ad hominem attacks.

I agree. The "Faith .. the evidence of things not seen" thread outlines the biblical view of faith and we see the kind of trouble atheists get into when they begin to supposing what God can and cannot do. Dawkins view of faith, in contrast, supposes it blind - when what he really means is that it isn't empirically measurable > therefore it is empirically evidential-less > therefore it is empirically blind.

Richards an empiricist (a philosophical position that cannot be demonstrated to be true - not even in theory) who forgets his own postion is built on less-than-concrete moorings. It's this intellectual blind-spot (papered over at times with a rabbit-out-of-hat "probabilities") torpedo his faith-deconstructing arguments.

The place for you to 'support' Richard is over in said thread. That's where biblical views on faith are argued. Seeing as Richard never deals with that view, preferring to build his argument on attacking a strawman version of faith, perhaps you'd like to pick up his standard.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

I agree. The "Faith .. the evidence of things not seen" thread outlines the biblical view of faith and we see the kind of trouble atheists get into when they begin to supposing what God can and cannot do.

I didn't see any atheists getting into trouble in that thread tbh but then I suppose we have different views. Any time we supposed what god can and can't do, it was based on the christian view of god.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Dawkins view of faith, in contrast, supposes it blind - when what he really means is that it isn't empirically measurable > therefore it is empirically evidential-less > therefore it is empirically blind.

Richards an empiricist (a philosophical position that cannot be demonstrated to be true - not even in theory) who forgets his own postion is built on less-than-concrete moorings. It's this intellectual blind-spot (papered over at times with a rabbit-out-of-hat "probabilities") torpedo his faith-deconstructing arguments.

The place for you to 'support' Richard is over in said thread. That's where biblical views on faith are argued. Seeing as Richard never deals with that view, preferring to build his argument on attacking a strawman version of faith, perhaps you'd like to pick up his standard.

Ah so the problem is empiricism. We'd had this debate before about what can and can't be considered evidence so really there's no point going into it again. Let's just leave it at I did not accept your position in the slightest so I'm still waiting for a problem with Dawkins' arguments.

prinz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Again, exactly what you'd expect a theist to say. Here's a man who challenges the core of their beliefs - or at least has the cheek to try to - and now lots of people are reading him and questioning their faith, which must be really galling. It's little wonder theists can't stand him..

Like I said regardless of content IMO they are badly written. I love John Grisham books, that doesn't make him a great author.. they are fairly poorly written tbh from a literature point of view.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I have several of his books and I think they are quite entertaining and make some interesting observations which trigger plenty of debate, which, as you say yourself, is good.

Debate is good. Debate founded on the opinion that your opponent is a brainwashed, ignorant fool, is not. Like I said theists could learn a lot from his position, likewise he could learn something from them.. but his mind is closed.

Turtwig

Zulu wrote: »

He makes a concerted point of trying to claim other scientists (like Einstein) as athiests, when they clearly believe in a concept of "god" - WHICH he recognises himself, but chooses to ignore (and freely admits ignoring) so he can continue his assault on more fundamentalist beliefs. Why?

I'd have prefered if he'd accatually address this concept of a 'god' as this is the concept at the hub of the argument. Alas he's more interested in attacking others than addressing salient points.

The concept of God Dawkins was dealing with in his book was the intervention theist type which Dawkins tries to argue can be examined under scientific inquiry. The other God Concepts he acknowledges can't be tested by science so he chose to only give brief mention to them. More importantly though, Dawkins book isn't a philosophical tour-de-force; it was never meant to be. All he wanted to do was what he has dubbed "Conscious Raising" let people know it's ok to criticise religion. Deism, in his view, is far less irrational than theism. There are over 1 billion people who believe in what Dawkins considers the most irrational interventionist type God(s), so clearly that is the God you must first destroy if your interest is in combating irrational belief. Which is Dawkins main goal : raise peoples awareness about how irrational the theistic God is and how dangerous he considers religion to be a society.

Zulu

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think rather than him failing to address certain points, you may have missed the point of the book.

...or you've missed my point.
I was asked for an opinion on any book I may have read by Dawkins - I gave that opinion: it was a let down. It let me down for reasons like I've detailed.

Perhaps the point of the book was something other than I expected, that however doesn't make it any less disappointing. (or arrogant in tone for that matter)

Zulu

Malty_T wrote: »

The concept of God Dawkins was dealing with in his book was the intervention theist type which Dawkins tries to argue can be examined under scientific inquiry. The other God Concepts he acknowledges can't be tested by science so he chose to only give brief mention to them.

Avoid them more to the point. Why doesn't he address the concept of god as opposed to poking fun at a strawman?

Look I was expecting this great read that would answer some questions I may have. It did no such thing. I never believed in a man with a white beard sitting on a cloud smiting people with thunderbolts.

So perhaps it's great - great to people who'd rather point and laugh than educate - great in the way that Mills & Boon is great, but personally I prefer more from a book.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I didn't see any atheists getting into trouble in that thread tbh but then I suppose we have different views. Any time we supposed what god can and can't do, it was based on the christian view of god.

Can God demonstrate his existance to someone? And if he does, would they know he existed? It's a Christian view of God that he can and they do.

I can see no way out of this for atheists.

Ah so the problem is empiricism. We'd had this debate before about what can and can't be considered evidence so really there's no point going into it again. Let's just leave it at I did not accept your position in the slightest so I'm still waiting for a problem with Dawkins' arguments.

Dawkins arguments rest on empiricism being true. That's the problem.

I'll await Wicknights attempt to circumvent the dilemma over in the other thread then..

Ickle Magoo

prinz wrote: »

Like I said regardless of content IMO they are badly written. I love John Grisham books, that doesn't make him a great author.. they are fairly poorly written tbh from a literature point of view.

I appreciate that, I don't think an atheist could write a book which criticises religion and ever be considered a great author by theists was my point. There are plenty of criticisms from theists and atheists alike about his books but the content is what seems to drive the strength of feeling towards the author.

prinz wrote: »

Debate is good. Debate founded on the opinion that your opponent is a brainwashed, ignorant fool, is not. Like I said theists could learn a lot from his position, likewise he could learn something from them.. but his mind is closed.

I think it just comes down to your initial views when you read the book, theists think they are enlightened, non-theists clearly wouldn't agree with that synopsis and how do you put that across concisely without offending anyone? Sometimes the language Dawkins uses is certainly inflammatory but I think it's deliberately so, to give balance to the aeons of unquestioning respect some of the views he is attacking have had.

monosharp

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can God demonstrate his existance to someone? And if he does, would they know he existed? It's a Christian view of God that he can and they do.

Yes it is a Christian view that he does. They might want to figure out why he tells everyone someone different though.

Some christians believe god tells them homosexuality is bad, some believe god tells them its fine. Is someone using gods phone to make prank calls ?

Sam Vimes

Zulu wrote: »

Avoid them more to the point. Why doesn't he address the concept of god as opposed to poking fun at a strawman?

Look I was expecting this great read that would answer some questions I may have. It did no such thing. I never believed in a man with a white beard sitting on a cloud smiting people with thunderbolts.

So perhaps it's great - great to people who'd rather point and laugh than educate - great in the way that Mills & Boon is great, but personally I prefer more from a book.

Look Zulu, you might as well be arguing that you were disappointed in the book because it didn't give a good recipe for soup. That wasn't what the book was about. Dawkins didn't address the concept of god that you're talking about because such a god is irrelevant to our existence. God only matters when people claim that he's intervening in the world and that they know what he wants, so that's the type of god that the book dealt with. The fact that the book wasn't about what you thought it was going to be about isn't a failing of the book

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can God demonstrate his existance to someone? And if he does, would they know he existed? It's a Christian view of God that he can and they do.

I can see no way out of this for atheists.




Dawkins arguments rest on empiricism being true. That's the problem.

I'll await Wicknights attempt to circumvent the dilemma over in the other thread then..

antiskeptic, I had exactly the same discussion with someone over on A&A a few months ago. You were both arguing that empiricism is insufficient/unnecessary and that personal experience alone is enough to determine truth. On that much you agree but only on that much, your views of the truth were totally contradictory. He was arguing for the truth of something a bit like Buddhism.

From that scenario I can determine that the truth claims made by at least one of you are wrong. I cannot determine which of you is wrong but I can determine that one of you definitely is. And the other thing I can determine is that both of you are wrong in your assertions that personal experience alone is enough to determine truth. If it was, you would both have the same view of the truth but you don't, therefore it's not. Empiricism might not be perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than a billion totally contradictory views of the world, each one declaring itself to be the truth

antiskeptic

monosharp wrote: »

Yes it is a Christian view that he does. They might want to figure out why he tells everyone someone different though.

There are lots of reasons for different views. Not that this affects the atheists dilemma: God can and if he does then a person knows. Empiricism must but bow it's head to it's creator.

(you'd be assuming God exists for the sake of discussion, of course)

Some christians believe god tells them homosexuality is bad, some believe god tells them its fine. Is someone using gods phone to make prank calls ?

I wonder. If God wasn't bringing conviction to mind at a certain point in time (God help me if God revealed to me the full extent of my sin in one fell swoop) would I feel fine about my sin? Probably.

Santification is a process. It need not be that God bring all sin to mind in one fell swoop. It might not be that God bring certain sin to mind ever. God only knows, there's too much sin to deal with it all this side of etermity.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

There are lots of reasons for different views. Not that this affects the atheists dilemma: God can and if he does then a person knows. Empiricism must but bow it's head to it's creator.

(you'd be assuming God exists for the sake of discussion, of course)

The very fact you have to assume god exists for the sake of discussion is the atheist dilemma - not any debates that result from that assumption. I'm not sure why a world-wide uniformed system such as empiricism & the scientific method must bow it's head to a creator that billions of the global population don't have any belief in?

Zulu

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Look Zulu, you might as well be arguing that you were disappointed in the book because it didn't give a good recipe for soup....

Look Sam, I have an opinion, I was asked for it, & I gave it.

The book doesn't claim to be a YOU HAVE BEEN CENSORED cook book - stop being facetious.
The book claims: "Dawkins will delight any reader with a modicum of intelligence & intellectual regard who doesn't need to have the human world wrapped up into a convenient & cosy package created by a shadowy super-being".
The book claims: "This is a brave & important book. Is it too much to hope that it will dump religious bigotry in the dustbin of history...".

The paper back I have claims a whole lot, the title sets an expectation (does it not) but it doesn't anywhere briefly highlight that it's only going to attack a very narrow & limited view of "god".

Turtwig

Zulu wrote: »

The paper back I have claims a whole lot, the title sets an expectation (does it not) but it doesn't anywhere briefly highlight that it's only going to attack a very narrow & limited view of "god".

Which the majority of the world happen to hold to...

Zulu

Malty_T wrote: »

Which the majority of the world happen to hold to...

...and?

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

antiskeptic, I had exactly the same discussion with someone over on A&A a few months ago. You were both arguing that empiricism is insufficient/unnecessary and that personal experience alone is enough to determine truth.

My argument is that IF God THEN empiricism is a God-designed way to knowledge. AND IF God designed THEN we're dependent on God, ultimately, for our knowledge. Also THEN, any means God utilises to enable knowledge is as good as any other (since he is the provider of certainty whatever the means by which he provides it).

Conclusion: there is no more certainty to be had by empirical demonstration of his existance than there is to be had via direct, personal demonstration of his existance. In both cases, God would be doing the work of sustaining the state of knowledge.

On that much you agree but only on that much, your views of the truth were totally contradictory. He was arguing for the truth of something a bit like Buddhism.

Stating that empiricism adds nothing of substance and demonstrating (eg: above) that empiricism adds nothing of substance are two different things.

From that scenario I can determine that the truth claims made by at least one of you are wrong. I cannot determine which of you is wrong but I can determine that one of you definitely is.

Hopefully some light has been shed on the subject

And the other thing I can determine is that both of you are wrong in your assertions that personal experience alone is enough to determine truth. If it was, you would both have the same view of the truth but you don't, therefore it's not.

As ever, what I say has a rider. IF God THEN. I can't determine whether it's God actually, or some alien messing with my brain. But then again, neither can you regarding your empirical experiences.

Empiricism might not be perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than a billion totally contradictory views of the world, each one declaring itself to be the truth

Empiricism has a place. And where it has no place it shouldn't attempt to comment.

A billion wrong views don't in any impinge on the rightness of a right view. Don't lose sight of the wood for the trees.

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The very fact you have to assume god exists for the sake of discussion is the atheist dilemma - not any debates that result from that assumption. I'm not sure why a world-wide uniformed system such as empiricism & the scientific method must bow it's head to a creator that billions of the global population don't have any belief in?

You might not have followed the set up of previous discussion.

I'm dealing with what's possible for God (if he exists) so as to dismantle certain atheistic objections - one of which says that non-empirically demonstrable knowledge of God's existance isn't actually knowledge. When in fact it would be - if God exists.

This doesn't prove God or attempt to add to a proof of God. It just deals with this particular atheistic approach. The aim is to stalemate objections - not prove God.

Sam Vimes

Zulu wrote: »

Look Sam, I have an opinion, I was asked for it, & I gave it.

The book doesn't claim to be a fucking cook book - stop being facetious.
The book claims: "Dawkins will delight any reader with a modicum of intelligence & intellectual regard who doesn't need to have the human world wrapped up into a convenient & cosy package created by a shadowy super-being".
The book claims: "This is a brave & important book. Is it too much to hope that it will dump religious bigotry in the dustbin of history...".

The paper back I have claims a whole lot, the title sets an expectation (does it not) but it doesn't anywhere briefly highlight that it's only going to attack a very narrow & limited view of "god".

And the book does not claim to be about the type of god you're talking about any more than it claims to be a cook book, in fact it specifically says it's not about that type of god. The problem here is that the word god is so ill-defined and variable that it can mean anything. There are pretty much 6 billion definitions of it, one for each person on the planet. If Dawkins was to deal with them all he'd still be writing ten years after he was dead so instead he dealt with one type, the theistic interventionist type. If he was to try to argue that he knows something about what happened "before" the universe existed and what does or doesn't exist "outside" it, things he cannot possibly know, then he'd be no better than a theist

Fanny Cradock

This is a bad tempered thread. Group hugs from all (under penalty of torture for disobeying).

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

My argument is that IF God THEN empiricism is a God-designed way to knowledge. AND IF God designed THEN we're dependent on God, ultimately, for our knowledge. Also THEN, any means God utilises to enable knowledge is as good as any other (since he is the provider of certainty whatever the means by which he provides it).

Conclusion: there is no more certainty to be had by empirical demonstration of his existance than there is to be had via direct person demonstration of his existance. In both cases, God would be doing the work of sustaining the knowing mechanism.

And your argument fails because there are a billion different views of god, all claiming to be the one true one. God's existence is actually irrelevant here because it is abundantly clear to that EVEN IF a god exists, personal experience alone is not a reliable indicator of its nature. In fact if I was to accept your argument, that empiricism is no more reliable an indicator, then there is no reliable indicator, none whatsoever so we shouldn't even bother ourselves with the question because the answer is unknowable

antiskeptic wrote: »

A billion wrong views don't in any impinge on the rightness of a right view. Don't lose sight of the wood for the trees.

Oh but it does because there are a billion people who are all just as sure as you that god has been revealed to them but if you are right then they must all be wrong. Without any form of independent verification it simply becomes an arrogant declaration that you know better than the billion other people who are as sure as you are that they know the truth. How can you possibly know that you haven't been fooled in the same way they have?

mardybumbum

He has done so much for the understanding of science, and has done a pretty decent job of introducing the general public to the theory of evolution.
Its great to see somebody so passionate about the truth.

I only realised a few days ago that the man is pushing 70.
He looks a hell of a lot younger, and is full of vitality, probably due to the fact that he loves what he does.

As for the arrogant comments, well I dont understand them myself.
From what I have seen, he comes across as a gentleman.
Insulting maybe, If you believe in fairytales, but I dont think he can be called arrogant.

To date, I've read the Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, most of the Ancestors Tale and The God Delusion. I've bought the Greatest Show on Earth but haven't had the chance to read past the first chapter yet (damn study).

Im not sure what it is that makes a great author, but he explains the subject matter well, and in a manner which keeps me interested.
Thats good enough for me.

antiskeptic

*moved to the "Faith - the evidence of things not seen" thread.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm dealing with what's possible for God (if he exists) so as to dismantle certain atheistic objections - one of which says that non-empirically demonstrable knowledge of God's existance isn't actually knowledge. When in fact it would be - if God exists.

Is anyone suggesting non-empirically demonstrable knowledge is not knowledge? Or are they suggesting it is not evidence? If someone claims to have knowledge of god's existence then of course that is knowledge - to them - the issue is that in order to be considered empirical, there has to be more than just someone's word that X is the case, it has to be testable or viewable to all.

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Is anyone suggesting non-empirically demonstrable knowledge is not knowledge?

Yes. Although..

Or are they suggesting it is not evidence?

...I often have to remind people that I'm not offering evidence for God, I'm dealing with the objection that says I can't say God exists. Or that I can't know God exists.

If someone claims to have knowledge of god's existence then of course that is knowledge - to them - the issue is that in order to be considered empirical, there has to be more than just someone's word that X is the case, it has to be testable or viewable to all.

Of course...

Fanny Cradock

mardybumbum wrote: »

I only realised a few days ago that the man is pushing 70.
He looks a hell of a lot younger, and is full of vitality, probably due to the fact that he loves what he does.

Wow! I would have said late 50's. It's those selfish genes keeping him looking young!

Anyway, considering that he was the Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, I wish that he wouldn't have been quite so divisive on the matter of science and religion. It seemed rather self defeating.

As a science author, he is widely acclaimed in terms of his writing style and his ability to elucidate complex topics that may otherwise not engage the public. As a scientist he enjoys renown amongst his peers. Though I have heard it suggested that in one important measure of any scientists career - citations - he doesn't excel. Whatever about the truth of this or its overall meaning about his "greatness" as a scientist, he has sired up the debate. And while he has been criticised heavily for manner in how he chooses to engage with his opponents and his grasp of topics outside his area of expertise - history, philosophy and theology - I think that he has certainly helped to reignite the debate. This might force people to actually rethink their position on God (I personally think that most once a year church goers are closer to Deists with a hazy idea of a God out there somewhere or "spiritualists" in the loosest sense of the word). People might have to look at the world beyond their work, the inevitable build-up to the weekend, the two holidays a year and whatever other things go into making up an otherwise ordinary life.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

...I often have to remind people that I'm not offering evidence for God, I'm dealing with the objection that says I can't say God exists. Or that I can't know God exists.

Well, I wouldn't say you can't claim god exists or that you can't claim you know god exists - I haven't heard many arguments against free speech at all tbh, people claim all manner of things and are perfectly at liberty to do so.

In my experience, objections are generally related to presenting either claim as fact without also presenting supporting empirical evidence.

PDN

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure what kind of response the OP was expecting...I can't imagine any theist is going to suggest Dawkins is a fine author who makes some excellent points.

I disagree. Anthony Flew, AN Wilson and Bertrand Russell were fine atheist authors who, in their attacks against religion, made some excellent points. That was probably because they understood philosophy.

Dawkins is evidently very good in his field (science). His writing skills are also above average. However he goes downhill when he tries doing philosophy, and commits schoolboy howlers when he gets to the Bible or theology.