Oolon Colluphid

Ah, but the point is, with something like god, who can be called an ‘expert’? Do only self-appointed ones count? How does one become an expert in the unverifiable, the intangible, the hidden?

I’m not sure if Dawkins would say he’s talking as a scientist when commenting on god’s existence. He can however use the findings and principles of science; he can, for instance, quite rightly point out that the claim of a god’s existence (as formulated by, eg, Christianity) makes certain empirically investigable predictions about how the world should be ‘if so-and-so is the case...’. These claims are, in his (and my) opinion, clearly refuted by the evidence. For example, if the world were genuinely a random (chaotic) place, there would be no rhyme or reason for the distribution of ‘luck’; if however there were a Christian-style god, there would be a reason, and this should be discernable in pattern if not understandable. ‘Good’ people should be ‘luckier’ than sinners. But they are not.

Oolon

Starboy

Thank you for pointing that out to me. I am still trying to come to grips with if I like the idea of describing science in philosophical terms at all. I only use the term because the new front page of this website claims that is what this site is all about. It is not an important part of my argument, since if you strike it from the sentence the argument remains the same.

Starboy

[ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

scigirl

Have to disagree with you there. I can see many logical reasons for being religious:
1) My parents are religious (and so are my neighbors)
2) It makes me feel good to believe I was created for a purpose
3) Church social events are fun, and a way to fit in with a community

I'm sure there are others. . .

scigirl

Albion

He is a strident and devoted atheist. There is nothing but the material world, the "why are we here" questions shouldn't even be asked, science makes religion and deities totally unnecessary, you know the sort of thing. Probably "strong atheist" would be an understatement.

[ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: Albion ]</p>

Albion

Is this the sort of thing you're looking for, or do you want something more specific?

<a href="http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm" target="_blank">http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm</a>

missus_gumby

Albion, I can't find the one where Dawkins equates science with atheism.

beausoleil

I may be wrong, but as far as I can tell Richard Dawkins knows next to nothing about any area of science outside a branch of biology. Yet in his comments on religion he makes claims about science in its entirety. This doesn't make me think he knows much about the spectrum of religious opinion that he castigates either. His posture mirrors the antagonism of the fundamentalist biblical literalists - hearing him speak on the radio one would think science had proved God does not exist. This strikes a particularly discordant note in the UK where fundamentalism has made few inroads into politics and looks unlikely ever to.

None of this would matter too much if he was seen to be putting forward Richard Dawkins' view only. I don't think his pronouncements outside his areas of expertise reflect anything but his view, and am disturbed to read as above that he is seen as some sort of spokesman for the scientific community. He isn't.

Doubting Didymus

He is professor of the public understanding of science. If that is not a 'spokesman for the scientific community', what is?

Science has 'proved' just about as far as possible, that there is nothing in the universe that can not be explained without god. This is not 100% 'disproof' of course, simply because it is not possible to disprove an unrestricted negative. What Dawkins is saying is that if nothing in the universe suggests the existence of god, we should not accept the proposition that god exists. Dawkins is not spouting his own 'personal opinion', he is demonstrating that the findings of science, when run through neccesary logical processes, produce the conclusion that the proposition of god should be regected.

If someone accepts the naturalistic findings of science but still believes in god, they are being scientific but not rational. If someone accepts the logical structure but refuses to accept the scientific premises, they are being rational but not scientific.

I think Richard is completely justified in saying that the findings of science show that there is no god. He is often accused of not knowing everything about science, and still more often accused of not knowing anything about religion. However, one does not have to be an expert in all fields of both disciplines to reach the conclusion that he has. All religions say that there is some kind of god, all science shows that there is no evidence for this. No-one needs to be an expert to see that accepting science and accepting logic requires that religion is regected.

[/rant]

pz

Who is?

There is no "spokesman for the scientific community". Never has been, never will be. Nor have I seen Dawkins or anyone else in the scientific community claim that Dawkins gets the title. So what are you trying to suggest? That Dawkins ought to stifle his opinions a little bit so that he won't offend some people, because he is well-known and might be mistaken by the clueless as speaking for you?

For my part, I think Dawkins' opinions on religion are eminently sensible. It's too bad more people don't share them.

pz

I agree in general with what you wrote, but I disagree with this one point: science has not shown that there is no god, and Dawkins (as far as I know) has not claimed that it has.

Science has so far only shown that god is an unnecessary hypothesis. Given science's record of successful, powerful explanations so far, it is a reasonable extrapolation to assume that god will continue to be an empty concept.