Richard Dawkins: what's so great about him?

[catholic1seeks]

Well I guess nothing from our perspective, but why is he so known the way he is? Does he have powerful and convincing arguments against God? Or is he just known as tasteless and vulgar? I don't know much about him.

It's just I read an article where he calls the Catholic Church the greatest evil...

Well, if he really did say that, then I don't see how his arguments against God could have any weight...

[Nine_Two]

Originally Posted by catholic1seeks

Well I guess nothing from our perspective, but why is he so known the way he is? Does he have powerful and convincing arguments against God? Or is he just known as tasteless and vulgar? I don't know much about him.

It's just I read an article where he calls the Catholic Church the greatest evil...

Well, if he really did say that, then I don't see how his arguments against God could have any weight...

He's basically well known for being an outspoken Atheist Apologist. Of course for Atheists apologetics means misquoting beliefs into something that sounds stupid, little realizing that anything can be described so it sounds stupid.

[garysibio]

Originally Posted by catholic1seeks

Well I guess nothing from our perspective, but why is he so known the way he is? Does he have powerful and convincing arguments against God? Or is he just known as tasteless and vulgar? I don't know much about him.

It's just I read an article where he calls the Catholic Church the greatest evil...

Well, if he really did say that, then I don't see how his arguments against God could have any weight...

He's a legend in his own mind.

[Bluegoat]

Well, apparently he's a decent scientist in his own field.

I am not sure why he has caught on in the religion atheism debate. He isn't really very good at it. I guess his prose is reasonably clear.

[garysibio]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

Well, apparently he's a decent scientist in his own field.

I am not sure why he has caught on in the religion atheism debate. He isn't really very good at it. I guess his prose is reasonably clear.

If, by his field, you mean writing lame books, then I would agree. If he was such a great biologist, why isn't he writing about biology anymore?

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by garysibio

If, by his field, you mean writing lame books, then I would agree. If he was such a great biologist, why isn't he writing about biology anymore?

I believe he has just published a book in his field, that is, evolutionary biology. As I said, I have no idea why his books on religion are popular, but I don't think impinging upon his ability as a biologist is appropriate without some kind of evidence.

[JimG]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

Well, apparently he's a decent scientist in his own field.

I am not sure why he has caught on in the religion atheism debate. He isn't really very good at it. I guess his prose is reasonably clear.

I once watched him speak at an event televised by C-Span, and was remarkably unimpressed. He may be a fine scientist, but his grasp of the theological issues he was trying to discuss was obviously shallower than creekwater in dry season.

[ricmat]

I'm currently reading "Signature in the Cell". This book quotes Dawkins a lot (in a negative sense), and it seems that in addition to his theology being flawed, his criticisms of ID are seriously flawed as well.

[garysibio]

Originally Posted by ricmat

I'm currently reading "Signature in the Cell". This book quotes Dawkins a lot (in a negative sense), and it seems that in addition to his theology being flawed, his criticisms of ID are seriously flawed as well.

He was also featured on Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."

[Magnus1981]

Originally Posted by garysibio

He was also featured on Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."

This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

Stein makes Dawkins looks like a bit of a dufus in this clip (interview). Dawkins seems to fumble his way through his explanation of the origins of life, even after a very, very basic questions was asked!

[cerad]

Richard Dawkin's books on religion are popular because he always points out the flaws in other people's religion. The typical reader will think that of course it's silly to believe in invisible sky people and talking snakes. But my religion is all sane and rational. Oh sure we might have angels and they might be invisible and they might live in the sky and they might talk through animals but those are different than the invisible sky people that Dawkin's talks about.

[mlchance]

Originally Posted by cerad

Richard Dawkin's books on religion are popular because he always points out the flaws in other people's religion.

That would require Mr. Dawkins to have an understanding of metaphysics, theology, and philosophy greater than can be gleaned from a Religion for Dummies sort of book. On this front, Mr. Dawkins fails. His "arguments" against religion are fallacious, largely due to the fact that he really doesn't understand what he's talking about.

Of course, Mr. Dawkins isn't the first brilliant man who assumed his brilliance translates to fields of study outside his specialty, but that doesn't make his clumsy attempts to discredit religious belief any less silly.

-- Mark L. Chance.

[Faramir]

I think the greatest thing about him is his agent. As the previous posts have mentioned he is a competent, but by no means brilliant, scientist. He often attacks a straw man - a caricature of his opponents view - which may have popular appeal but lacks credibility in the philosophical debate. Further there are plenty of people better qualified to comment who don't get nearly the publicity that he does. Frances Collins for example is a Christian who co-led the team that discovered the genetic code of DNA. This is a much greater scientific acheivement than anything Dawkins has done yet he doesn't get the same publicity.

[survive]

Dawkins commits lots of fallacies. His most hilarious one is his appeal to irrelevant authority -- himself.
He shares that tendency with the late Carl Sagan, a fair-to-middling astronomer and middling zoologist who dabbled a bit in neurology and general biology, devoted himself to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, and made a TV show for the purpose of depicting himself as the last authority in all things scientific and thus all that exists. Maybe that wasn't his original idea; maybe the TV people decided to spin Sagan that way. But Dawkins appears to welcome all opportunities to depict himself as the world's ultimate determiner of reality. It is interesting to observe the umbrage and outrage in his tone when he mentions all people who dare to hear what he has to say and do not immediately declare it true. I know some folks who seem to take the same approach to debate: asking a question loaded with false premises, and then bulging in the eye sockets when the opponent starts to answer, and screaming "Listen to me! Just listen to me!" as if to listen to their opinion and to accept it as one's own were the same thing.
To me, this isn't even argument.
I usually walk away in search of someone to argue with whom I can take more seriously. I'm curious about Dawkins and Hitchens merely as interesting psychological case studies.

[cerad]

Originally Posted by mlchance

That would require Mr. Dawkins to have an understanding of metaphysics, theology, and philosophy greater than can be gleaned from a Religion for Dummies sort of book. On this front, Mr. Dawkins fails. His "arguments" against religion are fallacious, largely due to the fact that he really doesn't understand what he's talking about.

Of course, Mr. Dawkins isn't the first brilliant man who assumed his brilliance translates to fields of study outside his specialty, but that doesn't make his clumsy attempts to discredit religious belief any less silly.

-- Mark L. Chance.

Professor Dawkins freely admits to not having degrees in either theology or fairyology. But his critics often do. And when you read their rebuttals they inevitably state that yes Dawkins is correct about the gods he talks about but the critic's god is always different. Their god is always intellectual, abstract, and impossible to define. Not at all like the gods of the masses.