Is Richard Dawkins Inerrant ?

[isaone]

Of course he is not and neither I nor anyone else is claiming that to be a fact. Many people here seem to take issue with "Dawkinists" but there is little actual discussion of examples. This was brought up in another thread here and Brisbane Buddy replied with these examples. So here are my responses to his examples .

Before I start let us realize that Dawkins and I are not using a Deist or Pantheist or Einsteinian definition of God but rather are referring to a God that interacts and reacts to the world and has the attributes commonly expected by believers..

• The probability of God is so infinitesimally small as to be insignificant.
  
  • This is completely correct thousands of years of efforts to show that God does exist have produced exactly zero in credible results. Therefore it is logical to state that the probability is insignificant.
• By the time the religious finish this book they will all be atheists.
  
  • I do not recall Mr. Dawkins saying this and it would surprise me if he did so without at least some context. Please provide a reference.
• There’s probably no god now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
  
  • The first half of this is establised above ('insiginificant') the other refers to the fact that a large number of Theists worry about doing the 'right' things so that they will have eternal life. This seems completely accurate to me .
  • Note also that Mr. Dawkins did not originate this wording but merely inherited it in the bus campaign (admittedly he has endorsed it after the fact)
• I would have been happier if the slogan said, there is definitely No God, any more than there is a tooth fairy
  
  • This is completely accurrate. There is exactly as much credable evidence for the existence of God as that of the Tooth Fairy (or Zeus or Xenu) therefore this is an accurrate statement.

[oades11]

Of course he is not and neither I nor anyone else is claiming that to be a fact. Many people here seem to take issue with "Dawkinists" but there is little actual discussion of examples. This was brought up in another thread here and Brisbane Buddy replied with these examples. So here are my responses to his examples .

Before I start let us realize that Dawkins and I are not using a Deist or Pantheist or Einsteinian definition of God but rather are referring to a God that interacts and reacts to the world and has the attributes commonly expected by believers..

• The probability of God is so infinitesimally small as to be insignificant.
  
  • This is completely correct thousands of years of efforts to show that God does exist have produced exactly zero in credible results. Therefore it is logical to state that the probability is insignificant.
• By the time the religious finish this book they will all be atheists.
  
  • I do not recall Mr. Dawkins saying this and it would surprise me if he did so without at least some context. Please provide a reference.
• There’s probably no god now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
  
  • The first half of this is establised above ('insiginificant') the other refers to the fact that a large number of Theists worry about doing the 'right' things so that they will have eternal life. This seems completely accurate to me .
  • Note also that Mr. Dawkins did not originate this wording but merely inherited it in the bus campaign (admittedly he has endorsed it after the fact)
• I would have been happier if the slogan said, there is definitely No God, any more than there is a tooth fairy
  
  • This is completely accurrate. There is exactly as much credable evidence for the existence of God as that of the Tooth Fairy (or Zeus or Xenu) therefore this is an accurrate statement.

I share your opinoin, Isaone. Of course, no human being is infallible, that's just silly. Dawkins' argument in his book The God Delusion seems very well thought out. I think it's a strong, logical argument that would be near impossible to refute, unless the Almighty Himself came down from the heavens and chastized atheists for their lack of belief. If someone had claimed that a person (Dawkin's in this case) were in fact completely inerrant, that would suggest that that particular person is not human- if not human, though, then what? A God perhaps?

[Diogenes]

Many people here seem to take issue with "Dawkinists" but there is little actual discussion of examples.

I was not taking issue...as I said I was playing Devil's Advocate...there is no question that his name gets thrown around very similar to the way theists throw around scripture...some people use Dawkins like theists use god, as if anything he says is unquestionably true...

as I said in the other thread...the implication is:

if he said it...it must be true.

We expect theists to prove their beliefs by offering proof ' outside ' their own scriptures...we do not allow them the luxury of proving what they believe using their own source material...

so why do we allow it with Dawkins?

Which is why I asked about ' collaborating evidence '...both for and against.

Who is it that actually agrees with Dawkins and who does not agree and why...in the science community.

[Nono]

Quite right, Diogenes. I'm an agnostic myself, and I know religiosity when I see it. Dawkins displays it in his over-passionate approach, as pointed out quite nicely here: A Mission to Convert - The New York Review of Books

[oades11]

I was not taking issue...as I said I was playing Devil's Advocate...there is no question that his name gets thrown around very similar to the way theists throw around scripture...some people use Dawkins like theists use god, as if anything he says is unquestionably true...

as I said in the other thread...the implication is:

if he said it...it must be true.

We expect theists to prove their beliefs by offering proof ' outside ' their own scriptures...we do not allow them the luxury of proving what they believe using their own source material...

so why do we allow it with Dawkins?

Which is why I asked about ' collaborating evidence '...both for and against.

Who is it that actually agrees with Dawkins and who does not agree and why...in the science community.

It's obvious that anyone who blindly believes Dawkins without looking at the strength of his arguments is just as silly and "sheep-like" as fervent theists are. However, unlike scripture, which is unsubstantiated, what Dawkins says is almost always backed by evidence and logical argument. Personally, I've never seen or heard about him making assertions that were blatantly false, or even remotely false.

I also would like to know who (currently) in the science community disagrees and agrees with him.

I know the late Stephen J. Gould disagreed with Dawkins about his gene centered approach to evolution along with Dawkin's rejection of NOMA. However, I think Dawkins' arguments, at least with respect to NOMA, are stronger. (Claims about existence, which religious dogma obviously makes, are necessarily scientific claims.) I don't have enough of a background in biology to assert one way or the other about the gene-centered view as opposed to the multi-level competitive view of evolution that Gould had, which would include selection amongst not only genes, but "cell lineages, organisms, demes, species, and clades." Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Diogenes]

However, unlike scripture, which is unsubstantiated, what Dawkins says is almost always backed by evidence and logical argument. Personally, I've never seen or heard about him making assertions that were blatantly false, or even remotely false.

By asserting that "I've never seen or heard about him making assertions that were blatantly false, or even remotely false."...that he has never said anything " even remotely false"..is the same as you saying everything he has said is true...true based upon what?
If everything he says is indisputable then there shouldn't even be one scientist disputing anything he says.

Isn't this the same philosophy as theists use...that scriptures are indisputable?

On one hand you assert that "what Dawkins says is almost always backed by evidence and logical argument"

almost always...leaving credible reason for doubt

then you say "I've never seen or heard about him making assertions that were blatantly false, or even remotely false."

leaving no credible reason for doubt...

which is it? almost always true...or...not even remotely false?

[oades11]

Quite right, Diogenes. I'm an agnostic myself, and I know religiosity when I see it. Dawkins displays it in his over-passionate approach, as pointed out quite nicely here: A Mission to Convert - The New York Review of Books

While that article is right on point about the majority of what Dawkins talked about in his book, some of the points the author of that article makes about The God Delusion are simply false.

Case in point:

"But the problem reflects Dawkins's cavalier attitude about the quality of religious thinking. Dawkins tends to dismiss simple expressions of belief as base superstition. Having no patience with the faith of fundamentalists, he also tends to dismiss more sophisticated expressions of belief as sophistry (he cannot, for instance, tolerate the meticulous reasoning of theologians). But if simple religion is barbaric (and thus unworthy of serious thought) and sophisticated religion is logic-chopping (and thus equally unworthy of serious thought), the ineluctable conclusion is that all religion is unworthy of serious thought."

The "ineluctable conclusion" is that serious thought of religion should not lead to a high level of certainty in the supernatural. That was Dawkins' point. He never contended that religion wasn't worth of serious thought at all. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being the most certain God exists and 7 being the most certain that God does not exist, Dawkins listed himself as a 6.9 He still reserves the possibility that he may be wrong, regardless of how small that possibility may be.

or here:

"Gone, it seems, is the Dawkins of The Selfish Gene, a writer who could lead readers through dauntingly difficult arguments and who used anecdotes to illustrate those arguments, not to substitute for them."

Dawkins used a lot of anecdotes in his book, The God Delusion, but they didn't substitute for his actual arguments. That just seems deliberately biased to me.

[Nono]

Well anyone who quotes Douglas Adams in a work of serious scholarship is skating on thin ice.

[oades11]

By asserting that "I've never seen or heard about him making assertions that were blatantly false, or even remotely false."...that he has never said anything " even remotely false"..is the same as you saying everything he has said is true...true based upon what?
If everything he says is indisputable then there shouldn't even be one scientist disputing anything he says.

Isn't this the same philosophy as theists use...that scriptures are indisputable?

No, of course not. My experience is obviously limited, being that it's time-restrictive. Obviously I cannot be around every time Dawkins messes up. I am certain, though, that Dawkins has erred before in his life, as have we all; one can't learn much without making at least some mistakes. However, with regard to evolution (of which I have limited knowledge of) and religion, I have not heard anything from Dawkins that seemed to me to be illogical or false. That doesn't mean that he's absolutely right no matter what, but merely that no one has been able to refute him, at least from my understanding. Others' arguments against him are much weaker than his own arguments about why there "almost certainly is no God". And personally, I can't think of how any argument that someone could come up with could be stronger than his.

On one hand you assert that "what Dawkins says is almost always backed by evidence and logical argument"

almost always...leaving credible reason for doubt

then you say "I've never seen or heard about him making assertions that were blatantly false, or even remotely false."

leaving no credible reason for doubt...

which is it? almost always true...or...not even remotely false?

You're mixing up what I said. I haven't perceived anything "even remotely false" with regard to anything I've read, heard, or seen that Dawkins has contended. This is about my perception, and obviously I leave room for the possibility that I'm wrong (just like Dawkins does), even if I feel that that possibility is slim.

[oades11]

Well anyone who quotes Douglas Adams in a work of serious scholarship is skating on thin ice.

Well, perhaps Dawkins thought at least some of it was a bit of comic relief. Regardless, it doesn't mean that what Dawkin's quoted Adams as saying is any less true simply because Adams' background was what it was.

[Diogenes]

However, with regard to evolution (of which I have limited knowledge of) and religion, I have not heard anything from Dawkins that seemed to me to be illogical or false. That doesn't mean that he's absolutely right no matter what, but merely that no one has been able to refute him, at least from my understanding. Others' arguments against him are much weaker than his own arguments about why there "almost certainly is no God".

And this is the rub....it seems to me that Dawkins is more interested in gaining notoriety by disproving and/or attacking religious concepts than by proving his own theories regarding evolution...
the old bait n' switch...make myself look more important by making other people look like idiots...
he obviously has a very good publicist...as his intention, as I perceive it, is not science but notoriety...

as it stands...I personally do not know if what he says is true or isn't...but ...I highly question his motives and the way in which he expounds his ' science '.

So we go back to my question:

Who is it that actually agrees with Dawkins and who does not agree and why...in the science community.

[isaone]

so why do we allow it with Dawkins?

Please explicate. Who has allowed that kind of activity ? Where have they done it ? What did they say ? This is my point . Brisbane attempted some items which I listed and I believe I showed his opinions to be false on those items. Please give actual examples so we can discuss .

Well anyone who quotes Douglas Adams in a work of serious scholarship is skating on thin ice.

Please refrain from the Ad Hominems . Just because it was said by a {shriek of horror and disdain} a writer of fiction does not make it wrong or invalid. Adams was an extremely brilliant individual who said some very enlightened (IMO) things. Feel free to bring up examples as you wish and we shall discuss but refrain from slander by association.

PS
I did read the review referenced below when the God Delusion first came out. I found it to be logically inadequate , inaccurate in what it says Dawkins to have said, and way too long. I would prefer to not read it again so if someone wants to take any specific criticisms of The God Delusion from it I will be happy to discuss.