DiscussMormonism.com

Here is the first in a series explaining why I don't recommend ‘The God Delusion’ to atheists:

Dawkins is a total let down:

SAUCE

Stak,

THANK YOU!!! I am a theist but I completely agree with your assessment of Dawkins.

Great essay.

Seth

ETA: I too have respect for Dawkin's scientific background and work. However, Biologists are not Ethicists nor Philosophers. in my opinion, Dawkins plays in areas in which he is not adequately prepared to participate.

As a scientist who did his Ph.D. work in the UK, and interacted a great deal with folks with scientific and philosophical backgrounds similar to those of Richard Dawkins, I think that he is a legitimate voice of reason and reflects the scientific worldview very well.

Facts matter. And Dawkins has more relevant facts at his command than most. He is also articulate, and writes very well.

Atheists, agnostics, scientists, non-believers and yes, even the faithful, can benefit from what RIchard Dawkins has to say.

sethpayne wrote:

ETA: I too have respect for Dawkin's scientific background and work. However, Biologists are not Ethicists nor Philosophers. in my opinion, Dawkins plays in areas in which he is not adequately prepared to participate.

Would considering Polanyi's career make you want to reconsider your position? In other words, would your position include chemists who made the switch to philosophy, as well?

I like Dawkins and have read many of his works and scanned others.

I think biologists are eminently qualified to speak on matters of faith and science. Dawkins is one of the better writers; better than Hitchins or Sam Harris.

Yahoo Bot wrote:I like Dawkins and have read many of his works and scanned others.

I think biologists are eminently qualified to speak on matters of faith and science. Dawkins is one of the better writers; better than Hitchins or Sam Harris.

Oh oh, it would appear that Yahoo Bot and DrW are in total agreement on something.

Wonder what will happen next. This could be interesting.

I've steadfastly resisted this, but I give up. I just kindled the book, so I can evaluate it for myself. Damn.

DrW wrote:

Yahoo Bot wrote:I like Dawkins and have read many of his works and scanned others.

I think biologists are eminently qualified to speak on matters of faith and science. Dawkins is one of the better writers; better than Hitchins or Sam Harris.

Oh oh, it would appear that Yahoo Bot and DrW are in total agreement on something.

Wonder what will happen next. This could be interesting.

DrW, you think Dawkins is better than Sam Harris?

But I don't think either Hawkins or Harris know much about religion. Harris' treatment of Islam is just embarrassing.

gramps wrote:sethpayne wrote:

ETA: I too have respect for Dawkin's scientific background and work. However, Biologists are not Ethicists nor Philosophers. in my opinion, Dawkins plays in areas in which he is not adequately prepared to participate.

Would considering Polanyi's career make you want to reconsider your position? In other words, would your position include chemists who made the switch to philosophy, as well?

Fair point. I think the difference here is that Polanyi invested the time necessary to become a philosopher of science. From what I've seen of Dawkins, I'm not convinced he has done the same.

But certainly, if Dawkins can demonstrate a strong command of both ancient and modern philosophy as it relates to science and theism -- and produce original work in the area -- I would absolutely reconsider my position.

Seth