StarGateWars Forums

I am.
Just curious if there are any other 'like-minded' individuals playing.
I won't use the 'A' word just yet (just-in-case there aren't).
Please don't use the 'A' word in this topic, it's best others don't know what we're talking about! lol

Me me. (pardon the pun)
I enjoyed the selfish gene very much!

I am of two minds about Dawkins having studied Philosophy, Psychology, Biology, Chemistry and even History for many years.

I find his almost militant atheism to be as dogmatic as the religion he tries so hard to conquer. I am a very strong agnostic (mild atheist/major fence sitter depending on your perspective) myself with an open mind for a Deistic God (like Dawkins himself) and having my perspective I find hard atheism like Dawkins or even strong theism as equally ridiculous as the other in an educated society. To say or even believe God does or does not exist as a scientist is preposterous as both points of view have to ignore fundamental tenants of scientific thinking to be maintained. There is no concrete proof for Gods existence, yet to assume the prominent weakness' of these arguments as reasonable knowledge to argue away the possibility of a God considering the massive holes in mankinds understanding of just about everything takes an arrogance that removes credibility in my opinion. I also find his attacks on organised religion somewhat tasteless even if I do disagree with indoctrination and fanatical worship.

Dawkins is a great biologist but many of my good friends (and myself) who move in philosophy, medicine, physics both professionally and as an education all unanimously agree he is a poor philosopher and scientist in the respect of his work on religion and God.

I once read a philosopher saying that Dawkins should stick to Biology and I thoroughly agree as he's excellent there. I would applaud anyone who would argue with me to read a broader spectrum of philosophy over a few years to see the strength of Dawkins in the field, rather than jumping on the bandwagon of his fame over the last decade which surfed the wave of the 9/11 attacks (your stance on the existence of God is non of my concern).

Dawkins

Semper wrote:I am of two minds about Dawkins having studied Philosophy, Psychology, Biology, Chemistry and even History for many years.

I find his almost militant atheism to be as dogmatic as the religion he tries so hard to conquer. I am a very strong agnostic (mild atheist/major fence sitter depending on your perspective) myself with an open mind for a Deistic God (like Dawkins himself) and having my perspective I find hard atheism like Dawkins or even strong theism as equally ridiculous as the other in an educated society. To say or even believe God does or does not exist as a scientist is preposterous as both points of view have to ignore fundamental tenants of scientific thinking to be maintained. There is no concrete proof for Gods existence, yet to assume the prominent weakness' of these arguments as reasonable knowledge to argue away the possibility of a God considering the massive holes in mankinds understanding of just about everything takes an arrogance that removes credibility in my opinion. I also find his attacks on organised religion somewhat tasteless even if I do disagree with indoctrination and fanatical worship.

Dawkins is a great biologist but many of my good friends (and myself) who move in philosophy, medicine, physics both professionally and as an education all unanimously agree he is a poor philosopher and scientist in the respect of his work on religion and God.

I once read a philosopher saying that Dawkins should stick to Biology and I thoroughly agree as he's excellent there. I would applaud anyone who would argue with me to read a broader spectrum of philosophy over a few years to see the strength of Dawkins in the field, rather than jumping on the bandwagon of his fame over the last decade which surfed the wave of the 9/11 attacks (your stance on the existence of God is non of my concern).

+1, as usual

Semper wrote:I find his almost militant atheism to be as dogmatic as the religion he tries so hard to conquer.

I totally agree with you there; it is the only thing that gives me cause for concern. I do think he is right about the selfish gene though and i also think it gives a firm basis for a paradigmatic shift in the understandings of genetics. We won't get anywhere much with the current top-down type empiricism; Richard Dawkins, however perhaps accidental, gives rise to middle-out type thought.

Shame about his fanatical anti-fanaticism.