Richard Dawkins - Anti -Christ or Great Thinker?

what's so insulting about heaven = fairy tale? thinly disguised morality tales told with vivid imagery = great. if you don't believe in the literal reality of a story and wanted to insult it, I'd go for "god's fan fiction"

bit of a stretch calling Hawking closed minded on such small evidence (that article). consider his career of imagining the previously unimaginable and try it again. greatest physicist -- i don't know he's probably slipped down the top 50 these days - not like his record breaking sting at #1 in the 80s any more is it.

the problem with that statement is the "Science predicts" part...the idea of a depersonalized voice from nowhere that can make authoritative statements about the nature of capital R Reality. Science may very well "predict" something else in the future, all the evidence isnt in yet.

i will grant that hawking is a bad writer, but "not the greatest physicist"? well, maybe compared to newton, but hawking is one of the greatest living, which seems like it should count for something. also he's worked in an unusually technical and difficult theoretical period, which is not necessarily his fault. most theorists working in the 19th century left very little legacy for similar reasons, but we don't say faraday or kelvin or whoever were "not the greatest".

there, i said it.

his non-science pronouncements have always been horseshit, of course.

hawking is a thief!!

how many kids does the guy have? surely this must count in our final analysis

he stole or plagiarized some kind of theories from the dad of a high school friend of mine, i think? anyway, hes a thief, burn him

i will grant that hawking is a bad writer, but "not the greatest physicist"? well, maybe compared to newton, but hawking is one of the greatest living, which seems like it should count for something. also he's worked in an unusually technical and difficult theoretical period, which is not necessarily his fault. most theorists working in the 19th century left very little legacy for similar reasons, but we don't say faraday or kelvin or whoever were "not the greatest".

yeah I can get with all that, particularly the "unusually technical and difficult theoretical period" caveat.

I do think he tends to get overestimated in the public eye because of his backstory, which doesn't really have much bearing on his work (most of which is totally beyond the comprehension of the general public anyway). Brief History of Time is a terrible book tho fyi.

yi is correct.

the problem with that statement is the "Science predicts" part

First let me know when Science can predict if it's going to rain this afternoon.

ya i for one only ever check the weather with my priest he's 100% so far

gonna rain frogs tomorrow iirc

forté touché

haven't read this yet

http://www.thenation.com/article/160236/same-old-new-atheism-sam-harris

Dawkins has a new book for kids:

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/05/18/richard-dawkinss-sci.html?dlvrit=36761

http://craphound.com/images/TheMagicofReality.jpg

Man we could have a field day with "How 'We' 'Know' What's 'Really' 'True'"

what a great illustration, dave mckean

i thought they were Skittles on a first glance

hahaha the title of that book is like a dare

much rather have the book on the cover than the book he wrote cos that book looks awes

a book that dispenses Skittles at random would be awes yes

I know for a fact that skittles are made of rainbows

Fuckin Reality, How Does It Work?

think this is the US cover

http://c3012132.r32.cf0.rackcdn.com/110617TMOR-Dawkins%20Final.jpg

if it's real, is it really magic?

makesyathink

a book that dispenses Skittles at random would be awes yes

new skittles ad to thread tbh

I totally want a Middle Ages version of this book.

taste the unwoven rainbow

i thought 'brief history of time' was great, didn't realize ppl hated on it so much.

Me too, I quite liked it and I like the humor he sometimes puts in there. Maybe it's a bit like the reactions to most attempts at popular science: scientists or advanced geeks think it's way too simplified and not technical enough, regular folk think it's way too complicated and technical.

Anon
What a fantastically epistemically modest tagline. Maybe we should also teach philosophy of science in schools.

Anon
yeah, but does it explain how those fucking magnets work?

Ok you lot, own up.

Maybe it's a bit like the reactions to most attempts at popular science: scientists or advanced geeks think it's way too simplified and not technical enough, regular folk think it's way too complicated and technical.

no, for most scientists the problem with that particular book is the opposite: it's almost willfully obscure.

One of those fabled philosophers who thinks Dawkins' arguments are (worse than) 'sophomoric' fails to understand the difference between science and philosophy:

http://choiceindying.com/2011/05/18/duking-it-out-over-the-god-delusion/

To be fair it is Alvin Plantinga, possibly the worst philosopher on the planet.

http://www.thenation.com/article/160236/same-old-new-atheism-sam-harris

― goole, Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:45 PM (3 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this is a good piece!! highly recommended

i dunno, i didn't like it tbh

though i shd give it another shot, i think i petered out about halfway thru

i would be interested to hear why you didnt like it

theology is not a serious academic subject, for there is no way for adherents to test or falsify their assertions about god. I’ve read my share of “sophisticated theology” (granted, not, as Terry Eagleton requires, “Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope”), and there’s nothing there that would lessen the force of Dawkins’s arguments. When I read this stuff, I’m always asking myself three questions:

Do they adduce any new evidence for the existence of god?
Do they adduce any evidence for how they’re able to discern the characteristics of god?
Do they suggest a way to test the two claims above?

And the answer to all three questions is always “no.”

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/macdonald-continues-his-defense-of-the-god-delusion/

haaaaaa

blowhards love the word "serious"

for someone who likes the word "serious" he sure does have some silly opinions!!

do most science programs require students to take philosophy of science classes?

not in the uk

falsifiability is a pretty major concept in philosophy of science iirc

history is not a serious academic subject, for there is no way for adherents to test or falsify their assertions about history

english literature is not a serious academic subject, for there is no way for adherents to test or falsify their assertions about macbeth

lol xp

such a trivially stupid sentence

i've been saying for a v. long time that we shd fit some rudimentary philosophy of science into the national curriculum somewhere

i think it would be difficult to justify that in the NC, i.e. for kids under 14, given it is (pretty much the definition of) a pure academic subject, but something like that + http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/frontiers/ definitely has a place somewhere for older kids.