Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking

[G L Wilson]

Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking. Are they creations of the Universities or truly enlightened?

[zhannochka]

Is this a "nature vs nurture" debate you are trying to start?

[G L Wilson]

Is this a "nature vs nurture" debate you are trying to start?

No, I hadn't seen the possibility.

[Calidore]

Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking. Are they creations of the Universities or truly enlightened?

How are the two separate?

[G L Wilson]

How are the two separate?

The Universities incorporate dead souls, true enlightenment comes like a lightning bolt from the outside.

[Junglord]

If you are comparing these as if they are on the same level then that truely disturbs me. Stephen Hawking is a scientific genious which has helped society by developing our knowledge and understanding of the universe.

Whereas Richard Dawkins has wrote terrible books with huge assumptions and many philisophical arguments based on his own prejudices. He is one of the most illogical and irrational "science celebrities" of our time. Yes this may just sounds like I hate him but I've read his books and they've made me shout at the book for his assumption of self infallibility!

[G L Wilson]

If you are comparing these as if they are on the same level then that truely disturbs me. Stephen Hawking is a scientific genious which has helped society by developing our knowledge and understanding of the universe.

Whereas Richard Dawkins has wrote terrible books with huge assumptions and many philisophical arguments based on his own prejudices. He is one of the most illogical and irrational "science celebrities" of our time. Yes this may just sounds like I hate him but I've read his books and they've made me shout at the book for his assumption of self infallibility!

Both Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins are gloryhounds as far as I am concerned.

[JBI]

Both Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins are gloryhounds as far as I am concerned.

Well，to be honest, as far as I am concerned, your posts seem not like cries of attention... One would think you have nothing in common with their gloryhounding...

[G L Wilson]

Well，to be honest, as far as I am concerned, your posts seem not like cries of attention... One would think you have nothing in common with their gloryhounding...

I seek the truth, whatever they seek has nothing to do with the truth.

[OrphanPip]

If you are comparing these as if they are on the same level then that truely disturbs me. Stephen Hawking is a scientific genious which has helped society by developing our knowledge and understanding of the universe.

Well I agree, Stephen Hawking is a good physicist.



Whereas Richard Dawkins has wrote terrible books with huge assumptions and many philisophical arguments based on his own prejudices. He is one of the most illogical and irrational "science celebrities" of our time. Yes this may just sounds like I hate him but I've read his books and they've made me shout at the book for his assumption of self infallibility!

Dawkins' activism in promoting secularism aside. He is a very qualified zoologist and geneticist. As a prominent and early advocate of the gene-centric view of selection, which is now dominant in evolutionary theory, there is little one can say to criticize his credentials as a scientist. Even as a philosopher, his extension of evolutionary theory into cultural studies with the notion of the meme has been highly influential.

Also, his popular science books that are actually about science, like The Ancestor's Tale, are some of the best out there. He is clear in his explanations and doesn't dumb things down, which is a difficult task.

Both Dawkins and Hawking are sure to say things which are subjective in their political writings, which the God Delusion is more than it is a philosophical work.

I also respect Dawkins efforts to improve public understanding of evolution and address the kind of misinformation put out there by quack popular science published by the Discovery Institute.

[G L Wilson]

Well I agree, Stepeh Hawking is a good physicist.



Dawkins' activism in promoting secularism aside. He is a very qualified zoologist and geneticist. As a prominent and early advocate of the gene-centric view of selection, which is now dominant in evolutionary theory, there is little one can say to criticize his credentials as a scientist. Even as a philosopher, his extension of evolutionary theory into cultural studies with the notion of the meme has been highly influential.

Also, his popular science books that are actually about science, like The Ancestor's Tale, are some of the best out there. He is clear in his explanations and doesn't dumb things down, which is a difficult task.

Both Dawkins and Hawking are sure to say things which are subjective in their political writings, which the God Delusion is more than it is a philosophical work.

I also respect Dawkins efforts to improve public understanding of evolution and address the kind of misinformation put out there by quack popular science published by the Discovery Institute.

Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins are the gods of false science.

[OrphanPip]

Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins are the gods of false science.

In what way?

There is an entire industry built around publishing bunk science outside the realm of peer review, people like Michael Behe have made a career out of it. However, there is nothing scientifically unsound about any of Dawkins' published works for lay audiences.

[Varenne Rodin]

I find myself agreeing with Pip again. Well said.

[G L Wilson]

In what way?

There is an entire industry built around publishing bunk science outside the realm of peer review, people like Michael Behe have made a career out of it. However, there is nothing scientifically unsound about any of Dawkins' published works for lay audiences.

"Nothing scientifically unsound"?! What baloney!

Please note that Hawking has had to come out lately to debunk the theory that God created the Universe, such is the confusion that he caused.

Please note that Dawkins has had to come out lately to debunk Lamarckism, such is the confusion that he caused.

Both men are media celebrities only because both men are twits that the public can identify with.

[OrphanPip]

I don't know what Hawking's personal views about the existence of God have to do with his scientific ideas. I also have no idea why anyone would think Dawkins has created any confusion about Lamarckism, because he hasn't.

[blazeofglory]

Both of they have put forth their opinions, and skepticisms since all of us are in some measures skeptical. We all are not sure about God' s existence. Our sources of knowledge come from scriptures and word of mouth and we have nothing to experiment with this God's existence. They are thinkers, philosophers, scientists and the like and to have furors about what they wrote is sheer stupidity the way Galileo and other scientists were derided when they revealed some scientific theories, something heretical.

Why should you be angry at what they said. Religions, faiths are totally individual domains and this should not be something to debate publicly seeking public opinion and consensus. Why should you bother if somebody write about something you cannot agree to and you too reserve the right to retort rather than getting infuriated. This is sheer stupidity since you are in a country that cherishes the freedom of speech and expression and you must value it.

Let us not be judgmental

[Junglord]

I'm not sure if some of that was targeted at me or not but I assure you my dislike for Dawkin is nothing to do with my religious beliefs. I'm talking from a philisophical and rational standpoint. I'm talking about Dawkin's "God Delusion" book. I've read it and found it absolutely full of bull****, like huge assumptions and incredible leaps from premise to conclusion. I think Dawkin is deluded of his own infallibility.

I know his actual scientific works are credible and useful. I am arguing that he is portraying his "God Delusion" as science. Though there's not a lot of it in there. Just his personal opinion presented in a 'rational' form. It just makes me sick that he's philisophically erroneous and that people read it as if it's fact.

:banghead:

[G L Wilson]

I agree with you, Junglord, The God Delusion is complete bull. Dawkins is such a twit, he feels proud of himself for not knowing what theologically substance is. As for the other theories in his book, he sprouts nonsense throughout with nay a truth amongst it.

[OrphanPip]

I'm not sure if some of that was targeted at me or not but I assure you my dislike for Dawkin is nothing to do with my religious beliefs. I'm talking from a philisophical and rational standpoint. I'm talking about Dawkin's "God Delusion" book. I've read it and found it absolutely full of bull****, like huge assumptions and incredible leaps from premise to conclusion. I think Dawkin is deluded of his own infallibility.

I know his actual scientific works are credible and useful. I am arguing that he is portraying his "God Delusion" as science. Though there's not a lot of it in there. Just his personal opinion presented in a 'rational' form. It just makes me sick that he's philisophically erroneous and that people read it as if it's fact.

:banghead:

I don't care about The God Delusion, I've never read it or ever had any interest in reading it. Nor have I ever been under the impression that it was a science book.

All of that doesn't change the fact that Dawkins has written many of the best science books for lay audiences of the 20th century. You said that Dawkins has written "horrible books," however the vast majority of his literary output has been of the highest quality popular science writing out there. Moreover, I think it is disingenuous to say that Dawkins views himself as infallible, as he actively engages in public debates and is quite willing to address criticisms.

[G L Wilson]

I don't care about The God Delusion, I've never read it or ever had any interest in reading it. Nor have I ever been under the impression that it was a science book.

All of that doesn't change the fact that Dawkins has written many of the best science books for lay audiences of the 20th century. You said that Dawkins has written "horrible books," however the vast majority of his literary output has been of the highest quality popular science writing out there. Moreover, I think it is disingenuous to say that Dawkins views himself as infallible, as he actively engages in public debates and is quite willing to address criticisms.

Dawkins has no tolerance for religious nonsense, that much I will give him.