Opinions on Richard Dawkin's books and writing style? (Avoid The God Delusion, as that's probably one of his worst books.)
In addition: How many supreme court justices does it take to be on the wrong side of history?
He's not a writer, and it shows.
>>7434949
I do think he's a pretty good teacher on the other hand. He simplified evolutionary biology very well in "The Greatest Show on Earth".
>>7434960
Oh, definitely. His passion is commendable as well, especially at his age. His writings need only be eloquent enough to be easily understood, which I think they are.
Here's Dawkins getting flustered in a debate with Deepak Chopra.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKe4fshETQ4
>>7435859
>debate
You mean getting trolled
>>7435859
What the fuck was that?
>>7435859
Dawkins getting BTFO
>>7435859
You got memed on son!
>>7435894
A debate between Richard Dawkins and Indian-American spiritualist and alternative medicines advocate Deepak Chopra.
the selfish gene was interesting
that's about it
>>7434928
He writes find but his explanations are often excessively reductive. He doesn't notice that they're reductive because he's an artist and gene theory is his autism-brainchild.
I'm not a Christian or anything ridiculous like that. I just think Dawkins gets BTFO by Lewin and Levins in their book of essays, "The Dialectical Biologist."
>>7434928
His refutation of things like Aquinas's cosmological arguments are fucking laughable. It's honestly a child's level of understanding. There are serious atheist thinkers out there, but Dawkins isn't one of them.
>>7436607
To be fair, it would be a waste for a better mind than Dawkins to spend time explaining why Aquinas is terrible.
>>7436607
how so? It made perfect sense.
>>7435859
The comments are amazing.
>>7437788
Aquinas is a saint, so you can't refute him. Dumb atheists :^)
>>7435859
Deepak is the master of baiting intellectuals. I bet he fucking loves it.
>>7436650
>it would be a waste for a better mind than Dawkins to spend time explaining why Aquinas is terrible
Okay, so how about you do it then.
>>7437848
Coming up with plausible-sounding justifications for the catholic church's dogmas that often rest on divine revelation and treat Aristotle's opinions as gospel truth isn't as groundbreaking as the pope thinks it is. Aquinas asserts that there must be first mover as if it's just common sense. That's what his case for God boils down to, an intuition.
He was hugely influential, and worked hard, but he's not a world-breaking genius like he's made out to be.
>>7437880
You have failed to address any of his points.
>>7437895
>prime mover
>not one of Aquinas's points.
Work on that selective reading.
>>7437914
Provide an argument against it, rather than criticise the way he presents it.
>Work on that selective reading.
I read all of your pathetic post, you worm!
>>7437924
He asserts that there must be a first cause ti the universe, and from there that the first cause is most likely the Christian God. How is he so sure that it's the Christian God? Well, he has faith. Why is that God exempt from having a cause himself? Well, he said so in the bible. Why do things need a cause at all? Well, in the observable world that Thomas Aquinas could lay his limited perspective on, things have causes. However, he's talking about an event so far beyond what he's experienced that it seems unwise to extrapolate his experiences with ye olden times Italy to the beginnings of everything in the observable universe.
>>7437820
YouTube comments are full of fedora-tipping atheist edgelords.
>>7435859
Never
Fucking
Forget
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tIwYNioDL8
>>7439402
topkek
>>7435859
Top kek, that guy is a master troll.
As a matter of fact, the whole debate reminded me of this:
https://youtu.be/eB5VXJXxnNU
>>7435859
>Cognition, perception, imagination, insight, intuition, creativity, choice, freedom, the desire for meaning, purpose
TED Talk keywords
>>7439488
The floater part killed me. hahaha
>>7439402
>that ending
>>7439537
>what is this shit
The future of Western culture
>>7434928
Hes a simpleton. Fighting other simpletons. For a simple cause.
Have Dicky Dawk or Sam Harris ever addressed Kant's arguments against pure empiricism?
>>7439567
>For a simple cause
>a simple cause
>simple cause
>simple
Science is kinda complex sometimes desu
>>7436607
>His refutation of things like Aquinas's cosmological arguments are fucking laughable
You're right. An adult would just laugh long and hard at the idea that people still take Aquinas seriously
>>7439402
mind=expanded
>>7437968
But that wasn't his argumentation at all...
>>7439402
Is this real?
>>7435859
Indians are truly the most loathsome race of human beings.
>>7436607
Aquinas's arguments are very bad. He was influential in Christian thought for a long time and for that reason he has prestige, but that doesn't mean his philosophy is remotely plausible today.
>>7442761
It's all right to admit that you're not smart enough to understand Aquinas, Anon. I did that a while ago, and I've been pretty happy since.
>>7443108
His Twitter is hilarious. I love that tweet where he asks for somebody to explain the precise symbology of a fedora.
>>7443393
In his defense, the symbolism of the fedora in online discourse is rather fluid.
