If there's one useful contribution /his/ can make it is, I feel, coming to definitive conclusions about the autism-levels of historical figures.
I'll start with this memelord, what's the verdict?
dude's a genius bro
remarkable one at that
watch his interview on edge
>>1002906
Dawkins is an autistic memelord (quite literally( who is only liked by equally autistic meme lords.
He's also duplicitous and deceptive, claiming one minute he's against religion and the next he's not against religion in order to stay PC. And for a guy who seems to think religion needs to stay out of science, he doesn't nearly have as strong an opinion when it comes to science entering on religion's territory.
>>1002943
/thread
>>1002943
He makes the no fucking shit obvious claim that religion for millenia went above their pay grade in making claims that fall under philosophical/ scientific jurisdiction, and that merely claiming them on faith does not in any way justify it unless you're mentally disabled.
>>1002957
Go fuck yourself
>>1002943
I'm not sure you understand that science word you keep using. It's not dogmatic or a belief system.
behold science:
I think that I forgot to pay my water bill. Let's test the hypothesis.
*turns on sink*
My water is shut off. Thesis confirmed.
That's science. There is no argument that science must avoid any questions, religious or otherwise. Religion is science, in its simplest original form.
By definition it applies to everything. We do not worship Dawkins or Darwin. Science is not dogmatic.
Even if some scientists, like Dawkins, are total fucking tools in public life.
>>1002965
But even here, along with the rest of his band of fedora tippers, he over exaggerates the antagonism between science and religion with respect to the scientific institutions and the religious institutions.
He's the kind of moron who still thinks the trial of Galileo was a case of the big bad Church trying to crush scientific advancement and is an example of the triumph of scientific rationalism over religious idealism and fantasy.
>>1002943
>he's not against religion in order to stay PC
https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/307366714105032704
>>1003012
>>1003012
>I'm not sure you understand that science word you keep using. It's not dogmatic or a belief system.
didn't say it was
>My water is shut off. Thesis confirmed.
There could be any number of reasons why your water is not coming out of the sink. You could have just said science is a process by which one observes, tests and analyzes phenomena and attempts to deduce or induce the potential cause or causes without making yourself look both pretentious and foolish.
>There is no argument that science must avoid any questions, religious or otherwise. Religion is science, in its simplest original form.
If you're using science in the sense of the original latin "scientia" which generally just means a systematization of knowledge as such, then yes, there are "religious sciences" with respect to the science of theology for example.
But you're missing the point that was made entirely. Dawkins sees science and religion as separate things dealing with separate fields. And it'd be one thing if he was simply arguing that the study of the laws and mechanisms of the physical universe (biology, chemistry, physics, etc.) should be divorced from religion in the sense that religious institutions and scientific ones should be independent so that the pursuit of scientific facts is not weighed down by religious dogma, but this should be left to the experts in these fields just as a biologist doesn't encroach on the territory of an astronomer except as a trained astronomer himself. But his argument is primarily that science, or his narrow definition thereof, can tell us the how and the why. In this way, he's overstepping the lines many scientists themselves have drawn. Not only that, but he's not just saying that science and religion are two fields dealing with opposite poles, the one the material (the how) and the other spiritual or philosophic (the why), but he also takes this dualism of religion/science and weds it to sociological conflict theory.
>>1003171
What I'm referring to is his view on the role of religion in society in general which at times feels like he's saying we need to eradicate religion one moment and then that religion can be tolerated politically at another moment. He does this so he doesn't appear like he's encouraging a kind of secular authoritarianism that takes conscious efforts to destroy religion. But what he's suggesting is in a more moderate form of secular authoritarianism rooted in liberal values based solely on rationalism that operates with the aim of completely neutering traditional religion so that is effectively eradicated by removing any attempt by religion to actually have any genuine social impact in people's lives in the name of freedom of religion or separation of church & state neither of which was meant to ever involve a shoving of religion and religious counsel out of the public sphere and popular life, only a separation between formal institutional structures so that minorities would not have to endure tyranny of the majority or vice versa. This misrepresents these liberal concepts on the one hand and it suggests a public appearance of tolerance that in fact is intolerance. True "tolerance" requires an acknowledgement of the relative value of "the other". Otherwise, it's a farce and can only result in a subjugation of the other as a contained threat, not as an inclusive part of the fabric of wider society or as a legitimate group equally deserving of sovereignty over its own internal affairs without the forced interference of others. This results in severe conflict within society as the religiously devout rebel against the secular crust of the government which it sees as neglecting or even punishing them for simply being committed to their religious values as more than once a week pageantry, which in turn generates extreme reactionary religious movements that are as equally if not more authoritarian. And people wonder why the middle east is the way it is right now.
>>1003012
> Tries to explain science
> Turns out to be a verificationaist while at it
Begone with you and your 100-year old """"""""""""""""""""""scientific"""""""""""""""""""" method.
>>1003178
The why is not an achievable answer because it doesn't make sense to ask why without expecting a how for an answer.
>>1003012
What if the pipe is blocked? You didn't test this thoroughly enough.
>>1003432
This. That confirmation bias he showed is the problem with modern science.
>>1003460
Then why it still works pretty well my friend :)
>>1003460
Meanwhile, Nietzsche could have sent 200 people to the Moon and invented a jetpack, it's just that he didn't want to
>>1003490
Oh OK, so your a Christfag or a b8er. Either way frigg off Ricky
>>1003409
Good job, anon, you finally realized why most scientists throughout history were also often theologians themselves. The Arab philosopher al-Kindi even divided "philosophy" into three three interconnected sciences from least to greatest: physics (which included biology & chemistry), mathematics and theology ('the crown of the sciences')
But the point is that physics and theology are not the same field per se, even if you understand them to be connected. One can be seen as dealing with the fundamental components and coincidences of the material world, while the other is the study of metaphysical principles from which the former is generated. If you understand science and religion to refer to the physical sciences and the spiritual sciences respectively and understand these two to be complimentary, then antagonism between the two severely limits the understanding of experts in both fields. If you understand that one is irrelevant to the other, then antagonism seems stupid, as experts of each one just need to understand where their authority ends.
Dawkins adheres, again, to a conflict theory, not the traditional view that science and religion are complimentary (the view of those who see God as an active principle in the world) or that they are irrelevant to one another (the favorite view of deists and agnostics who see God, if he does exist, as simply a 'clockmaker'). But there's a reason why a lot of people reject the conflict theory of Dawkins, even among atheists, because it is not only based on bad history and has bad social implications and is based on faulty logic that is far from scientific.
>>1003494
Atheist and being sincere.
>>1003505
OK lad, maybe you'll find some new friend on this board that'll believe in what you say. Have a last (You) from me
>>1003502
Would you say that religion and say... microbiology are complementary?
>>1003171
Speaking of which: https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/307369895031603200
>>1003518
>Would you say that religion and say... microbiology are complementary?
If you believe that God is an active principle in the world and not just a clockmaker. That is not just someone who made the universe according to fixed, immutable laws and simply left it to function independently without his active involvement, then there is no reason why the two aren't complimentary.
A theologian who is also a microbiologist for instance, and holds the complimentary view, seeing the one study as relevant to the others, would attempt not only to explain microbiology in mundane scientifical terms but also explain how the principles of microbiology are reflections of higher, metaphysical principles, according to the rule of "as above, so below." Not only that, but he or she might also seek to show how the knowledge obtained through microbiology is ultimately practical to human social life and the pursuit of individual happiness along religious terms. Many of the monks who helped preserve the sciences in the West saw their efforts as strengthening Christian society not weakening its foundations.
While scientific discoveries, both true and false, have often challenged accepted dogma or morality, this is not the same as saying that science and religion itself are in conflict as the argument for the acceptance of these discoveries was more often than not in religious terms.
>>1003618
A simple yes or no would've be been fine
>>1002906
Does he honestly not see the humor in the picture?
>>1004267
>the tweet gets 500 likes anyways
What the fuck is wrong with normalfags?
>>1002943
>>1002957
You do know that the god delusion is one book for plebs he published while being Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science.
His actual work is all in evolutionary biology and it's actually pretty good.
Imagine being age 74 and thinking this.
>>1003012
behold science:
I think that I forgot to pay my water bill. Let's test the hypothesis.
*turns on sink*
My water is shut off. Thesis confirmed.
Wouldn't the proper experiment require checking with the water company? There are plenty of reasons why water would fail to come out of the sink that have nothing to do with paying the bill.
Just saying.
>>1003378
And an idealist at that.
Dawkins is pretty fucking annoying about the god shit.
But at the same time his biology books are really fucking good if you can ignore the jabs. He has a masterful understanding of evolution.
>>1003490
>the origin of species by evolution to persist as "scientifically factual" when they're nothing of the sort.
Are you saying that evolution doesn't make perfect sense?
>>1002928
if he's so smart, where is his shitpost record?
>>1003360
As I (supericially) understand it from reading the news, he views the anglican church as harmless, a practically secular community and culture oriented institution, while he views islam as a cancer to this earth.
>>1005345
No, evolution is true to the best of our knowledge.
The origin of species by evolution is absolutely silly, however.
>>1005362
>As I (supericially) understand it from reading the news, he views the anglican church as harmless, a practically secular community and culture oriented institution, while he views islam as a cancer to this earth.
So pretty much the truth?
>>1003149
Yeah ok that bit really is pretty annoying
>>1002906
I really can't stand him being the face of atheism, and he's a bit of a cunt. But as a Biology graduate student his work in The Selfish Gene used to be regarded very highly as a way of transmitting then-groundbreaking evolutionary biology ideas to laymen. It's a good read. Just pretend it's not written by someone who wears atheism on his sleeve and hamfistedly rallies against faith.
>>1005366
>The origin of species by evolution is absolutely silly, however.
You understand that there are several competing "species concepts" in evolutionary biology right? Speciation happens. It just can sometimes depend on how you define species. What applies to the speciation of microbes doesn't apply to speciation of animals.
>>1004945
This is hilarious
