Are Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan misinformed and stupid?

Question

Or do they have a million times more credentials, education and credibility than any bible-as-a-history-book-believing nutter does?

A. Mercer: I don't think you would have said that if you had any clue what Richard Dawkins credentials really were,
go look into it.

A. Mercer: I don't think you would have said that if you had any clue what Richard Dawkins credentials really were,
go look into it.

Answer 1

From a standpoint of credibility, concerning the origins of the physical universe, and life in it, no two people aside from Stephen Hawkings and Stephen Jay Gould, could have greater credibility in pontificating on such topics as Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan. The academic accolades that both icons of science have received attests to this fact, and the devotion to their crafts as attested to by their academic and professional careers further justifies that these men are probably the most apt to analyze such central topics as our existence.

Of course to merely argue from authority is not enough. There are many academics on the theistic side of the debate that have PhDs and are well accomplished in the professional world. Men like Ravi Zacharias, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig are all men of high academic accomplishment and they are very vocal proponents of biblical inerrancy and the theistic worldview.

One should base ones perspective, of which side has it right, on the cogency of the arguments propounded by both sides, not on the academic achievements of either side. Both the theistic apologists and atheistic scientists and philosophers are equally as erudite and learned. From my examination of both sides of this argument, I believe that the atheists have more convincing arguments to doubt theistic claims, than theists have refutations to these doubts.

Answer 2

I look at it like this. Do not believe anyone without checking out details for yourself. Just because someone has credentials and education and all that good stuff does not mean that person knows everything. It is possible that he/she has formed opinions and are tossing them out as fact.

Go out and read up on the subject. See it from different viewpoints and come to your own conclusion. However, try to arrive at a conclusion from logic and fact and not just listening to someone talk. Many people in history have been fooled by just believing people they thought were credible.

IN REPLY TO YOU
I gave a logical and educated response. I never attacked the views of Richard Dawkins or any other person for that matter. I did not try to discredit him. I did not say that what he says is wrong. I said that people need to approach matters like this with care. Do not blindly accept the views of someone just because of their credentials. Credentials are not a guarantee of a person being 100% correct all the time. In fact, there is a logic fallacy called ad hominem, argument by authority. Here is the wiki on that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Answer 3

I don't know, would you take medical or dietary advice from Carl Sagan, or financial and investment advice from Richard Dawkins? Would you ask your dentist to work on your car, even if he really knew how to do a great root canal?

Aren't you committing the logical fallacy of assuming that if someone is an expert in one thing, then he must be an expert in everything?

Answer 4

God laughs at their "credentials".
It would be the equivalent of someone having a higher education and credentials in, say, playing Quidditch.
These men are just products of their brainwashing. Their education and credentials are only as good as the people who taught them, and if the people who taught them were misinformed, their credentials aren't worth the paper they're written on.

Answer 5

Carl Sagan all the way!!!! I love Carl Sagan. I want Pale Blue Dot recited at my memorial service just out of pompous indulgence.

Answer 6

Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan are pretty cool guys they are misinformed as far as belief system goes. But not as far as actions through a result of fundamentalist belief. So theyre not educationally stupid. Theyre spiritually stupid.

Answer 7

There is a real dilemma that many scientists face. That is how to make their theories prove the non-existence of a Creator. They will even go to the extreme of mis-representing facts, or even leaving out information to maintain their theories. Here is an excerpt from an article I read. It is very interesting...

"Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact? Aftyer critizing some of Richard Dawkiins' reasoning, influential evolutionist Richard Lewontin wrote that many scientists are willing to accept scientific claims that are against common sense "because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."
(Materialism, in this sense refers to the theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality, that everything in the universe, including all life, came into existence without any supernatural intervention in the process)
Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, "we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door."
In this regard, sociologist Rodney stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: "There's been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you've got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion." He further notes that in research universities "the religious people keep their mouths shut," while "irreligious people discriminate." According to Stark, "there's a reward system to being irreligious in the upper echelons [of the scientific community]."
If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite the fact that a century of research, the study of billions of mutations, shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common anscestor, despite the fact that fossil record strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does this type of belief sound as though it is based on fact or myth?

Answer 8

Some wat is the context of your question?

Misinformed on what?

When Carl Sagan was alive, he was very knowledgeable but he did not know everything.

Education on what?

Present your question in context.

Without context, I'd say, I'd listen to the opinions of both sides but on issues of science, in areas I'm unable to evaluate using my own knowledge, I'd be more inclined to believe Carl Sagan. Still that's no excuse to turn off my brain.

If you say something, and I am not too busy, I'll try to evaluate it based on the logic you present rather than your credentials. However if you present "facts" that I cannot verify, then I'll look very carefully at your credentials.

Answer 9

The bible is so much more than a history book that comparing the two is like comparing a second to infinity. Education can get you credentials but it can't get you a brain.

Answer 10

Well, coming down to personalities, Dawkins is so full of himself and his rhetoric he wouldn't know the truth if it bit him. He has a closed mind which makes for a very bad researcher. Sagan is a very poor scientist, he was so interested in becoming well known he couldn't bother with thorough, well researched science, it was easier to produce first grade science for the masses. You really need to find better examples and they are out there.

If you do introduce Stephen Hawking, he is very careful not to take sides and his research is original and his intellect considerably greater than either of those two posers.

Rachel, good point. What evidence do you present to prove I am wrong? Or do you just want us to accept your assertions?