Because Richard Dawkins knows more about the universe.
He *is* a scientist, first. ... But you are so, so wrong... See:
"A universe with a God would like quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different. So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory."
"I suspect that today if you asked people to justify their belief in God, the dominant reason would be scientific. Most people, I believe, think that you need a God to explain the existence of the world, and especially the existence of life. They are wrong, but our education system is such that many people don't know it."
"The trouble is that God in this sophisticated, physicist's sense bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible or any other religion. If a physicist says God is another name for Planck's constant, or God is a superstring, we should take it as a picturesque metaphorical way of saying that the nature of superstrings or the value of Planck's constant is a profound mystery. It has obviously not the smallest connection with a being capable of forgiving sins, a being who might listen to prayers, who cares about whether or not the Sabbath begins at 5pm or 6pm, whether you wear a veil or have a bit of arm showing; and no connection whatever with a being capable of imposing a death penalty on His son to expiate the sins of the world before and after he was born."
"It is often said, mainly by the "no-contests", that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"
"Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain. It postulates the difficult to explain, and leaves it at that."
2007-05-28 15:59:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
Dawkins is not particularly knowledgeable about the universe, really: not much more than an educated layman. Dawkin's specialization is biology and behaviour. He has no expertise in cosmology. None whatsoever.
On the other hand, if we're going to commit the logical error of "appeal to authority," let's at least do it with a real expert on cosmology: Stephen Hawking. In "A Brief History of Time," the word "God" appears almost as much as any other concept in the text. He resorts to it frequently.
Oh to be sure, in his context, he is referring to a God of deist or pantheist conception, not a Judaeo-Christian. But God he does say, and he says it often. And despite smug claims by Dawkins that real cosmologists like him are talking about 'superstrings,' Hawking is known to get angry when he is pegged as an atheist. He is adamantly on the fence.
And unlike Dawkins, he is an expert in this particular field.
2007-05-28 16:10:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by evolver 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Richard Dawkins has a book called "The God Delusion" in which the word "god" is used frequently. God is also mentioned in "Climbing Mt Improbable" and "River out of Eden". I am sure god is mentioned in his other books as well but a friend has my copies of those.
Perhaps, instead of making unfounded statements, you should read Dawkins. At least you would know what he is talking about and you might even learn to spell his name correctly.
2007-05-28 16:03:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by tentofield 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's Richard Dawkins.
2007-05-28 16:02:43
·
answer #4
·
answered by S K 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
How can one man know more about the universe, than the original creative energy?
Does Mr. Dawkins also know everything about human nature and the mind? He must know something about these things, to have such an influence over so many.
2007-05-28 16:07:02
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
He is well educated and highly intelligent but I doubt even he would say he is all knowing. He also mentions the word god a lot. As in 'There is no god'.
2007-05-28 16:38:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Richard Dawkins was the host of "Family Feud".
2007-05-28 16:03:03
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I will let Brett answer this...I see his mind working now.
Edit: see I told you! Thanks for coming through for me Brett.
2007-05-28 16:00:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Because he knows that god doesn't exist.
2007-05-28 15:58:37
·
answer #9
·
answered by qwert 7
·
1⤊
4⤋