Is Dawkins competent when speaking on the subject of religion?

Question

Richard Dawkins often voices his views on religion when speaking publicly. Is he justified to use his recognition as a scientist to give authority to his words when speaking about spiritual matters?

I don't attack the man as you see. I only question his expertise in the field of religion. This is a legitimate question, even if some of you don't like it.

to david m:
Please read my question carefully. I am not against him speaking on religion, but using his authority as a scientist to assert his religious views have authority. Sure a bishop using his religious authority to teach science is just as dishonest. But this is just avoiding the issue here. Is Dawkins' actions ethical when he asserts atheism from the standpoint of a scientist? I haven't yet seen anyone address this.

to DRAAGON:
It is funny the way you call knowledge in one area education and in another `clouding of the mind.'

to Mrs. Ghristho:
How many times do I have to explain my question. I am not talking about a religious man propagating some religion, nor a scientist pushing his own theory. I am talking about a scientist trying to use his profile to give weight to his words when speaking on religion. By analogy I could ask if you would trust a virtuoso with his/her instructions on how to perform heart surgery.

to James B:
If according to you everyone is equally competent when it comes to religion, then it follows that everyone, including Dawkins, is equally incompetent when it comes to religion. This actually would mean that Dawkins, when speaking on religion does not have any more authority, then when I or you are speaking about it.

Answer 1

One does not require a degree to speak out on religion. After all, the claim is that god is everywhere for the seeing. Besides, he is not the one giving "authority" to what he says, it is his audience.

Answer 2

A scientist looks at evidence in a subject of his choice and then presents it in a suitable format.
Richard Dawkins is a Biologist. His work in this and related fields, which include evolution, are disputed by some religious organisations. This brings the two fields into direct conflict.
He is justifiably pursuing and expanding his side of the argument.

Answer 3

No, Dawkins doesn't know the first thing about religion. He's a scientist. It makes no more sense to say he is competent on religion than to say Dr. Spock is competent on political issues. I don't know why so many people pontificate on things they know nothing about and then other people BELIEVE them! Makes no sense.

Having credentials in one field does NOT make a person an expert in a totally unrelated field. If he wants to pontificate on religion, fine. But to claim that his training as a scientist makes him someone to listen to just means he is showing his own arrogance. He wouldn't like it if someone with a PhD in theology pontificated on science. So he should not apply a double standard: I can do what I want, but anybody who emulates me I disagree with is out to lunch. See what I mean?

Answer 4

Dawkins doesn't "use his recognition as a scientist to give authority to his words." He uses logic and evidence to show the validity of his claims. You're not supposed to agree w/ what he says just because he's a scientist. You're supposed to agree/disagree with what he says based on the merits (logic & evidence) of his claims. Science is all about logic & evidence, not obedience to authority figures or experts.

Answer 5

Of course - turn your question on it's head. Are bishops and church leaders competent to speak on scientific matters?

Both are of course competent as are ordinary members of the public.

What would you suggest? Stop freedom of speech, burn the books (which incidentally would include the Bible and Dawkins book).

Sadly many questions here make Christians look stupid and uneducated. Unable to discuss their religion and unable to understand or accept science.

There are far more good sensible and thinking Christians out there though they just get tarred with the same brush and thus hindered in spreading the word.

Answer 6

So when someone of a particular religion uses his/her public profile to endorse their religion and bring it to people's attention it is ok? But it's not ok for an atheist to do the same?
If you listen to his words you can figure out for yourself whether he is competent or not.
Who better than a scientist to understand just how delusional religion is.

Answer 7

Jack: Dawkins has turned his genius from addressing bio sciences to bashing "God" believers. Dawkins fails to really render any proof but, as you say, rants from the influence of his position. Being intellectual does not translate into one being correct, necessarily, as Dawkins attempts. He does, however, manage to rant and rave about something his prejudices have rendered as a barrier to ANY truth.
Face it; intellectualism can mask in the guise of truth to all of those who are under the stupor of its spell.

P.S. Should you want a very, well written page by a friend of Dawkins, who taught with him in England, see the web page by Allister McGrath : www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cls/mcgrath/lecture/html - herein; McGrath thoroughly, discusses Dawkins' approach to religion with stunning effect, to say the least.

Answer 8

I seldom hear him attack any one religion so much as he attacks the concept of God in general. There are so many different beliefs on God that most theologians don't know enough to be experts on more than a few religions.

Answer 9

Everybody is equally competent on the subject of religion. Religious "truth" is whatever religion says it is. And the opposite is equally true

Answer 10

I have often found that atheists are more knowledgeable about religion than most people with a religious belief because they tend to study things rather than just accepting.