Richard Dawkins is not qualified to make the arguments he does?

Question

God's existance can not be scientifically prooved or disprooved since it's existence would go way beyond our scientific level of understanding. Those trying to disprove God's existence depend therefore on pyschology, sociology and anthropology to argue their point. But Richard Dawkins is neither a psychologist, sociologyis or anthropologist. So, he is supporting arguements that are not his field of study and using his reputation as a scientist to persuade people of their accuracy. Why should a pure scientist know anymore about the social sciences than the rest of us. It's not the field they study or work in.

Interestingly enough for those that point out my bad spelling yes I'm not good at spelling so ALWAYS use the spell check. You know that thing that's part of the computer programme, the thing created by science technology. It doesn't seem to always work very well, as I am sure many have found out, try it and see. What's this a scientific invention used my millions that's defective, seems so. Conclusion science in theory and application doesn't always get it right.

Answer 1

Hon, you're in way over your head.

"God's existance can not be scientifically prooved or disprooved since it's existence would go way beyond our scientific level of understanding"

I can't imagine that Dr. Dawkins really cares a lot about the claims of someone who writes "existance", "prooved" and "disprooved", and "it's" (where it should be "its").

On top of that, a "pure scientist" (as you put it) with his background most certainly does know more about the social sciences than you do, and more than ANY of the believers I've seen on this forum, for that matter. Probably more than almost any of the nonbelievers here as well, come to think of it.

Answer 2

You can prove that we aren't here by a random series of highly improbable accidents. And the Bible shows clear evidence of inspiration. So, there is definately grounds for beleiving God exists.

Many people turn away from God because they feel that, if he did exist, he would stop all the suffering. What they fail to realise is that he will put an end to suffering in his due time and undo all the suffering that has plagued people throughout the centuries.

People also point to the failings of most modern-day religions as some kind of proof that God does not exist, but this very fact was foretold in Scripture. Just because religions mis-represent God does mean that he approves of them or that he doesn't exist.

Richard Dawkins can pick out the faults of false religion as can any fool. But he makes the same mistake most atheists make by tarring all religions with the same brush.

Answer 3

What qualifications do you need to put forward your opinon?

What qualifies you to make your judgement of his competence?

There are some very good answers here that I cannot better, however, I shall have a small say.

If you have read his book you will know that it is very well written and he expresses himself quite clearly. He appears to be very well read and has listed all his sources. So, whether he is qualified or not does not matter. If his arguments are invalid, simply point out how this is so. As a scientist he would be pleased to hear from you, or anyone else, if you can clearly show where he has gone wrong.

In this respect I believe that his is a more honest position than many believers. He has explained his reasoning and published it. He differs from many believers who simply want us to accept what they say on faith that cannot be challenged.

Answer 4

You have made a glaring error. Richard Dawkins would be the first to admit that you can't prove or disprove the existence of God. His point is that that does not automatically mean there IS a God. And besides, you CAN prove that most of the things in the bible are wrong and or never happened. You CAN prove that a multitude of supernatural events are anything but supernatural, and you CAN prove that religion is the single biggest danger in the world today.

Answer 5

Are religious people qualified to say there are god, angels, heaven, sin, hell, all swirling out there in the ether? I think not. What Richard Dawkins does (very well, and without getting offensive), is to hold the mirror up to accepted ideas which are based solely on conjecture, wishful thinking, illogicality and downright insane "herd" insitincts. I'm nowhere as educated as Mr Dawkins, but you can bet your buttocks that I am qualified to speak up when I hear and recognise religious nonsense, which is completely devoid of proof, and goes against all logic, reason and good sense.

Answer 6

You can't scientifically disprove anything unless you can first come up with a way to scientifically prove it. At the same time there are people who are not psychologist, sociologist or anthropologist who insist that there is proof of God.
Attacking one particular messenger really does nothing to prove your theological point.

Answer 7

This is basically what Deepak Chopra stated during a debate with Dawkins. He asked Dawkins... "Why are you using a physical science to try to find something that isn't physical?" No, I don't feel he is qualified to state with certainty that there isn't a Deity... he can, however, state his opinion all he likes. But it's a circular argument and one that logical people don't tend to dwell on. I honestly don't know why people get that upset over what another believes... just because they believe (I fully understand the reasons they get upset when one religion tries to force laws on society that are just for that religion and not really for society in general). It's really no different than the Extremists within the different religions worrying about others who don't believe.

Answer 8

There at the instant are not any non-Christian historic works that needless to say consult from Jesus. The connection with Jesus in Josephus is regarded as a later interpolation. there is not any self reliant affirmation that Jesus existed and the debts of him in the Gospels and non-canonical writings are generally mythical, mythological innovations of the early Christians elaborating thoughts surpassed all the way down to them. Jesus probable existed whether it extremely is impossible to be responsive to a lot approximately his character or nature.

Answer 9

actually scientific method is used in every field including psychology and as he is an expert scientist in the sciences that zoology (study animals and their behaviour (and we are an animal)) and evolution his views are prove it triple check prove it again and get someone to verify. he doesn't accept here is an idea that may be right it is truth method that many religious people like. the science must be sound for a theory to be proved although the word theory is never removed.

Answer 10

I've been reading "The God Delusion". Part of it deals with physical sciences.

Psychology, sociology, and anthropology are sciences, too. Whether or not he has any formal education in the field does not mean he doesn't have any knowledge of them. I've seen plenty of Christians on here trying disprove Islam, how many of them have even had a single college course on Islam? I have.

Answer 11

No, the existence of God is a question of philosophy or theology.

Dawkins is an ethologist, a discipline which crosses psychology, anthropology, zoology and sociology. Dawkins comes from a biological perspective.

Dawkins argues that the fields he has expertise in do not support the idea of the existence of God. He is right there. He is also angry that a small bunch of anti-science theists have been trying to make inroads into his fields while exhibiting zero understanding of them. He is right there too.

I am less convinced by his theology and philosophy.