Richard Dawkins - What do you think of him?

[alfieb]

I've read his writings, I've seen him speak, but I don't think about him at all. He is irrelevant to me and how I live my life. Same with the late Hitchens.

[Loki]

I've read his writings, I've seen him speak, but I don't think about him at all. He is irrelevant to me and how I live my life. Same with the late Hitchens.

Lucky you!

[Sblast]

He is lacking in philosophy, which is an important flaw, as the existence of god is a philosophical and not a scientific matter. This was especially apparent in his debate with that Archbishop of Canterbury.

Trivially the existence of anything is a matter of philosophical dispute.
Definitively, most professional philosophers are not only not religious or even agnostic, but atheists (and most by a tiny margin Naturalists).
It isn't an argument, but theists should know by now two things, scientists won't come for the rescue - philosophers won't too, and the middle ages are behind us and philosophers are not any more slaves to theology. If you want a decent debate search for Austin vs Craig.

[Hayalet]

It isn't an argument, but theists should know by now two things, scientists won't come for the rescue - philosophers won't too, and the middle ages are behind us and philosophers are not any more slaves to theology.

I don't really care who comes forth to rescue theism, I'm more of a strong agnostic these days. Still, it's a bit annoying to see Dawkins concede that he doesn't know what would prove the existence of god (by extension, he would be saying that the non-existence of god is unfalsifiable) and then expect natural phenomena (i.e. scientific) evidence from the opposing camp.

[Sblast]

I don't really care who comes forth to rescue theism, I'm more of a strong agnostic these days. Still, it's a bit annoying to see Dawkins concede that he doesn't know what would prove the existence of god (by extension, he would be saying that the non-existence of god is unfalsifiable) and then expect natural phenomena (i.e. scientific) evidence from the opposing camp.

I think he does know, scientific or well defined daily pragmatic evidence.
Scientific as "natural phenomena" is a problematic statement, by now standard. Science deals with good explanations in general regardless of their metaphysics and settings an a-priori limit to science is a dangerous game, that's where theism fails so far, producing good explanation. Arguably of course.

[Hayalet]

I think he does know, scientific or well defined daily pragmatic evidence.

No, he doesn't. When posed a question like "What would it take you to believe in a god?", he said something along the lines of "I used to think I would believe if I saw god walk down from the sky, but now I think I would assume I was hallucinating instead." I actually agree with him too. A man walking down from the sky doesn't mean he is omnipotent, omnipresent and/or omniscient. In fact, nothing means that. Those adjectives are, by definition, beyond our perceptions (hence my strong agnosticism). It is Dawkins who doesn't quite realize what logical ramifications his statement has.

Scientific as "natural phenomena" is a problematic statement, by now standard. Science deals with good explanations in general regardless of their metaphysics and settings an a-priori limit to science is a dangerous game

Can you elaborate on this? I'm of course aware that anti-metaphysical 19th century positivism is now obsolete and realize philosophy and science can be continuous, but that doesn't mean they are ultimately indistinct and interchangeable.

[Sblast]

It is Dawkins who doesn't quite realize what logical ramifications his statement has.

It's not an issue for me, he isn't Clergy whom I have his honor to protect, I take the good and leave the bad.

Can you elaborate on this? I'm of course aware that anti-metaphysical 19th century positivism is now obsolete and realize philosophy and science can be continuous, but that doesn't mean they are ultimately indistinct and interchangeable.

I apologize for the vagueness.
Both Theists and Naturalists see an historical problem with a [B]naive /B] basing basing of naturalistic metaphysics (physicalism basically) on science given it's history, especially physics. When Newton introduced his notions of forces working from a distance it was utterly new compared to the Aristotelian common-sensical physics that claimed that in order for something to move it needs a pusher (oversimplied, I know, but the point is Newton's science was called occult. Quantum physics is just mind bending and very different than classical physics.
So, given this history we could not advance (or change paradigms) in physics if we dogmatically hold a strong metaphysical view based on our current science. hence it is dangerous to science itself. Some philosophers have more intricate arguments and try to avoid this pit (like Alexander Rosenberg).

As far as what I mean by good explanations; I think it's great to see philosophy on TED