Atheist: Can you please explain these errors that Richard Dawkins have?

Question

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aj_UNk.V8HpYZAqyf_D2VBbsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20100503062744AAdUJYQ

On the last question I asked about Richard Darkins, a lot of Atheist questioned me on exactly what type of contradictions, double-standards, poorly-thought-out arguments, logical fallacies, and glaringly bad scientific factual errors did he made. Here is the list of errors that I found on his book.

Atheists, if please explain or justified theses errors for me.

(1) Science, by definition, deals only with the study of routine, repeatable natural processes. Miracles are, by definition, singularities caused by a supernatural source. Science can neither confirm NOR DENY miracles. (Too bad your homeboy Dawkins can't seem to figure out this limitation of science). Saying "Miracles can't happen because they defy the laws of science," is like saying "2+2 cannot equal 4 because that defys the laws of grammar." Both are colossal category errors!

(2) Darkins and a lot of Atheists always told me that a theory will not be taken seriously if it is not "peer reviewed". But as far as "peer reviewed" journals go, do you suppose Galileo had "peer reviewed" journals supporting his helio-centric model of the solar system? Just curious. Do you reject his model too?

(3) Dawkins himself does, in scientific consensus. This is pretty silly in light of the fact which Dawkins himself admits, that scientific findings are continually in danger of being falsified and overturned by newer discoveries, just as certain aspects of Newtonian physics were proven incorrect by Einstein's discoveries.Newtonian physics were repeatedly tested and proven useful for three CENTURIES. Then Einstein came along and introduced his theory, and suddenly certain portions of Newton's theories were proven wrong. There's very little scientific "truth" which cannot be overturned by newer research. Yet you base your eternal destiny on "science"? Now who sounds silly?

(4) As far as your claim that the Bible "has been proven wrong" so "many times," you're simply showing your ignorance of history, archeology, and Biblical transmission. Every time the skeptics have crowed that the Bible was nonsense because it mentioned some historical detail that wasn't mentioned in secular history, they were later proven horribly wrong as new archeological discoveries confirmed those details. Now how is the foolish one?

Answer 1

1. Give me any evidence that the supernatural exist.

2. The church was the one that put him under house arrest for his claims.

If I wanted, I could check Galileo's work if I so choose, like so may scientist have done before me.

3. Newton's work was not incorrect, but incomplete. Einstein built upon his theories and other scientists to produce his famous relativity patient.

4. I am not even aware of the any archaeological evidence that Exodus being true, and that's the under pinning part for of the Hebrew bible.



There isn't even any documentation of Jesus. Oh and the birth, death and resurrection has been shamelessly plagiarised from many earlier faiths.

Answer 2

Oh wow. I genuinely think you're serious. I'm stunned. Saddened a bit too, but mainly stunned.



Let's see here.



1. No, it doesn't. Science deals with the study of nature. If a supernatural source is doing things to the natural world that contravene the established order of the natural world, that should be visible. If the workings of the supernatural being are indistinguishable from the workings of the natural world - well, you figure it out.



You don't to assume something supernatural exists until proven otherwise..



2. By "peer reviewed" what people mean is that the work is examined closely by other suitable qualified people who check for consistency and accuracy. If the result is experimental (something not always the case) they may seek to repeat the experiment, or at the very least, examine the methodology. Galileo's model has been repeatedly examined in this fashion.



3. I'm not sure what this means - the first sentence is clearly missing something. Newton's theories, while adjusted, have not been necessarily "overturned" - indeed, for most situations with the exception of certain extreme circumstances, Newton's theory works just as well as Einstein's. It is a very rare day that something is actually overturned - adapted, modified, expanded, yes. Proven wrong, very rarely.



In any case, a system that is self-corrected and prepared to acknowledge mistakes is far preferable to one that insists it is accurate regardless.



Given you have the same eternal destiny as everyone else - ie, none - choosing to worry about it is what seems silly.



4. Much of the bible - in particular the OT - is considered non-historical and likely legendary. Much of the writings contained in the bible are unproven, and unprovable. The bible contains numerous errors of fact, which apologetics tries to excuse but can't quite cover up.



The truth is, your book is written exactly as if it were written by people with the state of knowledge that existed several thousand years ago, not as if it were written by an omnipotent deity. Read it sometime - you might get a shock.

Answer 3

1) Please kindly clarify which quote is Dawkins and which is yours. Thanks.



2) That science as we know it had to start SOMEWHERE, at a point in time when there was no peer review, is common sense. That the scientific method and peer-reviewing should have been present from the beginning is patently stupid because we were learning as much about methodology as we were about the phenomena we were trying to explain. So your citation of Galileo vis-a-vis peer review is absurd and a mischaracterization of the issue.



3) Actually, you sound silly. The idea that what seems established in science can be overturned with new research means that scientists can admit that something is wrong and re-examine the issue. That is not the case with religion, as history shows with Galileo. That is the issue that Dawkins harps about with religion. Science can learn and grow. Religion is fossilized in its own dogma.



4) Historical fiction uses real people, real places, and real events to tell a fictional story. Legend functions largely the same way: real people, real places, and real events are retold and embellished for a purpose. Just because the places in the Bible correspond to real geographic locations, and just because we find evidence that a few people mentioned actually did exist, does not mean that the supernatural claims of the Bible are correct. Furthermore, the 1 Kings text points out that pi = 3. On what planet do you live where pi = 3? That's not the only factual error there is.



Your problem is that you're using the Bible as much as a science book as a book of spirituality and instruction for how to be a good Christian. Remember: God made Adam and Eve, not Atom and eV.

Answer 4

I think Dawkins is emotional, arrogant, and sadly misled. However, this video is simply false. The girls insist (and the video reiterates) that there is a barrier. A barrier is a block, something that stops or hinders passage. The fact that waters of different temperatures and different densities are slower to mix doesn't make a barrier. The halocline is an area where the water is slower to mix; it is no evidence that the two are not mixing. What's more, I'd argue that if Mohammad and the Qur'an are right, they should ALWAYS be right, and not right in carefully selected circumstances. It's quite easy to see fresh water and salt water mixing in hundreds and hundreds of rivers and canals as they empty into the sea. There is no barrier or thermocline or halocline in these places. So this is not a proof of the Qur'an in any way.

Answer 5

1) It's fine if you want to throw the "miracle card" out as your explanation for everything, but don't expect people to accept it, "just because" it's a "miracle, and by definition defies the scientific method." Other people have higher standards for credibility than you do.



2) Galileo has been reviewed since his time, and shown to have been correct about a great many things. That's the great thing about science: if you don't believe it, you can conduct your own experiments and prove it wrong. So get on it; if you don't believe Dawkins' theories regarding evolution, prove him wrong.



3)Newtonian physics apply very well to the world we experience, but do not work equally well at the sub-atomic level. It doesn't mean that Newton was "wrong", it just means that there is still work to be done in order to reconcile the macro and the micro world. Okay? Physicists call this the search for an over-arching "Unification Theory."



4) The existence of a Biblical city does not prove that the events claimed to have occurred there actually happened. Stephen King writes about Maine in most of his works, but no one really believes that vampires terrorized a little town there. Jericho might exist, but that does not mean that trumpet playing caused its downfall. Do you see the difference?

Answer 6

"2) Darkins and a lot of Atheists always told me that a theory will not be taken seriously if it is not "peer reviewed". But as far as "peer reviewed" journals go, do you suppose Galileo had "peer reviewed" journals supporting his helio-centric model of the solar system? Just curious."



Funny but even after death, Galileo's work has held up under scrutiny. Not all of it of course, but the basic Scientific methods he used.

However, at the time, no such mechanism was used.

Now, would YOU as a modern person, go to a doctor that prescribed leeches or referred to your "humors" when describing your medical problems?

Of course not. Reasonable people study history but do not repeat it's mistakes. Unlike christians.

Oh and his name is Dawkins, not "Darkins" like you wrote up there.

If you're going to try to discredit someone, at least have the good grace to spell his name correctly.

Heck, have the good grace to spell correctly in any case. Either way, you fail miserably.



This one is even funnier;

"Every time the skeptics have crowed that the Bible was nonsense because it mentioned some historical detail that wasn't mentioned in secular history, they were later proven horribly wrong as new archeological discoveries confirmed those details."



Oh really? Name ONE instance please. With sources.

I'll wait...



... still waiting...



... 11 hours later and I'm STILL waiting. Gee, I wonder why?

Could it be because you know you're 100% wrong? Yep, seems to be the case.

Answer 7

1. There are some physical laws you just cannot break, that's why they're called LAWS, no exceptions made. (I love this line)



2. This one makes me think 'Poe'. Heliocentric theory underwent lots of criticism (people were imprisoned for it) and scrutiny before it was accepted.



3. Faulty theories are revised, those which are proven completely wrong are ditched.



4. So is Greek mythology true now too? Greek myths took place in real places and sometimes involved actual events or battles. Also see: talking snake.

Answer 8

Incoherent rant. Going through each argument is more than you deserve here, but I can do it easily so here goes:



1. The burden of proof is on you to prove miracles. You must prove an utter suspension of the laws of nature resoundlingly. Moreover, 'miracles' would not prove the existence of a deity, only realized improbability.



2. If a layman can peer review a cretinist journal and reject it with valid argument, I think that destroys your 'journal'. It happens all the time when layman atheists get a hold of your cretinist garbage literature.



3. Science is rarely 'overturned' if ever. Revolutionized ≠ overthrown. Get it, tard? The models are refined, built upon etc etc. We don't start making houses out of paper because we discovered that paper was superior.



4. The Babble is a collection of mythology. Any similarity with actual events is purely coincidental. You need to read the disclaimers before you use such language as 'horribly wrong'; what is this adverb/adjective supposed to convey anyway? Your stupidity?

Answer 9

1. Science can most definitely confirm miracles by announcing it has no natural explanation for this phenomenon. If you could turn water into wine in lab conditions, science WOULD acknowledge it.



2. If Galileo submitted his paper for peer review right now, it would pass. His conclusions were verifiable, observable and repeatable.



3. Einstein didn't prove Newton "wrong", he proved him obsolete by producing a BETTER model. With better explanation of the facts and better predictions. Any established theory in science can be "overturned" or in most cases corrected, by a better working one. This is why science is so awesome, it only gets better and more accurate.



4. The Bible proposed global flood. Science disproved global flood. QED.

Answer 10

Krhm..



1) Science: A systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

I don't see anything about not being able to comment on miracles on that.



2) Peer-reviewing is more important in the modern world than it was in the past. In Galileo's time, one individual could very well absorb everything known to mankind back then. This is NOT the case today. In our time, you have to consult multiple experts and see that your theory is well-founded. This is done through peer-review. The other reason for peer-review is for everyone to check that your work upholds the standards of science: verifiability, falsifiability and repeatability. That no such method existed in his time does ofc not invalidate his research. But it would pass today.



3) Umm.. What? That science adapts to our increasingly accurate observations of the world around us is a STRENGTH, not a weakness. I mean, which of these sounds like the better way to go about achieving knowledge?: http://miscellanea.wellingtongrey.net/comics/2007-01-15-science-vs-faith.png



4) So the Bible doesn't get anything wrong, does it? So these passages are all true? All of them? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk

Answer 11

Dude, Richard Dawkins is just one Atheist out of many. Personally, I see him as as much of an "evangelist" as many deluded Christians. He is not my leader, or "savior" his opinions are his own and do not effect me or mine.



You should spend your time figuring out the inconsistencies in your Bronze Age Shepard's Guide.



The only thing that connects all Atheists is the lack of belief in god or gods.



Taoist/Atheist (realist)

Answer 12

1.) What part of "burden of proof" is unclear to you?



2.) The scientific method has evolved over the course of humanity's existence as well.



3.) Scientists aren't claiming infallibility or knowledge of things that no one can detect in any way.



4.) Apart from a bit of pretentious name-dropping, there's no factual claim in the Bible that wasn't already common knowledge or a common misconception among 1st Century plebians.

Answer 13

I reluctantly have to agree with you on (1).



On (2)-(3), I think you don't quite understand how science works.



On (4) ... hoo boy, are you ever wrong.

Answer 14

Undoubtedly you believe you are on to something. I'm happy for you.



How ironic that you throw Galileo out as an example. How did the church receive his theories, btw?

Answer 15

im an atheist and i didnt say richard dawkins was right about everything. but he was certainly right in saying 'god' doesnt exist.

Answer 16

Whut th* fock??? I just about fell off my chair trying to read that whole big long question.



And why the crap don't you ever post a question addressed at agnostics??



Maybe because you aint' got nothin?

.

Answer 17

Darkins?

Answer 18

Thanks, I enjoyed that!