[user:KaptKos] suggested we create this. For now I have put the latest text of Notable Supporters and Critics in it. I'll try to post the "moving forward" ideas later NBeale 12:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Notable Academic Supporters and Critics
editDawkins' views provoke much debate. [1]. The philosopher Daniel Dennett has a worldview very close to Dawkins and they often cite each other. A. C. Grayling is another supportive philosopher. Steven Pinker, John Krebs, Martin Daly and Randolph M. Nesse are publicly supportive scientists - all of these contributed to Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think. Critics in this book included Patrick Bateson offering 'affectionate disagreements' and Michael Ruse. Other publicly supportive scientists include Peter Atkins. By contrast there are strong disagreements between Dawkins's views and those of Stephen Jay Gould[2] and Martin Rees[3] who suggest that questions of religion should be left to philosophers and theologians. Dawkins lampoons Freeman Dyson[4]. John Polkinghorne[5], Russell Stannard[6], Simon Conway Morris[7] and Denis Noble [8] suggest that science does not support Dawkins' conclusions, indeed the first three all argue that mainstream Christianity is entirely compatible with modern science. Mary Midgley [9], Terry Eagleton [10], Alvin Plantinga [11], Richard Swinburne [12] and Alister McGrath [13] criticise Dawkins mainly on philosophical and historical grounds.
Suggested para to insert into the article
editUnless/until we have a wider consensus on the above I suggest that we insert something like the following (constructive edits please)NBeale 13:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Dawkins believes that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other" [14]. He disagrees with Stephen Jay Gould's idea of NonOverlapping MAgisteria (NOMA) and with similar ideas expressed by Martin Rees [15] Of "good scientists who are sincerely religious" he mentions Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins and says "I remain baffled ... by their belief in the details of the Christian religion" [16]
Merged with previous para
editOxford theologian Alister McGrath, author of Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life, has accused Dawkins of being ignorant of Christian theology and mischaracterising religious people generally. McGrath asserts that Dawkins has become better known for his rhetoric than for his reasoning, and that there is no clear basis for Dawkins' hostility towards religion. In response Dawkins states that his position is that Christian theology is vacuous, and that the only area of theology which might command his attention would be the claim to be able to demonstrate God's existence. Dawkins criticises McGrath for providing no argument to support his beliefs, other than the fact that they cannot be falsified.[17] Dawkins' campaign against religion continued with the publication of The God Delusion in September 2006 in which he argues "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other",[18] and outlines his disagreements with other scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould and Martin Rees, who regard questions of religion beyond the scope of science .[19]
References
edit- ^ To limit the scope of this section there is a consensus amongst the Editors that this list should be restricted to academics who have reached tenured Professorships at major universities and who have Wikipedia articles.
- ^ In Rocks of Ages Gould proposes a Principle of Non-Overlapping Magesteria
- ^ eg Reported in The God Delusion p55
- ^ The God Delusion p 153. Dyson stongly opposes reductionism [1] Templeton Lecture, and is dismissive of Dawkins eg in [2]
- ^ see eg his books Belief in God in an Age of Science, Science and Theology, Faith Science and Understanding and his official website
- ^ see eg his books Science and the Renewal of Belief, Grounds for Reasonable Belief, Doing Away With God?
- ^ see eg his Boyle Lecture and comments in his booksThe Crucible of Creation and Life's Solution
- ^ see The Music of Life
- ^ see eg her review of The God Delusion in New Scientist and her controversies with Dawkins in her Wikipeda article
- ^ See his review of The God Delusion
- ^ see eg his book Warranted Christian Belief
- ^ see eg his book Is There a God? - he is also attacked by Dawkins
- ^ see esp his book Dawkins' God
- ^ The God Delusion p50
- ^ He considers NOMA is "positively supine" and comments on Martin Rees's statement in 'Our Cosmic Habitat' that "Such questions lie beyond science, however: they are the domain of philosophers and theologians" with "What expertise can theologians bring to deep cosmological questions that scientists cannot?" (ibid p55-56)
- ^ ibid. p99
- ^ Marianna Krejci-Papa, 2005. "Taking On Dawkins' God:An interview with Alister McGrath." Science & Theology News, 2005-04-25.
- ^ The God Delusion p50
- ^ He considers NOMA is "positively supine" and comments on Martin Rees's statement in 'Our Cosmic Habitat' that "Such questions lie beyond science, however: they are the domain of philosophers and theologians" with "What expertise can theologians bring to deep cosmological questions that scientists cannot?" (ibid p55-56)