I answered it above.
The thing is that I don't mind him baiting the religious nuts, I have a massive problem with him saying that they are wrong (which I personally believe) for trying to convert others without evidence, before immediately doing the same.
It is not his opinion, but his hypocrisy which ires.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:20,
Share,
Reply)
Dawkins is not a hypocrite
nor is he making assertions in defiance of any logical code.
In order to know your position, you must first have an absolute baseline relative to it. To a scientist, knowing your position is crucial to following the scientific method. It's called the Null Hypothesis.
The theist's baseline is a rich history of religion that reinforces belief through faith. This neatly avoids the need for evidence/scrutiny of any kind and is, by definition, impossible to measure or disprove. A scientist's baseline is an absence of effect that can be easily disproved by (repeatedly) observing and measuring the effect. If the effects of a deity ever occur repeatedly under laboratory conditions, scientists will modify their Null Hypotheses accordingly.
Scientific theories require a Null Hypothesis to be falsifiable and therefore credible. I think you are asking Dawkins to describe a scientific theory without invoking it (in this case, the Null Hypothesis states that a creator god does not exist), which is impossible. It's a bit like asking a theist to state his beliefs without invoking dogma, scripture or any religious references.
Long story short: Dawkins is a scientist, make sure you consider that when you analyse what he says. He ultimately just wants to understand life in a testable way.
(
chart cat has an itch, Sun 28 Nov 2010, 16:03,
Share,
Reply)