Jump to content
kaan0035

10 Best Richard Dawkins Books

Recommended Posts

Hello, ScienceForums,

I made a list of Best Richard Dawkins books I think that all science lovers need to read.

url deleted

do you agree with the list?

or should I add another books to the list?

any suggestion is welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Posting to advertise a site is against our rules. Feel free to post the list here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read "The God Delusion" which was was pretty good. I wouldn't say that science lovers "need" to read it though. Its was more about flaws in religion than science I thought.

I like him but I don't think he does much for science, never actually heard of anyone changing there mind after meeting him, I would like to see him interview a respected physicist who believes in god rather than school children. Would be much more interesting.

He seems to be of the opinion that science and religion doesn't/can't go together. Which I think is bulls*#t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Curious layman said:

He seems to be of the opinion that science and religion doesn't/can't go together. Which I think is bulls*#t.

I agree.

I read The Blind Watchmaker when it came out. I thought it was a good insight into the mechanisms (if you'll excuse the pun) involved.

Never read anything else by him (but the bits I have seen about his views on religion are just annoyingly stupid.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Because the url was deleted, i’ll be posting the list here.

30 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

He seems to be of the opinion that science and religion doesn't/can't go together. Which I think is bulls*#t.

I don’t think that people believing in lies instead of the truth can’t be scientist nor a science lover.

Edited by kaan0035

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kaan0035 said:

I don’t think that people believing in lies instead of the truth can’t be scientist nor a science lover.

I don't think science has anything much to do with "truth".

And as there are plenty of scientists who believe in god or gods (and even more implausible things) your belief seems to be unfounded. (Isn't it ironic that you should believe in something that isn't based on evidence?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't think science has anything much to do with "truth".

Science is actually about finding the truth.

anything may be true or wrong until science says the opposite.

when it comes to believing in religion or god, science has facts proving all the religions were made up.

i don’t wanna discuss it, if you wanna believe , you can, man

 

Edited by kaan0035

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, kaan0035 said:

Science is actually about finding the truth.

Really? So is it "true" that gravity is a force (Newton) or is it true that it is curvature of spacetime geometry (Einstein)?

Is it "true" that light is an electromagnetic wave (classical theory) or is it "true" that is made up of photons (quantum theory)?

Is it "true" that there is a singularity of infinite density at the centre of a black hole (GR) or is that physically unrealistic (requiring an as yet unknown theory of quantum gravity to explain)?

And what about all the things that are not susceptible to scientific analysis? Is it "true" that rap music is better than opera? Or is the opposite "true"?

Science is about finding the best descriptions of things we can observe and measure. Those descriptions are not necessarily true; they are always contingent and subject to change in light of further evidence or new theories. Maybe you need a list of 10 best books on the philosophy of science! :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Strange said:

Those descriptions are not necessarily true; they are always contingent and subject to change in light of further evidence or new theories.

Same thing different words.

 What I am trying to say is, science never stops. The truth of today will be wrong in the future. Therefore, it’s always about finding the real truth.

And you are talking about finding further evidence and new theories and defending religions here, it’s been a very very long time since science proved that all the religions are fake.:D

Edited by kaan0035

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, kaan0035 said:

What I am trying to say is, science never stops.

This is the only correct part of your sentences I could find. Science relies on theory for this exact reason. It doesn't rely on "truth", it relies on the best supported explanations. Because when you think you've found an "truth" or "the answer" or "proof" that you're "right", you stop looking. Science never stops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kaan0035 said:

What I am trying to say is, science never stops. The truth of today will be wrong in the future. Therefore, it’s always about finding the real truth.

The "truth" of science may always be found to be wrong. Therefore it isn't truth. As science never stops, it ill never find the "real truth".

15 minutes ago, kaan0035 said:

And you are talking about finding further evidence and new theories and defending religions here, it’s been a very very long time since science proved that all the religions are fake.

I am not defending religion, just rational argument. 

I don't believe scarce has, or can, disprove religion. It is outside the scope of science because "gods" are not objectively measurable or testable. Individual claims or stories might be disproved, but that doesn't prove that all religion is wrong. In the same way that finding one theory is wrong doesn't disprove all of science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kaan0035 said:

i don’t wanna discuss it, if you wanna believe , you can, man

Live and let live, man; does my fathers faith impact you, in any way?

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Never read anything else by him (but the bits I have seen about his views on religion are just annoyingly stupid.)

Indeed, it seems nothing more than a crusade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

No offense, gentlemen, but “I’ve not read for myself what is included in those books, but i know I dislike them” suggests rational argument isn’t your actual motivation.

It reminds me of people who dismiss the Mueller report without having read it for themselves and you’re both better than that. It’s below you. It’s annoyingly stupid  

It’s fine if you don’t want to read the books. Nobody would care. It’s not fine, however, to dismiss or categorize them as annoyingly stupid without having done so. 

Sure, there are stupid parts within them, but on net they’re accurate and helpful to those considering departure from the god fog. 

Edited by iNow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, kaan0035 said:

What a science forum it is

Listen to this...

In which Dawkins asked "Is it true"... 

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, iNow said:

No offense, gentlemen, but “I’ve not read for myself what is included in those books, but i know I dislike them” suggests rational argument isn’t your actual motivation.

Did anyone say that. I have no comment on any of his books, other than the one I have read (which was very good).

I can criticise other things I have heard him say. (And, based on that, his attitude in general.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Strange said:

Individual claims or stories might be disproved, but that doesn't prove that all religion is wrong. In the same way that finding one theory is wrong doesn't disprove all of science.

To me, this isn't even something you can be skeptical about. You'd be on the fence your whole life! 

I think the only rational reconciliation between science and religion is that science needs evidence, and religion isn't interested in evidence, so science can avoid sitting on the fence by requiring evidence before analyzing religion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kaan0035 said:

Science is actually about finding the truth.

No, it’s not. It’s about finding out how nature behaves, from a combination of observing, making models and testing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, kaan0035 said:

What a science forum it is

If you came here making religious claims, you would see a very different side to the forum!

(BTW, you have probably hit the 5 post limit for the first day. You can post more tomorrow.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

To me, this isn't even something you can be skeptical about. You'd be on the fence your whole life! 

I think the only rational reconciliation between science and religion is that science needs evidence, and religion isn't interested in evidence, so science can avoid sitting on the fence by requiring evidence before analyzing religion. 

That seems to dismiss any contribution religion can have, there is plenty of evidence for that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That seems to dismiss any contribution religion can have, there is plenty of evidence for that. 

Perhaps I should have said "religious claims" instead of religion, but the gist is the same. Show me some evidence and then we can see if it supports what you claim. You really can't get any fairer than that dealing with gods that can avoid observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Perhaps I should have said "religious claims" instead of religion, but the gist is the same. Show me some evidence and then we can see if it supports what you claim. You really can't get any fairer than that dealing with gods that can avoid observation.

I'm not talking about gods, but religion and the placebo effect seem to run hand in hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not talking about gods, but religion and the placebo effect seem to run hand in hand.

Along with eating shark fin soup and mutilating women and homeopathy. Good company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Along with eating shark fin soup and mutilating women and homeopathy. Good company.

Does the placebo effect have no evidence? Or are you suggesting religion has no effect, other than in a negative sense?

The evidence suggests, the more trusted the person the more effective the effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

That seems to dismiss any contribution religion can have, there is plenty of evidence for that. 

What types of contributions are you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.