I should have separated the posts: the one regarding whether dawkins should be allowed a platform - and with reluctance I think he should - and otherwise my view on Dawkins as a scientist when he goes "off piste", and abuses science to fit his world view.
So I shall say nothing further on that - other than to say the example you give is some what facile comparing spaceships to cars which misses the point completely. So this is my last post on that aspect of the thread.
As an (ex) postgraduate professional physicist in areas involving quantum physics, I can say without fear of contradiction that a great deal of what you are obliged to believe in for conventional science is way past extraordinary, and for which there is no evidence at all, other than some of the equations derived from those assumptions seem to work.
A simple example.
Quantum phyiscs obliges me to believe - in simple terms - that particles do not exist till observed. It is not a question of indeterminacy in where they are, but they simply dont exist. Frustration with that concept led to Einsteins statement that he "refused to believe that the moon did not exist till he looked at it" in the context of the copenhagen interpretation. He lost the battle and was forced to concede Bohrs interpretation was correct and that the statement was true.
Far worse than that the fact of observation determining existence also means the universe is by that definition the world is only subjective. Yours different to mine.
So do you agree science world view is ridiculous, let alone extraordinary!
So Science obliges me to believe in many absurdities.
The philosophical failing is of course - to believe that science is more than a model,the failing is in believing science models underpin the real world rather than are just an observation model. Hawking has confirmed he believes the same in one of his books because it is the only logical consequence of his concept "model dependent reality"
So Sagans folly "extraordinary evidence" is ONLY used by those who try to defend their world view, raising the bar against things they don't like, and those who repeat suchs as Dawkins parrot fashion.. Like sagan. Like Dawkins. Who clearly do not have the support of the scientific method in making such a ridiculous statement. All evidence has to pass the same bar. Extraordinary is just a subjective word.
Dawkins doesnt "like" telepathy so uses all manner of logical fallacies to defend his dislike against the mountain of evidence, and has behaved shamefully (in the context of a scientist) in opposing it. He has classified it as "extraordinary", so no amount of evidence will ever pass his bar.
Yet there is far more evidence for telepathy than for much of what is presumed to be real science believes!
One step further.
In proper science abiogenesis does not even qualify as a hypothesis, let alone a theory, and certainly not a fact. But you would not know that reading Dawkins.
Who states his belief in life as an evolved biochemical accident "as close to a fact as is true". He clearly doesnt even know what a hypothesis actually is then!
The phenomenon requires to be either repeated or repeatable so that the hypothesis as a minimum has to be testable experimentally. Abiogenesis does not qualify! It is a belief, nothing else.
The fact is there is a large amount of forensic evidence for (for example) eucharistic miracles, and specifically because of the white cells, Living matter spontaneously appearing. So in evidential terms as an origin of life, it is far superior.
As a scientist I go where the evidence leads. But accept what science is. A method and a model, and that is all.
I don't think he's ever claimed that his musings on theism is scientific. They belong in the realm of philosophy and logic. His work as an accomplished scientist does not lend credence to his comments on theism - and his comments on theism does not detract from his work as a scientist.
Also noting, of course, the distinction between theism and religion. Some religions make testable claims which put us back within the framework of science. Dawkins has, quite eloquently and successfully, shredded a number of these claims. Especially in regards to creationism.
Within science; sure, to some extend. It's not really that black and white, but I'll grant the point for the sake of argument. But as there is no method within science to test the supernatural, claims of the supernatural are inherently unscientific. Claims of the supernatural must be evaluated in a different way and here's where the extraordinary evidence comes is.
I have no problem believing you if you claim that you own a car. I know that cars are a thing that exist. I have seen cars before, I have driven cars before, and I know of other people that own cars. Your claim does not go beyond what I can reasonably assume to be true based on the knowledge I already have.
It is an ordinary claim that requires ordinary evidence.
Were you instead to claim that you own an interstellar spaceship, I would need some pretty compelling evidence since I don't know that interstellar spaceships are a thing that exist. I have never seen an interstellar spaceship before, I have never flown an interstellar spaceship before, and I don't know of any other people that own interstellar spaceships. Your claim goes beyond what I can reasonably assume to be true based on the knowledge that I already have.
It is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.
Your god is in sense an interstellar spaceship.
He clearly is, though. And a rather accomplished one at that.
Sounds like an apt description of every religious apologist and their cheerleaders I've ever come by. They must have that in common, then.
I somewhat sympathize with the reasoning behind retracting the invitation. There seems to be a growing anti-Muslim sentiment in the US and that's problematic. Muslims are not part of a hivemind and their views, opinions, ideologies, and religious ideas can be as varied as those of Christians, Jews, atheists, etc. Not everyone possesses the ability to distinguish between so-called moderate Muslims who go about their life peacefully and aren't a threat to anyone, and Muslims who aren't. There's a very real chance that some will eventually get riled up to the point where they threaten, physically attack or otherwise mistreat perfectly innocent people because of anti-Muslim rhetoric. I don't believe that Dawkins would use anti-Muslim rhetoric, though. He's anti-Islam, not anti-Muslim.