People hatin' on Dawkins

[methylatedghosts]

Carl Sagan was pretty fantastic too.

And David Attenborough!

 

[Milton Platt]

Why is it so much criticism leveled against him seem to be about tone and never seem to really line up with what he really says? It's like his infamy causes people's brains to shut down and not think at all, and instead read too much into things they think he's saying but really isn't. They all seem threatened by his criticism and call him things like "ignorant" and "nasty". They can't separate criticism of religion from supposed bigotry. And that's really, really sad because the guy has some pretty good insights.

Maybe it has something to do with his British accent lol

Can't bring any to mind just now, but he has pulled a few verbal boners. I do enjoy his books, though.

 

[Mickdrew]

As many others here have alluded to, I think it does ultimately come down to tone.
It's true that in many ways Christopher Hitchens had more controversial criticisms over religion, but at the same time he was more eloquent and was very charismatic.
You need look no further for proof of this than the many religious people who were grieving when he passed away.

It all seems to come down to how you carry yourself. For as critical as Hitchens was, he had the air of someone who was fighting against a force he saw as evil.
Dawkins gives the impression that he's against religion because he thinks he's above it (something I'm inclined to agree with when you see how condescending he can be)
Hearts and minds can't be won to your cause when you act as if those who disagree are defective in some way.

 

[Underhill]

I tend to put it more bluntly "You're never going to persuade anyone that thinks you're a d!ck"

This may be true. But when it comes to most religious people, "you will never persuade anyone" is probably more accurate. When someone like Dawkins gets in a debate with a religious person, he isn't doing it for that person. He is doing it for those on the fence. I've never seen a dyed in the wool believer be won over, no matter how much, or how well, logic is applied.

He championed the idea that those who share a naturalistic view of the world should be termed 'brights'. This has to be the worst attempt 'branding' I can imagine as it simply can't escape the connotations that everybody who disagrees with this view is an idiot.

Yeah, that was a mistake.

 

[Underhill]

I don't much like him. He's awfully arrogant and condescending. I feel like he's a bit of an inside-the-box thinker. There's not much room there for explorations outside his own world-view. And it seems to me that whenever he argues against religion, it's mostly directed against Abrahamic religions, and doesn't really apply to others as well.

In short, he's an ***. Give me Tyson any day. At least he comes across a friendly, patient man, who actually cares about teaching someone something they mat not have considered before. Vs "you're an idiot, i'm right"

Tyson should be sainted by atheist. I don't know how he keeps his cool sometimes.

I can completely understand Dawkins impatience though. It can be unbelievably difficult to try to talk sense with those who believe sense has nothing to do with the equation.

 

[McBell]

Why is it so much criticism leveled against him seem to be about tone and never seem to really line up with what he really says? It's like his infamy causes people's brains to shut down and not think at all, and instead read too much into things they think he's saying but really isn't. They all seem threatened by his criticism and call him things like "ignorant" and "nasty". They can't separate criticism of religion from supposed bigotry. And that's really, really sad because the guy has some pretty good insights.

Maybe it has something to do with his British accent lol

I think it is mostly do to the fact he does not sugar coat it.
He is blunt and to the point and will not hesitate to call bull **** bull ****.
In a society that has to have all their political correctness sugar coated so as not to offend anyone, his straight forward no bull **** approach is to much.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)". Dawkins

I think Dawkins does about as much for evolution as Al Gore does for global warming, you sometimes wonder if they are planted by the other side!


But clearly evolution is an emotional issue for him, rather than a dispassionate scientific one. I don't think people who believe in evolution are stupid at all, I know and love many intelligent believers.

To take this position against the majority of humanity betrays a rather limited and hence biased social/professional circle.

The real problem with calling people with different beliefs 'stupid' is that you can never change your mind no matter the evidence, or that would make you everything you called others.

The atheist Fred Hoyle was a classic example of this. He called creation events like the Big Bang religious pseudo-science. How could he ever accept it as reality?

 

[Jumi]

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)". Dawkins

Well he is wrong there. I know a counterexample who was a scientist and honestly thinks his case is weaker than evolution, but he thinks it would be horrible if evolution was true because, you know, atheism.

I think Dawkins does about as much for evolution as Al Gore does for global warming, you sometimes wonder if they are planted by the other side!

I'm thinking the same about almost everyone who is a creationist theoretician I've ever heard of.

But clearly evolution is an emotional issue for him, rather than a dispassionate scientific one. I don't think people who believe in evolution are stupid at all, I know and love many intelligent believers.

Why can't it be both? He's obviously angry that the general public in several countries has limited knowledge of what we know today and people are still suffering because of it.

To take this position against the majority of humanity betrays a rather limited and hence biased social/professional circle.

Are you sure the majority of humanity believes in creationism? Such is not the case anywhere where I've ever lived. Even most Christians and other believers here know evolution and can't be bothered about it. Well some have imported creationist ideas here from the US, but that's about it.

The real problem with calling people with different beliefs 'stupid' is that you can never change your mind no matter the evidence, or that would make you everything you called others.

That's not a problem. A scientist will change his mind given conclusive evidence.

The atheist Fred Hoyle was a classic example of this. He called creation events like the Big Bang religious pseudo-science. How could he ever accept it as reality?

Big Bang wasn't a creation event.

 

[Augustus]

This may be true. But when it comes to most religious people, "you will never persuade anyone" is probably more accurate. When someone like Dawkins gets in a debate with a religious person, he isn't doing it for that person. He is doing it for those on the fence. I've never seen a dyed in the wool believer be won over, no matter how much, or how well, logic is applied.

Those on the fence are also likely to think he is a d!ck though. His strategy is only really effective when preaching to the choir rather than persuading those who don't already agree with him.

As regards rhetoric, he knows how to use logos, but doesn't appear to understand that ethos is far more important.

 

[Koldo]

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)". Dawkins

I think Dawkins does about as much for evolution as Al Gore does for global warming, you sometimes wonder if they are planted by the other side!


But clearly evolution is an emotional issue for him, rather than a dispassionate scientific one. I don't think people who believe in evolution are stupid at all, I know and love many intelligent believers.

To take this position against the majority of humanity betrays a rather limited and hence biased social/professional circle.

The real problem with calling people with different beliefs 'stupid' is that you can never change your mind no matter the evidence, or that would make you everything you called others.

The atheist Fred Hoyle was a classic example of this. He called creation events like the Big Bang religious pseudo-science. How could he ever accept it as reality?

He is correct on his assessment. Most people are not stupid nor insane though, just ignorant.

 

[Koldo]

Those on the fence are also likely to think he is a d!ck though. His strategy is only really effective when preaching to the choir rather than persuading those who don't already agree with him.

As regards rhetoric, he knows how to use logos, but doesn't appear to understand that ethos is far more important.

But it is important to preach to the choir when there are closeted atheists around.
There is one remarkable thing about him: He is unapologetic about his atheism.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why can't it be both? He's obviously angry that the general public in several countries has limited knowledge of what we know today and people are still suffering because of it.

you can't be passionate and dispassionate at the same time, I think Darwin was a good example of being fairly dispassionate, before such battle lines were drawn, he was moderate and open about potential problems with the theory- in a way that is very rare in today's polarized positions.(forums like this probably don't help us that way!)

I honestly think if Darwin knew then what we know now about those problems, he may well have abandoned it- by his own arguments.

Are you sure the majority of humanity believes in creationism? Such is not the case anywhere where I've ever lived. Even most Christians and other believers here know evolution and can't be bothered about it. Well some have imported creationist ideas here from the US, but that's about it.

<20% in the US believe in 'fundamentalist' evolution like Dawkins', that is evolution with no guidance from God whatsoever. (according to gallup)

I know it's <5% in Brazil - I think UK is a notably high percentage- which is ironic since- don't they still have state religion- prayers/hymns in school there?

Best way to run anything into the ground is to nationalize it maybe!

That's not a problem. A scientist will change his mind given conclusive evidence.

ideally, but in the real world?

Hoyle refused to accept the BB till his dying day not so long ago.

'science progresses one funeral at a time" Max Planck

Big Bang wasn't a creation event.

[/quote]

You would have to have argued that assertion with Hoyle, that's explicitly exactly why he and other atheists mocked and rejected Lemaitre's primeval atom as 'religious pseudoscience'

They overwhelmingly preferred static/ eternal/ steady state models for the opposite rationale: "no creation = no creator"

 

[Jumi]

I think Darwin was a good example of being fairly dispassionate, before such battle lines were drawn, he was moderate and open about potential problems with the theory- in a way that is very rare in today's polarized positions.(forums like this probably don't help us that way!)

Yes Darwin's theory had much in the way of gaps compared to today. It's not surprising given that it was new, there was no Mendel, no Watson&Crick, no McClintock... those were more simple days.

I honestly think if Darwin knew then what we know now about those problems, he may well have abandoned it- by his own arguments.

If he was transported to today in a time machine he would likely have abandoned his theory in favor of the modern theory given enough time to acquaint himself with modern data and methodologies.

<20% in the US believe in 'fundamentalist' evolution like Dawkins', that is evolution with no guidance from God whatsoever. (according to gallup)

Fundamentalists don't usually believe in evolution.

I know it's <5% in Brazil - I think UK is a notably high percentage- which is ironic since- don't they still have state religion- prayers/hymns in school there?

So it was with us in Finland also. We have a state religion and belief in evolution was almost universal until some local fundamentalists copied the theories of US fundamentalists. Belief in creationism is still very small, but has the smell of money around it.

Best way to run anything into the ground is to nationalize it maybe!

Agreed. Being forced to go to church, forced to pray when you don't believe is a good way to kill any goodwill for the religion. For me being forced to a religious summer camp helped clear my head. State churches were a good tool for nationalism, war and killing/embarassing heretics, but that time is gone now.

State religion and state atheism are both dumb and inflexible ideas for the modern times. It should not be up to the state to decide what religion or no religion people should follow. Also it shouldn't matter if someone is theist or atheist. They should focus on practical things such as efficient education, adequate defense, infrastructure...

ideally, but in the real world?

Acceptance is slower in real world. For me it's easy to abandon any ideas proven false since I have no undue idealism.

How about acceptance of LGBT by religious right? Some say God is love and for everybody, but how long would it take for it to be accepted in the "real world"?

Hoyle refused to accept the BB till his dying day not so long ago.

Even he amended his theory to account for new information. I have no reason or interest in defending an idealist who had different ideas to mine.

'science progresses one funeral at a time" Max Planck

Same can be said about politics, religion. In my country opposition to gay marriage among politicians was over 50s, lower than that it was accepted almost universally.

You would have to have argued that assertion with Hoyle, that's explicitly exactly why he and other atheists mocked and rejected Lemaitre's primeval atom as 'religious pseudoscience'

I hope you're not intentionally forgetting atheists who were instrumental in BB theory such as Hawkings. Atheism is no ideology.

They overwhelmingly preferred static/ eternal/ steady state models for the opposite rationale: "no creation = no creator"

And now many theist fundamentalists are opposed to big bang theory, because they think it is an attempt to prove there is no God, when in fact it proves neither. Just like evolution.

 

[Emi]

Why is it so much criticism leveled against him seem to be about tone and never seem to really line up with what he really says? It's like his infamy causes people's brains to shut down and not think at all, and instead read too much into things they think he's saying but really isn't. They all seem threatened by his criticism and call him things like "ignorant" and "nasty". They can't separate criticism of religion from supposed bigotry. And that's really, really sad because the guy has some pretty good insights.

Maybe it has something to do with his British accent lol

I love your icon.

Religious people that are intolerant tend to react that way with anyone that questions their faiths. Richard Dawkins happens to debate mainly with intolerant religious people. So I can see the correlation.

 

[Emi]

To quote from the God Delusion: "Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place."

To clarify, to you agree or disagree with that?

 

[Augustus]

To clarify, to you agree or disagree with that?

I think that it is an incredibly stupid thing to say. That it is 'arguably' worse to be brought up Catholic than being sexually abused is massively ignorant and highly irrational.

 

[Emi]

I think that it is an incredibly stupid thing to say. That it is 'arguably' worse to be brought up Catholic than being sexually abused is massively ignorant and highly irrational.

Oh thank goodness. I was worried for a moment that you were in agreement with it. People's brain permanently changes after sexual abuse, while being brought up religious doesn't alter the brain at all. That's all I was going to tell you anyway

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes Darwin's theory had much in the way of gaps compared to today. It's not surprising given that it was new, there was no Mendel, no Watson&Crick, no McClintock... those were more simple days.

The gaps were more hypothetical problems in his day, they are much better established now,

Fundamentalists don't usually believe in evolution.

young earth creationism and significant improvements arising purely by chance-- are both extremes, most of us are somewhere in the middle of the two don't you think?

Agreed. Being forced to go to church, forced to pray when you don't believe is a good way to kill any goodwill for the religion. For me being forced to a religious summer camp helped clear my head. State churches were a good tool for nationalism, war and killing/embarassing heretics, but that time is gone now.

State religion and state atheism are both dumb and inflexible ideas for the modern times. It should not be up to the state to decide what religion or no religion people should follow. Also it shouldn't matter if someone is theist or atheist. They should focus on practical things such as efficient education, adequate defense, infrastructure...

we agree here!

How about acceptance of LGBT by religious right? Some say God is love and for everybody, but how long would it take for it to be accepted in the "real world"?


Even he amended his theory to account for new information. I have no reason or interest in defending an idealist who had different ideas to mine.


Same can be said about politics, religion. In my country opposition to gay marriage among politicians was over 50s, lower than that it was accepted almost universally.

Love for all people, not necessarily all behaviour

I think that's another separation of church and state problem, the founding fathers made it clear it was about keeping government from interfering with religion at least as much as the other way around.

And I think this is somewhere theists and atheists have some common ground, the govt should not have been granting special favors (tax breaks etc) depending on what religious ceremony you had been through.
That's a blatant violation-

instead of further violating separation and freedom of religion to give others the same perks, why not correct the original violation? give everybody the same treatment regardless of whether they cohabitate with a different sex, same sex or live alone with a dozen cats?

 

[Jumi]

Dawkins made that comment about sexual abuse? It makes me lose some respect toward him. Luckily I don't have any idols or feelings toward New Atheism.

 

[Jumi]

young earth creationism and significant improvements arising purely by chance-- are both extremes, most of us are somewhere in the middle of the two don't you think?

Right. I don't believe in chance the way that everything just clicked and the ball started rolling. There were probably failures until something survivable came up. Things had billions of years to take shape and what we have now is still far from optimal. I can't see it as a design. If I believed in God or gods, I would expect more from them to be honest.

we agree here!

Based on your last post I'm sure we agree on many things value-wise.

Love for all people, not necessarily all behaviour

I can agree with that unless it involves campaigning against behavior that hurts no one, even if I don't like it.

I think that's another separation of church and state problem, the founding fathers made it clear it was about keeping government from interfering with religion at least as much as the other way around.

That's one of the things I admire about the US constitution. It's dispassionate with a passion in some parts.

And I think this is somewhere theists and atheists have some common ground, the govt should not have been granting special favors (tax breaks etc) depending on what religious ceremony you had been through.

In my country the State Church collects taxes and always gets cheap deals for property and such. I'm thinking religion might plummet if state enforced religion or religious ideals in the US, yet some people seem to want it.

instead of further violating separation and freedom of religion to give others the same perks, why not correct the original violation? give everybody the same treatment regardless of whether they cohabitate with a different sex, same sex or live alone with a dozen cats?

If I got your point we are in complete agreement here.