Richard Dawkins is not my guru

[gnomon]

This short clip shows what I believe to be the difference between a true teacher and someone seeking to make lasting, positive change and a militant rabble-rouser enraptured with their own notoriety and enriching himself off his followers.

I think you are misusing that quote.

 

[outhouse]

Dawkins isn't my Guru but from what he has written and said i get where he is comming from,really its just religion being questioned like anything else without being chopped up,stoned or burned to death,well in my country you can,why should religion be exempt from criticism,can't really think of a reason why it should.

whats hillarious is this 4 horsemen view


compare what they ignorantly call our 4 leaders, and put those against the thousands of theist attacking science, and they are very tame in comparison.


atheist make a snide comment and the world comes a part, wa wa wa wa wa cry cry cry

and theist go out on a complete bloodthirsty hunt for science, and all you hear is silence as they are ignored.

 

[England my lionheart]

whats hillarious is this 4 horsemen view


compare what they ignorantly call our 4 leaders, and put those against the thousands of theist attacking science, and they are very tame in comparison.


atheist make a snide comment and the world comes a part, wa wa wa wa wa cry cry cry

and theist go out on a complete bloodthirsty hunt for science, and all you hear is silence as they are ignored.

Like i said,religion has been exempt from criticism or serious questioning for so long that many don't know how to deal with it.

 

[Quintessence]

Like i said,religion has been exempt from criticism or serious questioning for so long that many don't know how to deal with it.

You know, I see this claim said often that "religion has been except from criticism for a long time" but rarely do I see any evidence of this. I'm beginning to question the truth of this assumption, as the more I think about it, the more counterintuitive it seems. If religion was never questioned, it would never evolve and there would never be any new religions or sects breaking off from a main group. New religions develop out of asking questions and finding different answers or ways of looking at things. Right?

 

[England my lionheart]

You know, I see this claim said often that "religion has been except from criticism for a long time" but rarely do I see any evidence of this. I'm beginning to question the truth of this assumption, as the more I think about it, the more counterintuitive it seems. If religion was never questioned, it would never evolve and there would never be any new religions or sects breaking off from a main group. New religions develop out of asking questions and finding different answers or ways of looking at things. Right?

Look at the history of two agressive Abrahmic religions,its written in history of what happened to their critics,as for a religion asking questions of itself,its still within the realms of that religion IMO.

 

[HerDotness]

This short clip shows what I believe to be the difference between a true teacher and someone seeking to make lasting, positive change and a militant rabble-rouser enraptured with their own notoriety and enriching himself off his followers....

And that's dismissing Dawkins really unfairly as if this is all there is to him.

Just so everyone knows, I like Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson's approach as them most logical and positive.

Sure, because he argues for the "Now, now, Professor Dawkins, let's tone it down and discuss these things calmly and persuasively" approach which HAS. NOT. GOTTEN. THROUGH. TO. PEOPLE.

I'm reminded of having heard Dick Gregory, the late black activist, speak in the late 1960's at my small central Kansas college where almost the entire student body were middle-class whites, most of whom grew up in the center of the U.S. Martin Luther King, Jr. was still regarded as something of an abrasive, outspoken "uppity" black in that part of the country then, to put Gregory in perspective.

Gregory made Dawkins' approach look mild-mannered, restrained and polite. Gregory repeatedly referred to his audience as smug, self-satisfied honkeys without the slightest idea what the reality of living in this country was for a black man like himself. He used just about every racial slur imaginable and repeatedly lambasted his listeners for their ignorance and complacency.

His approach woke me up bigtime. I realized that he was right. I was white and thus had the advantage of being complacent about racial equality. I'd never really thought about what an unjust advantage that was until he laid out the story of his life experiences and his views as harshly as he did.

Strong language and pulling no punches gets attention when decades of speaking politely and "taking into consideration the other person's state of mind" only permits that other to perpetuate the status quo.

 

[HerDotness]

What is being said is there is a difference between educating people and simply attacking them as being "severely ignorant". Tyson's approach is more likely to achieve better results than "The Four Horsemen of New Atheism".

You're reducing what Dawkins and the others--Hitchens, Dennett and Harris--have said to a really absurd straw man.

Not one of these men has done anything as simplistic as simply attacking religious believers for "being 'severely ignorant.' " They've each explained in sometimes exhaustive detail why religious beliefs are nonsense and ought to be shown up for the fantasies that so many of them actually are.

I'll grant you that I think Hitchens was by far the most insulting and abrasive of the four oftentimes; his book on Mother Teresa certainly displays those qualities. But then, his stock-in-trade as a columnist and essayist was to taunt and outrage people oftentimes. I sometimes suspected he reveled in letting his naughty little boy out to shock his readers.

What I'm wondering is if you've actually read any of these men's books or are simply disparaging them based upon out-of-context snippets such as you've posted here.

 

[Gomeza]

. . . What I'm wondering is if you've actually read any of these men's books or are simply disparaging them based upon out-of-context snippets such as you've posted here.

This is really a huge problem . . . to become noticed in this area of public discourse, one must draw attention to themselves, the easiest route to that goal being to create some form of controversy. Once that route is taken and the controversial words enter the public blogasphere, the sheer numbers of online commentaries representing opposing viewpoints makes it very difficult to discern the original positions taken by these men.

Before starting this thread I attempted to find something covering Dawkins words at the Reason Rally that was an accurate representation of his ideas, both considering the context and conveying the sentiments he intended. I was a little surprised to find that such an important historical event had virtually no mainstream media coverage and that the vast majority of online articles chronicling the event were written by non-attending third parties representing Christian based organizations (ironic ain't it?) . . . it wasn't until I stumbled across an online article written by someone who had actually been there, that I felt comfortable using a "snippet" of Dawkins words.

 

[HerDotness]

This is really a huge problem . . . to become noticed in this area of public discourse, one must draw attention to themselves, the easiest route to that goal being to create some form of controversy.

The loudest squeaking wheel gets the grease first...a truism that is unfortunately too often sadly accurate.

Once that route is taken and the controversial words enter the public blogasphere, the sheer numbers of online commentaries representing opposing viewpoints makes it very difficult to discern the original positions taken by these men.

Mostly because so many of those expressing opposing views really don't know what was actually said in its original context but are only relying upon someone else's assessment as accurate. We've seen a good deal of that happen on this thread. It's a variation of what I refer to as "Pastor says so" which translates to simply accepting what someone else says without ever bothering to investigate how accurate it is.

The other thread on this same issue has gone to over 500 postings lambasting Dawkins for having encouraged people to mock believers and religious beliefs when that's not what he said at all if you examine his statements in context as I pointed out in my posting #20 on this thread.

"Pastor says so" is a huge problem, I agree. And part of the reason why it occurs so frequently is not only that people accept too readily as true or accurate things said by those they regard as authorities but that religions often actively discourage thinking critically, doubting and questioning.

 

[cablescavenger]

A few years back I wrote the man a letter saying in no uncertain terms that it was fine for him to encourage atheists to out themselves from his position in life and from the security of his social status but there are still many places in the world where this is simply dumb and unsafe advice. I did not receive a reply.

Then I read his comments from one of his latest important speaking engagements, the so called Reason Rally, where he encourages the mocking of believers. Creating controversy through ill will is not the answer, nor was leaving the publication of, and the commentary on your words almost entirely in the hands of Christian online media particularly bright. People living in small individual cloisters amongst a believing majority outnumbering them almost 20 to 1 need to be a little more diplomatic in making their points. How can a man with so many academic credentials be so lacking in common sense?

Utilizing an unwavering passive resistance coupled with informed civil discourse is the only safe path for most none believers. Otherwise we are inviting social ostracism, or at the very least making our own lives more difficult. Current religious trends illustrate for us that attitudes are ever so slowly changing but we must accept that patience can be our only mindset whilst observing glacial speeds . . . . patience grasshoppa.

Dawkins has an influential ear in the UK, and his views are shaping reform.

He isn't controversial over here, he is just a mild mannered scientist. Most people wouldn't even know who he is.

 

[HerDotness]

You know, I see this claim said often that "religion has been except from criticism for a long time" but rarely do I see any evidence of this. I'm beginning to question the truth of this assumption, as the more I think about it, the more counterintuitive it seems. If religion was never questioned, it would never evolve and there would never be any new religions or sects breaking off from a main group. New religions develop out of asking questions and finding different answers or ways of looking at things. Right?

Look at the history of two agressive Abrahmic religions,its written in history of what happened to their critics,as for a religion asking questions of itself,its still within the realms of that religion IMO.

EML has a point--the two more aggressive Abrahamic religions have stifled criticism by means of torture and murder in the past, both very effective.

Today, Christians' stifling is more subtle. Now, people who openly criticize religious belief are told they're being closed-minded, intolerant or insulting.

Or what we're seeing here--that Dawkins should be expressing his ideas calmly and politely--which really means, "You must discuss religion in the manner which we approve, the most easily ignored, because we aren't going to allow you to do anything else."

 

[HerDotness]

Dawkins has an influential ear in the UK, and his views are shaping reform.

He isn't controversial over here, he is just a mild mannered scientist. Most people wouldn't even know who he is.

Not the case in the U.S. as you've seen demonstrated here on RF. Churchgoing is much more popular over here, and people generally take it far more seriously than I've read is the case in the UK which has become markedly more secular.

Religious belief is still a sacred cow for many people here, and they can get quite emotional over anything taken to be disparagement of beliefs or believers.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

If i had to chose a guru it would either be PZ or Degrasse-Tyson.

I find Dawkins boring and stuffy.

And i don't think ridicule is something that we shouldn't use. Any objective observer will see the myriad of defense mechanisms used by people on both sides (but mainly the theistic side). It of course won't work, but let's face it you only have to look at the evolution threads on this forum to find people so mired in their beliefs that ridicule is just as effective as 10 pages of scientific explanations. This ridicule may influence those sitting on the fence to actually investigate further.

-Q

 

[cablescavenger]

Not the case in the U.S. as you've seen demonstrated here on RF. Churchgoing is much more popular over here, and people generally take it far more seriously than I've read is the case in the UK which has become markedly more secular.

Religious belief is still a sacred cow for many people here, and they can get quite emotional over anything taken to be disparagement of beliefs or believers.

So you are agreeing with me?

The views of a Canadian won't matter to Dawkins on a professional level because he is influencing matters in the UK, and not Canada.

The ame would go for the US, or anywhere else where his views were seen as controversial.

You might cite his debates and tv appearances in the US, but he is invited to do that and I assume gets paid handsomely for it, so over there the controversy is lucrative for him.

 

[HerDotness]

So you are agreeing with me?

Not entirely although I'm not sure I'm understanding accurately what your opinion is, because Dawkins is generally regarded as very controversial in the U.S., so much so that most fervently religious people won't pay any attention at all to what he says about religion, atheism is hated that much still in the U.S.

The views of a Canadian won't matter to Dawkins on a professional level because he is influencing matters in the UK, and not Canada.

The ame would go for the US, or anywhere else where his views were seen as controversial.

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you mean here. Are you saying that people thinking he's too outspoken, extreme and controversial won't affect his reputation as a scientist or professor? If so, I agree, largely because most of the people condemning him for his atheism in the U.S. really don't pay any attention to or have any knowledge of his scientific writings.

You might cite his debates and tv appearances in the US, but he is invited to do that and I assume gets paid handsomely for it, so over there the controversy is lucrative for him.

Sure it's lucrative for him in part, I think, because he's regarded as provocative for being such an outspoken atheist. However, from what I've seen, he mostly has been invited to speak or debate at colleges and universities which have more leeway than do other venues to invite controversial intellectuals.

 

[Road Warrior]

Dude, you're not engaging in constructive discussion. You're just harping, harping, and harping on a statement by Dawkins and expecting everyone to fixate on it as madly as you do.

If you'll stop derailing every thread with your anti-atheist scaremongering, I'll quit calling you out for your cheap antics.

-Nato

You really need to stop apparently basing your opinions of people on short, out-of-context quotations. It only reflects badly on you.

Only from a certain percentage of people. What they think of me is their problem, not mine. All I'm attempting to do is achieve balance. A sense of fairness in perspective. Being attacked by people who support the extremists is par for the course.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Only from a certain percentage of people. What they think of me is their problem, not mine. All I'm attempting to do is achieve balance. A sense of fairness in perspective. Being attacked by people who support the extremists is par for the course.

What we're attacking is your endless repetition, your scaremongering tactics, and your complete lack of familiarity with Dawkins' written work.

If you're interested in fairness, display a little of it yourself.

-Nato

 

[jarofthoughts]

Being attacked by people who support the extremists is par for the course.

Who are these extremists of which you speak? :sarcastic

 

[Road Warrior]

What we're attacking is your endless repetition, your scaremongering tactics, and your complete lack of familiarity with Dawkins' written work.

If you're interested in fairness, display a little of it yourself.

-Nato

Again with the personal attacks. If you want to defend Dawkins so much, why not post what you think is so great about him instead of constantly attacking me for disagreeing with him?

Please. Tell me why you'd rather complain about me than defend Dawkins with proof of your own.

 

[cablescavenger]

Not entirely although I'm not sure I'm understanding accurately what your opinion is, because Dawkins is generally regarded as very controversial in the U.S., so much so that most fervently religious people won't pay any attention at all to what he says about religion, atheism is hated that much still in the U.S.

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you mean here. Are you saying that people thinking he's too outspoken, extreme and controversial won't affect his reputation as a scientist or professor? If so, I agree, largely because most of the people condemning him for his atheism in the U.S. really don't pay any attention to or have any knowledge of his scientific writings.

Kind of.

If I wrote to Govenor Perry and complained about his views on Green issues, would it matter? I am a UK citizen, it doesn't influence him? and my complaint isn't valid.

I was saying the same of the OP.

The opening post was a Candian complaining about a Brit who is primarily working to raise awareness of scientific advancment in the UK, who also promotes humanism and atheism in the UK. Why would the views of a Canadian bother Dawkins? it carries no weight or influence.

Sure it's lucrative for him in part, I think, because he's regarded as provocative for being such an outspoken atheist. However, from what I've seen, he mostly has been invited to speak or debate at colleges and universities which have more leeway than do other venues to invite controversial intellectuals.

I am not familiar with the institutions, but I trust your judgment. I think Dawkins likes to face an argument head on but he is not necessarily controversial. Hitchens was much more fierce in his debating technique.