Richard Dawkins is not my guru

[E. Nato Difficile]

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.

Um, it's not a personal attack if we're talking about the dishonest debate tactics you've used in your petty vendetta. And I'm pretty sure I did defend Dawkins in this post where I talked about the good points of one of his fascinating books. But you were too busy demonizing him for his mockery to even notice.

Oh, that's right, you still think you're being attacked for disagreeing with Dawkins, because it sounds so much more virtuous than being told to get some new material because we're over the whole "mocking" thing.

-Nato

 

[HerDotness]

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.

I understand your point that no, indeed, a non-citizen's view wouldn't carry any weight with either the governor or with Dawkins necessarily.

Above, you've portrayed Dawkins in a manner very different from how he is regarded in the U.S. Most people here if they know who Dawkins is at all have heard about and think of him as "one of those loudmouthed, obnoxious atheist guys who ought to have better manners and not criticize religion." His book has actually been the subject of sermons condemning him for denying that God is real, aware and active in people's lives.

That he's an atheist would be sufficient to cause some American Christians to refuse to read anything by him, even his writings on science.

Some Christians I've known actually check the telephone directory ads or call a business or service, doctor or dentist to ask if it's owned and staffed by Christians before they'll do business or go there. I've honestly had such people tell me that even if they were told that an atheist surgeon was the best one in the area, attested even by other physicians, they'd go to a Christian one who wasn't that good simply because they want someone who believes in Jesus to perform surgery on them.

I am not familiar with the institutions, but I trust your judgment.

I'm flattered...but you shouldn't, you know, I'm sure.

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.

In the U.S. for the reasons I've already given, all of these men are regarded as extremely controversial simply because they're atheists.

Dawkins is a better debater than Hitchens was. Hitchens was a witty writer but tended to disregard people's sensitivities far more than Dawkins does. Hitchens often wasn't very effective in expressing his ideas clearly and straightforwardly when participating in a debate; Dawkins is accustomed as a professor to breaking down complex ideas to make them more readily understood and organizing spoken ideas clearly.

(I was a debate coach and public speaking teacher for 15 years.)

 

[HerDotness]

Originally Posted by E. Nato Difficile
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.

Not one of the things that Nato mentioned is an attack upon you as a person. You apparently don't know (or prefer to deny) that these are all references to how you've presented your opinions and what you appear actually to know of Dawkins's writing and not personal attacks.

A personal attack would have been saying, "You're obviously too stupid to understand what I'm saying" or "You're clearly too stubborn to listen to what a reasonable person has to say."

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

It's not an attack - it's accusing you of being biased and dishonest in your representation of Dawkins. He's not an "extremist", and your use of freighted language simply highlights how willing you are to distort him and his views in order to misrepresent his perspective. You've already been called-out for quote-mining, I'm just adding that using such cheap tactics reflects badly on you. If you have a case against Dawkins, show that your understanding of his point of view extends to more than just a couple of sentences he said.

If you do not understand the difference between a knee-jerk reaction intended to antagonize a particular person or perspective, and a well thought-out argument constructed from logic with clear indications of being open and willing to debate the subject objectively, here's the difference:

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.

No one can argue with the points you are making. I completely agree with Dawkins assertion that the criticism of religious beliefs has for too long been a taboo subject. As an individual who has suffered a lifetime of condescension, insults and outright unprovoked verbal attacks by the believing majority, I fully appreciate the justification many people feel to respond in kind. My point is that the last thing i want to become is a voice as acidic and unreasonable as those who have subjected me to this treatment.

I prefer clubbing them over the head (figuratively) with the inconsistencies and irreconcilable notions inherent within their own beliefs.

Do you see it?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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?

I think most of the time it's subtle, but it's definitely there. Having been to a series of Catholic schools, I remember being told that it was "wrong" for me to voice my opinion of religion since mine "didn't count" because I was an atheist. And I also remember basically agreeing with that idea throughout a lot of my life. Although I was an atheist, and regarded religious beliefs as inherently silly, I felt the need to gag myself whenever the subject came up - as if the mere mention of my atheism would somehow shatter the fragile notions of all religious people around me, and that they would rightly stab me in the eyes for being so inconsiderate.

Since I've been an "out" atheist, I've come to realize that a large amount of this actually comes from atheists, rather than theists. A lot of atheists pre-horsemen felt a constant need to apologize for their lack of beliefs. Since then, I have found a general notion amongst the religious (of all breeds) that their beliefs shouldn't be questioned. It's not so much said in those words, but a common wall I come up against in response to crticisms of religion is "don't attack my beliefs!" There is a very deeply-entrenched notion that a lot of people of faith that that any amount of criticism of their beliefs should be interpreted as an "attack", as if the mere questioning of a particular religious belief in and of itself constitutes some form of cruel injustice.

I would say it's more common online than in person, but then again all things are.

 

[HerDotness]

Since I've been an "out" atheist, I've come to realize that a large amount of this actually comes from atheists, rather than theists. A lot of atheists pre-horsemen felt a constant need to apologize for their lack of beliefs. Since then, I have found a general notion amongst the religious (of all breeds) that their beliefs shouldn't be questioned. It's not so much said in those words, but a common wall I come up against in response to crticisms of religion is "don't attack my beliefs!" There is a very deeply-entrenched notion that a lot of people of faith that that any amount of criticism of their beliefs should be interpreted as an "attack", as if the mere questioning of a particular religious belief in and of itself constitutes some form of cruel injustice.

Not just a cruel injustice but a personal attack, because of a more dangerous, subtle form of forbidding criticism: We must tolerate what others believe which really means we cannot express any kind of criticism of their beliefs, or we'll be accused of intolerance which accusation will escalate until it becomes evident that they're not going to allow us to say anything that isn't "positive," i.e. complimentary or at least uncritical about what they believe.

If someone assures an atheist that they believe the founder of their faith got their holy book's text from some golden tablets given to the man by an angel, we must nod thoughtfully and say something mild like, "How very interesting. And you tell me that you truly believe that? You do? My, my...how interesting." We simply cannot say what we're really thinking which is likely, "How completely insane to believe that! Any rational person knows that cannot possibly be true any more than Santa Claus gets to every home to leave gifts, eat cookies and drink milk on Christmas Eve."

This is what Dawkins and the other three object to--this intense effort to prevent ANY criticism of even the most farfetched beliefs.

Bizarrely, that same restriction doesn't apply to Christians, a good many of which will say outright that some other sect of Christianity "aren't REAL Christians" for whatever reason or reasons...and they mean it. That's okay by their standards because they're combatting falsehood. And of course many beliefs other than their own are false as are all deities but their own God. ANYbody knows that!

It's a really bizarre double-standard.

 

[Gomeza]

. . . It's a really bizarre double-standard.

It truly is a bizarre double standard, a one way trajectory of consideration where those who aren't buying into the group think are expected to extend a level of respect that is never reciprocated.

When I am confronted by someone demanding that I respect their beliefs my answer is invariably the same "You first"

 

[HerDotness]

It truly is a bizarre double standard, a one way trajectory of consideration where those who aren't buying into the group think are expected to extend a level of respect that is never reciprocated.

When I am confronted by someone demanding that I respect their beliefs my answer is invariably the same "You first"

And I'd bet my life savings, safely too, that when you say that and the person also knows you're an agnostic, their usual response if they are direct and honest is, "You've got to be kidding! You don't even fully believe that God/gods must exist and be active in people's lives. Why should I respect that kind of wrongness and falsehood at all?"

If they're a bit nicer and more polite, they'll start trying very hard to explain to you why agnosticism is so terribly wrong, why you must quit being agnostic immediately, but they're really thinking the very same thing.

 

[England my lionheart]

Not just a cruel injustice but a personal attack, because of a more dangerous, subtle form of forbidding criticism: We must tolerate what others believe which really means we cannot express any kind of criticism of their beliefs, or we'll be accused of intolerance which accusation will escalate until it becomes evident that they're not going to allow us to say anything that isn't "positive," i.e. complimentary or at least uncritical about what they believe.

If someone assures an atheist that they believe the founder of their faith got their holy book's text from some golden tablets given to the man by an angel, we must nod thoughtfully and say something mild like, "How very interesting. And you tell me that you truly believe that? You do? My, my...how interesting." We simply cannot say what we're really thinking which is likely, "How completely insane to believe that! Any rational person knows that cannot possibly be true any more than Santa Claus gets to every home to leave gifts, eat cookies and drink milk on Christmas Eve."

This is what Dawkins and the other three object to--this intense effort to prevent ANY criticism of even the most farfetched beliefs.

Bizarrely, that same restriction doesn't apply to Christians, a good many of which will say outright that some other sect of Christianity "aren't REAL Christians" for whatever reason or reasons...and they mean it. That's okay by their standards because they're combatting falsehood. And of course many beliefs other than their own are false as are all deities but their own God. ANYbody knows that!

It's a really bizarre double-standard.

I agree,its ok for some Christians to call others heretics,or Muslims to call others Kufar and agree its ok to send them to the fire,just make a serious criticism of the Church or Islam and its as if you have commited a crime.

 

[HerDotness]

I agree,its ok for some Christians to call others heretics,or Muslims to call others Kufar and agree its ok to send them to the fire,just make a serious criticism of the Church or Islam and its as if you have commited a crime.

Precisely.

Boggles the mind, it does.

 

[Road Warrior]

I think you are misusing that quote.

Your opinion is nice, but, well you know the quote about how everybody has one. It'd be more helpful and supportive of your support of Mr. Dawkins if you explained why you thought not only why you thought I was misusing the quote but what you believe it means. Is that too much to ask of you or anyone?

 

[Road Warrior]

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.

Sure it gets attention, but it also creates backlash. Work smarter, not harder.

Ironic that the group which prides itself on "reason" and "free-thinking" think "strong language and pulling no punches" to get attention is a better strategy than teaching, logic, reason and discussion.

 

[vepurusg]

Ironic that the group which prides itself on "reason" and "free-thinking" think "strong language and pulling no punches" to get attention is a better strategy than teaching, logic, reason and discussion.

It's not ironic that they think that, since that conclusion is reached using reason (marketing information, etc.).

It might be somewhat ironic that the best way to spread reason and free-thought IS to appeal to people's irrationality through emotion and shock tactics.

But it's not ironic that they think that.

 

[Road Warrior]

It's not ironic that they think that, since that conclusion is reached using reason (marketing information, etc.).

It might be somewhat ironic that the best way to spread reason and free-thought IS to appeal to people's irrationality through emotion and shock tactics.

But it's not ironic that they think that.

Sorry, man, but I disagree. "Marketing" is emotional appeal, not logic. Dr. Tyson is correct. Teaching is better, not attack as Mr. Dawkins and his followers favor. Defend Dawkins all you like, but I will favor logic and reason over emotion any day.

BTW, I'm looking forward to Dr. Tyson hosting the new sequel of "Cosmos". He is a great teacher of logic and science over superstition and ignorance.

 

[gnomon]

Your opinion is nice, but, well you know the quote about how everybody has one. It'd be more helpful and supportive of your support of Mr. Dawkins if you explained why you thought not only why you thought I was misusing the quote but what you believe it means. Is that too much to ask of you or anyone?

It is too much when it's already been explained to you. You are implying the quote is Dawkins. It's not. The context of him quoting someone else is a joke.

There's nothing more to explain.

I'm not supporting Richard Dawkins. I'm opposing irrational claims about him.

 

[vepurusg]

Sorry, man, but I disagree. "Marketing" is emotional appeal, not logic.

No offense, but you are precisely backwards on all of this.

I'll take this one post to try to set you straight; please consider it carefully.

First, you have quite a bit to learn about marketing. Marketing is a matter of getting the job done- and determining the most effective means (cost, audience, etc.) is a matter of using reason and logic; particularly through analyzing statistics and surveys.

We look at what works, what gets the message out, and for what cost.
We know that with limited funds, free media through sensationalism is the only effective means to advertise.

If the most effective means to get the job done are to appeal to emotion, and use sensationalism for free advertising, then that is the logical course of action in order to achieve one's goals.

Rejecting the most efficient means is not logic, it is dogma or irrational deontology.

If you reject appeal to emotion and sensationalism as tactics despite them being the most effective because you find them personally distasteful, you have the right to do that- but please don't dishonestly pretend it's logical to reject them, when it's a matter of your personal dogmatic rejection of the means on pseudo-ethical grounds.




IF you have some new hard evidence that appealing to emotion and using sensationalism is LESS effective than trying to teach in a more conventional way, THEN you can criticize the practice as irrational/illogical. Currently, though, the weight of the evidence is against you where marketing is concerned.

The burden of proof is upon you when criticizing the techniques being used- it is upon you for making the extraordinary claim that those techniques are illogical or irrational when all evidence in modern history of marketing strategy says the opposite.

Provide evidence, and then I will gladly listen to you.


If you're just making dogmatic assertions based on faith, or going by an irrational personal deontology, then you aren't even making an argument to address.


If you don't have such evidence, then it is YOU who are being illogical here.

Defend Dawkins all you like, but I will favor logic and reason over emotion any day.

If you favor logic as a marketing strategy over use of emotional appeal without evidence, then you do so out of dogmatic faith or illogical deontology, and not out of actual logic or reason.

Trying to use only appeal to logic and reason as a marketing strategy out of illogical faith in the efficacy of logic and reason as a marketing strategy to support logic and reason?

Now THAT IS ironic.


Anyway, I hope you can understand that. If not, no offense, but you might want to spend a little more time educating yourself on logic and reason too.
There's nothing in logic that insists that appeal to logic is the best possible marketing strategy- particularly for irrational people.

Worry about efficacy first, and purity second.

The movement may need people like Tyson and Dawkins both to fulfill their respective roles.

 

[HerDotness]

Sure it gets attention, but it also creates backlash. Work smarter, not harder.

Ironic that the group which prides itself on "reason" and "free-thinking" think "strong language and pulling no punches" to get attention is a better strategy than teaching, logic, reason and discussion.

What you don't seem to comprehend is that all the techniques you say ought to be used HAVE been for years and years with few believers doing anything but refusing to listen at all to why non-believers think religion has no valid basis but wishful and magical thinking. We've gotten a lot of that refusal here with the "But you must be nice and polite...and most of all tolerant of others' beliefs." Where's the tolerance and openmindedness for ATHEISTS? I sure haven't seen much.

I'm hardly advocating doing nothing but using strong language and pulling no punches. Don't be ridiculous! Nor is Dawkins saying those are the primary or the preferable techniques to use. You're oversimplifying what he advocates by a long shot and once again being ridiculous. I should think his calm, reasonable demeanor in speaking and debate situations would demonstrate that he agrees with you that logic and reasoned approaches are by far preferable.

But what do you do when you get revulsion and dismissal from your mere self-identification as an atheist/agnostic/secular humanist? And you're fooling yourself if you think that those labels don't get the person's ideas dismissed from the get-go frequently. That's why Dawkins and the other Neo-Atheists have resorted to stridency; they have NO other choice. Calm, rational argument is too easily ignored and dismissed and has been for years. Inflammatory language and insult get attention; that's been demonstrated by how well their books have been selling.

The problem is that teaching doesn't get anywhere when the recipient dismisses from the start what you're trying to get across. Believe me, I know that all too well from having been a professional educator for twenty years.

Identify oneself as an atheist/agnostic/secular humanist in the U.S., and you're immediately dismissed by too many religious people as a person whose views are unworthy of regard or even of the least consideration. Do you really have so little comprehension of how vile non-belief is viewed by most believers?

 

[Prophet]

Hi vepurusg:

So, having a supremely powerful means to furthering your personal aims and not using it out of moral obligation makes one irrational? Do you truly understand the implications of such an argument?

Do you understand that this line of reasoning leads directly to the philosophy of "might makes right"? A king who doesn't use his army to his greatest advantage with no regard for the value of other beings is being highly irrational in your view.

I understand that you are not consciously making the case for genocide. What you are making the case for is the proliferation of ignorance to your advantage. It follows the same rational steps as a classic justification for genocide. If a rhetorician doesn't use his powers of deception and proliferation of ignorance to his greatest advantage with no regard for the value of other beings, he is being highly irrational in your view, is he not?

 

[HerDotness]

Teaching is better, not attack as Mr. Dawkins and his followers favor. Defend Dawkins all you like, but I will favor logic and reason over emotion any day.

Okay, let's qualify this.

Which of the four Neo-Atheists' books have you read? What titles since Harris has written more than one of this sort of thing?

Because I don't for the life of me see how you can say they favor emotion over logic and reason unless you've read none of their books on religious belief but are operating out of what's essentially a "Pastor says so," i.e. "I don't HAVE to read any of their books to know how extreme their approach is."

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sure it gets attention, but it also creates backlash. Work smarter, not harder.

Has there been a strong, religious backlash against Dawkins? So far, the only "backlash" I have seen is in the form of rip-off books that destroy ill-constructed strawmen of his arguments and about a hundred angry religious forums.

Ironic that the group which prides itself on "reason" and "free-thinking" think "strong language and pulling no punches" to get attention is a better strategy than teaching, logic, reason and discussion.

Strawman. They didn't say that they thought it was a "better strategy", they just said it's how they choose to get attention. Considering a large portion of the western world's media is largely influenced by religious ideologies and institutions, I'd say it works fairly well. The truth is, whether you admit it or not, the vast majority of religious individuals don't exactly respond well to logical and reasoned discussion. Do you honestly believe that anybody out there would even be aware of or even discussing Dawkins at this moment if he wasn't as forthright as he is? Telling atheists such as Dawkins (or, for that matter, myself) to not try and grab attention is no different to telling us we should just sit down and shut up.