Dawkins & Religion

[Storm]

I don't think he's arguing from ignorance. I'm not sure I agree with his point, but it's not an argument from ignorance AFAICT.

I didn't mean in the sense of the formal fallacy.

I don't think it "denies the passion of others". I agree that there are many works of theology that have quite a bit of value wisdom in them... but IMO, that value is based on their philosophical import. Why not categorize them within "philosophy", then?

Because they're not philosophy. They're theology, and there's nothing wrong with that.

And I'm not sure I see the problem with setting aside written works if we conclude that they're baseless. Newton put just as much effort into alchemy as he did into physics and mathematics; does it "deny the passion" of Newton for us to now decide that alchemy is not a valid subject of study?

Yes. No one has the authority to tell others what to be interested in.

I don't think he's doing that. He's not trying to tell anyone what they should find interesting; he's talking about what he himself wants to hear.

I used to have a t-shirt that read "Freedom Of Expression: IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T LOOK."

The subject of religion and its effect on society is different from the subject of God.

A fair point.

I'm not expecting you to be impressed by him, but I don't think all of your criticisms of him here are necessarily fair.

No, you were not one of the atheists I had in mind when I posted.

 

[Riverwolf]

People from all different perspectives criticize others for out-of-context quotes and all sorts of things. I'm unclear as to why this is important to the discussion at hand, though.

'Cause there's some question as to whether or not the quotes are out of context. If they are, then they're not enough to make the conclusion that Dawkins is arrogant and ignorant of nearly all religion.

 

[Riverwolf]

You know, Storm, in all honesty, I don't think I've seen any of our regular atheist members cite Dawkins as an authority on religion.

 

[T-Dawg]

I've never actually read any of Dawkins' works or met the man, but from what I'm told, my views on Christianity (which I came up with independently) match his almost perfectly. From what I know of him, he's a great man.
EDIT: Well, not necessarily a great man, he's just doing what everyone SHOULD be doing. Come to think of it, it's kind of sad that this guy has become so famous for pointing out the obvious. It says a lot about society when common sense is hailed as genius (or ridiculed, as we see in many cases).

I don't see what's wrong with either of the two quotes in the OP. He's definitely right in the first one, anyhow.

 

[darkendless]

He says what a lot of people are thinking.

I respect him for standing up and saying "we're sick of your BS."

He might not be the most informed but neither are the people in every day life who get sick of religion being an issue.

 

[Kathryn]

What a fantastic OP. I couldn't have said it better myself.

The man is about as charming and intellectual as Ann Coulter or Al Sharpton.

 

[Autodidact]

What a fantastic OP. I couldn't have said it better myself.

The man is about as charming and intellectual as Ann Coulter or Al Sharpton.

Which of his ten best-selling books, nine about Biology and one about religion, have you read?

 

[Kathryn]

I've read as many of his books as I've read of Ann Coulter's books - which is zero. I've listened to both of them in interviews enough to know that whatever they're selling is repulsive to me.

 

[Autodidact]

That's what I figured. Had you read any of his published works, you would have realized that he is in fact one of the world's leading intellectuals, an innovator of powerful new ideas. Just because you disagree with him, does not make him stupid.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't mean in the sense of the formal fallacy.

Oh. In what sense did you mean it, then?

Because they're not philosophy. They're theology, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Hmm. Here's an analogy: much of the early work of astronomy was done in the context of astrology. People were interested in measuring and predicting the movements of the stars and planets in order to make more "precise" astrological predictions.

In terms of the actual goal of this sort of study, their activities were useless... because they were based on false beliefs about how the universe worked. However, their work had immense value for later scholars and scientists in the field of astronomy.

That's pretty much the same way I see theology. Its intended purpose is (IMO) bunk, but this doesn't stop it from having real, practical implications and insights for fields like philosophy and ethics.

Yes. No one has the authority to tell others what to be interested in.

Again, I don't think that's what we're talking about. There's a difference between calling someone's pursuit "navel-gazing" and telling someone that he's not allowed to stare at his navel.

I used to have a t-shirt that read "Freedom Of Expression: IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T LOOK."

And yet here you are, complaining about how Richard Dawkins uses his freedom of expression.

What a fantastic OP. I couldn't have said it better myself.

The man is about as charming and intellectual as Ann Coulter or Al Sharpton.

Ironically, it seems to me that if you took a speech from your run-of-the-mill liberal, "tolerant" Anglican priest (the sort of priest considered inoffensive and, if a bad word could be said about him, it would be to call him rather boring) and re-wrote it to be advocating atheism instead of theism, you'd get something much more "offensive" than any of the stuff from Dawkins that people get worked up about.

 

[Kathryn]

That's what I figured. Had you read any of his published works, you would have realized that he is in fact one of the world's leading intellectuals, an innovator of powerful new ideas. Just because you disagree with him, does not make him stupid.

I didn't say he was stupid.

I find his approach and demeanor to be so off-setting, that to me it negates whatever it is he's droning on and on about. His style is right uo there with Coulter, Limbaugh, et al.

He intends to be offensive, and he is. It's not a style I appreciate or want to expose myself to unnecessarily, so I don't.

 

[Autodidact]

I didn't say he was stupid.

I find his approach and demeanor to be so off-setting, that to me it negates whatever it is he's droning on and on about. His style is right uo there with Coulter, Limbaugh, et al.

He intends to be offensive, and he is. It's not a style I appreciate or want to expose myself to unnecessarily, so I don't.

There is at least one hugely significant difference. He doesn't lie.

However, just referring to style, which I guess is what you're saying, I find his quite light and subtle, completely unlike the bombastic nincompoops you're lumping him in with. Check him out; I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

[youtube]VxGMqKCcN6A[/youtube]
YouTube - Richard Dawkins: An atheist's call to arms

 

[Revasser]

There is at least one hugely significant difference. He doesn't lie.

However, just referring to style, which I guess is what you're saying, I find his quite light and subtle, completely unlike the bombastic nincompoops you're lumping him in with. Check him out; I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

I really have to agree with you here. Whenever I read some comment about Dawkins from someone who disagrees with him, there is always the impression that he's this shrill, unreasonable, strident and rude anti-religion hooligan.

Yet watching a presentation like the one you linked shows nothing like the rabid monster some would paint him as. On the contrary, I find him understated and charming most of the time, whether I agree with his ideas or not. Someone I wouldn't mind chatting with over afternoon tea.

 

[Nepenthe]

Yep, he's rather calm, witty and devoid of the arrogance that his detractors allege. I may disagree with some of his views but his positive contributions far outweigh the negatives. I'm always puzzled by the allegations that he's shrill or demeaning: he's a veritable soft spoken wuss when compared to an H.L. Menken or Spinoza or Twain.

 

[ellenjanuary]

To Dawkins, having no religion is his religion, and yeah, he sux at it. Funny thing is, the way I figure, history might just name him prophet; since the more I look at evolution, the more it looks godlike... but that's just me

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I have no problem with Dawkins. I find him entertaining and smart.

 

[Kathryn]

To each his own. Even Hitler loved puppies.

I'm just sayin'...!

(And before anyone gets wild eyed and accuses me of comparing Dawkins to Hitler, and writing an essay contrasting him with Hitler point by point - I'm saying this tongue in cheek. You guys KNOW that it's only a matter of time before someone trots out the Hitler comparison on this forum!)

I don't care for the guy, his beliefs, or his style. You can support him in any way you see fit, and I'll pass.

Love that free speech!

 

[Caladan]

OMG, I nearly spilled whats left of my coffee Kathryn.

 

[Kathryn]

Don't waste perfectly good coffee on this tripe! (I'm on my third cup of the morning myself.)

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I have no respect for the opinions of Richard Dawkins when it comes to religion, and I am sick to death of certain atheists holding him up as an authority. I'd like to point out to those people that quoting Dawkins on matters of faith is about as impressive as quoting Answers In Genesis on evolution. He doesn't know what he's talking about, and he's proud of it:
Somebody who thinks the way I do doesn't think theology is a subject at all. So... [charging me with failing to read theology] is like someone saying they don't believe in fairies and then being asked how they know if they haven't studied fairy-ology

This single quote utterly destroyed any respect I might have for the man. He's a brilliant scientist, to be sure. As such, he should damn well know better than to argue from ignorance.

Theology isn't "a subject at all?"

I am not a "fan" of Dawkins, nor do i dislike him. He is what he is and thats it.
But for me in that statement above he is simply right seen in context. Quote mining is always easy and taking a statement out of context too.

The same statement above could have come from me. Thats what you might call "apatheism" although we know that Dawkins is a "new atheist".

But yes, he is right. You do not have to spend years of delicate theological study in order to come to the conclusion that many/most/all religion(s) are mumbo jumbo.
You dont have to study the Summa contra gentiles to argue against a hell witing for damned souls.

And his analogy is perfectly fitting. The only reason why theology (especially concerning the specific three to 5 currently important religions) plays any role in the debates is because there are so many adherents that insist on it, contrary to the fairy tale stuff.

But i wouldnt say that you need to have studied all apologetics literature and all possible interpretations that so far have been made in order to state that you think the idea that we have a bearded father in heaven is nonsense or that there is no reasonable way to consistently interpret passages as meaning the opposite or something completely different than what is written in the books.

Which brings us to the next quote:
If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it.

More presumption, declaring himself the arbiter of other people's interests. Perhaps, if the subject is so utterly beneath him, he's the one who "should just shut up about it."

Sorry but also here i would agree to the statement. This doesn't mean that i would "forbid" people to speak out and neither does he mean it in that way (as you would have seen if you had taken the time to look at the related quotes on the webpage you referenced).
Coming from a scientific standpoint it is perfectly valid to state that people should speak about things they have evidence for IF they proclaim it to be true.
I can agree to this.

Me personally i would even go further because i have seen and lived through the consequences of people telling other people bogus nonsense that resulted in severe consequences.The wish that such people shut up is more than understandable.

Now, do I think he should be silenced? Of course not. He is, like everyone else, entitled to his opinions and his voice. Just don't expect me to be impressed by him.

You see... i HOPE that NOBODY is "impressed" by anyone to the extend that he "adheres" or "admires" the other one.
So i do not really know what the problem actually is