Dawkins!

[fantome profane]

What I do despise is the pedestal SOME atheists have put him on. Inflammatory =/= brilliant, much less unbiased. I'm sick of reading "The God Delusion proves x."

Believe me, so am I.

 

[Valjean]

But doesn't Dawkins have logical and well-reasoned arguments in support of his positions? It's not right to dismiss, much less condemn, an idea just because it makes you uncomfortable. There's been a lot of that over the ages and the proper defenders of commonsense and conventional wisdom, or their descendents, often end up with egg on their faces.

Don't dismiss a 'viral' analogy just becauses viruses are noxious. Analogies compare characteristics and point out similar features. Perhaps religion does have features similar to a viral infection. Examine the analogy before you condemn it out-of-hand. Reduce it to a Boolian equation if that'll help you ignore the irrelevent cultural associations.

 

[Storm]

But doesn't Dawkins have logical and well-reasoned arguments in support of his positions? It's not right to dismiss, much less condemn, an idea just because it makes you uncomfortable. There's been a lot of that over the ages and the proper defenders of commonsense and conventional wisdom, or their descendents, often end up with egg on their faces.

I've never been impressed when he starts to talk God. The only good argument I've heard was his debunking of ID/ YEC, and that ain't hard.

Of course, I freely admit that I pay the man little attention. Perhaps you could relay one of his better arguments?

Don't dismiss a 'viral' analogy just becauses viruses are noxious. Analogies compare characteristics and point out similar features. Perhaps religion does have features similar to a viral infection. Examine the analogy before you condemn it out-of-hand. Reduce it to a Boolian equation if that'll help you ignore the irrelevent cultural associations.

Memetics, to me, smacks of material reductionism rather than hard science. Maybe I'm missing something, so I don't condemn it, but I just don't see the point.

 

[lilithu]

I have been a fan of Richard Dawkins since the mid 80’s. And I have to say from my perspective it seem very odd that he has recently become so famous (or infamous). And it also seems to me that so many people who feel so strongly about this man (one way or the other) don’t seem to know that much about him. So many of his recent fans seem to have read only the one book, and so many of his critics not even that.

I am one of Dawkins' most vocal critics on RF, so let me give you my perspective. I too was a fan of Dawkins since the mid 80's through the mid 90's. I think his concept of the meme is brilliant and eagerly read books as The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and Climbing Mount Improbable as they came out. I have said and still maintain that no one does a better job of explaining evolutionary biology in straight-forward terms than Richard Dawkins. There's no question that he's a brilliant man and I admired him greatly.

So imagine me surfing the web one day and coming across an address that he had given on the topic of religion. (This was circa '95 or '96 I think, tho I'm really bad with dates, definitely before 9/11.) Wow, someone whom I greatly admire talking on a subject of great personal interest to me - what could be better? I read the text wondering what interesting insights he might have, and to my growing surprise and dismay, what I read was a disdainful diatribe against religion. He cited the tendency for people to remain in the same religion in which they were raised and how this was "proof" for their inability to think for themselves. He was derisive and contemptuous, hardly befitting an academic presentation. I was confronted with the knowledge that a man whom I respected and liked had no such respect for me, simply by virtue of my being religious.

I was deeply disappointed, but we can't all see eye to eye. I did not think much of it again for another few years, until after 9/11, after which books like "Climbing Mt. Improbable" were replaced by titles such as "The God Delusion" and he was everywhere in magazines and on tv in an all out attack against religion.

I know very well how smart Dawkins is, which makes his blind hatred all the more disappointing.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Perhaps religion does have features similar to a viral infection.

Especially if you consider his brand of anti-theism as a religion.

There is no justification for such bigotry.

 

[Smoke]

Is there anyone who would characterize his diatribes as being "tolerant"? Of course, if you share his intolerance, then this might seem fine by you. As I said earlier: he has made bigotry palatable for many. I would go so far as to suggest that he has made this kind of intolerance sound almost reasonable.

Disagreement, even fervent disagreement, is not "intolerance."

If you say the people you disagree with should have to live in certain neighborhoods, or wear distinctive clothing, or be forbidden to marry; if you don't want to rent to them or employ them or allow them to patronize your business, that's intolerance.

Saying you're wrong is not intolerant, not even if it's said in a way that ticks you off. It's not even disrespect.

It's interesting that most of Dawkin's most strident detractors freely admit that they haven't read his books, or that they've only read parts of his books. The rhetoric and calumny directed at Dawkins is much more strident -- and much more unfair -- than anything that comes from Dawkins.

When you characterize a man as a bigot because he disagrees with you about religion, when you say that he "hates you" or "doesn't respect you" because he dares to express an opinion you dislike, it seems to me to be symptomatic of a problem you have, not a problem Dawkins has -- and I don't mean you personally, Pete, I mean everybody who is incapable of discussing anything Dawkins says because the very notion of Dawkins enrages them, and they must turn every thread in which he's mentioned into an anti-Dawkins diatribe.

I don't agree with everything Dawkins says, and it would be interesting sometimes to discuss the points on which I disagree with him, but it's utterly impossible on RF, because every time his name is mentioned a coterie of believers (and usually liberal believers, which all the more surprising) take up their cry:

Dawkins is a bigot!
Dawkins hates me!
Dawkins doesn't respect me!
​

It's childish, it's untrue, it's unfair, and it's annoying -- and it makes it absolutely impossible to discuss any of Dawkins' ideas, even to disagree with them, because a determined group of people insist on turning any attempted discussion of his ideas into an attack on the Monster Who Doesn't Like Us.

 

[Scuba Pete]

When you characterize a man as a bigot because he disagrees with you about religion,

Dude, you and I disagree about religion. Jay and even TVOR and i disagree about religion. You will have to do better than that than to paint my issues with Dawkins as me merely being pedantic.

 

[fantome profane]

I am one of Dawkins' most vocal critics on RF, so let me give you my perspective. I too was a fan of Dawkins since the mid 80's through the mid 90's. I think his concept of the meme is brilliant and eagerly read books as The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and Climbing Mount Improbable as they came out. I have said and still maintain that no one does a better job of explaining evolutionary biology in straight-forward terms than Richard Dawkins. There's no question that he's a brilliant man and I admired him greatly.

So imagine me surfing the web one day and coming across an address that he had given on the topic of religion. (This was circa '95 or '96 I think, tho I'm really bad with dates, definitely before 9/11.) Wow, someone whom I greatly admire talking on a subject of great personal interest to me - what could be better? I read the text wondering what interesting insights he might have, and to my growing surprise and dismay, what I read was a disdainful diatribe against religion. He cited the tendency for people to remain in the same religion in which they were raised and how this was "proof" for their inability to think for themselves. He was derisive and contemptuous, hardly befitting an academic presentation. I was confronted with the knowledge that a man whom I respected and liked had no such respect for me, simply by virtue of my being religious.

I was deeply disappointed, but we can't all see eye to eye. I did not think much of it again for another few years, until after 9/11, after which books like "Climbing Mt. Improbable" were replaced by titles such as "The God Delusion" and he was everywhere in magazines and on tv in an all out attack against religion.

I know very well how smart Dawkins is, which makes his blind hatred all the more disappointing.

I agree with much of what you are saying here. And I am certainly not saying Dawkins is above criticism. He should be criticized for some of the things he has said, but that is not justification for dismissing his entire body of work as some other posters on RF have proudly declared that they have done.

Dawkins is not an expert on religion and should not be considered an authority. His words should carry no more weight than any of the posters on this board. And this is what I wonder. If it wasn’t Richard Dawkins saying these things, if it was just some anonymous poster on this board, if it was me, would you have more patience? I know that you would still disagree, I know that you would still speak out against these ideas, but would you be more willing to concede a valid point when one is made one? Would you be more willing to discuss these ideas, to consider them?

The point I want to drive home about Dawkins is whatever ideas he expresses should be considered on the merit or weakness of those ideas and not based on whether you like or dislike Dawkins. And I find it equally troubling when someone automatically accepts something Dawkins says as when someone automatically rejects something Dawkins says.

Dawkins does make some valid points concerning religion. Even the one you mention about the tendency for people to remain in the same religion in which they were raised. This is a valid point. Dawkins should of course be thoroughly criticized for not recognizing the exceptions, the complexity, the subtlety. But it is a valid point that you can make a map and show the areas that are predominantly Christian, the areas that are predominately Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist etc. I think this is an indication that a lot of people do not arrive at their religions through a process of independent thought and study.

 

[gnomon]

Woah!

Glad I didn't say Mencken.

 

[Sunstone]

I think calling Dawkins a bigot risks one's creditability. "Bigot" is a very serious charge and it should, if one cares at all about being believed, be reserved for instances where it can be reasonably established that someone is indeed a bigot. That does not seem to be the case with calling Dawkins a bigot.

 

[Fluffy]

I will completely agree with you up to this point and then suggest that since it is obvious that since neither of us are going to budge on this: that we simply agree to disagree.

Sorry Pete but that isn't acceptable to me. If you want to make claims on a thread that I think are false, especially when they are about intolerance and bigotry, then I want to make sure they are debunked properly so that there fallaciousness is not spread further. If you don't want to respond then that is fine and I don't expect you to but you have to expect the claims you make to be challenged in a debate forum especially if you are unwilling to back them up.

Referring to religion as a virus is just about as intolerant as you can get. 'Nuff said by me. Feel free to embrace and justify his bigotry as you see fit.

You've taken his quote out of context. He is referring specifically to how successful some of the world's major religions have been and also to how they, and all memes, do not care about us, the meme machines. If you read his books, this point is made very clear.

What I do despise is the pedestal SOME atheists have put him on. Inflammatory =/= brilliant, much less unbiased. I'm sick of reading "The God Delusion proves x."

I fully agree with you Storm. However, it also makes me sick to see Dawkins be demonised by theists and that's only slightly because it does a disservice to the man. The real problem about calling Dawkins a bigot is that it distracts attention from the real bigots out there whilst further compounding a problem that Dawkins himself pointed out (although hasn't helped): That religion is beyond criticism.

Additionally, reacting to him in this way is exactly what he wants you to do. There is a reason why everybody has heard of "The God Delusion" and nobody has heard of "Breaking the Spell" and it has nothing to do with either author's credentials or prior books. The more viciously you condemn him, the more you help his ideas spread.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You've taken his quote out of context. He is referring specifically to how successful some of the world's major religions have been and also to how they, and all memes, do not care about us, the meme machines. If you read his books, this point is made very clear.

There is far more than ONE quote and you are some how suggesting that Dawkins believes that God is "OK". Too funny. But hey, if you feel the need to spread Dawkin's propaganda: go for it. Just don't expect me to respect you for it.

 

[Fluffy]

There is far more than ONE quote and you are some how suggesting that Dawkins believes that God is "OK". Too funny.

No I am suggesting that if believing anything other than "God is OK" is intolerant then religion is too sensitive to criticism and if not then Dawkins is not intolerant.

But hey, if you feel the need to spread Dawkin's propaganda: go for it.

No Pete, you know full well from posts that you, yourself, have fruballed, that there is much that I disagree with about Dawkins. Where you and I disagree is that you believe that the best way to combat something that is wrong is to vilify it as much as possible when clearly that is exactly what has allowed The God Delusion to be the success it has been. It is your reaction that has spread Dawkin's message, not mine. Controversy sells because publishers know that there will be thousands of people who are waiting to condemn it rather than combat its arguments. The same thing doesn't fly in the academic world because that reaction doesn't exist: If your journal doesn't make proper arguments it is ignored as it should be.

Just don't expect me to respect you for it.

That's fine, I don't.

 

[Scuba Pete]

No I am suggesting that if believing anything other than "God is OK" is intolerant then religion is too sensitive to criticism and if not then Dawkins is not intolerant.

And I would suggest that if you can't accept the fact that I see Dawkins as intolerant, then YOU are too sensitive to criticism of your idol. Go figure.

 

[Fluffy]

And I would suggest that if you can't accept the fact that I see Dawkins as intolerant, then YOU are too sensitive to criticism of your idol. Go figure.

I can accept the fact that you think Dawkins is intolerant, Pete, and I am very interested to see any argument you might have to support that claim. I disagree with you and think you are doing various damages (which I outlined previously) whenever you make it so I feel a responsibility to you. If you want to back it up, I will read your reasoning and refute it if I can. If I can't, I'll change my position.

However, there is a difference between criticism and ad hominem. Both, of course, should be tolerated, but the former can be debated coherently whilst the latter can only be responded to. If you wish to add some meat to your claims then I'd be happy to debate them but that isn't what you have done so far. So far, you have just made claims that attack another person in order to undercut their arguments and that, Pete, is an ad hominem. Which is fine. But you have done anything more to back them up than provide a single reference which I have already attempted to refute and you ignored that rebuttal.

I do find it curious that you refer to Dawkins as my "idol". Why exactly did you decide to put that in? Are you deliberately trying to make this personal? Were you unaware of the implications of such a statement? Were you unable to imagine what you would feel if the same thing were said to you? I have no idea why you said it and so I won't make assumptions about your motives. However, I cannot think of a single motive that is defensible. I think that regardless of what you intended, what you are doing is replacing honest debate for rhetoric and that is the last resort of the person who does not have an argument. If you truly think you can undercut my arguments by attacking me then you are repeating exactly the same tactic you are using against Dawkins.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I can accept the fact that you think Dawkins is intolerant,

Apparently, you can't. It appears you want to bludgeon me into submission here and it's not going to work. Have a great day.

 

[Fluffy]

Apparently, you can't. It appears you want to bludgeon me into submission here and it's not going to work. Have a great day.

I want you to back up your claims. If you don't want to then that is fine. But bludgeoning is definitely not my agenda for the day . I hope you have a good day too!

 

[Magic Man]

Apparently, you can't. It appears you want to bludgeon me into submission here and it's not going to work. Have a great day.

I'm amazed at your inability to extract meaning from others' posts other than the meaning you want to see, even when that meaning is made clearly obvious more than once.

Again, you're letting your bias get in the way, and it makes you believe that you're being attacked personally. It also makes you think that it's the other person who has the bias, when that is the furthest thing from the truth. You only see that bias in their posts because it is inserted by your own bias.

As Fluffy has said, this is exactly the kind of reaction that helps support Dawkins's arguments. This is exactly why he attempts to "de-mystify" (if you will) religion, and make it something that can be talked about objectively.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I want you to back up your claims.

I already have. Your appeal that I have not is both specious and badgering. Hmnnn... just like Dawkins' approach to religion. I guess I should have seen this coming.

 

[Fluffy]

I already have. Your appeal that I have not is both specious and badgering. Hmnnn... just like Dawkins' approach to religion. I guess I should have seen this coming.

Sorry Pete. What I meant was that you had backed up your claim with a single reference, I had refuted that reference and you restated your claim thereby ignoring the opportunity to explain why my reasoning was incorrect. When I said I wanted you to back up your claims, I meant that I wanted you to take up that opportunity.

If you mean that you have backed up your claim beyond that then I apologise. All I see is the comment referring to the "religion is a virus" point which I explained from the point of view of a person who has read Dawkin's ideas on memetics as well as other books on memetics. Dennett, another memeticist, has referred to all ideas, both religious and non-religious, as being like parasites in the brain. I stand by the fact that this one quotation, at the very least, was not meant as an attack on religion but is a standard memeticist position. If you backed up your argument in other ways then please could you refer me to the posts and I'll check them out.