More Dawkins idiocy...

[Augustus]

Constantly moving goal post, while ignoring credible refutation?

You have consistently demonstrated that you don't even understand the topic under discussion, never mind providing a credible refutation. You can't refute something you don't actually address or even understand.

You just repeat phrases such as 'academia' without even understanding what you are referring to, and misrepresenting other posters' positions to such an extent that it is completely unrecognisable from the point they actually made [such as disagreeing with Dawkins = supporting fanaticism].

You then sidestep every single direct question asked, not even moving the goal posts, but the entire field.

So, for example, can you provide me with evidence that supports Dawkins' view that religion, as a whole, is harmful to society? Or that humanity is a meaningful scientific concept? Or that society would be better if religion disappeared? Or that humans are capable of living without myths that are not grounded in objective fact?

I'm still waiting.

 

[prometheus11]

You're upset that Dawkins uses the term "humanity?"

You're a strange one, Mr. Dawk-Grinch.

 

[outhouse]

I'm still waiting.

LOL. Sorry I don't see it that way.


Your trying to steer the debate, and the car left the freeway days ago.

 

[Augustus]

No, the majority of the post is your response and argument against his statements.

Yes. His statements as they relate to his overall ideology. Ultimately his worldview relies on things that are not objectively provable.

It's a forum post, not a dissertation. there are limits to how much you can expand in a few hundred words.

 

[Augustus]

LOL. Sorry I don't see it that way.


Your trying to steer the debate, and the car left the freeway days ago.

QED

Completely ignore direct questions and reply with unrelated bravado that tries to obscure the fact that you are incapable of discussing the OP meaningfully.

Unless you wish to answer any of the many questions you've avoided, and seeing as you don't understand the topic anyway there isn't a great deal of benefit in responding any more.

Feel free to consider this 'steering the debate'

 

[prometheus11]

Your posts read like they originate from somebody who wanted to slap Dawkins for wearing pants of an offensive color but somebody stopped you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes. His statements as they relate to his overall ideology.

But you never give any context as to what his worldview is and what he claims in support of it.

Ultimately his worldview relies on things that are not objectively provable.

So can you give me a brief overview of his worldview, in his words?

It's a forum post, not a dissertation. there are limits to how much you can expand in a few hundred words.

You seem to have completely missed the point I was making. I was questioning why it is so common to see numerous threads dissecting and refuting Richard Dawkins' tweets, and yet relatively few (if any) threads dissecting or refuting any of the beliefs or opinions explained at length in any of any articles or books. People examine and refute broad ranging positions all the time on these forums - in fact the very concept of religious debate itself more or less requires the summation of complex, broad-reaching views into topics that can be discussed in merely a few hundred words. My question is why devote those few hundred words to a single 144-character quotation rather than any of the opinions he has expanded on in any of his many books, essays or blogs.

I'll ask a more direct question: How many books or articles by Dawkins have you read? Where does your understanding of his worldview come from?

 

[icehorse]

And further, we could boil it down to a "there are two types of people in the world" over-simplification:

- Those who value the things that critical thinkers and scientists value (logic, evidence, knowledge, parsimony...)
- Those who do NOT value what critical thinkers and scientists value

 

[Augustus]

And further, we could boil it down to a "there are two types of people in the world" over-simplification:

- Those who value the things that critical thinkers and scientists value (logic, evidence, knowledge, parsimony...)
- Those who do NOT value what critical thinkers and scientists value

Why do many critical thinkers and scientists find Dawkins a bit embarrassing though?

Let's not pretend that disagreeing with him means disagreeing with scientists and critical thinkers in general.

 

[outhouse]

Why do many critical thinkers and scientists find Dawkins a bit embarrassing though?

Why do many think YEC is real

BUT to answer your question, not everyone cares how backwards society is.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why do many critical thinkers and scientists find Dawkins a bit embarrassing though?

Such as?

Also, I would still like to know how many of Dawkins' books and/or essays you have read.

 

[Olinda]

Olinda, why the sigh? Why the repetition? if you're not noticing an aspect that others do notice, it's not that big of a deal to me. I don't think there's a single member of this thread, Who wouldn't feel pretty insulted if the comments made about Dawkins were being made about them.

Again, my question to you was:: should you be respected more or less than Dawkins? I wasn't asking how respect normally works. I was asking about your opinion.

Prometheus11, the sigh and repetition were because I'd answered before. My iterated reply covers the title. The other word - buffoon - in the OP has already been addressed by Augustus earlier in the thread. I don't know of any further 'insults' to Richard Dawkins, do you want to point to any? Whether I would feel insulted by such comments would depend on whether I could - logically and with evidence - defend the statements that had occasioned them.

As to respect - I can only point to my previous replies. Richard Dawkins and I are not acquainted, so I can only assess by the information he has put in the public domain. I already replied to Outhouse that I enjoyed his works on evolution. His attacks on religion much less so, because they upset friends who believe in liberal, inclusive religions and because they come across as arrogant. Now from Augustus' posts I can see they are logically hard to defend also.
Hope that clarifies.

 

[Augustus]

So can you give me a brief overview of his worldview, in his words?

In his words? No. Feel free to correct any of the following though if you feel it misrepresents him:

Religion is bad because holding false beliefs is bad. In addition to this, religion is bad because it causes wars, fanaticism and intolerance. Moderate believers are part of the problem of fanaticism, not part of the solution. Ultimately, religion has an overall negative effect on society and we should strive to replace it with science and reason. if we could only throw off the shackles of religion we could reach for the stars. Religion is borderline child abuse and borderline mental illness.

Science is a fundamentally moral pursuit and a more scientific society would be better. The wonder of reality as viewed through the lens of science can provide a meaningful replacement for religion.

Human moral progress is a realistic goal and is reflected in the progress we have made since the enlightenment. Enlightenment values were positive, and when they were not positive its because they were pseudo-science.

Although it isn't a certain, it is realistic to believe that human failings can be gradually overcome as we become less violent, more altruistic and more fulfilled based on a humanistic empathy for our fellow man combined with scientific progress.

I'll ask a more direct question: How many books or articles by Dawkins have you read? Where does your understanding of his worldview come from?

Well he has only written 1 book on religion specifically, which I've read. I'm not discussing his knowledge of biology. Articles, talks, plenty.

When discussing the effects of religion on society he is largely a polemicist rather than an academic.

 

[prometheus11]

How horrible!! When we hang the fiend?

 

[Augustus]

Such as?

Just off the top of my head

Peter Higgs
Davis Sloan Wilson
Scott Atran
Nasim Taleb
John Gray
Edward Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Religion is bad because holding false beliefs is bad.

Gross oversimplicification. Why does he think holding false beliefs is bad?

In addition to this, religion is bad because it causes wars, fanaticism and intolerance.

Again, an oversimplification. He and others maintain that religion is not alone in causing any of those things. What is unique to religion that he disagrees with?

Moderate believers are part of the problem of fanaticism, not part of the solution. Ultimately, religion has an overall negative effect on society and we should strive to replace it with science and reason. if we could only throw off the shackles of religion we could reach for the stars. Religion is borderline child abuse and borderline mental illness.

Again, these are all simplifications of his position. Where can I find examples of these beliefs expressed by him?

Science is a fundamentally moral pursuit and a more scientific society would be better. The wonder of reality as viewed through the lens of science can provide a meaningful replacement for religion.

Fair enough.

Human moral progress is a realistic goal and is reflected in the progress we have made since the enlightenment. Enlightenment values were positive, and when they were not positive its because they were pseudo-science.

Although it isn't a certain, it is realistic to believe that human failings can be gradually overcome as we become less violent, more altruistic and more fulfilled based on a humanistic empathy for our fellow man combined with scientific progress.

This is basically just humanism. Do you understand any of Dawkins more specific views and arguments?

Well he has only written 1 book on religion specifically, which I've read. I'm not discussing his knowledge of biology. Articles, talks, plenty.

So what do you feel his main argument in the God Delusion was? How do you feel about his approach to religion's place in society?

When discussing the effects of religion on society he is largely a polemicist rather than an academic.

I'm not interested in your opinion, I'm interested in establishing why it is that you choose to criticize a simple tweet rather than address any of his more complex and well-explained views given in the book you have apparently read.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Just off the top of my head

Peter Higgs
Davis Sloan Wilson
Scott Atran
Nasim Taleb
John Gray
Edward Wilson

So, by "many find him embarrassing" you basically mean "there are people who don't agree with him in a variety of fields"?

I can now answer your question: it's because lots of people have varying opinions and see things differently. Asking "But why do people disagree with him" isn't an argument, and it's certainly not a rational response to any kind of argument. If you disagree with a particular view someone has, explain their point of view and the reasons you disagree with it. The fact that other people, rational or otherwise, may disagree with them doesn't have any bearing whatsoever.

 

[Augustus]

Gross oversimplicification. Why does he think holding false beliefs is bad?

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

Again, an oversimplification. He and others maintain that religion is not alone in causing any of those things. What is unique to religion that he disagrees with?

His views on paradise re:jihadis, etc.

Again, these are all simplifications of his position. Where can I find examples of these beliefs expressed by him?

God Delusion ch 8 + 9

This is basically just humanism. Do you understand any of Dawkins more specific views and arguments?

He's a humanist and signatory to humanist declarations, so it's relevant

So what do you feel his main argument in the God Delusion was? How do you feel about his approach to religion's place in society?

God likely doesn't exist and belief in god is detrimental to society.

I'm not interested in your opinion, I'm interested in establishing why it is that you choose to criticize a simple tweet rather than address any of his more complex and well-explained views given in the book you have apparently read.

I'd consider it accurate rather than 'opinion', but will reconsider if you can show that he is more academic than polemicist.

As to the second part, because internet forums tend to deal in the present rather than what happened 10 years ago.

 

[prometheus11]

I entered this thread with a dim view of Dawkins. I didn't really care for his perspective and method, but with every post by Augustus about what Dawkins professes, I like him more and more.

 

[Augustus]

So, by "many find him embarrassing" you basically mean "there are people who don't agree with him in a variety of fields"?

No, the mildest would be Atran who described his type of views as 'bizarre' (iirc)

Higgs - embarrassing
EO Wilson - "not a scientist"
DS wilson, Taleb and Gray hold him largely in contempt