Richard Dawkins - right or wrong?

[cablescavenger]

I like it less when he brings irreverence of logic to a discussion.

Some consider religion as having far too much respect for what it is.
Dawkins merely gives it the respect it deserves and no more.

 

[cablescavenger]

He also brings a smug attitude to the discourse, that's what puts people off

Smug?
When you speak with knowledge you can speak with confidence.

 

[gnomon]

He also brings a smug attitude to the discourse, that's what puts people off

I just can't take a person seriously when they use the term "faith-heads" to describe believers. It just makes me think of a elementary school bully on a school playground.

You're not the only one


[youtube]Dxff0k_TEzI[/youtube]
Neil Tyson rebukes Richard Dawkins;-) - YouTube

I take back everything I've said. Forget the hours of debates I've watched and the literature I've read. None of that matters because his mild sense of humor overrides everything else he has ever said and the preconceived subjective opinions of others must be respected. There's no room for smug in this world. We've all seen that South Park episode.

I heard he once farted in a crowded elevator. You can't trust a man who does that now can you?

 

[Apex]

I take back everything I've said. Forget the hours of debates I've watched and the literature I've read. None of that matters because his mild sense of humor overrides everything else he has ever said and the preconceived subjective opinions of others must be respected. There's no room for smug in this world. We've all seen that South Park episode.

I heard he once farted in a crowded elevator. You can't trust a man who does that now can you?

 

[gnomon]

I was just going to post this smiley, , but of course the forum doesn't allow a single character to be posted. Now I could have just used some small meaningless characters to fill out the requisite 5 character minimum but if we can post a single image I should be able to just post a single smiley. But no. I can't. So I'm going to rant about it instead.

It's not as if requiring someone to post a five character minimum necessarily advances the conversation. It's quite possible that someone will post a lengthy essay they think is incredibly insightful reduction of politics or religion but is truly nothing more than the worst artist bending over, grasping their ankles and blowing anal paste onto a blank canvas. Nothing more than a waste of time and an eyesore when all that is required to convey meaning is a simple smiley.

And on the other hand there is the danger of people posting nothing more than a single letter and attempting to be clever but at least such posts would be easy to scroll over. Like easily ignoring children by never looking down. So how difficult could it be to edit a little piece of code to reduce the minimum requirement to post just so I can post a single smiley without feeling like a fool to resort to spaces, dots and dashes.

Or maybe I could be clever and create my own big smiley using letters or numerals or seldom used characters to give them their day. But I'm not feeling creative at the moment. Let me post my smiley and move on to the next topic. Or maybe I should go log into my photobucket account and copy over a single image. Such as an image of a smiley.

And while were at it: Lady Gaga. I mean is she The Monkees Part 2 or what?

 

[Photonic]

Dr. Tyson appreciated his response, why do you find it so hard to accept?

I for one love the mans humor. Dawkins is an incredible human being, and from what I know of him he is one of the most compassionate humans alive.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Smug?
When you speak with knowledge you can speak with confidence.

By smug I mean he is a haughty little venomous prig. Please tell me how many times I have to repeat this before you get the definition of smug right

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Dr. Tyson appreciated his response, why do you find it so hard to accept?

I for one love the mans humor. Dawkins is an incredible human being, and from what I know of him he is one of the most compassionate humans alive.

So bigotry now equal compassion? He is a bigot

 

[Photonic]

So bigotry now equal compassion? He is a bigot

You know what? Being a bigot requires misunderstanding. There is no misunderstanding here.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

You know what? Being a bigot requires misunderstanding. There is no misunderstanding here.

And he hasn't been maligning people of faith from the get go? The man is a bigot

 

[Photonic]

And he hasn't been maligning people of faith from the get go? The man is a bigot

No, the man simply sees the shackles of restrictive thinking. Again, to be a bigot there must be some misunderstanding.

 

[Storm]

Smug?
When you speak with knowledge you can speak with confidence.

And when you speak confidently from ignorance, your betters call it smug.

You know what? Being a bigot requires misunderstanding. There is no misunderstanding here.

I won't go so far as to call it bigotry, but there's a great deal of misunderstanding.

 

[Photonic]

And when you speak confidently from ignorance, your betters call it smug.


I won't go so far as to call it bigotry, but there's a great deal of misunderstanding.

If you have read his books, it's pretty plain to even the most uneducated reader that he has very little misunderstanding going on.

As for being smug, the perception of knowledge from the point of ignorance could very easily be mistaken as "smugness."

In reality, it's just confidence gleaned from knowing that the facts are on your side.

 

[Storm]

If you have read his books, it's pretty plain to even the most uneducated reader that he has very little misunderstanding going on.

As for being smug, the perception of knowledge from the point of ignorance could very easily be mistaken as "smugness."

In reality, it's just confidence gleaned from knowing that the facts are on your side.

Before I respond to that, did you mean on the field of science or religion?

 

[Photonic]

Before I respond to that, did you mean on the field of science or religion?

Before I respond to that, how much do you actually know about Dawkins?

 

[Storm]

Before I respond to that, how much do you actually know about Dawkins?

I know he's a brilliant man when he sticks to his own field, and an utter fool in mine. So, whose field were you talking about?

 

[Photonic]

I know he's a brilliant man when he sticks to his own field, and an utter fool in mine. So, whose field were you talking about?

Both.

It is also clear to me that you know of Dawkins only by what you hear of him, instead of what you know of it.

As to the fool in yours, I'm claiming Bias.

 

[Storm]

Both.

Then I refine my statement: He's got a painfully shallow understanding of religion. I never meant to demean him as a biologist.

It is also clear to me that you know of Dawkins only by what you hear of him, instead of what you know of it.

That sentence makes no more sense on the 7th reading than the first.

As to the fool in yours, I'm claiming Bias.

Pot, meet kettle.

I've been studying religion obsessively for 20 years. I'm no expert, but I'm informed enough to spot ignorance.

You're a professional physicist, iirc. What would you think if I called you biased for dismissing the people who say quarks prove God's existence?

 

[Photonic]

Then I refine my statement: He's got a painfully shallow understanding of religion. I never meant to demean him as a biologist.


That sentence makes no more sense on the 7th reading than the first.


Pot, meet kettle.

I've been studying religion obsessively for 20 years. I'm no expert, but I'm informed enough to spot ignorance.

You're a professional physicist, iirc. What would you think if I called you biased for dismissing the people who say quarks prove God's existence?

Given this; Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives.

This does not follow; "You're a professional physicist, iirc. What would you think if I called you biased for dismissing the people who say quarks prove God's existence?"


In other words, Bias is caused by lack of information. Knowing what I do about Dawkins, I would say it is very unlikely he has a lack of information regarding religions, as he has studied them, I daresay, at least as much as you have.

 

[cottage]

Right, and both Storm and I prove the statement wrong, since it's an absolute statement (and therefore one that assumes the definite non-existence of a person who does not fit this criteria), and neither Storm nor I, nor tons of other people, fit this criteria.

As a scientist, I'm rather surprised he made such a statement; it's a blatant fallacy: just because you've never seen a green bird nor heard of one existing, doesn't automatically mean a green bird does not exist, and therefore it becomes fallacious to make the definite statement that green birds don't exist.

But to say ‘just because we’ve never seen a green bird doesn’t mean a green bird doesn’t exist’ is itself a fallacy (argumentum ad ignorantiam), and since we can conceive of the non-existence of all gods without contradiction, Dawkins perhaps has a point. It seems to me that a polytheist believing in all possible gods must ultimately lead to self-contradiction, quite apart from the fact that at least one of them must by its definition negate the others?