Richard Dawkins - right or wrong?

[Photonic]

Accuracy? I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'm also utterly baffled as to why you presented that as 'one of his core principles.' He didn't really say anything at all.

I will tell you why I find the question important nonetheless: context. Is he merely opinionated, or does he cross the line to dogma? Does he accept the possibility of error on any level; is he aware of the fact that his opinion is only that?

The answer is vital context for a reasonable and honest evaluation of ANY argument he'll ever make.

I'll grant you, the girl's question could have been better phrased. I still think it was valid.

I was a little slower in my editing then you were in clicking the button, I apologize, I have left you with another one of his arguments.

 

[Storm]

Missed a couple posts. Apologies, guys... I didn't mean to ignore you.

So you don't agree with Dawkins that Pantheism is sexed up Atheism?

Yes and no. I acknowledge the existence of such a usage, but fail to see the point of calling it pantheism at all. Nothing wrong with being an atheist, so if you're going to be an atheist, why not embrace it? I don't get it.

try it. if you're not trolling, I say go ahead. be to the point of course, but yeah, why wouldn't he engage with it, if it has merit? sure, he might not have time, but other than that, there is only one way to find out, and generally you would be surprised about how many "celebrities" actually do take the time to reply to genuine questions etc. (if your mail reaches him in the first place, which might be a big if I dunno)

I have no idea how to get in touch with him.... do you?

 

[Storm]

I was a little slower in my editing then you were in clicking the button, I apologize, I have left you with another one of his arguments.

I saw, and seem to have ne'd you right back. I'd appreciate a detailed response to this post while I watch the new vid.

 

[Photonic]

Haha! I catch your ninja edit!

My personal opinion of you was not low, but now it's higher. Well said, and I agree entire.

In some ways, admittedly.

I gave him a chance, I truly did. IIRC, I first encountered the name asking evolution questions in internet forums. I knew he was a well respected biologist, and then found out he was one of the "New Atheists." That piqued my interest. I'd seen some of the arguments of Sam Harris, and they were... interesting, but not impressive. But Dawkins? I wanted to hear his arguments! I really, really did.

So I asked around, and someone recommended I start with The God Delusion. It's sitting on the shelf at home, with a big dent in it where it hit the wall because I (mistakenly) assumed the passage denying Einstein's theism was concluding Atheism. When my error was pointed out to me, I tried again to read it, but by that point I had a much better grasp of just HOW brilliant he is, and how much authority he has. I don't even remember the argument that in that context turned my stomach, but I never finished the book.

Since then, my realization of his intellectual prowess has only deepened, and with it my frustration at his "New Atheism." The 'fairy-ology' quote was the last straw.

Which, btw I resent not only as one of the faithful, but as a self-educated intellectual. Outrage aside, he grieves me deeply. I would LOVE to read and study his science... but I can't bring myself to do so. I am personally, near tragically incapable of setting aside my contempt on the one subject in order to learn from a giant in the other. I resent that.

Neither, actually. In principle, I applaud him... he is, so far as I can tell, fulfilling the sole divine mandate of my own beliefs quite admirably. "Figure out where you stand and be true to it." As for facts, there are no facts on the subject of God, only opinion. He's entitled to his, far as they may be from mine.

ETA: Thanks for the link. I'm loading the video now, but just glancing at the time on it, I can tell you that he's not going to go into the sort of detail I was hoping for in 90 seconds.

Well, Einstein was a scientific pantheist, as are most physicists you will find. I technically consider myself one at the same time as being an atheist.

it has to do with the spirituality you assign that which you study. For example, I know that we are all made of elements forged in the hearts of a star billions of years ago. The knowledge of that gives you a certain perspective of things. I do not doubt that as a scientist Dawkins is probably a very spiritual man himself. Maybe not in the way you recognize it, but I understand how he sees things.

Evolutionary Biology, as a quick example. Studying this makes you realize just how close we are to the life on this planet. The genetic trait that defines how long you sleep, for example, is the same in a fruit fly, suggesting a very distant concestor. (co-ancestor)

You must also understand that as an evolutionary biologist, and a professor at Oxford for the public understanding of science. The amount of hatred directed at him is frankly appalling, and he has probably as a result become somewhat desensitized to it.

I see The God Delusion as sort of a response to that inhumanity directed at him. So you have to take it with a grain of salt. Most of the arguments in there are quite brilliant if you take the time to read it. If there is some information you feel is inaccurate though, I highly suggest you take the time to write him and let him know there are inaccuracies in his book. I doubt he will just dismiss them.

 

[Storm]

Here is an argument that is a little more direct.

[youtube]LjpqeZirDqU[/youtube]
Richard Dawkins destroys muslim on morality - YouTube

Same format as before.
Q: Is it irrational faith for an atheist to have morals?
UGH! Stupid, bigoted little troll!

I'll give Dawkins this much: for all my objections, for all my contempt, as vitriolic as he's capable of being.... he's a damned sight more courteous than I'd be. (That's a prior observation which I'd failed to mention - I've yet to listen to his response.)

A:
I don't WANT an absolute morality because religion has dropped the ball on that one.
I'm so torn. The question was worthless, his response little better (though, as expected, more politely phrased than mine would have been... He'd have made a good Southerner ).

I've been pondering my response to that point for a good five minutes now, and I've decided to defer. I disagree with it completely, but I won't hold this instance against him because I don't deem the question worthy of anything better. Graced with D's eloquence, wit, and given such an opening, I'd have reduced the man to tears, and I'm not even the target of his bigotry. I suppose that means I also lack his composure. :run:

Morality has evolved beyond that which Scripture provides.
:clap ITA! :clap

The religious cherry pick Scriptural morality, following that which remains compatible with modern ethics which are largely secular.
2 videos and 2 responses of valid arguments lost due to generalization.

He's not wrong. He IS stereotyping.

 

[Storm]

Well, Einstein was a scientific pantheist, as are most physicists you will find. I technically consider myself one at the same time as being an atheist.

it has to do with the spirituality you assign that which you study. For example, I know that we are all made of elements forged in the hearts of a star billions of years ago. The knowledge of that gives you a certain perspective of things. I do not doubt that as a scientist Dawkins is probably a very spiritual man himself. Maybe not in the way you recognize it, but I understand how he sees things.

Evolutionary Biology, as a quick example. Studying this makes you realize just how close we are to the life on this planet. The genetic trait that defines how long you sleep, for example, is the same in a fruit fly, suggesting a very distant concestor. (co-ancestor)

You must also understand that as an evolutionary biologist, and a professor at Oxford for the public understanding of science. The amount of hatred directed at him is frankly appalling, and he has probably as a result become somewhat desensitized to it.

I see The God Delusion as sort of a response to that inhumanity directed at him. So you have to take it with a grain of salt. Most of the arguments in there are quite brilliant if you take the time to read it. If there is some information you feel is inaccurate though, I highly suggest you take the time to write him and let him know there are inaccuracies in his book. I doubt he will just dismiss them.

Hmmmmm......

I wanted you to know I saw this post, but let me mull it over before responding in detail. I hadn't thought of that perspective, so thank you for pointing it out.

 

[idav]

Well, Einstein was a scientific pantheist, as are most physicists you will find. I technically consider myself one at the same time as being an atheist.

Dawkins had said something to the effect that he didn't like the way Einstein "muddled" the word god and throwing in such a spiritual view of science. With Dawkins calling pantheism "sexed up atheism" and deism "watered down theism", I don't think the argument is against spirituality but in using the term God at all. I agree, as I posted earlier in this thread, that Dawkins has an appreciation for that sort of thinking but I'm not sure he likes some of the terms that theists will use.

 

[Storm]

If anyone's interested, I posted a new thread rather than derail this one: Logos, Mythos & Modern Religiosity. The topic is the modern mind's failure to grasp mythos, and what that means for religion in our world. Photonic has been asking how Dawkins is theologically ignorant; the most egregious point is that he succumbs to this popular failing.

 

[Skeptisch]

The topic is the modern mind's failure to grasp mythos, and what that means for religion in our world.

:sarcastic Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris are all crazy fanatics. I mean did anyone read the book published by Dawkins saying to kill all who leave atheism? Or the book by Hitchens in which he tells people who disagree with him that they will rot in hell forever? OR my favourite, and this one is by Harris (the other fundamentalist), who says that anyone who works on Sunday should be killed. :sarcastic

 

[Storm]

:sarcastic Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris are all crazy fanatics. I mean did anyone read the book published by Dawkins saying to kill all who leave atheism? Or the book by Hitchens in which he tells people who disagree with him that they will rot in hell forever? OR my favourite, and this one is by Harris (the other fundamentalist), who says that anyone who works on Sunday should be killed. :sarcastic

Your sarcasm is uncalled for, and only demonstrates that you didn't understand one damn word I said, if you bothered to read them at all.

 

[Photonic]

:sarcastic Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris are all crazy fanatics. I mean did anyone read the book published by Dawkins saying to kill all who leave atheism? Or the book by Hitchens in which he tells people who disagree with him that they will rot in hell forever? OR my favourite, and this one is by Harris (the other fundamentalist), who says that anyone who works on Sunday should be killed. :sarcastic

Storm actually brings up a few good points, you would do well to read them.

 

[Storm]

Storm actually brings up a few good points, you would do well to read them.

Thanks. :foryou:

 

[Apex]

:sarcastic Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris are all crazy fanatics. I mean did anyone read the book published by Dawkins saying to kill all who leave atheism? Or the book by Hitchens in which he tells people who disagree with him that they will rot in hell forever? OR my favourite, and this one is by Harris (the other fundamentalist), who says that anyone who works on Sunday should be killed. :sarcastic

That is seriously a low blow.

 

[outhouse]

That is seriously a low blow.

yes

failure to comprehend and or purposely interpreting quote mined phases to meet ones own needs

 

[crystalonyx]

I agree with almost everything Dawkins says, as it is grounded in logic. However, Dawkins should be known as one of the greatest evolutionists of all time, his stance on god belief is merely a sideline.

 

[Skeptisch]

Your sarcasm is uncalled for, and only demonstrates that you didn't understand one damn word I said, if you bothered to read them at all.

You are right and I apologize.

 

[Skeptisch]

Storm actually brings up a few good points, you would do well to read them.

I am sure she does, but so do the four horsemen.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869630813464694890#docid=-6355052276934735419

 

[cottage]

Looking through the various contributions to the thread I'm struggling to see any substantial criticism of Dawkins. I recently read the God Delusion and found little to disagree with other than perhaps the tone. Please may we see some specific objections?

 

[Gharib]

Let’s try to take issue with what we know Richard agrees with, rather than with what we think he agrees with. Tell us what, in your opinion, is wrong with the following quotes? Or post a Dawkins quote you want to criticise.

here is something against dawkins, he says god doesn't exist, yet in the following video he babbles on and on about an intelligent designer being the cause of our existence. see for yourself.

[youtube]12rgtN0pCMQ[/youtube]
Richard Dawkins interview - YouTube

 

[Sunstone]

That is seriously a low blow.

But so true, if taken out of context and made to stand on its own.