Richard Dawkins - right or wrong?

[idav]

Indeed. The difference is, he's not an utter moron. I don't know whether that's better or worse in the end, but it's certainly more frustrating and sad to me.

I don't hold his position so it doesn't bother me too much if he isn't the greatest at backing it up. I do however hold similar disagreements for personal gods.

 

[idav]

To you that might just be a part of life, and I know many atheists that just accept the rules of life too, but I find it pretty repugnant that these things are allowed to happen.

I missed the repugnant parts of your list.

 

[Storm]

He does not try to educate people about God, but the reasons why God could be considered invalid. He merely backs up his opinion.

But he DOESN'T. He tries, but due to his gross (and from what I've seen, willful) ignorance, he fails utterly.

It would be one thing if he said 'fundamentalist/ popular/ noisy/ etc. religion is ______ and here's why,' but he doesn't do that! He takes what any fool can see, which is the sorry state of popular religion, and assumes that's all there is to it. It's NOT. If he would study it, he'd see that. But he WON'T study it! He looks at the ignorantly pious and dismisses the field as beneath him. Fine and dandy, until he cashes in his unrelated authority to argue against what he hasn't bothered to learn. And to add insult to injury, it works! :thud:

I can see why you are angry,

Forgive me, but I really don't think you do. Dawkins makes me furious because a scholar of his caliber should damned well know better. A scientist of his caliber should find what he's doing as outrageous as I do. THAT is what offends me. Not his atheism, nor even his criticisms, which would be scathingly accurate if aimed more carefully. It's the sight of one of the greatest minds of our time snubbing education, and unapologetically arguing from acknowledged ignorance.

Such attitudes are offensive enough from my white trash, pathological liar of a neighbor. From Dawkins, they are unforgivable.

as an atheist we face these things every day and they go unnoticed

Not by me.

For instance you have a child, people interfere and say it should be christened or baptised.
You send your child to school and Religious education is given to them.
You get married, and you either do it in a church where the event is hijacked by a the priest/vicar, or you do it in a civil ceremony which amounts to a small back room somewhere despite the fact some of your taxes support the church, and the church does not pay taxes.
A friend or relative dies and the vicar/priest is there to glean stories from the relatives, talk as if they know them and tell everyone about the great place they are going to, something I thought someone else is supposed to decide upon.

To you that might just be a part of life, and I know many atheists that just accept the rules of life too, but I find it pretty repugnant that these things are allowed to happen.

As a religious minority in general, and further as a liberal (not to mention educated) theologian in a large family of precisely the sort of Christians Dawkins so despises, I face such things same as you. It's not that I dismiss them, nor even that I think they're unimportant.

It's that Dawkins, if he bothered, COULD be a theological revolutionary. He's a brilliant man with the advantages of a world wide audience and tremendous authority and eloquence.

I have studied theology for 20 years, unguided. I could list 3 books off the top of my head which, read in the proper order with an open mind, might be sufficient for Dawkins to use his advantages to OUR* advantage. Would he still be an atheist? Almost certainly. But he'd be an atheist with an informed opinion, and a better aim. And THAT, my friend, would be worth hearing!

* ETA: Reading that back, "our" sounds like "the religious community's" which is not what I meant. I meant the world community. People listen to Dawkins, and regardless of his stance on God's existence, he could elevate the level of discourse as few people could.

 

[Noaidi]

I could list 3 books off the top of my head which, read in the proper order with an open mind, might be sufficient for Dawkins to use his advantages to OUR* advantage. Would he still be an atheist? Almost certainly. But he'd be an atheist with an informed opinion, and a better aim. And THAT, my friend, would be worth hearing!

* ETA: Reading that back, "our" sounds like "the religious community's" which is not what I meant. I meant the world community. People listen to Dawkins, and regardless of his stance on God's existence, he could elevate the level of discourse as few people could.

What books would you recommend, Storm? You've piqued my interest!

 

[Storm]

What books would you recommend, Storm? You've piqued my interest!

In order:
1) The Case For God, Karen Armstrong
2) Why Religion Matters, Huston Smith
3) The Battle For God, K. Armstrong
4) (optional) the articles Dancing with the Gods (author forgotten) and Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance, Conrad Hyers.

1 beautifully explains the difference between logos and mythos (in the original sense), how religion is an expression of the latter, and why it makes NO sense when analyzed with the former.
2 is more accessible, an eloquent defense of religion and plea for an end to the manufactured conflict between faith and science. Unfortunately, it assumes that the reader understands the things explained in 1.
3 Chronicles the rise of fundamentalism in the Abrahamic traditions. It explains the cultural catalysts, as well as the theological... I hesitate to use the word "errors," but I think it fits. It also details the downward spiral of radical piety combined with theological ignorance.

If the above resulted in genuine interest, I'd recommend the articles as an excellent introduction to non-theistic worship (Dancing), and comprehending mythos (Hyers' piece).


ETA: DwtG was written by Eric S. Raymond.

 

[Noaidi]

In order:
1) The Case For God, Karen Armstrong
2) Why Religion Matters, Huston Smith
3) The Battle For God, K. Armstrong
4) (optional) the articles Dancing with the Gods (author forgotten) and Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance, Conrad Hyers.

1 beautifully explains the difference between logos and mythos (in the original sense), how religion is an expression of the latter, and why it makes NO sense when analyzed with the former.
2 is more accessible, an eloquent defense of religion and plea for an end to the manufactured conflict between faith and science. Unfortunately, it assumes that the reader understands the things explained in 1.
3 Chronicles the rise of fundamentalism in the Abrahamic traditions. It explains the cultural catalysts, as well as the theological... I hesitate to use the word "errors," but I think it fits. It also details the downward spiral of radical piety combined with theological ignorance.

If the above resulted in genuine interest, I'd recommend the articles as an excellent introduction to non-theistic worship (Dancing), and comprehending mythos (Hyers' piece).


ETA: DwtG was written by Eric S. Raymond.

Thanks .
I've got one Karen Armstrong book: "Fingerprints of God", but not read it yet. I'll try and locate the ones you mentioned.

Edit: "Dancing with the Gods" is a good read. I think I picked up a link to it from here about a year ago (it may even have been you that initially mentioned it) .

 

[Photonic]

You touch it with a needle!

Dawkins has no right - NONE - to consider himself an educator in a field he hasn't studied. I would love to take a biology class from him, but that's HIS field. Listening to him on theology is like listening to Kirk Cameron on evolution.

Yet you have presented no evidence yet that he is theologically ignorant.

I am still waiting for it. What does he get that's so wrong you feel the need to call him out on it?

Would you like to call Neil Tyson out on his recent tirade against religion as well? Or Perhaps Stephen Hawking, perhaps you feel he is an idiot like some members on this board who will go unnamed.

 

[Storm]

Thanks .
I've got one Karen Armstrong book: "Fingerprints of God", but not read it yet. I'll try and locate the ones you mentioned.

Edit: "Dancing with the Gods" is a good read. I think I picked up a link to it from here about a year ago (it may even have been you that initially mentioned it) .

Most likely.

 

[Photonic]

In order:
1) The Case For God, Karen Armstrong
2) Why Religion Matters, Huston Smith
3) The Battle For God, K. Armstrong
4) (optional) the articles Dancing with the Gods (author forgotten) and Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance, Conrad Hyers.

1 beautifully explains the difference between logos and mythos (in the original sense), how religion is an expression of the latter, and why it makes NO sense when analyzed with the former.
2 is more accessible, an eloquent defense of religion and plea for an end to the manufactured conflict between faith and science. Unfortunately, it assumes that the reader understands the things explained in 1.
3 Chronicles the rise of fundamentalism in the Abrahamic traditions. It explains the cultural catalysts, as well as the theological... I hesitate to use the word "errors," but I think it fits. It also details the downward spiral of radical piety combined with theological ignorance.

If the above resulted in genuine interest, I'd recommend the articles as an excellent introduction to non-theistic worship (Dancing), and comprehending mythos (Hyers' piece).


ETA: DwtG was written by Eric S. Raymond.

Perhaps you should email Dawkins directly with this list. If you feel he can be called out on something you should.

 

[Storm]

Yet you have presented no evidence yet that he is theologically ignorant.

If I did, would you listen? Seriously, I want to know.

I am still waiting for it. What does he get that's so wrong you feel the need to call him out on it?

See later posts. Short version: as far as I can tell, he has no CONCEPT of mythos, much less solid comprehension. Without that, he can not understand religion. It's the alphabet; it's counting, the absolute, deepest foundation without which not a single worthy idea can be interpreted.

Now. That said, his ignorance is neither unique nor unforgivable. It's (depressingly) shared by the vast majority of the populace, regardless of religion or lack thereof. BUT! To a man of Dawkins' intelligence, it's so simply, so easily rectified that I cannot forgive HIM his apathy.

If he were a Hawking-style atheist, only answering when asked, I wouldn't care - live and let live. If he were a bumbling fool a la Cameron, I'd laugh him off. And if he were 'merely' intelligent, like the late Hitchens, as opposed to intelligent AND a bona fide authority, albeit in an unrelated field, I would at least be less personally outraged.

He's not any of those things. He is MORE than capable of learning, AND aggressive in his opinions, AND to my mind, abusing his otherwise well-deserved authority. The last is the what takes me from civil though passionate disagreement to outright, personal contempt.

Would you like to call Neil Tyson out on his recent tirade against religion as well?

I don't know him. If you can provide a link, and enough of a bio to compare to Dawkins, I'd happily give you my thoughts.

Or Perhaps Stephen Hawking, perhaps you feel he is an idiot like some members on this board who will go unnamed.

I have nothing but admiration for Hawking. I disagree with him passionately, of course, but I've never seen him commit the intellectual sins I so despise in Dawkins.

For that matter, I have immense admiration for Dawkins as a scientist. I was talking about this thread with my dad earlier, and when he said "I don't know who that is," I called him "the Stephen Hawking of evolutionary biology."

I know I'm repeating myself, but you just don't seem to be getting it: I don't begrudge ANYONE their atheism, no matter how vicious or ignorant. Dawkins is a unique man in a unique position, triggering a unique reaction.

 

[Photonic]

If I did, would you listen? Seriously, I want to know.


See later posts. Short version: as far as I can tell, he has no CONCEPT of mythos, much less solid comprehension. Without that, he can not understand religion. It's the alphabet; it's counting, the absolute, deepest foundation without which not a single worthy idea can be interpreted.

Now. That said, his ignorance is neither unique nor unforgivable. It's (depressingly) shared by the vast majority of the populace, regardless of religion or lack thereof. BUT! To a man of Dawkins' intelligence, it's so simply, so easily rectified that I cannot forgive HIM his apathy.

If he were a Hawking-style atheist, only answering when asked, I wouldn't care - live and let live. If he were a bumbling fool a la Cameron, I'd laugh him off. And if he were 'merely' intelligent, like the late Hitchens, as opposed to intelligent AND a bona fide authority, albeit in an unrelated field, I would at least be less personally outraged.

He's not any of those things. He is MORE than capable of learning, AND aggressive in his opinions, AND to my mind, abusing his otherwise well-deserved authority. The last is the what takes me from civil though passionate disagreement to outright, personal contempt.


I don't know him. If you can provide a link, and enough of a bio to compare to Dawkins, I'd happily give you my thoughts.


I have nothing but admiration for Hawking. I disagree with him passionately, of course, but I've never seen him commit the intellectual sins I so despise in Dawkins.

For that matter, I have immense admiration for Dawkins as a scientist. I was talking about this thread with my dad earlier, and when he said "I don't know who that is," I called him "the Stephen Hawking of evolutionary biology."

I know I'm repeating myself, but you just don't seem to be getting it: I don't begrudge ANYONE their atheism, no matter how vicious or ignorant. Dawkins is a unique man in a unique position, triggering a unique reaction.

I will listen, I'm not doing this out of some close minded self-gratifying need to play pretend. I do it because challenging my notions is how I live my life.

I am starting to see your reasons for disagreement quite clearly. But do you perhaps think emotion may be getting in the way of your better judgement? You said you passionately disagree with Hawkings opinions as well, are you doing it on principle or because his facts are wrong?

 

[Storm]

Perhaps you should email Dawkins directly with this list. If you feel he can be called out on something you should.

Perhaps I should. Do you think he'd read it, much less follow the advice of some random ephantom?

 

[Storm]

I will listen, I'm not doing this out of some close minded self-gratifying need to play pretend.

Fairly asked, fairly answered.

Kindly narrow the field for me, though. Give me one article or video to start with, and I'll happily dissect it.

I do ask that to start with, you select one that provides his views, rather than one where he's employing the Socratic method.

 

[idav]

I don't begrudge ANYONE their atheism, no matter how vicious or ignorant. Dawkins is a unique man in a unique position, triggering a unique reaction.

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

 

[not nom]

Perhaps I should. Do you think he'd read it, much less follow the advice of some random ephantom?

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)

 

[Photonic]

Fairly asked, fairly answered.

Kindly narrow the field for me, though. Give me one article or video to start with, and I'll happily dissect it.

I do ask that to start with, you select one that provides his views, rather than one where he's employing the Socratic method.

[youtube]6mmskXXetcg[/youtube]
Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?" - YouTube

I would say this is one of his core principles, thoughts?

 

[Storm]

Haha! I catch your ninja edit!

I do it because challenging my notions is how I live my life.

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

I am starting to see your reasons for disagreement quite clearly. But do you perhaps think emotion may be getting in the way of your better judgement?

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.

You said you passionately disagree with Hawkings opinions as well, are you doing it on principle or because his facts are wrong?

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.

 

[Storm]

[youtube]6mmskXXetcg[/youtube]
Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?" - YouTube

I would say this is one of his core principles, thoughts?

Responding as I watch. He speaks a bit faster than I type, so I'll paraphrase/ nutshell his points, with my responses in blue:

Random girl: What if you're wrong?
Shallow, but not a bad start.

Dawkins
What if we're wrong about the FSM, etc.?
While I laugh at such parodies alongside my atheist brethren, and appreciate the point they make, they are of limited utility. Said utility is a delightful rebuttal to conversion attempts urging blind faith. When pushed beyond that to arguing against faith, they are completely inadequate. Whether he meant to do that or would attempt to, I'm not sure, but my objection is worth mentioning.

Why are you Christian and not Hindu? You were indoctrinated.
Not necessarily. This argument is fair with depressing regularity, but the assumption of its universal accuracy is a stereotype, and an example of what I mean when I say he'd be brilliant if he only aimed.

What if YOU'RE wrong?
That's not an answer.

That wasn't much of an argument. It was well stated evasion of a question that, while simplistic, is also important.

 

[Photonic]

Responding as I watch. He speaks a bit faster than I type, so I'll paraphrase/ nutshell his points, with my responses in blue:

Random girl: What if you're wrong?
Shallow, but not a bad start.

Dawkins
What if we're wrong about the FSM, etc.?
While I laugh at such parodies alongside my atheist brethren, and appreciate the point they make, they are of limited utility. Said utility is a delightful rebuttal to conversion attempts urging blind faith. When pushed beyond that to arguing against faith, they are completely inadequate. Whether he meant to do that or would attempt to, I'm not sure, but my objection is worth mentioning.

Why are you Christian and not Hindu? You were indoctrinated.
Not necessarily. This argument is fair with depressing regularity, but the assumption of its universal accuracy is a stereotype, and an example of what I mean when I say he'd be brilliant if he only aimed.

What if YOU'RE wrong?
That's not an answer.

That wasn't much of an argument. It was well stated evasion of a question that, while simplistic, is also important.

It didn't seem to me as so much an evasion of the question as a rebuttal to the accuracy of the question.

Here is an argument that is a little more direct.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjpqeZirDqU&feature=related

 

[Storm]

It didn't seem to me as so much an evasion of the question as a rebuttal to the accuracy of the question.

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.

ETA: Quit it with the ninja edits!

Also, do you have any response to the rant of post # 259?