What are your thoughts on Richard Dawkins?
I have to say that I am quite fond of him, but some seem to think that he is a fundie himself!
What do you say about that?
How do you mean, a fundie?
An Atheist fundie (fundamentalist), meaning that he is just as bad as a religious fundie.
Mind you, this is not my opinion.
I don't see how. He's repeatedly said he doesn't consider his conclusion that there is no God to be 100% certain.
I think too many people come to that conclusion about Dawkins by listening to what others say about him, rather than what he says.
Have you read The God Delusion?
I bought it some days ago, in fact, and think that he is right on.
As I said, I am not the one who thinks that he is a fundie.
However, here is something a friend of mine said about him (who is not an Atheist, mind you, but not a religious nut, either):
QuoteAgain, I don't know enough about him, so I'm probably not the best one to critique him. But in the couple of debates I have watched him in online, he offered no compelling arguments. He just attacked the character of his opponent and used cheap debate tactics. For example, instead of giving evidence that the God of the Bible doesn't exist, he just painted an emotionally charged portrait of how awful he imagined that God being. Very effective, but just a tactic and not a real argument. He also denies moral absolutes and yet in his book "The God Delusion" (I've only read excerpts), he repeatedly attacks both Christians and God himself for what he calls immoral behavior. His main argument against Christianity seems to be that it has led to great immorality, and yet he elsewhere insists that morality is subjective. He defuses his own argument. Lastly, I just see him as an unbending ideologue. He's not much different from a crazy fundamentalist who preaches to a choir of like-minded people under the pretense of offering enlightenment. My impression is that he's actually quite religious in his beliefs. And as I've mentioned before, I'm not terribly fond of religion.
Quoteinstead of giving evidence that the God of the Bible doesn't exist
Shifting Burden Fallacy.
Quotehe just painted an emotionally charged portrait of how awful he imagined that God being
Probably based on what his believers said about him.
QuoteHe also denies moral absolutes and yet in his book "The God Delusion" (I've only read excerpts), he repeatedly attacks both Christians and God himself for what he calls immoral behavior.
False Dichotomy. There are more options than absolute morals and no morals at all.
QuoteHe's not much different from a crazy fundamentalist who preaches to a choir of like-minded people under the pretense of offering enlightenment.
Except that Dawkins encourages reason and critical thinking. I don't know of any fundamentalist preachers who do that.
Yeah, that's partly what I though. I will forward this to him.
I'm just glad you don't think that Richard Dawkins is a close-minded fundie.
Here is something else he said before, in case you want to pull that apart:
QuoteI don't know much about him, but I'm not fond of him. It's not that I don't respect Atheists. I do when they're intellectually honest. But he strikes me as rather arrogant and closed-minded (like a lot of Christians, admittedly). He is not seeking truth, just seeking to knock down a worldview that he hates. I've also read (from both Christians and Atheists) that he is not a very accomplished philosopher. A "pop philosopher" as some have said.
By the way, should it not be "There are more options
than absolute morals and no morals at all?"
I see it more and more often that people use "that" instead of "than."
I really don't see what there is to pull apart there, since I don't see anything of substance.
Yes, it should be "than." I thought one word and typed another. Spellcheckers don't catch that kind of mistake.
I just found this comment on Fundies Say the Darndest Things:
Quote from: MitchOkay, I have a bit of a problem here, I don't actually like Dawkins.
Reasons:
1. He's well established in the scientific community, yet most of his hypotheses have remained untested.
2. The extent of scientific method he goes to is equivalent to that of psychologists explaining psychology - not much.
3. His personality would be equivalent to a net junkie if there was Internet in the 50's, he's a shy person but then lashed out in his books.
4. I found The God Delusion in the science section at my university book store, I'd be fine with his other books, but both me and my atheist friend (I being deist) believed it was the worst of his work and really attributed nothing to science considering science doesn't deal with belief in God.
Quote from: Tom S. Fox on March 08, 2009, 05:20:25 AM
I just found this comment on Fundies Say the Darndest Things:
I really enjoy that site. It's really good when I need a pick me up.
I like Dawkins. But I don't think Dawkins is into 'converting' people to atheism. He is far to harsh on the sensitive mind of theist.
I mean, would you listen to someone who is teaching you that you are wrong and insults you at the same time? Dawkins atheism is perfect for those that have already started to distance themselves from religion.
I find it sad that Dawkins and other brilliant minds like him have to waste time going back over the misinformation that keeps resurfacing in the public. I remember listening to Neil deGrasse Tyson on the radio a few nights back on Coast2Coast, and he mentioned that he 'wasted' a few years on Pluto and why it was downgraded to a dwarf planet, and worried about the new 2012 movie that he would have to waste a few more years debunking the information came from that.
Quote from: PaperRedemption on March 10, 2009, 04:04:28 PM
I remember listening to Neil deGrasse Tyson on the radio a few nights back on Coast2Coast
Wow, he was on Coast2Coast. That show is usually a completely Reason Free Zone. I listen to it occasionally for the hilarity.
but I have never heard someone even remotely reasonable on it. usually it is alex jones, or some other conspiracy nut spouting insanity that goes totally unquestioned. and relayed as fact.
Example 1: Gordon Freeman From the game Half-Life Calls In... Noory doesn't question it at all.
[yt]liKV4Ij8LtU[/yt]
Example 2: Guy Calls in, Basically giving a synopsis of the game Fallout 3 passing it off as a prophetic dream.. Again Noory buys it. Hook, line, and sinker.
[yt]NEq3fd3uOrA[/yt]
Phil Plait's been on a few times as well.
If you want a liberty-oriented radio show where they take the conspiracy nuts and other woos to task, try Free Talk Live (http://www.freetalklive.com) (although they seem to have fallen for the Law of Attraction of late).
Quote from: MrBogosity on March 12, 2009, 04:56:13 PM
Phil Plait's been on a few times as well.
If you want a liberty-oriented radio show where they take the conspiracy nuts and other woos to task, try Free Talk Live (http://www.freetalklive.com) (although they seem to have fallen for the Law of Attraction of late).
Phil Plait on Coast2Coast that would be fun to hear.
I enjoy listening to The Skeptics Guide To The Universe (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/) Podcast.
I have never listened to Free Talk Live, I will check it out, thanks for the link :)
Quote from: PaperRedemption on March 10, 2009, 04:04:28 PM
I like Dawkins. But I don't think Dawkins is into 'converting' people to atheism. He is far to harsh on the sensitive mind of theist.
I mean, would you listen to someone who is teaching you that you are wrong and insults you at the same time? Dawkins atheism is perfect for those that have already started to distance themselves from religion.
I find it sad that Dawkins and other brilliant minds like him have to waste time going back over the misinformation that keeps resurfacing in the public. I remember listening to Neil deGrasse Tyson on the radio a few nights back on Coast2Coast, and he mentioned that he 'wasted' a few years on Pluto and why it was downgraded to a dwarf planet, and worried about the new 2012 movie that he would have to waste a few more years debunking the information came from that.
Except Dawkins doesn't tend to insult believers. Can you show me where he does?
The reason believers feel insulted is because Dawkins attacks something believers find core to their persona; they identify with their beliefs as part of who they are, and Dawkins comes in and (truthfully) says it's irrational, there's no basis for it, it's unnecessary, etc. The believers then take it personally and are angry about it. Dawkins, I think, knows this, but he is trying to shift discourse so it's more acceptable to attack religion for being what it is openly.
I found this strange accusation on tvtropes.org (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.TheFundamentalist):
QuoteThe aversion to Dawkins by so many is likely because of the several books' worth of quote-twisting and outright lies he has used to promote his anti-religious crusade. One small example would be his infamous dowdism of a John Adams quote made to sound as if Adams was railing against religion, when in fact the quote, in its entirety, was stating exactly the opposite. Believing that the end justifies the means is a good indicator of unhealthy fundamentalism.
Is there any truth to that?
There is a popular internet quote of John Adams saying, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!" It's a quote mine. Here's the quote in context:
QuoteTwenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.
Whether or not Dawkins passed on the misquote I don't know.
I have a friend who doesn't like Dawkins. He thinks Dawkins is arrogant.
I don't see it however.
I haven't seen tons of him but from what I did see, Dawkins did seem reasonable enough.
If I had to call anyone a fundie atheist, it would have to be Christopher Hitchens. The man has called the war in Iraq "a war to be proud of" and I have suspicions that view is largely due to the fact that it's a war against religious fanatics. Shameful really...