Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Richard Dawkins-I Am Not A Fan


Castiel233

Recommended Posts

I am the only one to find Richard Dawkins a bit of a bore. I don’t rate him as an atheist thinker one jot. I found the God delusion to be one of the very worst books on the subject. His statements are sometimes unkind, bizarre and on occasion wicked. Compared to the late Carl Sagan, Dawkins comes a very poor second. On every level I find Sagan superior. Sagan was a better writer, a better explainer and I suspect a better man, given the public statements of the two.

 

 

 

 His refusal to debate WLC smacked of cowardice, no matter how he squared it.  

 

Others might think he is a great defender of the (non) faith. I simply just don’t buy it.

 

I dream of the day, the Christian faith collapses, but Dawkins is not the man, I want to lead the charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.  There is a bit too much 1950s British upper class mentality going on.  He is out of step with contemporary culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think my problem with him is he comes across far too aggressive and belittling toward those that still hold to the Christian Faith. At first I put that down to a lack of understanding of those people/me, but I have come to discover that at some point he too was a Christian. One would think that having been part of the faith himself he would have a little empathy, but clearly that is not the case.

 

His combative and downright insulting attitude does little to open doors, rather it puts people's defences up and swiftly closes down any hope for a reasoned conversation. I've been listening to a podcast called 'A Matter of Doubt' and one of the hosts has been in on going conversations with a Jehovah Witness, which he periodically updates the listens on. After many meetings and conversations, he finally managed to persuade one of them to read a book on evolution only to have all his efforts undone by a belittling comment from Richard Dawkins on the back of the book.

 

I think he is an intelligent man, but probably not a very wise one. The comments he has made about date rape, Down's children and so forth do little to reassure Christians that Atheists are moral, compassionate human beings.

 

I have read the God Delusion and found it useful, but I'll be honest and say that I haven't read many other books on the subject (bar a couple of deconversion accounts).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think my problem with him is he comes across far too aggressive and belittling toward those that still hold to the Christian Faith. At first I put that down to a lack of understanding of those people/me, but I have come to discover that at some point he too was a Christian. One would think that having been part of the faith himself he would have a little empathy, but clearly that is not the case.

 

His combative and downright insulting attitude does little to open doors, rather it puts people's defences up and swiftly closes down any hope for a reasoned conversation. I've been listening to a podcast called 'A Matter of Doubt' and one of the hosts has been in on going conversations with a Jehovah Witness, which he periodically updates the listens on. After many meetings and conversations, he finally managed to persuade one of them to read a book on evolution only to have all his efforts undone by a belittling comment from Richard Dawkins on the back of the book.

 

I think he is an intelligent man, but probably not a very wise one. The comments he has made about date rape, Down's children and so forth do little to reassure Christians that Atheists are moral, compassionate human beings.

 

I have read the God Delusion and found it useful, but I'll be honest and say that I haven't read many other books on the subject (bar a couple of deconversion accounts).

Agreed. Given how insulting he can be, he gives non believers a bad image. He remarks on date rape and Downs are appalling and show a lack of common sense and empathy. Why give Believers the ammo, you just know they are going to use against you.

 

I've read a a few of his books, but they have never wowed me. I can't even remember barely anything of the God delusion, which shows how little I thought of it. Yet I can remember lots from Sagans "Demon haunted world". Likewise I can recall lots of Robert Ingersoll stuff. These two writers had empathy in buckets, wonderful style and really spoke to me. I once turned down free tickets to a Dawkins event, this is how little I rate him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think my problem with him is he comes across far too aggressive and belittling toward those that still hold to the Christian Faith. At first I put that down to a lack of understanding of those people/me, but I have come to discover that at some point he too was a Christian. One would think that having been part of the faith himself he would have a little empathy, but clearly that is not the case.

 

His combative and downright insulting attitude does little to open doors, rather it puts people's defences up and swiftly closes down any hope for a reasoned conversation. I've been listening to a podcast called 'A Matter of Doubt' and one of the hosts has been in on going conversations with a Jehovah Witness, which he periodically updates the listens on. After many meetings and conversations, he finally managed to persuade one of them to read a book on evolution only to have all his efforts undone by a belittling comment from Richard Dawkins on the back of the book.

 

I think he is an intelligent man, but probably not a very wise one. The comments he has made about date rape, Down's children and so forth do little to reassure Christians that Atheists are moral, compassionate human beings.

 

I have read the God Delusion and found it useful, but I'll be honest and say that I haven't read many other books on the subject (bar a couple of deconversion accounts).

Agreed. Given how insulting he can be, he gives non believers a bad image. He remarks on date rape and Downs are appalling and show a lack of common sense and empathy. Why give Believers the ammo, you just know they are going to use against you.

 

I've read a a few of his books, but they have never wowed me. I can't even remember barely anything of the God delusion, which shows how little I thought of it. Yet I can remember lots from Sagans "Demon haunted world". Likewise I can recall lots of Robert Ingersoll stuff. These two writers had empathy in buckets, wonderful style and really spoke to me. I once turned down free tickets to a Dawkins event, this is how little I rate him.

 

To add:

 

I think Carl Sagan was one of the finest writers in his field and of his generation, His loss, is a loss, not only to the free thought and scientific community, but to society in general. He left us far to soon and had so much to offer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Castiel, what of Sagan's books would you recommend? I'm going to guess 'Demon Haunted World' would be one of them, any others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors was also very good

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked God Delusion. Dawkins simply has no patience for theism, which is both unfortunate and understandable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's alright.  At least he doesn't engage in islamophia and war propaganda like Harris and Hitchens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought he was alright, but I didn't find The God Delusion to be very convincing in some parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I do think that "New Atheism" has a problem, with the culture. That's why I don't identify with that group, really. I don't like the entrenched misogyny and generally poor logic that goes along with some of their "talking heads" - as if saying you're non-religious gives you a free pass to be racist or sexist, or acts as some kind of immunity to bias: "I can't be biased and have clouded thinking, I'm an Atheist, don't ya know!" That sort of attitude reduces the debate between them and apologists to something every bit as childish and ignorant as kids on the playground arguing over whether there's double-jinxes allowed, or touch-backs. I mean, if you're going to be some kind of "champion of logical thinking" then, for the love of all that's good, analyze your own bias. Have a good hard look at it. So, that's why I'm not impressed by the thinking in a lot of it, it violates some very very basic principles of solid argument. In addition to, you know, getting rather sick of being treated as a second-class citizen, being female and all. If I get offended, the attitude is often to brush it off with a "well, you're a lady-types, and can't be logical, anyway." This just makes them look like hypocritical jackasses, who can't even recognize the basic need to consider social environment and bias. No study happens in a social vacuum, and that's why we do double-blind studies. Durr...

 

[WARNING: technical, and possible dry science-y blathering ahead.]

Anyway, as for Dawkins, specifically. I think some of his attitude is a reaction to the way science has kind of rocketed past his earlier, and very significant, contributions to the literature. The New Atheism gig is what he's got now. His book The Selfish Gene is the only reason he's important enough to be a celebrity talking-head for New Atheism, anyway. It was, truly, ground-breaking... in 1976. But, as science does, using it as a springboard, studies have moved beyond this understanding, and there have been scads of studies in biological altruism that subvert the understanding of altruism and evolution as Dawkins outlines in the book. It turns out, as so many things do, that it's not as simple as that... There are a lot of circumstances that promote altruism, even in relatively non-related individuals. here's some light reading... if you want peer reviewed journal article citations, PM me, and I'll grub some up, although it will take some time. It's a huge field of research. In a nutshell, though, the state of the field in the 1970s didn't take into account the more diffuse statistical presence of genes in a population, or the more complex symbiotic relationships, even among un-related organisms. Now that we have more advanced abiliites, in terms of DNA analysis and computing power, and a better understanding of the very complex web of life, the "each-against-all individual-as-genetic-payload-carrier" model isn't sufficient explanation. I don't just help my brother, because he shares my genes, I'm also a platform for a bunch of bacteria, and eyelash mites, and so on. Each of which have their own genes. I'm a walking, talking, computer-using ecosystem, embedded in a nest of other ecosystems, all the way up to the Earth's biosphere, in total.

 

Nevertheless, if you read one book by Dawkins, read The Selfish Gene, if as a piece of science history. Some of it may be outdated, and surpassed by more recent studies, but it was the match that lit the wildfire of altruism studies, today. It's the only book by Dawkins that I got through.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like him for the most part, but you're free not to. I on the other hand never found Sagan very interesting. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's alright.  At least he doesn't engage in islamophia and war propaganda like Harris and Hitchens. 

It's possible to criticise a religion without criticising a race.  People who don't understand that distinction mistakenly call it Islamophobia.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

He's alright.  At least he doesn't engage in islamophia and war propaganda like Harris and Hitchens. 

It's possible to criticise a religion without criticising a race.  People who don't understand that distinction mistakenly call it Islamophobia.

 

 

Ignorant. 

 

I suppose it's also impossible to criticize religion without also publicly supporting torture and illegal invasion of their countries. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a fan; God Delusion did a swell job of explaining non-belief to me.  It is far from comprehensive but it was a good starting point.  But where he really shines is his science writing and the stand he has taken in opposing faith based education, the clergy project, etc.  

He is far from perfect, and certainly not doing himself any favors by some of the things he has said about rape or pedophilia victims.  

 

But as a popular science writer and advocate from non-belief and science in general, I appreciate him.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the god delusion was the first 'atheist' book i ever read (followed by Hitchens , god is not great).

He, they, had a huge impact on me.

I have also watched many of his debates on line, and think he does a good job, and have not seem him rude to people (he may have been, I havent seen it). His debate with Wendy wright is a very good example of his of that. I would have not been quite so restrained .....

 

I am not defending his recent blunders, but think, like most of us, he is not perfect. He is a expert in his field, and that does not mean we need to put him on a pedestal (many christians think we hold him up as a high priest or something).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

He's alright.  At least he doesn't engage in islamophia and war propaganda like Harris and Hitchens. 

It's possible to criticise a religion without criticising a race.  People who don't understand that distinction mistakenly call it Islamophobia.

 

 

Ignorant. 

 

I suppose it's also impossible to criticize religion without also publicly supporting torture and illegal invasion of their countries. 

 

 

 

Actually the ignorant person here is someone who thinks Dawkins doesn't criticise Islamofascism as clearly and stringently as Hitchens did.  They are/were right to stand up to tyranny.

 

 

BpwkjeuCMAEx-oN.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with that statement made by Dawkins.

 

That's not what I'm talking about here.  Harris thinks all Muslims are violent because the Koran has some violent passages.  If that's true, then all Christians are violent too. 

 

And here he defends torture: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html

 

And Hitchens?  He was just a neocon asshole:  http://exiledonline.com/big-brothers-george-orwell-and-christopher-hitchens-exposed/

 

If they're going to stand up for tyranny, they'd do right to stand up to the tyranny spread by the American empire as it has tyrannized Islamic countries across the globe for the past 60 years, instead of being public apologists for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a fan.  I'm grateful for the way he helped me when I was struggling with religion.  He isn't a saint or a pope.  Keep him in the proper perspective an everything should be fine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with that statement made by Dawkins.

 

That's not what I'm talking about here.  Harris thinks all Muslims are violent because the Koran has some violent passages.  If that's true, then all Christians are violent too. 

 

And here he defends torture: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html

 

And Hitchens?  He was just a neocon asshole:  http://exiledonline.com/big-brothers-george-orwell-and-christopher-hitchens-exposed/

 

If they're going to stand up for tyranny, they'd do right to stand up to the tyranny spread by the American empire as it has tyrannized Islamic countries across the globe for the past 60 years, instead of being public apologists for it. 

 

I'm just glad the US is prepared to deal with at least some of the Islamofascists, if only they'd intervene earlier, for longer and with greater effectiveness, the world would be a safer place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree with that statement made by Dawkins.

 

That's not what I'm talking about here.  Harris thinks all Muslims are violent because the Koran has some violent passages.  If that's true, then all Christians are violent too. 

 

And here he defends torture: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html

 

And Hitchens?  He was just a neocon asshole:  http://exiledonline.com/big-brothers-george-orwell-and-christopher-hitchens-exposed/

 

If they're going to stand up for tyranny, they'd do right to stand up to the tyranny spread by the American empire as it has tyrannized Islamic countries across the globe for the past 60 years, instead of being public apologists for it.

 

 

I'm just glad the US is prepared to deal with at least some of the Islamofascists, if only they'd intervene earlier, for longer and with greater effectiveness, the world would be a safer place.

It's their intervention in the first place that got us where we are today. Want to talk terror and fascism, look no further than the shah, the proxy wars in Afghanistan and iran/Iraq and us policy in countries like Syria and north Africa. Only someone who knows nothing of the regional history thinks what exists today formed in a vacuum.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's doubtful things are going to get better either given we're growing a whole new generation of Muslims with an axe to grind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been listening to a podcast called 'A Matter of Doubt' and one of the hosts has been in on going conversations with a Jehovah Witness, which he periodically updates the listens on. After many meetings and conversations, he finally managed to persuade one of them to read a book on evolution only to have all his efforts undone by a belittling comment from Richard Dawkins on the back of the book.

 

That makes me think of Dan Barker's book "Godless." It's a very good book and Dan has a very gracious attitude, even when pointing out problems with Christianity. His book could be an eye opener for some believers, yet I would be hesitant to loan it to a Christian because the foreword by Dawkins has a comment or two that are very condescending. I can imagine someone being so offended by that foreword that he/she never even attempts to read the actual book.

 

Anyway, I read Dawkins' "God Delusion." He does make some good points in it, but I was really taken back by some of his comments toward the end of the book. He claimed that teaching children religious belief is worse than pedophilia! That is an asinine broadbrushing that blows my mind. How can a brilliant scientist make such idiotic comments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am the only one to find Richard Dawkins a bit of a bore. I don’t rate him as an atheist thinker one jot. I found the God delusion to be one of the very worst books on the subject. His statements are sometimes unkind, bizarre and on occasion wicked. Compared to the late Carl Sagan, Dawkins comes a very poor second. On every level I find Sagan superior. Sagan was a better writer, a better explainer and I suspect a better man, given the public statements of the two.

 

Dawkins reminds me of the sad uncle, in his 70’s trying to dance at the disco, while the 30’s generation look on at him with pity.

 

 His refusal to debate WLC smacked of cowardice, no matter how he squared it.  

 

Others might think he is a great defender of the (non) faith. I simply just don’t buy it.

 

I dream of the day, the Christian faith collapses, but Dawkins is not the man, I want to lead the charge.

 

Er ... no. His refusal to debate to William "Lame" Craig did not "smack of cowardice." There is no reason for any sensible person to "debate" his Lameness. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.