Richard Dawkins-I Am Not A Fan

[Fernweh]

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

 

Demon Haunted World is good but I couldn't get past the constant references to mid 90's world events and pop culture. My favorite Sagan work is Cosmos. His childlike wonder at the Universe is infectious and his soaring prose left me in awe. 

[florduh]

The God Delusion is the single most important work in recent history to bring atheism to the public consciousness. Dawkins made his points with science and logic; the last atheist to make an impression was Madelyn Murray O'Hair and she was an abrasive asshole with no reasonable arguments, just constant bitching. Dawkins demonstrated that atheists can be thoughtful and discerning, much like the mostly forgotten Bertrand Russell.

 

Atheists who write books, lecture and debate are not the leaders of some religious movement. They are individuals with various views on society, feminism, foreign policy and chili dogs. Their contribution is that they further an understanding of how some people can simply not believe in the gods held so dear by so many. Their personal views on politically charged subjects may or may not align with your own.

[Castiel233]

 

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. 

 

I disagree and so do other atheists, including Prof Daniel Came who wrote publicly to Dawkins:

 

“The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.

“I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House.”

 

Dawkins views on Downs, and his defence of date rape and sex offenders are appalling. 

 

 Hitchens,Harris,Stenger and Krauss and considered it worth their time to debate WLC, which hardly makes him lame.

 

Dawkins took a long time to refuse the WLC offer of debate, and the reason he gave (that Craig defends Biblical cruelty ) seems weak. Dawkins appears to prefer debating anglicans, with no fire in their belly.

[Castiel233]

 Their contribution is that they further an understanding of how some people can simply not believe in the gods held so dear by so many. Their personal views on politically charged subjects may or may not align with your own.

That's a fair enough point

[Vigile]

Have you ever seen Craig debate?  It's like arguing with Christians on this board; totally fruitless.  They never admit they are wrong.  Both sides merely preach to the choir and the place gets stunk up with logical fallacy. 

[Castiel233]

I have watched his debates and  he is a slippery one.

[Castiel233]

Had Dawkins had said something along the lines “I am not going to debate Craig, because I do not like his style” that would have been fair enough. Polly Toynee accepted the offer of debate against Craig, then withdraw it, because after viewing him on line decided it wasn’t her cup of tea. That at least is a straight enough reason.

 

I don’t find Dawkins or Craig inspiring at all.

 

John Loftus (a former Craig student and now atheist author) has offered to debate Craig. Craig has refused, I suspect because Loftus appears to be a smart guy and Craig is worried about being shown up....so cowardice on Craigs part 

[Castiel233]

 

 

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.

 

fair enough, the West has played a major part of the chaos...however even without Western (mis) involvement, I doubt that Islam is interested in living in peace with non Muslims. An Islamic country must be a nightmarish to live in.

[Vigile]

"I doubt that Islam is interested in living in peace with non Muslims."

 

In India I saw them living side by side quite peacefully.  I know there have been incidents, but what country with a billion people isn't going to have some of those? 

 

Same goes for Thailand. 

 

Malaysia seemed pretty peaceful too, but I was only there a short time so it's not a valid impression I guess. 

[Castiel233]

Perhaps I was a bit too general with my remarks. My apology's 

[LukeExChristian]

When I do listen to richie it's usually in little pieces and quotes.

[Blood]

Dawkins has done more to promote atheism as a positive, life-affirming philosophical position than anyone else in my lifetime, so for that alone he is a major cultural figure in our time. I don't have to agree with, or even like him to acknowledge that. I never read "The God Delusion."

 

There's no reason to compare Dawkins to Sagan. Sagan was an astronomer, for one. An astronomer and a biologist think on different scales. Both are good writers. Sagan was more philosophical. 

 

Sadly, Sagan lived in a time when a public figure couldn't come out and say, "I'm an atheist," so he was forced to make rather lame denials at times. That's all changed (I hope) with Dawkins. 

[sdelsolray]

I take many of Dawkins writings and audio/visual publications with some skepticism, particularly when he gets far afield from biology.  Even when the topic is biology I view his arguments and related conclusions as simply those of one knowledgable person.  I agree with many, am indifferent to some and disagree with the remainder.

 

His website has certainly gone through major changes in the past few years.  There were some quality forums on the older sites, some of which have been pulled and are not readily accessible.  That's a shame.

 

Regarding his personality and his content delivery, I can certainly see that he rubs some the wrong way, although that isn't true for me.  

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

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.

 

No one claimed that what exists today formed in a vacuum, so that comment is just silly.

 

Regardless of anything the US and other countries did or didn't do, Islam as a religion wants war with us and will stop at nothing to get that.  We can either sit by and let it happen or we can defend ourselves and support those who are trying to provide some resistance.  Too much time has already been wasted on the former.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

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.

 

No one claimed that what exists today formed in a vacuum, so that comment is just silly.

 

Regardless of anything the US and other countries did or didn't do, Islam as a religion wants war with us and will stop at nothing to get that.  We can either sit by and let it happen or we can defend ourselves and support those who are trying to provide some resistance.  Too much time has already been wasted on the former.

 

No religion has emotions such as wanting, desiring, hate, love, etc.  Such emotions only exist within the brains of none, some or all of that religion's adherents and followers.  A religion can certainly promote or discourage dogma, doctrine and behavior and, by direct and indirect causal links, encourage emotions from the particular religion's adherents and followers, or from the particular religion's detractors and critics.

 

Accordingly, I dispute your claim that "Islam as a religion wants war".  Certainly, many adherents and followers of that religion want war, or (perhaps) more accurately a struggle, a jihad.  I'm sure each of us could find adherents and followers of that religion who do not want war.  I'm sure each of us could find adherents and followers of different religions, or no religion, who want war, or do not want war.

 

As to your sentence:

 

"We can either sit by and let it happen or we can defend ourselves and support those who are trying to provide some resistance."

 

​False dichotomy.  There are other choices.

[SilentLoner]

 

 

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. 

 

I disagree and so do other atheists

 

 

I disagree with you and so do other atheists. There was no point in such a useless debate that would only preach to the choir.

 

Dawkins views on Downs, and his defence of date rape and sex offenders are appalling. 

 

 

 

Sorry to be frank, but you have to be a downright idiot to interpret what he said as "defending date rape and sex offenders."

 

As for what he said about Downs, are the nearly 90% of women who choose to abort "appalling" too?

[Vigile]

Regardless of anything the US and other countries did or didn't do, Islam as a religion wants war with us and will stop at nothing to get that.  We can either sit by and let it happen or we can defend ourselves and support those who are trying to provide some resistance.  Too much time has already been wasted on the former.

 

 

Speaking of silly claims (and foolish notions I'd add)...

 

[Vigile]

Regarding Dawkins, I find it odd that people complain about his delivery style and then post videos of people like Dusty and the Amazing Atheist. 

[SilentLoner]

"I doubt that Islam is interested in living in peace with non Muslims."

 

In India I saw them living side by side quite peacefully.  I know there have been incidents, but what country with a billion people isn't going to have some of those? 

 

Same goes for Thailand. 

 

Malaysia seemed pretty peaceful too, but I was only there a short time so it's not a valid impression I guess. 

 

Anec-data again...

[Deidre]

I think he makes good points but he almost treats science as his religion.

[Vigile]

 

"I doubt that Islam is interested in living in peace with non Muslims."

 

In India I saw them living side by side quite peacefully.  I know there have been incidents, but what country with a billion people isn't going to have some of those? 

 

Same goes for Thailand. 

 

Malaysia seemed pretty peaceful too, but I was only there a short time so it's not a valid impression I guess. 

 

Anec-data again...

 

 

You can dispute it if you want.  Surely if I'm wrong there will be a plethora of news regarding Muslims in Thailand and India going Jihad on their neighbors.  And is it anecdotal to point out that Muslims live side by side with non Muslims in Thailand or is the anecdote only applied to the word 'peaceful'? 

 

Or, should I just point out the claim that Muslims can't get along with their neighbors is an extraordinary one?   

 

When you figure it out, let me know. 

[Vigile]

I think he makes good points but he almost treats science as his religion.

 

Most of the time when I see someone say this, it's because they want to wiggle out of using science because it contradicts their belief system.  Here, however, I think it's probably a valid point.  Dawkins does talk about science in terms that others use with religious belief.  It's kind of weird. 

[JadedAtheist]

I'm indifferent to him really, I read some of his books concerning evolution (one that springs to mind is the greatest show on earth) and thought they were good. I read his religious stuff and not so much a fan, not really his field of expertise from what I read at least.

[Aggie]

He's not my favorite, but I like Dawkins fine.  Of the "new atheists," I like Sam Harris the best I think.

 

I would recommend Ken Daniels' Why I Believed much more highly though-- especially if you are trying to convince a Christian or get a Christian to understand your lack of belief.  Daniels is a former missionary turned atheist.  He's very respectful and he gets traditional Christian perspectives better than those who have never been in the fold:

http://www.kwdaniels.com/    (You can buy it in various formats or look at the free pdf.)

 

Daniels for me sums up well why traditional Christianity is false.  It's not that there aren't some kind Christian people out there-- there are.  It's not that some churches don't provide good communities in many ways-- some do.  It's just that the beliefs are not tenable from an intellectual or a moral perspective if you want to look at them squarely.

[Leo]

I found Dawkins wanting in a few areas. His Gopd Delusion was the second book I ever read after coming out as an atheist. I was already an atheist when I read it. Dawkins has a very poor understanding of the mechanics of cultural anthropology. Scientists of his era often saw anthropology as a "lesser" science, especially cultural anthropology. He is definitely a product of his time, just as a Christian in their 70s is a product of their time, and I, of Generation X, am a product of my own cynical time.

He lacks the integrity to admit it, however. I can think of a couple of fallacies right off the bat that any Christian who wanted to could point out in the God Delusion, but it's all around a good book.

I don't know if he, like Sagan, identifies as a humanist. But especially after the Downs Syndrome comments, I don't think so.

I don't know if he's a misogynist or not. I'm personally careful with such terms. Because I'm a father who defended his right to participate as a father, in the minds of some, I was a misogynist. The term probably had a valid meaning at one point, but I'm afraid it has been lost. One reason I as a disabled person am extremely careful before labeling someone else's action as discriminatory. I do understand becoming atheist and thereby being free to eschew all manners of "original sin" or racial guilt. I know Asians who have the same kind of racial guilt that some of us whites were born and brought up with. It doesn't make one automatically a dick, however. For instance, when I'm wrong, I'll admit that *I* am wrong: not my race or gender or atheism or any other group: that's a cowardly cop-out in my opinion.

So someone would be discriminating against me, if they deliberately excluded me on account of my being blind. And Dawkins would be a sexist if he deliberately excludes women on the basis of sex. On that basis, any critical thinker would say Andrea Dwarken would be a sexist for excluding anyone on the basis of sex.

I don't know if Dawkins was intentional about his comments on the Downs Syndrome situation, but he was certainly very ignorant. Ignorant is one thing, hateful and deliberate is another. The distinction is lost on all these Tumblr Social Justice Warrior kids, but it is there. Ignorance from a man of science is not excusable, but it is different from all-out hate. As to the other issues brought up, I don't know what he said and in what context. The trouble with Twitter and these Social Justice Warriors is they tend to take a single sentence sound bite, out of context, and can make anybody say practically anything.

But I would definitely separate rational analysis from slurs and hate. As a blind person, someone might rationally ask how I was going to accomplish a certain task. That's different from being told that I can't do that task. I realize people, like these social justice warriors, who have never been in this situation, lack the wisdom to tell the difference between the two. One is completely understandable in a rational conversation, and one is not.

As to whether or not he called himself a Christian? In his youth, everyone in school had to force participate in all the activities, including those of the Church of England. He could be a lot more empathetic as a human being. It seems that is what a lot of us strive towards every day. I know I do. But he's not the "pope" of atheism. Neither is Rebecca Watson or Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens. Frankly, I prefer to read Greg Epstein, a humanist. I recommend Good Without God: What A Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe.