• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Richard Dawkins intellectually vain?

Q-Source said:
R. Dawkins is the most arrogant person I´ve ever seen. It gives Science a bad name. He needs to put his feet on the ground and stop attacking other people just because they are different. He is a major bully.
Click to expand...

And will you be supplying any evidence for your allegation of "bullying"?
 
perhaps you can all enlighten me, ..has Dawkins actually made any significant discoveries in biology/zoology?
 
Q-Source said:
R. Dawkins is the most arrogant person I´ve ever seen. It gives Science a bad name. He needs to put his feet on the ground and stop attacking other people just because they are different. He is a major bully.
Click to expand...

I personally just get the impression that he doesn't care that people are touchy on the topics of religion and evolution because he feels that the sacredness of it is ridiculous (with good reason). Because of that he makes certain comments very easily that other people stuck with the stigma that we should respect religion as some sort of untouchable matter of respect cringe at.

And yes, I'd imagine he's quite impressed with his existence as he's quite impressed with the existence of the universe in general and states in his books that he loves the beauty of it. It's a lot easier to be impressed by existence when you aren't boiling things down to "God did it" :)
 
I generally agree, I just find his arguments against religion particularly childish.. for example, one of them is that the religion of most people corresponds to the religion of their parents, therefore religion must be somehow false... how stupid is that?
would anyone, for example, say that the findings of a biologist were invalid because his/her father was a biologist rather than a physicist?
the problem is that most scientists have no grounding in philosophy and thus they have never been presented with a full range of alternative views of reality, so some of them end up being embarrassing bigots like Dawkins
 
plumjam said:
crikey Q-Source, finally someone with a bit of real intelligence (y) what a relief ;-)

Dawkins has always struck me as someone who has read all the books on one particular shelf in the library, and he thinks that gives himself the right to decry the value of all the other shelves in the library.
Does he ever say anything about the species barrier or the stasis nature of the fossill record?
No, and neither do the "Skeptics"
Click to expand...

When you get to a point, make it please.
 
You bleedin' poms always takes the side of the posh-talker over the ord'nary bloke. Yer faintin' yob Dorkins is just the sort you rub up on 'n act like 'e's a bloody damn upper-class nob. Mob of tweedy feckin' growlers. Tug yer bleedin' forelocks why dontcher?

Plum Jam, meet me down pub 'n we'll 'oist a h'onest man's pint 'n drink damnation to all plummy-mouth bastards. Wotcher!
 
plumjam said:
I generally agree, I just find his arguments against religion particularly childish.. for example, one of them is that the religion of most people corresponds to the religion of their parents, therefore religion must be somehow false... how stupid is that?
would anyone, for example, say that the findings of a biologist were invalid because his/her father was a biologist rather than a physicist?
Click to expand...

That is not what he argues. The argument regarding childhood indoctrination is nothing to do with refuting religion - it's a criticism of (you've guessed it) the way religions tend to indoctrinate children before they have a chance to make up their own mind.

the problem is that most scientists have no grounding in philosophy and thus they have never been presented with a full range of alternative views of reality, so some of them end up being embarrassing bigots like Dawkins
Click to expand...

I live in a world bounded by reality, and I'm pretty sure you do too. Science does a great job of helping us understand that reality - a damn sight better job than any religion or belief system. Philosophy will help one understand the nature of the human condition and how humans perceive reality. Horses for courses.
 
My favorite thing about Dawkins is that the only attacks his detractors can make on him are personal ones or to say he's "mean", etc.

Always a sign of doing something right.
 
Phrost said:
My favorite thing about Dawkins is that the only attacks his detractors can make on him are personal ones or to say he's "mean", etc.

Always a sign of doing something right.
Click to expand...

maybe cos he hasn't actually contributed anything very significant to society's body of understanding, apart from his proseltyising religious paperbacks
 
sackett said:
You bleedin' poms always takes the side of the posh-talker over the ord'nary bloke. Yer faintin' yob Dorkins is just the sort you rub up on 'n act like 'e's a bloody damn upper-class nob. Mob of tweedy feckin' growlers. Tug yer bleedin' forelocks why dontcher?

Plum Jam, meet me down pub 'n we'll 'oist a h'onest man's pint 'n drink damnation to all plummy-mouth bastards. Wotcher!
Click to expand...

Edited by prewitt81: 
Multiple breaches removed


plumjam, you are again warned to be civil and polite.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81
 
Last edited by a moderator:
plumjam said:
Is it just me, or is Senor Dick Dawkins a bit of an unforseen genetic diversion ;)
I'm sure he's a more than averagely intelligent sort of bloke, but everytime i've seen him on tv or youtube he's had the air of someone quite impressed by his own existence.
Anyone else feel the same?
Click to expand...

No, but I do find your repeated use of "Senor Dick Dawkins," "my Old Mate Bill" and "old Charlie" for Richard Dawkins, William Shakespeare and Charles Darwin a trifle tiresome.
 
plumjam said:
maybe cos he hasn't actually contributed anything very significant to society's body of understanding, apart from his proseltyising religious paperbacks
Click to expand...

Oh? So you have examined all papers Dawkins has authored, or co-authored and can show how none of them "contributed anything very significant to society's body of understanding"?
 
I don't know and I don't really care.

He sounds confident and passionate about some things. His appearance of vanity isn't what I care about. If he flat out said things that were obviously vain, then yes I would care. "Creationists are dumb, but I'm smart" type stuff would make me think he's vain and lose my respect.

He always likes to tell that story of his professor shaking someone's hand for disproving him and seems moved by it. I would guess he has an admiration of people who admit they are wrong and want to further the search for truth.
 
asmodean said:
Oh? So you have examined all papers Dawkins has authored, or co-authored and can show how none of them "contributed anything very significant to society's body of understanding"?
Click to expand...

yes, he's crap,
just in it for the money
 
I've seen a lot of really pathetic ad hominems against Dawkins but god damn does this take the cake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom