What's Wrong With Richard Dawkins?

[Paranormal Inquirer]

Lately, I've encountered much opposition towards Richard Dawkins, but the suprising thing about this is that it's mostly coming from atheists. Even my good friend who is probably the most hardcore atheist I know said that he cannot stand the illogic and weak arguments of Dawkins and just wishes he would go back to writing about biology, where he truly belongs. Even on many other forums, many atheists would say that "Yeah, I'm an atheist, but not a Richard Dawkins atheist."

The question is this: why? Keep in mind that these same people tend to love Hitchens and Harris, but why the hate towards Dawkins. In all honesty, Dawkins was probably the biggest influence on my "conversion" to agnostic atheism with his book "The God Delusion." I never really liked Hitchens because despite his obvious wit and intelligence, he came off as too mean and condescending many times. Harris also came off as sort of weird towards me as well with his spiritual beliefs in like reincarnation and stuff like that, which is ironic as he is going against the idea of a god for lack of evidence.

Anyways, I was just curious as to the hostility towards Dawkins. The answer can't be that he's too much of an atheist fundamentalist because Hitchens and Harris probably "preach" just as much as he does. He's my favority of the three.

 

[CurtC]

I agree with you. Hitchens is fun to listen to for his razor-sharp wit, but has some downsides such as his support for an interventionist policy in the Middle East. Harris delivers some stunning rhetoric, but has those nagging woo-ish ideas.

Dawkins is pretty much just right. I get a little uneasy when he starts using the word "probability" to refer to gods, but I understand what he's saying. Dawkins is polite and to-the-point.

 

[qayak]

It is a weakness in the people who dislike Dawkins, not Dawkins himself.

Dawkins is an "uppity atheist," the 2008 equivilent to a 1950's "uppity ni**er."

 

[CFLarsen]

I would be more concerned if atheists found someone they all liked.

 

[westprog]

I get a little uneasy when he starts using the word "probability" to refer to gods, but I understand what he's saying. Dawkins is polite and to-the-point.

Since the probability argument is entirely central to his disproof of God, it's not surprising that many atheists have problems with it.

His dismissal of evil done by atheists, while blaming religion for the wrongs done by believers is also crude and unconvincing.

I'm wary of books that change people's lives. Generally when someone says that, whether it's The God Delusion or Dianetics, they're closing their eyes to the flaws and opposing arguments.

 

[Ginarley]

Anyways, I was just curious as to the hostility towards Dawkins. The answer can't be that he's too much of an atheist fundamentalist because Hitchens and Harris probably "preach" just as much as he does. He's my favority of the three.

I agree, and it doesn't make much sense to me either. For me Dawkins calls it straight, and without any significant political or ideological bias.

Since the probability argument is entirely central to his disproof of God, it's not surprising that many atheists have problems with it.

My take on his writings is that evidence (or more precisely it's absence) is central to his disbelief in gods, quite a different prospect. The probability point is a logical follow on from this.

His dismissal of evil done by atheists, while blaming religion for the wrongs done by believers is also crude and unconvincing.

With regards to this I think he pretty much follows Weinberg's famous statement (paraphrased: good do good, bad do bad, takes religion for good do bad). However it is not a point he raises very often unprovoked - it is almost always in response to the "Stalin proves atheists are evil" argument raised by others. The coverage of this in the God Delusion was to dismiss it as an argument for theism, not to push it as an argument for atheism.

I'm wary of books that change people's lives. Generally when someone says that, whether it's The God Delusion or Dianetics, they're closing their eyes to the flaws and opposing arguments.

People say that {insert inspirational book of choice here} changed their lives too - it really has little to do with the author (other than complimenting their writing). However I will say that IMO one would have to squint pretty hard while reading the God Delusion to end up becoming dogmatic about the issues in it. I do think a lot of people read it by cover only though which is most of the problem (both theists and atheists).

 

[Jekyll]

Since the probability argument is entirely central to his disproof of God, it's not surprising that many atheists have problems with it.

His dismissal of evil done by atheists, while blaming religion for the wrongs done by believers is also crude and unconvincing.

I'm wary of books that change people's lives. Generally when someone says that, whether it's The God Delusion or Dianetics, they're closing their eyes to the flaws and opposing arguments.

Did you read a different version of the God delusion to me?
In the one I read Dawkins doesn't claim to disprove god, just says he's 99+% certain he doesn't exist.
It's basically just a (good) rephrasing of Russell's arguments years before.

I'd love to see a disproof of god using probability theory if you have one though...

 

[Complexity]

What's wrong with Richard Dawkins?

Not a damned thing. He rocks.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Just my opinion, but what I have seen is that Dawkins is much more talked about than read. He is accused of many arguments that he never makes, so most of the dislike appears to be dislike of a straw Dawkins, not the real one.

 

[qayak]

I'm wary of books that change people's lives. Generally when someone says that, whether it's The God Delusion or Dianetics, they're closing their eyes to the flaws and opposing arguments.

What have you to say on The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain? It was a book that changed my life.

 

[Rasmus]

I am sure that with a bit of thought I could list a large number of books that have changed my life. The God delusion isn't one of them, but it might have been had it been written a few years earlier.

 

[Beerina]

I was unaware some athiests really disliked Dawkins. Learn something new every day...


In any case, I would say I'm 100% sure God doesn't exist, if by "God", you mean a god as generally described in the bible, be he the petty one of the old testament, or the oddbal one of the new who wants to be called "good" and "perfect" all the while he plans on sending most people who ever lived to Hell.

I also know there's no such thing as a theoretically greatest, most powerful god, as "it's turtles all the way up" as far as godly powers go.


Now if by "god", you mean some kid running a SimUniverse from the year 3535 in his basement, then that is an actual, if remote possibility.

 

[CurtC]

What have you to say on The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain? It was a book that changed my life.

Those damn atheists, always writing books that change people's lives.

 

[Primus]

I'm wary of books that change people's lives. Generally when someone says that, whether it's The God Delusion or Dianetics, they're closing their eyes to the flaws and opposing arguments.

Like the Bible?

 

[Civilized Worm]

My only real criticism of Dawkins is his constant use of the term "Darwinism" when refering to evolution.

 

[geni]

Being a self described bright probably doesn't help.

 

[JoeEllison]

My only real criticism of Dawkins is his constant use of the term "Darwinism" when refering to evolution.

I think that's a cultural thing. He's almost 70 years old, and British. He hasn't lived with the constant corruption of the word by Creationist liars the way Americans have.

 

[Senex]

Richard Dawkins is brilliant. He argues his point without being disrespectful to the woos. He argues logic/evidence led him to his belief. He seems a flat out straight arrow. I bet he doesn't even cheat on his taxes. He's flat out a heroic figure.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Love Dawkins and his books. The guy is a truly class act.

I also dig Hitchens as his writing is just amazing.

I like Ayaan Hirsi Ali enough that I sent a decent chunk of money to her security trust.

 

[Gregory]

With regards to this I think he pretty much follows Weinberg's famous statement (paraphrased: good do good, bad do bad, takes religion for good do bad).

Are you familiar with the Milgram experiment?

I think in regard to this issue, Dawkins is guilty of oversimplification; there was a thread a while ago about his claim that religion was the "primary" cause of a whole list of conflicts; it degenerated into a slap-fight over what "primary" means, but it was demonstrated to my satisfaction, at least, that his claim did not stand up to scrutiny.

Dawkins rubs me the wrong way; it's not something I'm prepared to quantify. But I like him better than Hitchens.