What's Wrong With Richard Dawkins?

[Gazpacho]

http://richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner

I see some people who were already atheists, a lot who changed their minds as a result of Dawkins' books on biology, and maybe one or two who specifically say that his writings on atheism made them atheists.

 

[Luzz]

Science is simply the objective search for truth. End of story. If you want to read tea leaves or smack yourself in the head with a hammer to find truth then have fun but there is no reason to suppose that you will find it other than using the scientific method.

So what does this have to do with religious beliefs? Does it mean that you can find objectively whether or not God exists? I don´t think so.
Dawkins has absolutely nothing to say about religion because this subject is not a scientific issue, he cannot even define what God is.
Honest scientists recognise this limitation and remain quiet because that is what they are forced to do ethically.
If they do have personal opinions, then it is ok, they can preach and call people names but they should do it without their "scientist" tag.

SCIENCE STANDS ON ITS OWN.

There is not a war between science and religion as Dawkins wants to make it look. There is a war between fundamentalism and tolerance, and from my point of view he is in the first group.

 

[Civilized Worm]

I see some people who were already atheists, a lot who changed their minds as a result of Dawkins' books on biology, and maybe one or two who specifically say that his writings on atheism made them atheists.

I see quite a few but that seems beside the point, he is changing peoples' minds which invalidates your claim.

Are you planning on backing up your "bigot" assertion?

 

[Luzz]

@ Luzz,
Have you read The Demon Haunted World by Sagan?

Yes

He says just about the same things Dawkins does.

No he doesnt. Not in the slightest. Sagan was tolerant, he knew that there was a high risk of alienating people by pretending to hold the ultimate truth, as Dawkins does. Although in the following quote Sagan does not talk about religion, he shows that he wouldn´t approve the tactics of some hard atheists/skeptics.


The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs. Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive. It does not get our message across. It condemns us to permanent minority status. Whereas, an approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition, that recognizes that the society has arranged things so that skepticism is not well taught, might be much more widely accepted.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/saganws.htm


My opinion is that the only way to reduce religious and woo beliefs is to teach people (especially children) how the scientific method works and how we get knowledge from its application.

 

[Civilized Worm]

I think there's room for both the good cop and bad cop approaches. I know many people consider James Randi to be overly confrontational and dismissive.

 

[Luzz]

Yes, you are.

You can do better than that.

Ok, we are two: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/25/evolution.religion (although I doubt it)

What is your point? You seem to come here only to defend your position instead of exchanging ideas and having a conversation.
Isaac Newton was a deeply religious person, nevertheless it didnt stop him from making scientific progress, and giving us his great works on physics. These are some quotes from Newton found in wikipedia


"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."


In a manuscript he wrote in 1704 in which he describes his attempts to extract scientific information from the Bible, he estimated that the world would end no earlier than 2060. In predicting this he said, "This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail."

So under yours and Dawkins standards -in our days- he would be a woo, a deluded religious nut who would deserve nothing but discredit. Newton and other great people -who despite lack of evidence believe in God or whatever- are not worse persons that you and me. It does not mean they are stupid or retarded. It just means we are different and we all are entitle to believe whatever we want to believe (only if we dont hurt others).

Dawkins is a PRICK, he thinks he has the absolute truth under his shoulders when he is nothing but a little annoying old man. I am atheist by the way, but I am also tolerant and peaceful. I only judge people by their actions, not their beliefs.

 

[Civilized Worm]

Dude Newton was a woo by any standards, he was an alchemist. Who the hell is saying he was stupid or retarded?

 

[Finnegan]

Dawkins is a PRICK, he thinks he has the absolute truth under his shoulders when he is nothing but a little annoying old man. I am atheist by the way, but I am also tolerant and peaceful. I only judge people by their actions, not their beliefs.

 

[Herzblut]

Good posts!

My opinion is that the only way to reduce religious and woo beliefs is to teach people (especially children) how the scientific method works and how we get knowledge from its application.

Also, European tradition shows that democratic societies which provide prosperity and liberty and which guarantee human rights like religious freedom for all their people tend to be the most secular.

 

[JoeEllison]

So under yours and Dawkins standards -in our days- he would be a woo, a deluded religious nut who would deserve nothing but discredit. Newton and other great people -who despite lack of evidence believe in God or whatever- are not worse persons that you and me. It does not mean they are stupid or retarded. It just means we are different and we all are entitle to believe whatever we want to believe (only if we dont hurt others).

Dawkins is a PRICK, he thinks he has the absolute truth under his shoulders when he is nothing but a little annoying old man. I am atheist by the way, but I am also tolerant and peaceful. I only judge people by their actions, not their beliefs.

Since you're deliberately lying about what Dawkins actually says, we can very easily judge YOU, can't we? Your actions speak for you, in a very unflattering way.

You're entitled to believe whatever stupidity you want. You don't have a right to demand respect for your stupid beliefs.

 

[Herzblut]

Since you're deliberately lying about what Dawkins actually says, we can very easily judge YOU, can't we?

Who cares? You don't have a right to demand respect for your stupid beliefs.

 

[Nogbad]

I can't say Dawkins provokes strong feelings one way or another for me. I have read TGD and found it readable and interesting. I have seen him on TV where he did a couple of short series and his first outing was a bit stilted but the second was much better and he came across as quite a decent sort - would happily have a pint with the man.

No issue with him at all.

 

[articulett]

Isn't that funny. It's like my sig article. I always like Dawkins much more than his critics. To me they just sound so self important, jealous, and stupid. They never have a real reason to dislike him... they just repeat their straw man version of him and imagine themselves so much better.

Who needs evidence when you have faith, eh?

I suspect the critics wish that they were as liked, intelligent, and as inspirational as Dawkins-- they dis him so they can feel better in their heads. Are any of Dawkins critics as likable as he is? I suspect Dawkins has given lots of people the impetus to begin thinking rationally and challenging faith as a means of knowledge.

 

[articulett]

I think there's room for both the good cop and bad cop approaches. I know many people consider James Randi to be overly confrontational and dismissive.

No matter how nice an atheist is, the apologist will hear stuff that isn't there-- he has a meme to protect the faith-- or "faith in faith" as Dennett puts it. (Could there be a nicer person than Dennett?-- and even he gets this nutty twisting of what he has said and all the imagine "evil" that goes with it.)

Yes, all atheists think that believers are deluded, mistaken, misguided, and so forth... just the same way believers feel about all those who don't believe as they do-- including atheists. Atheists don't claim to have divine truths. That's a hell of a lot less arrogant than those who claim to, not only know there is a god, but to know what he wants.

 

[articulett]

"Your concerns are noted, and stupid."

I know where that came from--
and I laugh out loud...

(as Dennett in pimp hat dances across my mind of to the side)

 

[RandFan]

So what does this have to do with religious beliefs?

Real simple, religion isn't going to reveal any truth as truth that can't be gained through philosophical or scientific inquiry. Religion is superfluous when it comes to truth.

You are free to believe anything you want and it might be truth but then on the other hand it might not be. There's no way to know based simply on religion.

 

[PixyMisa]

You can do better than that.

Ok, we are two: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/25/evolution.religion (although I doubt it)

What is your point? You seem to come here only to defend your position instead of exchanging ideas and having a conversation.

My point is this: It may be counter-productive in the short term to tell religious people that their beliefs are foolish nonsense, but on the whole I don't care, because their beliefs are foolish nonsense.

Isaac Newton was a deeply religious person, nevertheless it didnt stop him from making scientific progress, and giving us his great works on physics. These are some quotes from Newton found in wikipedia


"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

Newton believed in a number of strange ideas. So what?

In a manuscript he wrote in 1704 in which he describes his attempts to extract scientific information from the Bible, he estimated that the world would end no earlier than 2060. In predicting this he said, "This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail."

As I said, Newton believed in a number of strange ideas. So what?

So under yours and Dawkins standards -in our days- he would be a woo, a deluded religious nut who would deserve nothing but discredit.

He was a deluded religious nut. He was also a great scientist.

Neither Dawkins nor I are attacking people. We're attacking ideas.

Newton and other great people -who despite lack of evidence believe in God or whatever- are not worse persons that you and me.

Who cares about "better" and "worse"? We're talking about deluded.

It does not mean they are stupid or retarded.

Who cares?

It just means we are different and we all are entitle to believe whatever we want to believe (only if we dont hurt others).

Yes, you're entitled to believe whatever you want. That doesn't make you any less deluded.

Dawkins is a PRICK, he thinks he has the absolute truth under his shoulders when he is nothing but a little annoying old man.

Yes, you've whined about this before. Now, instead of attacking Dawkins personally, why not try showing that he actually acts as you claim?

I am atheist by the way, but I am also tolerant and peaceful. I only judge people by their actions, not their beliefs.

There's nothing wrong with judging people by their beliefs; it's just that only certain judgements can be validly ascertained from beliefs alone. Being deluded doesn't make you bad, but it certainly makes you deluded.

And that's not a good thing.

 

[RandFan]

That would be nice but that isn't actualy the case. While I generaly wouldn't go as far as Paul Feyerabend he did have a point when you look at how science has behaved in the past.

It is actually the case. How science has "behaved" is entirely irrelevant.

Hitting your head with with a hammer causes pain thus we conclude that hard impacts cause pain.

In which case you would be doing science. Not doing it well but doing it nonetheless

 

[RandFan]

If the scientific method works consistently...

Which one?

Asking "which one?" is a nonsensical question.

The scientific method encompasses a body of techniques to observe the natural world, investigate phenomena and acquire knowledge in an objective way.

 

[articulett]

Yes, and religion and gurus have shown us nothing real, good, useful, or true.

Dawkins has shared some of the coolest information humans have come to know-- he's a trustworthy source of information demonized by those much less trustworthy than him.