How do you feel about Richard Dawkins?

[rain]

As most of us know, Richard Dawkins is a prominent atheist who can often be seen debating religious folks. In fact, some people even consider him to be the unofficial spokesperson of atheism. But how effective do you think he is at changing the minds of those who might initially disagree with him?

 

[scratchy]

Somewhat. And i think its not possible to do much better.

 

[The Atheist]

I voted for not very effective. I don't think he's done harm to "the atheist movement"; in fact, as The Atheist, I'm a bit surprised I haven't ever heard of it.

Can you explain what it is, who's the organiser and what they stand for?

I certainly think a better figurehead could be found if one is ever needed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Dang, I needed 2 votes there, he is an attractive man.

I would really blend the first two choices. Dawkins is very persuasive, but believers are typically totally brainwashed and not open to anything remotely rational.

 

[rain]

Can you explain what it is, who's the organiser and what they stand for?

By atheist movement, I just mean the general potential for demographic shifts throughout the world in terms of those who may or may not begin to self-identify as "atheist" in increasing numbers. I don't personally believe that a hypothetical increase in atheist numbers should necessarily be framed in terms of being a "good" thing, but I do believe that Dawkins thinks that way which is why I worded it as such in the poll.

 

[kellyb]

I chose option 3, but really think it's somewhere between #'s two and three.

 

[slingblade]

I don't know anything about him, I don't read him or follow him or any others.

I am atheist on my own, for my own reasons. I am against magical, wishful thinking. I try to question what I think I know, and I usually find out I don't actually know much. This is a good thing.

Dawkins is just a name to me, really. I suppose he's a nice man, but he doesn't speak for me, or even to me.

 

[Dunstan]

After reading the options over, #1 is so weak that it's easy for me to get on board. "I would not be surprised if" he has caused "many" people to "at least" "seriously question" their faith?

Of course, it's the other options where the claws come out, and we will no doubt embark on the 10001st thread about how the New Atheists are mean uncivil militant fundamentalist jerks. Ho hum.

 

[gtc]

How do I feel about him?

A little queasy since I saw that South Park episode.

 

[jiggeryqua]

A few years ago I attended a debate between the local Humanist association and one of the Christian churches (I forget the specific denomination). The subject of the debate was 'Does the God of the Bible exist only in the hearts and minds of His worshippers?'

In time-honoured fashion, both sides presented carefully thought out and illustrated points. Questions were asked by audience members and answered by both sides. I didn't join in until right at the end, when the Chair called for the traditional vote. I interjected, politely and respectfully, to argue that a show of hands would simply count the number of Christians who'd shown up and similarly the number of Humanists present. I suggested that instead we ask for a show of hands from anyone whose position had changed even marginally, as a result of the debate.

"Which way though?" cried a voice from behind (I'd lay money it was a Christian). "It doesn't matter!" said another (Humanist, I reckon). The result was predictable and somewhat of an anticlimax - no hands were raised. Granted, Dawkins wasn't speaking - but when he does, who's listening? Atheists who want confirmation.

 

[Soapy Sam]

A better proselytizer for evolution than for atheism and a better writer than speaker.
Seems like a decent bloke. I think his rather old fashioned delivery and innate good manners make him seem rather priggish to some audiences. Used to lecturing to motivated and bright students, he seemed rather out of his depth in his earlier "atheist" lectures. He does seem to have acquired a far more confident TV demeanour of late.

I admire Dawkins for making the attempt to raise awareness of the harm done by religion, but if he had done nothing in that field, he would still be one of the best popularisers of science ever. Reading "The Selfish Gene" in the 1970s was perhaps the single biggest paradigm shift I ever experienced from any book.

 

[Ian Osborne]

when [Dawkins speaks], who's listening? Atheists who want confirmation.

Or atheists looking to learn more about how the world works. And don't forget opinion isn't always as polarised as that - the undecided are still to be reached.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

It was Dawkins harsh and direct criticisms of religion that got me off the fence and realise that religion is unfairly respected in a way no other belief system is.

He's like an air-raid siren. Loud, intrusive, but needed.

 

[Hux]

I find him far more positive when he is in his role (recently retired) as a promoter of science understanding.

What I did find with him - and to a greater extent, Sam Harris, was that they both cut through the mysticism of religions, stripped them down to the bare beliefs and thus exposed then as pure woowoo. Many people have said religion requires respect but when it gets right down to it, when you see how dumb it actually is, the facade falls off.

Dawkins is finding himself less and less in debate and Hitchens is debating lots more - I think this is because dawkins is the academic and wants to return to his first love, which he has always maintained from his prolific publishing of science texts.

I think he found himself an unwilling superstar of rationality, the other notaries, apart from Hitchens, never seeming quite as comfortable as Dawkins. But I sense he is getting rather tired of it all now. He made two discoveries; there are more people in America that are disbelievers than we imagined and that in general, people do not mind saying so.

I appreciate him because he made, for me, natural selection approachable and more understandable. He has a gift, like Sagan had, of making the difficult, easy. That is how I regard him. His "God delusion" work is just gravy.

 

[Hokulele]

I have no opinion on his effectiveness in regards to atheism as I have only read his works on biology (which are excellent).

 

[The Atheist]

By atheist movement, I just mean the general potential for demographic shifts throughout the world in terms of those who may or may not begin to self-identify as "atheist" in increasing numbers. I don't personally believe that a hypothetical increase in atheist numbers should necessarily be framed in terms of being a "good" thing, but I do believe that Dawkins thinks that way which is why I worded it as such in the poll.

Ok. I figured anyway, but since it's a term I hate, I had to ask.

The term just shouldn't be used because there is no such thing as an atheist movement and never can be. You can have your basic Dawkinsian or Russellian atheist movements, on the odd occasion groups of young intellectuals cleave to someone every now and then, but a "movement" isn't possible.

Doing so just adds grist to the theists' mill.

It's like those damned buses!

No "atheist movement" is spearheading it, a group of atheists or humanists is.

After reading the options over, #1 is so weak that it's easy for me to get on board. "I would not be surprised if" he has caused "many" people to "at least" "seriously question" their faith?

Of course, it's the other options where the claws come out, and we will no doubt embark on the 10001st thread about how the New Atheists are mean uncivil militant fundamentalist jerks. Ho hum.

See, my mission is succeeding!

Atheists who want confirmation.

Nice.

It was Dawkins harsh and direct criticisms of religion that got me off the fence and realise that religion is unfairly respected in a way no other belief system is.

He's like an air-raid siren. Loud, intrusive, but needed.

Would you like to expand on that?

In what way is religion unfairly respected compared to other forms of belief?

I find this, like many of Dorkins' statements, to be pure bulldust.

First off, what other forms of belief are you going to compare it to? Greek mythology? Egyptian? Those doctrines don't have too many followers nowadays, so it backs religion today, which is still a majority perpspective of mankind. We have proof that failed doctrines die out.

Dorkins has made his fame and fortune from writing books about the evils of religion - you tell me one other recipient of the Charles Simonyi Chair without Google and I'll give you a chocolate bar - so the statement is pretty predictable. What it lacks is substance. From the mainstream media to blogs, religion is attacked mercilessly; lampooned, harpooned and ground into the dust by scandals of any kind.

If anything, "new age" puke is given far more of a free pass than religion.

 

[I Ratant]

Possibly overly aggressive, to the point of driven defensiveness.
Somewhat offputting in his public persona because of that.
I have three of his books, (Watchmaker, Gene and Ancestor) but not the "God Delusion" which I wouldn't buy.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Or atheists looking to learn more about how the world works. And don't forget opinion isn't always as polarised as that - the undecided are still to be reached.

Well to be fair, I didn't state explicitly in that anecdote that the 'nobody' who raised their hands included the undecided (that's both the 'perhaps there isn't a god after all' and the 'perhaps there is'). The debate was necessarily polarised, as is usually the case - perhaps that's where you gained the mistaken impression that I'd 'forgotten' that opinion isn't always polarised?

Atheists looking to learn more about how the world works (and theists similarly inclined) may well look to Dawkins' earlier work, but that's really not the concern of this thread, is it?

 

[Beth]

Dang, I needed 2 votes there, he is an attractive man.

Actually, I could have voted for 1,2 and 5.

I would really blend the first two choices. Dawkins is very persuasive, but believers are typically totally brainwashed and not open to anything remotely rational.

Or atheists looking to learn more about how the world works. And don't forget opinion isn't always as polarised as that - the undecided are still to be reached.

Not only are there undecided, but I don't agree with Skeptigirl that believers are typically brainwashed. Many many people change their minds over the course of their lives. Atheists becomes believers. Believers become atheists, agnostic or apathetic. Some people go back and forth many times. A great deal of it depends upon what culture you are immersed in too. If the people you respect most and want to hang out with all believe a particular thing, I think people are inclined to give greater consideration to the that belief. That's all beliefs and certainly includes religious ones.

The term just shouldn't be used because there is no such thing as an atheist movement and never can be. You can have your basic Dawkinsian or Russellian atheist movements, on the odd occasion groups of young intellectuals cleave to someone every now and then, but a "movement" isn't possible.

Doing so just adds grist to the theists' mill.

It's like those damned buses!

No "atheist movement" is spearheading it, a group of atheists or humanists is.

Umm, what is an atheist movement if not a group of atheists working to promote their view? Unconnected groups simultaneously forming to promote a particular viewpoint is what I would term a "movement". I don't think that Humanists are necessarily atheist though. Despite the claims of certain sects of Christians. They are often the same ones who don't accept Catholics or Mormons as Christians either.

See, my mission is succeeding!

Is there no end to your evil?

Would you like to expand on that?

In what way is religion unfairly respected compared to other forms of belief?

I find this, like many of Dorkins' statements, to be pure bulldust.

I do too. I don't see it being treated as special other than as being singled out by atheists like Dawkins. Look at the treatment alternative medicine gets in the press!

Further, given the history of our species, I am inclined to be tolerant of any and all sincerely and/or traditionally held religious beliefs as long as the belief stops short of advocating violence against those who believe differently. As far as I'm concerned, religious beliefs are deserving of special consideration because people don't go to war over disagreements about cancer treatments.

 

[Freethinker]

None of the above. Dawkins is extremely persuasive, but since most bleevers won't listen anyway, his manner isn't going to help any.