• 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:
I just said it before, laughting and ridiculing a girl in front of the public just because she asked "what if you´re wrong?" is being a bully. If you fail to see it then you lack neutrality. RD doesn´t engage in conversation but in confrontation most of the time.
Click to expand...

Again will you provide evidence that such a thing ever happened?
 
Big Les said:
Do you mean this? Perhaps you could point out where he either laughs or ridicules the girl for her question. I detect slight exasperation in his voice for her fairly trite and empty question, but he still goes on to answer it with all due respect. Rather well, too (to the effect that as a Christian she already disbelieves in other deities, why believe in hers? What if she's wrong?). The fact that audience members are tittering and cheerleading for him is hardly his responsibility. I suspect they are pleased and even surprised themselves to hear religion getting criticism. What does he actually say that ridicules the girl? He ridicules her religion by comparing it to other real and fantasy religions and deities. That's kind of his point - Christianity, Islam and the rest have no more evidence nor protected status than any other belief, and should be open to criticism. Any offence taken at that is taken quite deliberate and defensive in nature, in my view.

I think you're hearing what you want to hear because you disagree with what he says and what he stands for.
Click to expand...

brodski said:
He neither laughed at nor ridiculed her, he asked her the same question she asked him. Is turnabout fair play?
If not, why not?
Click to expand...

I think you both may be making an assumption - that cannot be the video that Q-Source is referring to since it does not match the description Q-Source gave.
 
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...

I think he has, actually, in a few places. Namely, that the "species barrier" is a stupid idea. One interesting example he tends to repeat are ring species, which are species that that sort of blend into each other, such that A can interbreed with B and B can interbreed with C, but A cannot interbreed with C. The concept of species, therefore, is just an extremely convenient and relatively natural way of categorizing organisms, but is not some group with rigid barriers per se. He says it in such places as The Ancestor's Tale conveniently online essay about animal rights. I don't remember him saying too much about the "statis nature of the fossil record," but I do think he's said something.

You're not entirely wrong, of course. I don't think Dawkins is that pretentious, but if he wants to be able to really be able to evangelize for reason, he needs to counter his public image by being super-rigorous by rigorously evaluating even the most absurdly obscure theological arguments and being very apologetic and nice towards the very beliefs he's arguing against. Although at the same time, that might be a lot to demand from someone, and it may be better for that job to be set aside for some other person. But if he were nicer, that might help.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
I think you both may be making an assumption - that cannot be the video that Q-Source is referring to since it does not match the description Q-Source gave.
Click to expand...

To me, it seemed to match pretty accurately what Q-Source was describing, but I'm willing to be proven wrong if Q would post the correct source.
 
i think he's very arrogant and intellectually vain. i also think he's awesome and right much more often than he is wrong.
 
I want to take this as an opportunity to confess that I'm intellectualy vain and work hard at putting on airs that I'm not.
 
Skeptic Guy said:
To me, it seemed to match pretty accurately what Q-Source was describing, but I'm willing to be proven wrong if Q would post the correct source.
Click to expand...

Which part does the description "I just said it before, laughting and ridiculing a girl in front of the public just because she asked "what if you´re wrong?" is being a bully." apply to in that video?
 
How many other videos exist involving Dawkins and a girl asking him "what if you're wrong?" and getting a robust defence that could be stretched by interpretation to constitute ridicule?

He's very likely referring to that video, but is wrong about the contents.
 
I don't think he's intellectually vain necessarily, I just disagree with him on certain points. None of the things I disagree with him on are really about whether or not God exists. His approach is wrong in my opinion. He says that we shouldn't have to respect religion simply for the fact that it's religion. This is technically correct but not the entire truth. The reason we should respect religion is because the practitioners of religion are the ones we are trying to get to change. The statement "We should not respect religion merely because it's religion," suggests that we should abandon respect for religion completely, even though our arguments are better made to true believers if they are couched in respectful terms. Dawkins points out several wrongs that are perpetrated in the world in the name of religion. However, the people listening to Dawkins' speeches aren't the ones perpetrating these wrongs. In essence, he is preaching to people who are already inclined to believe him, and not actually changing the minds of the people who are causing the damage in the name of religion. As a result, his followers come off as a bunch of smug, self-congratulating jerks. He isn't addressing the problem of religion in a way that's going to change the minds of those perpetrating the problem. If you give people any reason to feel justified in being a jerk, many people will take it whether they believe the rest of what you say or not. I feel he does a great injustice to the cause of reason by suggesting that we can ignore the rules of providing an effective argument. The first rule is to show respect to your opponent.
 
I don't get why people say Dawkins is arrogant, shrill or aggressive. Every single time I see him he's a calm, mild-mannered chap. He did show some annoyance towards Ted Haggard, but then again who wouldn't? The guy was being a smug ***** and completely misrepresented science. That he became slightly annoyed hardly makes the man a shrill harpy.

The only possible reason why people would say that about him is because his criticism of their precious little "faith" hurts their pussies.

Q-Source said:
You just have to watch all his campaign against Catholics and Christians on youtube videos. I am not even a believer but he is attacking people without considering whether or not they are good people who happen to have faith. Period.
Click to expand...
Which is why he slanders every single person of faith in "The Root of All Evil?", and tells them how he dislikes them and... oh wait, he doesn't. Hell, he even said he liked Michael Bray and his honest consistency of beliefs. Go figure.

He is a coward too. Why doesn´t he attack Muslim beliefs in Britain? No, he knows it is politically incorrect and he would be banned from UK TV. I am sure of that. Instead he goes to the US and flames everybody.
Click to expand...
What a staggeringly intellectually dishonest comment. Islam has quite a large section in "The Root of All Evil?".

Q-Source said:
I would have to see that to believe it. He has never criticised openly the Muslim beliefs, at least not in the UK, he knows he would be in serious trouble as Muslims are intolerant to criticism.
Click to expand...

Just watch the documentary,
Edited by chillzero: 
Edited for civility
Seriously, you're just embarrassing yourself. Laughed at and ridiculed the girl? His response was rational and intelligent. If rationality and intelligence ridicule people, they deserve it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
plumjam said:
i'd love to know what my bigotry would involve...
Click to expand...

You've demonstrated bigotry in your assertions of the moral inferiority of atheists.

BTW, did you ever come up with examples of JREF skeptics violating the civil rights of anyone else on this forum?
 
Morrigan said:
The only possible reason why people would say that about him is because his criticism of their precious little "faith" hurts their pussies.
Click to expand...
:D

Anyway, this is an intriguing thread, because I had a similar discussion with a friend doon t'pub on Wednesday night. He considers Dawkins an "*******", but I disagree... Dawkins' views are strong, but they're not that strong. Like many others, I suspect that his directness offends people who actually have no real refutation of his position.

Apology said:
The reason we should respect religion is because the practitioners of religion are the ones we are trying to get to change. The statement "We should not respect religion merely because it's religion," suggests that we should abandon respect for religion completely, even though our arguments are better made to true believers if they are couched in respectful terms. Dawkins points out several wrongs that are perpetrated in the world in the name of religion. However, the people listening to Dawkins' speeches aren't the ones perpetrating these wrongs. In essence, he is preaching to people who are already inclined to believe him, and not actually changing the minds of the people who are causing the damage in the name of religion. As a result, his followers come off as a bunch of smug, self-congratulating jerks. He isn't addressing the problem of religion in a way that's going to change the minds of those perpetrating the problem.
Click to expand...
Some points worth thinking about there, good one. Still, I'd argue that the 'people causing real harm' are never going to be changed by anything; and being nice to them just gives makes it easier for extremism to sneak in the back door (after all, that was the theory behind 'appeasing' Hitler, but in that case it demonstrably didn't work). Rather I think that Dawkins' position is to make as forceful a case as possible, so that those who aren't committed to religion and who don't 'believe in belief' could be swayed by his arguments. Believe me, this does work; Dawkins was the one who converted me.

As he says, it's really about 'conciousness raising'. Getting the message out there. More measured criticism can still follow, for example Daniel Dennet's latest book (though, unsurprisingly, it wasn't nearly as popular - go figure, heh).
 
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 Dawkins meant.


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...
What is your grounding in philosophy? You've presented elements of the "Cogito" seemingly unaware that they have been around for centuries and that they are the starting point of Descartes' argument rather than the conclusion. You also seem unaware of centuries of philosophy since.
 
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...

At least this time you waited 38 minutes between issuing a challenge and then making a declaration.

Among other things Dawkins has most famously contributed to the gene-centered understanding of evolution as well as the theory of memetics.
 
SusanB-M1 said:
I think Mitch Benn is brilliant, so I went straight to the link, but he appears to be singing about a James Blunt. Am I missing something here?! Could you please give further info?!
Click to expand...

yes, there are four songs on that page and they'll play at random, you can selelect the song which is playing on the right hand side, "Richard Dawkins" is the 4th link down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom