Is Richard Dawkins intellectually vain?

[Darat]

I'd like Dawkins to rationalise the creation of reality itself.

I'd like him to cut my hedge but that seems an equally spurious request.

Can I ask why?

 

[Belz...]

I'd like Dawkins to rationalise the creation of reality itself.

I'd like you to rationalise the liquification of cheese.

Thanks.

 

[skeptifem]

I'd like you to rationalise the liquification of cheese.

Thanks.

its delicious?

 

[Civilized Worm]

People don't like Dawkins because he treats the like adults at times when they're used the being infantilised.

 

[bigbossmatt]

any English person, like me, will immediately recognise his aristocratic desire to be seen as some superior being, shame you americans seem to have such respect for him... he talks with a lot of hair-flicks and ideological pre-prepared nonsensey designed to impress society and the tv producers

If "ideological pre-prepared nonsensey" (sic) is the yardstick by which we should measure whether we should disregard some one as simply arrogant or pompous, then how do you think religion holds up?

On another point: Irrespective of whether Dawkins is or is not arrogant, pompous, or pretentiously aristocratic, if Dawkins doesn't deserve to behave that way, then who, I ask you, is?

Dawkins thinks clearly and has established himself as a contributing scientist to the world of knowledge. He now sees it personally important to raise the consciousness of the people of the world to the Atheist minority while offering his arguments for atheism. I think he is worthy of speaking in his tone, to wear his clothes, and otherwise to generally be himself.

That some people perceive Dawkins' manner in a negative light -for me- only reflects on how those people see themselves, and not on objectively how Dawkins is.

 

[AmyWilson]

He doesn't even know how to interpret the Bible.

He shouldn't bash something he doesn't understand.

I say: send him back to his white coat so he can observe and experiment with his physical things. Leave the spiritual things to people who understand them.

 

[jond]

He doesn't even know how to interpret the Bible.

He shouldn't bash something he doesn't understand.

I say: send him back to his white coat so he can observe and experiment with his physical things. Leave the spiritual things to people who understand them.

Amy--have you actually read The God Delusion?

 

[dannagain]

any English person, like me, will immediately recognise his aristocratic desire to be seen as some superior being, shame you americans seem to have such respect for him... he talks with a lot of hair-flicks and ideological pre-prepared nonsensey designed to impress society and the tv producers

What absolute nonsense (I'm English as well).

 

[dannagain]

well said, Hourglass, you seem to be a wise old mucker

But he was disagreeing with you........

 

[Big Les]

What absolute nonsense (I'm English as well).

Same here. It seems plumjam harbours some unfortunate class prejudice which is in any case irrelevant to the arguments Dawkins puts forward and supports. In other words, text-book ad hominem - the opening post of this thread likewise.