Is Richard Dawkins intellectually vain?

Oh he's just a whiny git prone to throwing tantrums if people slag off him or his mates. It seems a lot of comedians can dish it out but not take it.
 
Civilized Worm said:
Oh he's just a whiny git prone to throwing tantrums if people slag off him or his mates. It seems a lot of comedians can dish it out but not take it.
Click to expand...

Oo-er, trouble up t'mill Mr Wilks. I wouldn't know about that sor; I just like some of his songs, and he deserves a knighthood for the James Blunt one ("the only man alive who's his own rhyming slang") :D

I thought the Dawkins one was OK, but paid a bit too much attention to his media caricature IMO.
 
I'm English dammitt, an have allways found it difficult when peepil arrogantly despley there supeer sooperior better grasp of langyage than me.

Hes so more arrogant than Billy Graham

Nope, I actually with Cyborg on this too.

What shelves on the library? Is this a metaphor for rejecting the ramblings of bronze-age pastoralists, and preferring to rely on observations and reason?

The thing about "gaps" in the fossil records is that they keep getting closed. I have never seen a new fossil evidence opening gaps*.


*conceptually it could: a fossil unicorn, a fish with fur, or a fossil dinosaur with a caveman for example...
 
In any case, Dawkins accent isn't aristocratic. He sounds like a little like a little old english lady. Very unmasculine, prissy voice. I was surprised, as it really doesn't match his prose.

Oh, and species barrier?
 
plumjam said:
Is it just me, or is Senor Dick Dawkins a bit of an unforseen genetic diversion ;)
I'm sure he's a more than averagely intelligent sort of bloke, but everytime i've seen him on tv or youtube he's had the air of someone quite impressed by his own existence.
Anyone else feel the same?
Click to expand...

I think he's pretty arrogant, but it's justified. Arrogance when it's not justified is very annoying. Less so when one can back it up with accomplishments.
 
bpesta22 said:
I think he's pretty arrogant, but it's justified. Arrogance when it's not justified is very annoying. Less so when one can back it up with accomplishments.
Click to expand...

As the old saying goes, it's not arrogance if you really are better than everyone else.;)
 
bpesta22 said:
I think he's pretty arrogant, but it's justified. Arrogance when it's not justified is very annoying. Less so when one can back it up with accomplishments.
Click to expand...

I know it is just a perception you're conveying but could you explain why you consider "he's pretty arrogant"?


(Hoping you'll be more responsive than some other people at explaining why you have this impression and if not I'll stick you in a box and apply electric shocks to you, but I won't ring a bell.)
 
brodski said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you - found it!
 
Darat said:
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?
Click to expand...

Ok, I think I misunderstood you. I believe that the video that Q is referring to is the one that was posted (i.e. he described the basic set-up correctly) but I don't see anything like Dawkins "laughing and ridiculing" the girl. Quite the contrary. I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.
 
Skeptic Guy said:
Ok, I think I misunderstood you. I believe that the video that Q is referring to is the one that was posted (i.e. he described the basic set-up correctly) but I don't see anything like Dawkins "laughing and ridiculing" the girl. Quite the contrary. I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

No problem - it's just that this description of arrogance, bullying and so on has piqued my curiosity recently. Apart from of course being nothing more than an ad hominem I'm curious how people who state they have this perception of him have come to this conclusion. So far whenever asked to support their opinion with evidence everyone I've asked (bar one as far as I can recall) has fallen quiet.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
No problem - it's just that this description of arrogance, bullying and so on has piqued my curiosity recently. Apart from of course being nothing more than an ad hominem I'm curious how people who state they have this perception of him have come to this conclusion. So far whenever asked to support their opinion with evidence everyone I've asked (bar one as far as I can recall) has fallen quiet.
Click to expand...

I've never seen Dawkins be bullying either.
 
After just watching the second part of "The Enemies of Reason" I think the reason why RD comes across as arrogant and possibly bullying is his interview technique. Every one on one discussion he has with a "believer" boils down to both sides stating "I believe <insert belief> because of X", where X for RD is always Science, and X for the other is some sort of ancient text/wisdom/inner truth etc.

I imagine that the problem for most of the viewing public is that they don't know the difference, so RD comes across as a stereotypical colonial authoritarian figure pushing his own dogma.

This isn't helped by the fact that he appears to take himself waaayyyy too seriously. (Not a bad thing in itself, but not good for endearing one's self to the public)
 
I think that no matter how nicely he said things, he'd be accused of being bullying. What else are you going to say about it. He's right and he's honest. People need to find something to dislike about him if they are going to continue to prop of their woo as the true woo. All of the blather is about "killing the messenger" so people can stay in fantasy land. Whenever I ask people to actually quote him or show where he's rude-- I don't see it. His arrogance appears to exist in the mind of those who are envious of him or those who want to believe their woo is true.
 
Is Richard Dawkins intellectually vain?
Click to expand...

No. In fact, he almost never speaks over peoples heads. That is, he avoids scientific jargon and speaks in a fairly informal way.

I think you take issue with the fact that he does not humor people who make false assertations. He tells them they are wrong without hesitation. Thus, if you disagree with him you are not likely to like his style.
 
I think the perception that Richard Dawkins is a jerk comes not from what he says, but from the presentation of his materials by his proponents. To state it simply, whoever referred Plumjam to Dawkins was probably being a jerk. Plumjam was probably already fuming by the time he/she watched the clip, and transferred those feelings onto the girl in the audience.

I was generally ignoring Dawkins, since as an agnostic, reading his stuff would pretty much be Dawkins preaching to the choir. I'd already spent endless hours pondering on the nature of belief and had other interests that were more compelling. It was only when some severely aggressive Dawkinites began insisting that I wasn't agnostic, I was just stupid, that I decided to take a look at some of Dawkins' work. I wanted to know exactly what it was in Dawkins' work that made his fans so aggressive. I couldn't find a lot of fault with what Dawkins himself said. I think a lot of the problem is that his fans aren't representing Dawkins very well at all. If your salesmen are crummy, everyone automatically assumes your product is crummy too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom