John Gray

[A'isha]

When has Dawkins or anyone else claimed that?

Gray's essay quotes the specific part of The God Delusion that he's labeling "simple-minded reasoning", as well as specifying the particular arguments of Dawkins, Harris, Pullman, and Dennett which he considers to be "Evangelical atheis[m]".

 

[godless dave]

Gray's essay quotes the specific part of The God Delusion that he's labeling "simple-minded reasoning", as well as specifying the particular arguments of Dawkins, Harris, Pullman, and Dennett which he considers to be "Evangelical atheis[m]".

So Dawkins hasn't actually claimed that.

 

[A'isha]

So Dawkins hasn't actually claimed that.

If you want to believe that Gray is strawmanning the positions of Dawkins and the other New Atheists in that essay, you're certainly free to do so.

 

[Humes fork]

I will say that in the article he seems to be going a tad far, however. New Atheism includes scientists, who are trained to argue for particular conclusions. That's what we DO, it's fundamentally what science IS. To complain that Dawkins, who seems to annoy him most, does that with religion seems a bit odd; that's what Dawkins does in all his writings. I'll grant that many New Atheists take things to an absurd extreme (PZ differs in degree, not in kind), but accusing them of evangelizing isn't exactly an accurate view of what's going on. By that definition, ANY attempt to convince a population of some conclusion is evangelism.

Sorry, but Dawkins is more of an evangelist for science rather than atheism per se. This has been pointed out to you, so why do you keep at it?


As for John Gray, as someone pointed out he has changed positions so many times. He has been a Hayekian as well as a Labourite.

The point that communism stems from the Enlightenment and is utopian is really pretty myopic. Pretty much every political ideology derived from the Western world has Enlightenment origins. And the Enlightenment as such was neither utopian or non-utopian as it was not a coherent belief-system or ideology. Some Enlightenment thinkers were utopian, others, like David Hume, were not. Enlightenment thinkers had all sorts of differences with one another.

 

[Dinwar]

This has been pointed out to you, so why do you keep at it?

Well, gee, that's a tough one! Could it be that maybe I disagree with the people who pointed it out to me? Could it be that I actually think for myself, and have reached my own conclusions after reviewing his work myself?

Nah, can't be that. I mean, what do I know? Not like I'm a scientist or anything!

Oh, wait. I did all those italicized things, and I AM a scientist. Huh.

Nope. Can't possibly imagine why I reject mere asssertions in favor of my own considered conclusions. I must just be a moron not to blindly accept the dictates of such brilliant folks as you.

 

[Humes fork]

Well, gee, that's a tough one! Could it be that maybe I disagree with the people who pointed it out to me? Could it be that I actually think for myself, and have reached my own conclusions after reviewing his work myself?

Nah, can't be that. I mean, what do I know? Not like I'm a scientist or anything!

Oh, wait. I did all those italicized things, and I AM a scientist. Huh.

Nope. Can't possibly imagine why I reject mere asssertions in favor of my own considered conclusions. I must just be a moron not to blindly accept the dictates of such brilliant folks as you.

Your conclusion is still wrong:

The atheist label also worries me because it shouldn't be necessary. Those who don't believe in fairies have no need of a label: the onus of proof is on those who do. I would with positive conviction call myself a scientific rationalist, with a humane concern that is directed toward a target that is both wider and narrower than humanity. Wider because it includes other species and potentially other planets. Narrower because it admits that not all humans are equal.

 

[Dinwar]

Your conclusion is still wrong:

You may consider it so, but I'm not obligated to bow to your opinion, nor have I seen sufficient evidence to convince me I'm wrong. Dawkins' statements on the subject, particularly the one you presented as evidence, prove nothing other then the fact that he considers himself a crusader for science. One CAN be mistaken about one's impact on the world.

Unless you're willing to openly argue that Dawkins is omniscient? It's been an undercurrent in some of these arguments recently, but it'd be refreshing to hear someone openly admit it.

 

[Humes fork]

What are you really arguing? That he thinks of himself as a science advocate, but is mistaken on that point?

While Dawkins likes to take a shot at religion in I think almost every book he has written, really only one book is exclusively devoted to religion. Your viewpoint seems myopic.

 

[A'isha]

What are you really arguing? That he thinks of himself as a science advocate, but is mistaken on that point?

When he does things like this (which not only has nothing to do with being a "science advocate", but ought to be anathema to anyone calling himself a scientist and academic) it's difficult to think otherwise.

 

[Dinwar]

What are you really arguing? That he thinks of himself as a science advocate, but is mistaken on that point?

Pretty much, yes. You can disagree all you want, but until you present actual evidence I'm obliged to disregard your disagreement. And as ANTPogo pointed out, he has done things that actually harm the cause of science. It's not just his books, by the way--it's his lectures, and how he presents science in his books, and a number of factors.

Your viewpoint seems myopic.

Your opinion about my views is irrelevant. As is your assertions. Since those are the only data you've provided, it's fair to say that you've provided no reason to change my mind.

 

[Humes fork]

Pretty much, yes. You can disagree all you want, but until you present actual evidence I'm obliged to disregard your disagreement. And as ANTPogo pointed out, he has done things that actually harm the cause of science. It's not just his books, by the way--it's his lectures, and how he presents science in his books, and a number of factors.

In what ways has Dawkins harmed science? In what way does he present science wrong and/or harmfully? And what are the other factors on your mind?

Your opinion about my views is irrelevant. As is your assertions. Since those are the only data you've provided, it's fair to say that you've provided no reason to change my mind.

Your viewpoint appears not to be amenable to evidence in this case.

 

[Dinwar]

Your viewpoint appears not to be amenable to evidence in this case.

Considering you've yet to provide an iota of evidence to support your case, it's impossible for you to say this.

In what ways has Dawkins harmed science?

Well, for one thing he's misrepresented data. ANTPogo has provided the evidence. For another, he's made various statements that other scientists consider harmful. (I know that nothing I say will matter to you--hopefully if you hear it from someone else [a professor of geology, in this case] you'll be willing to listen.)

He misrepresented....well, pretty much every science other than mollecular biology in "The Greatest Show on Earth". His paleontology section certainly doesn't show much in the way of due dilligence. It's not so much that he's wrong, as it is that he has an extremely shallow view of the field.

And what are the other factors on your mind?

I listed them. If you don't accept them, that's fine, but I provided them.

 

[A'isha]

Well, for one thing he's misrepresented data. ANTPogo has provided the evidence.

And sophia8!

For another, he's made various statements that other scientists consider harmful. (I know that nothing I say will matter to you--hopefully if you hear it from someone else [a professor of geology, in this case] you'll be willing to listen.)

I'm constantly amazed that Dawkins is held up as some sort of paragon of skeptical thinking about religion, when pretty much all of his writing about it is basically "I have no knowledge whatsoever of this topic, so let me tell you all about the conclusions I've drawn based on my ignorance".

It's kind of...boggling, really.

 

[theprestige]

I'm constantly amazed that Dawkins is held up as some sort of paragon of skeptical thinking about religion, when pretty much all of his writing about it is basically "I have no knowledge whatsoever of this topic, so let me tell you all about the conclusions I've drawn based on my ignorance".

It's kind of...boggling, really.

It also makes his portrayal in Expelled deliciously ironic.

 

[Humes fork]

Considering you've yet to provide an iota of evidence to support your case, it's impossible for you to say this.

I have provided plenty of evidence that Dawkins views himself as a scientist first, atheist second.

Well, for one thing he's misrepresented data. ANTPogo has provided the evidence. For another, he's made various statements that other scientists consider harmful. (I know that nothing I say will matter to you--hopefully if you hear it from someone else [a professor of geology, in this case] you'll be willing to listen.)

Oh, it's the accommodationism vs confrontationalism debate. As I said, Dawkins doesn't care about winning political debates (in say, the teaching of evolution in American schools), but about what's true. He is not the only scientist who takes that position. As it happens, that scientist blogger has also written about politicians and critics. You (and Mooney) might be politicians in this context, Dawkins not so much.

He misrepresented....well, pretty much every science other than mollecular biology in "The Greatest Show on Earth". His paleontology section certainly doesn't show much in the way of due dilligence. It's not so much that he's wrong, as it is that he has an extremely shallow view of the field.

These are indeed bad things. I've read elsewhere as well that The Greatest Show On Earth might be his weakest book, and that Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True is better on that subject.

 

[Humes fork]

I'm constantly amazed that Dawkins is held up as some sort of paragon of skeptical thinking about religion, when pretty much all of his writing about it is basically "I have no knowledge whatsoever of this topic, so let me tell you all about the conclusions I've drawn based on my ignorance".

It's kind of...boggling, really.

You are strawmanning him. He rejects theology as not a serious subject. He is not advocating ignorance of religion (though he has almost certainly not read the eight or so books you demand anyone read before having an opinion about Islam).

 

[A'isha]

You are strawmanning him. He rejects theology as not a serious subject.

Yes, he is kind of an idiot that way.

He is not advocating ignorance of religion (though he has almost certainly not read the eight or so books you demand anyone read before having an opinion about Islam).

He hasn't even read one. Or even the Qu'ran, for that matter.

If I were to go up to him and say "I've never read a book about evolution, not even Darwin's Origin of Species, and in fact reject the whole study of biology as not a serious subject", and then start ranting about and criticizing evolution, how much consideration do you think he'd give to my opinions on the matter?

 

[theprestige]

Yes, he is kind of an idiot that way.



He hasn't even read one. Or even the Qu'ran, for that matter.

If I were to go up to him and say "I've never read a book about evolution, not even Darwin's Origin of Species, and in fact reject the whole study of biology as not a serious subject", and then start ranting about and criticizing evolution, how much consideration do you think he'd give to my opinions on the matter?

A lot more than they'd deserve, probably, if he thought his fan base would enjoy the spectacle.

 

[tsig]

Yes, he is kind of an idiot that way.



He hasn't even read one. Or even the Qu'ran, for that matter.

If I were to go up to him and say "I've never read a book about evolution, not even Darwin's Origin of Species, and in fact reject the whole study of biology as not a serious subject", and then start ranting about and criticizing evolution, how much consideration do you think he'd give to my opinions on the matter?

You think theology is a serious study?

 

[A'isha]

You think theology is a serious study?

Absolutely.