What's Wrong With Richard Dawkins?

I hear folks say they don't believe in Richard Dawkins, but I have seen him in person, so I became convinced that he does exist.

And Dawkins seems to realize what a silly effort it is to disprove fantasies that have no trace of evidence. It is much more appropriate to sit back and wait for evidence of some all-powerful, omnipresent, genocidal, all-loving contradiction in terms.

And wait, and wait, and...

He uses the Bertrand Russell teapot claim in the way it was intended, as an opportunity for those afflicted with religious delusions to see how silly and unfalsifiable their sky fairies are. Of course some opportunites are not utilized.

I even hear people who seem to have no idea how stupid they sound say things like "I don't believe in atheists." As if to suggest they can find no evidence that there are persons without theistic delusions. One wonders if these folks have any interest at all in contact with reality.
 
geni said:
Being a self described bright probably doesn't help.
Click to expand...
Brights get a bad rap because they tell it like it is instead of coddling theists with the I'm OK you're OK stuff.

I realize change is tough, but some of us think all god beliefs need to go the way of all the other god beliefs that have come to be called myths, the sooner the better. Other atheists prefer the non-confrontational, find an excuse route, like inventing the concept of faith based beliefs and claiming those don't require evidence while other beliefs are readily dismissed for lack of evidence.

I don't have an issue with the non-confrontational approach in specific settings where it is likely to be more productive. But I don't accept that approach as my over-riding philosophy.
 
skeptigirl said:
Brights get a bad rap because they tell it like it is instead of coddling theists with the I'm OK you're OK stuff.
Click to expand...

Nah. Plently of groups like that. It's more the wierd self-righteous superiority/persicution complex. For example I am quite used to various people and groups lying to me about copyright. Trying to claim that a copyright policy is a form of religious persecution is ah novel (which reminds me I need to do some double checking on the copyright status of that darn logo).

I realize change is tough, but some of us think all god beliefs need to go the way of all the other god beliefs that have come to be called myths, the sooner the better.
Click to expand...

I understand that aproach has been tried from time to time. So far it has resulted in an impressive number of deaths but well so have so many things.
 
Lucky said:
Thing is, whilst the "religion causes bad stuff" argument is certainly irrelevant to atheist reasoning/opinion/belief, it's highly relevant to the atheist movement. If you're not content merely to be an atheist, but must be a proselytising atheist, you have to believe that religion is in principle harmful, absence of religion is in principle beneficial, and that therefore society will necessarily be improved if you can convert everyone to your opinion.

Sadly for Dawkins and other proselytising atheists, we cannot base this belief on any evidence. We don't know whether people are more or less likely to be free, moral, happy, intelligent or even educated, if {atheism|agnosticism|religion} is accepted by {everyone|most|some|few|no-one}, {tomorrow|in the foreseeable future|in the distant future}. I would suggest that, short of such a handy device as a universe replicator, we have no serious means of investigating the matter. We can guess, but we don't (yet) know enough about human minds and human society for our guesses to be worth much.

So, proselytising atheism must remain a matter of faith, which is exactly what proselytising atheist scientists have to deny.

I don't think it's so difficult to see why many atheists dislike the missionary mindset.
Click to expand...
Well, this post combines shortsightedness with the 'discredited time and time again' argument that evidence based beliefs are just another religion.

Religion based beliefs are beliefs without evidence by definition and typically are not supposed to change though in reality they evolve all the time.

Evidence based beliefs are beliefs based on evidence (how profound) and they continually change as evidence accumulates. They are subject to error but the evidence acts as an anchor preventing cumulative group error from straying too far from reality for too long.

We have threads galore on this topic so resurrect one if you want to debate this yet again.

As far as needing another Universe to test the hypothesis we'd all be better off if there were no theists, I suggest breaking the problem down into smaller bits in order to look for the evidence. Religion offers some benefits in health and well being derived from belonging to a group and many many costs from the results of excluding everyone else from your perceived group.
 
Last edited:
Gregory said:
It's the word that gives them a bad rep; it makes them sound extremely arrogant.
Click to expand...
geni said:
Nah. Plently of groups like that. It's more the wierd self-righteous superiority/persicution complex.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you've both read CSI's editorial, Not Too "Bright", or at least had a similar first impression of the Bright movement.


I think this reaction to the Brights is bizarre. Obviously a number of skeptics have this reaction. I joined the Brights quite a while back and had a number of discussions with skeptics and atheists who had a negative first impression of the idea. I have a hard time buying the idea the reaction is merely to using a word implying one is 'bright'. It seems to me to be more of a negative reaction to saying outright that god believers are wrong.

There is nothing inherently negative about the word, Bright, and further there is nothing on the Bright's website that implies arrogance in the name:
What is a bright?

* A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
* A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
* The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview
...

The noun bright was initiated as a generic term that could refer to a host of independent individuals who declare “a naturalistic worldview.” Individuals who wish to do so could claim the umbrella label as a civic identity (I am a Bright) or could self-identify by other labels. As many groups consist largely of prospective Brights, we would welcome organizational recommendations to their membership that the individuals look into the movement.

Bright (n.)--What is the definition?

The noun form of the term bright refers to a person whose worldview is naturalistic--free of supernatural and mystical elements. A Bright's ethics and actions are based on a naturalistic worldview.

worldview: the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world; a set of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or group.

On the whole, the notion refers to an individual's belief system related to concepts such as the meaning and purpose of life, existence after death, the presence of deities, nature and origins, morality and human nature, rituals, and other major life stance considerations. You can find an extensive discussion and example definitions on the The Co-Directors' website.

naturalistic: conceiving of reality as natural (not supernatural)
Click to expand...
There is nothing here that describes what you are complaining about nor what Chris Mooney complains about in his editorial. I believe you are annoyed at something else. I think you are annoyed that Brights dismiss faith based beliefs while you likely prefer to excuse them. It has always bothered me that some skeptics excuse faith based beliefs. Brights are only arrogant to the degree that they are willing to conclude someone else's god beliefs are wrong.

I could be wrong about your personal views. But you tell me? Why is telling people who believe in CTs or homeopathy or astrology they are wrong not arrogant, while telling people that their god beliefs are wrong arrogant?

I think this reflects on what some atheists are reacting to with Dawkins. There seems to me to be a split in the skeptical community about whether or not to have the, I'm OK, you're OK attitude toward god beliefs, calling them faith based, and claiming religion and science are separate things in our lives. I don't believe faith based beliefs are any different from every other non-evidence based belief. I think it is just an excuse not to have to confront people whose beliefs are seen as sacred rather than woo. It's a way of allowing for a skeptic who can't let go of god to still be a skeptic. Well theist skeptics can be just as skeptical as anyone, except, they maintain a blind spot when it comes to critically evaluating the evidence for their god beliefs. There is a clear divide among skeptics about this matter and it does lead to tension.
 
Last edited:
geni said:
For example I am quite used to various people and groups lying to me about copyright. Trying to claim that a copyright policy is a form of religious persecution is ah novel (which reminds me I need to do some double checking on the copyright status of that darn logo).
Click to expand...
I don't know what this is in reference to.


geni said:
I understand that aproach has been tried from time to time. So far it has resulted in an impressive number of deaths but well so have so many things.
Click to expand...
So I should not tell theists their god beliefs are just as mythical as Zeus and Pele beliefs because I might be killed? I'm sorry, I am unsure what you mean here.
 
skeptigirl said:
Sounds like you've both read CSI's editorial, Not Too "Bright", or at least had a similar first impression of the Bright movement.


I think this reaction to the Brights is bizarre. Obviously a number of skeptics have this reaction. I joined the Brights quite a while back and had a number of discussions with skeptics and atheists who had a negative first impression of the idea. I have a hard time buying the idea the reaction is merely to using a word implying one is 'bright'. It seems to me to be more of a negative reaction to saying outright that god believers are wrong.

There is nothing inherently negative about the word, Bright, and further there is nothing on the Bright's website that implies arrogance in the name:There is nothing here that describes what you are complaining about nor what Chris Mooney complains about in his editorial. I believe you are annoyed at something else. I think you are annoyed that Brights dismiss faith based beliefs while you likely prefer to excuse them. It has always bothered me that some skeptics excuse faith based beliefs. Brights are only arrogant to the degree that they are willing to conclude someone else's god beliefs are wrong.

I could be wrong about your personal views. But you tell me? Why is telling people who believe in CTs or homeopathy or astrology they are wrong not arrogant, while telling people that their god beliefs are wrong arrogant?

I think this reflects on what some atheists are reacting to with Dawkins. There seems to me to be a split in the skeptical community about whether or not to have the, I'm OK, you're OK attitude toward god beliefs, calling them faith based, and claiming religion and science are separate things in our lives. I don't believe faith based beliefs are any different from every other non-evidence based belief. I think it is just an excuse not to have to confront people whose beliefs are seen as sacred rather than woo. It's a way of allowing for a skeptic who can't let go of god to still be a skeptic. Well theist skeptics can be just as skeptical as anyone, except, they maintain a blind spot when it comes to critically evaluating the evidence for their god beliefs. There is a clear divide among skeptics about this matter and it does lead to tension.
Click to expand...

When I first heard of the movement, my first reaction was "'Brights'? Seriously?" That was before I even knew exactly what they stood for; the name really does have that effect on me, whether you believe it or not.

I don't quite know what to make of the rest of your post; of course Brights dismiss faith. So do atheists who don't call themselves Brights, like me. If you're suggesting that I dislike the Bright movement because they're more confrontational about their nonbelief than I am, I can assure you that that isn't true, simply because I don't have any conception that people who call themselves Brights are any more confrontational than atheists who don't. Christopher Hitchens hates the term, and he's about the most confrontational, not-afraid-to-dismiss-faith atheist that I'm aware of.

Also, I'd like to know what was wrong with the words "atheists" "freethinkers" and "naturalists" that it was necessary to invent a new word to describe the same thing.

Finally, I think it doesn't matter whether people's dislike for the word is rational or not. Atheists already have PR problems; insisting on a name that offends people, whether or not the offense is rational, seems like it should be the last thing we should be doing. Stick to your guns, but don't create needless trouble for yourself...
 
Last edited:
My views on Dawkins are almost entirely ignorant, but that won't stop me from making a long post. :p Until six months ago I thought he was Richard Leakey (I'd heard mention of Dawkins maybe 8 times in my life and Leakey much more and conflated the "Richard" and "evolutionary/anthropology" fields).

I haven't seen him on any debates, must have missed them. Never seen a live-action video of him as I'm on dial-up and downloading things is unadvised. Never read a book of his, the most reading I've done of his views are from wiki and quotes/links from this forum.

(If there's any question as to why I haven't heard of him, well I haven't been very interested in theological debates for a very long time, and the six major TV media channels I watch doesn't address it, or at least doesn't allow atheists a fair response time, or he wasn't the atheist they chose. I only learned of that theist Bishop in England--rowans? about the same time, so I'm equally ignorant...except for Pat Robertson and Noam Chomsky I guess which I know more of...)


So...anyway the few arguments I've read of his haven't been very convincing. And I don't see why an entire book needs to be devoted to "atheism" if "atheism" is "just non-belief" and nothing more as many here say. Why then would such a non-belief require a book?

So my hunch is that he's not only an atheist but an anti-theist, which is a moderate distinction. But he seems merely a rhetorical anti-theist, not advocating the banning of religion or anything. Just criticizing it or using it as a foil to advocate for its alternative.


My other observation is that he at least is of such a powerful figurehead that some atheists might be granting him "hero" status, where they ignore or dismiss any accurate criticism of him. That above all else gives me pause in a forum of skeptics.

Final opinion, subject to change due to my incredible ignorance of him or his works: He's a vocal atheist, perhaps anti-theist, who's succeeded at least in motivating other atheists to speak their mind more, and apparently raising public perception or profile (having never seen him on major media I can't verify that). I think this is a good thing, and hope others follow in his stead. He has great hair from the pictures I've seen. As for his arguments, the little I've seen aren't convincing. And he was unfortunate to have such a similar last name to Darwin, as some even more ignorant than me might mix up the two.
 
Luzz said:
I am one of those atheists who dislike Dawkins, from my point of view;

1. He is condescending
2. He lacks empathy towards people who differ from his beliefs/thoughts
3. He is socially inept
4. He is very bad at debating (just look how bad he did on OReilly).
5. He doesn´t know how to hold a conversation with his audiance, he is argumentative.
6. He knows nothing about philosophy and can´t see the whole picture.
Click to expand...
"Your concerns are noted, and stupid."
 
Believing in imaginary beings like Jesus, Santa, or the Easter Bunny is stupid and delusional, unless you're 5-6 years old. There's hardly any useful way of stating this rather mundane truth that won't be at least mildly insulting to theist. So, really, at some point an atheist is kind of required to either stay utterly quiet, or say "tough ****, theists, you're stuck in a small child's mindset" in one way or another.
 
JoeEllison said:
Believing in imaginary beings like Jesus, Santa, or the Easter Bunny is stupid and delusional, unless you're 5-6 years old. There's hardly any useful way of stating this rather mundane truth that won't be at least mildly insulting to theist. So, really, at some point an atheist is kind of required to either stay utterly quiet, or say "tough ****, theists, you're stuck in a small child's mindset" in one way or another.
Click to expand...

Why is an atheist required to say anything? Some here say atheism is merely a lack of belief in something. So what exactly leads that into telling theists that their beliefs are stupid and delusional?

Whatever Dawkins is, he doesn't seem to be simply an atheist, at least how some atheists define/defend atheism as this completely neutral, non-actionating position.

I mean, I agree with your points and telling people their religions/faith is stupid or logically vacant is fine. But there's something other than mere atheism that would drive someone to tell them that. Whatever it is, the product isn't atheism anymore, it's social activism. Which again is fine, but call it for what it is.
 
Last edited:
NewtonTrino said:
Dawkins has been much more successful in bringing this issue into the public eye than Sagan. We need someone who is willing to stand up and tell the truth in a way that garners some attention.
Click to expand...

He has been successful in giving Science a terrible name, he has portrayed Science as the ultimate truth and created his own little cult of followers (fundamentalists atheists). In no way, he can be compared to Carl Sagan, an honorable man who managed to get millions of young people to see Science as an interesting subject.

The fact that we are discussing "what is wrong with Richard Dawkins?" says a lot about that it may be something wrong with his tactics. But we are not alone. Even the Royal Society has noticed that people like Dawkins are giving the wrong impression about Science:
"If we give the impression that science is hostile to even mainstream religion, it will be more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important," Martin Rees head of the Royal Society
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/29/controversiesinscience.peopleinscience

So I am not the only one who thinks that Dawkins is giving Science a bad name and is creating the opposite effect.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Guy said:
Sagan, was great and is one of my heroes. But he fought a different fight than Dawkins and being nice and easy going may not be the only way to reach the objective.
Click to expand...

Your argument easily applies to a muslim terrorist, I mean, they also think there are other ways to reach their objective. They don't have to be nice and easy going, or even talk, they just need bombs.
 
Luzz said:
The fact that we are discussing "what is wrong with Richard Dawkins?" says a lot about that it may be something wrong with his tactics. But we are not alone. Even the Royal Society has noticed that people like Dawkins are giving the wrong impression about Science:
"If we give the impression that science is hostile to even mainstream religion, it will be more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important," Martin Rees head of the Royal Society
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/29/controversiesinscience.peopleinscience

So I am not the only one who thinks that Dawkins is giving Science a bad name and is creating the opposite effect.
Click to expand...

In his defense, Dawkins only seems to be effecting a "thought revolution" rather than advocating violence or censure (from what I know which is almost nothing). Science itself is neutral, and criticisms of him from science are sullied in that the scientists have to enter the social paradigm fray themselves.

Such a though revolution would be harmless as long as any followers of it practiced liberarian actions. And if he's extreme, it may at least lead to a rebound towards moderacy, rather than a rebound to the opposite extreme. He's stretching the balloon, but it may bounce back to greater than its original volume, if that analogy makes any sense.

His science, his arguments, his logic are iffy to me at the moment. But he's seemed to be a draw in other areas, specifically widening social debate on theologic issues. The danger is in if some view him as infallible as that which they're criticizing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom