What's Wrong With Richard Dawkins?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes



No he doesnt. Not in the slightest. Sagan was tolerant, he knew that there was a high risk of alienating people by pretending to hold the ultimate truth, as Dawkins does. Although in the following quote Sagan does not talk about religion, he shows that he wouldn´t approve the tactics of some hard atheists/skeptics.


The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs. Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive. It does not get our message across. It condemns us to permanent minority status. Whereas, an approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition, that recognizes that the society has arranged things so that skepticism is not well taught, might be much more widely accepted.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/saganws.htm


My opinion is that the only way to reduce religious and woo beliefs is to teach people (especially children) how the scientific method works and how we get knowledge from its application.

You are confusing a means of confrontation with the act of confrontation. In other words the difference here is only in how you address a particular audience, not in how you feel about the beliefs of that audience.

From your link, words by Sagan. I searched for the word, god, it isn't in the piece. So I searched for the word, 'religion':

So if you want to really be able to predict the future -- not in everything, but in some areas -- there's only one regime of human scholarship, of human claims to knowledge, that really delivers the goods, and that's science. Religions would give their eyeteeth to be able to predict anything like that well. Think of how much mileage they would make if they ever could do predictions comparably unambiguous and precise....

Now think of what other areas of human society have such a reward structure, in which we revere those who prove that the fundamental doctrines that we have adopted are wrong. Think of it in politics, or in economics, or in religion; think of it in how we organize our society. Often, it's exactly the opposite: There we reward those who reassure us that what we've been told is right, that we need not concern ourselves about it. This difference, I believe, is at least a basic reason why we've made so much progress in science, and so little in some other areas....

Then I searched for 'belief':

The least effective way for skeptics to get the attention of these bright, curious, interested people is to belittle, or condescend, or show arrogance toward their beliefs. They may be credulous, but they're not stupid. If we bear in mind human frailty and fallibility, we will understand their plight.

Then I looked for your quote and added the paragraph preceding it for more context:

Would you think less of me if I fell for it? Imagine I was never educated about skepticism, had no idea that it's a virtue, but instead believed that it was grumpy and negative and rejecting of everything that's humane. Couldn't you understand my openness to being conned by a medium or a channeler?

The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs. Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive. It does not get our message across. It condemns us to permanent minority status. Whereas, an approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition, that recognizes that the society has arranged things so that skepticism is not well taught, might be much more widely accepted.*

So what do you have here? You don't have Sagan saying faith based beliefs are a legit exception or that faith based beliefs should be left off the table. All you have is Sagan saying you catch more bees with honey than with vinegar and to have more patience and a little less judgment for woo believers.

I doubt Dawkins would disagree. I certainly don't disagree. But there is a time and place to approach individuals this way, and a time and place not to coddle woo beliefs.




I thought this was interesting, but it isn't related to the thread:

* If skeptical habits of thought are widely distributed and prized, then who is the skepticism going to be mainly applied to? To those in power. Those in power, therefore, do not have a vested interest in everybody being able to ask searching questions....

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Isaac Newton was a deeply religious person, nevertheless it didnt stop him from making scientific progress, and giving us his great works on physics.

It probably didn't help him either. But considering the circumstances at the time, we don't know what he believed since it wasn't politically safe to say you did not believe. In any case if this gives you permission to be a scientist and still maintain your god beliefs, go for it. It won't matter in the ling run.

....These are some quotes from Newton found in wikipedia


"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."


In a manuscript he wrote in 1704 in which he describes his attempts to extract scientific information from the Bible, he estimated that the world would end no earlier than 2060. In predicting this he said, "This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail."

So under yours and Dawkins standards -in our days- he would be a woo, a deluded religious nut who would deserve nothing but discredit. Newton and other great people -who despite lack of evidence believe in God or whatever- are not worse persons that you and me. It does not mean they are stupid or retarded. It just means we are different and we all are entitle to believe whatever we want to believe (only if we dont hurt others).

Sorry, not a valid comparison. You are equating challenging the status quo with challenging a scientific hypothesis or theory with evidence. Those are completely different things.

The manuscript sounds interesting though, I may have to look into that.

....Dawkins is a PRICK, he thinks he has the absolute truth under his shoulders when he is nothing but a little annoying old man. I am atheist by the way, but I am also tolerant and peaceful. I only judge people by their actions, not their beliefs.

Not sure I buy your claim of being an atheist. A lot of people on these forums lie for Jesus thinking if they say they are not a god believer we will somehow not reject their arguments. Funny thing is, the idea scientists reject god believers is a straw man. Scientists will look at the evidence regardless of who puts it out there. It is the Discovery Institute that most promotes that straw man. That was what was behind the whole change Creationism to ID movement. The idea was religion was being rejected so if it was presented as science it wouldn't be.

Well if it was presented as science that would be it had supporting evidence. If it had supporting evidence it wouldn't have been rejected. The DI doesn't want to face up to that fact so they go on claiming the straw man, the scientific community rejects Bible based ideas out of hand.

Anyway, sorry if you are an atheist. I don't like to call people liars. But you post an awful lot in defense of god beliefs. Do you not recognize woo is woo regardless of the lipstick? Or is it just that you want the I'm OK you're OK approach? If it is the latter, don't you think you should be more tolerant of Dawkins?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I see you noticed that too.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You might be interested in reading this paper by Austin Dacey that examines the effect made by Dawkins' approach on science communication: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2579,Framing-Science-and-The-Dawkins-Effect,Austin-Dacey

As a side note, it was Dawkins and the God Delusion that got me interested in science and scepticism.

Thanks for the link. The book Dacey is talking about, Secularism & Science in the 21st Century, is free online and it is also a good link to put in another thread asking about responding to a high school sophomore's bad science.

 

[Herzblut]

Well this is taking a different track in the thread but at least now I can see what you are on about.

I have no issue with the obligation we have to protect sentient beings from human cruelty and indifference. Doesn't bother me a bit that humans are great apes or that we are cousins to African gorillas, chimps, orangutans and bonobos. In fact, I find it fascinating.

So just what is your issue here? That we shouldn't feel any moral obligation toward other species?

Hi skeptigirl,

I have no problem with animal wellfare. But with animal rights, and other ethical concepts, according to Peter Singer's consequentialism. If you want to dig into this, that's fine for me.

H.

 

[Dragoonster]

It probably didn't help him either. But considering the circumstances at the time, we don't know what he believed since it wasn't politically safe to say you did not believe.

Deal with evidence, not supposition. The dude had some woo theories and some nearly unique insight into the physical world. One doesn't necessarily insubstantiate the other.

Not sure I buy your claim of being an atheist. A lot of people on these forums lie for Jesus thinking if they say they are not a god believer we will somehow not reject their arguments.

(...)

Anyway, sorry if you are an atheist. I don't like to call people liars. But you post an awful lot in defense of god beliefs.

Again, come on. Labelling others is a poor argumentative technique for anyone, be they theist, atheist, Jesus, or Dawkins. I haven't seen much indicating he's acutally a theist, nor would it matter to his arguments, which seem to revolve primarily on a social liberatarian approach.

Atheists should no more weasel in pejorative assumptions than theists do. Or if they do they should likewise be called on it.

 

[Dragoonster]

btw, I say that because Dawkins and others, myself included, support argument-by-evidence, argument-by-logic. If we slip and diverge into any typical logical fallacies that the theists or woo-artists use, we've given up our advantage. We've been brought down to argue on their illogical terms, which we shouldn't do. And we'll rightfully be criticized as arguing from emotion, or baseless supposition, or agenda, just like they do. At that point we will be another typical ideology, no better or worse or more reasonable or more human-informing than any other argument.

What is the skeptics' advantage? Rationality and objectivity. Why sully that with personal prejudice?

 

[westprog]

Deal with evidence, not supposition. The dude had some woo theories and some nearly unique insight into the physical world. One doesn't necessarily insubstantiate the other.

Newton wasn't some atheist hiding his opinions and going to church just to get by. His religious and occult beliefs permeate his work. He didn't have to contend with the inquisition to get published.

 

[westprog]

Deal with evidence, not supposition. The dude had some woo theories and some nearly unique insight into the physical world. One doesn't necessarily insubstantiate the other.

Newton wasn't some atheist hiding his opinions and going to church just to get by. His religious and occult beliefs permeate his work. He didn't have to contend with the inquisition to get published.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Of course Newton grew up in a very superstitious time. Nobody is necessarily immune from that. I have no doubt whatsoever that if Newton were able to travel through time to the present day that he would become an atheist. The evidence at this point is simple insurmountable...

 

[JoeEllison]

I, of course, observe the same world you observe. Amazing, just take the stand that god beliefs are undeniable woo and so many other things come in to focus such as the double standard applied to passionate atheism, or even just plain atheism of the truly convinced.

I'm sorry folks, Zeus, Jesus and Pele are all myths. If I said Zeus and Pele were myths, no one here would call me an atheist proselytizer.

And, whether it is "rude" to say this or not, there is something WRONG with believing in myths as though they are literally true.

 

[Fredrik]

I like Dawkins a lot, but I have also noticed that some people* I know don't like him because he's aggressive and insulting towards some of the morons. They feel that his attitude is going to prevent him from convincing anyone, and may in fact push religious people even further away from rational thinking. I think these people are mostly wrong, because I know from experience that no matter how politely you put an argument to a woo believer, they will get angry. If they don't get angry right away, they will get angry when you crush their counter arguments.

There are moments however, when even I feel that he's too aggressive, for example when he talked to Ted Haggard and immediately said that what he had just seen made him think of a Nuremberg rally^WP. It would have been more interesting to see him go in there well prepared to counter any argument Haggard might have, and own him completely when he says something dumb, like "...and it doesn't contradict itself". (Haggard said that about the bible).


* The people I'm referring to are atheists, but it feels silly to even mention that since I'm a science nerd living in Sweden.

 

[Civilized Worm]

Still no evidence of Dawkins' alleged bigotry I see.

 

[Lonewulf]

Still no evidence of Dawkins' alleged bigotry I see.

Nope. Just sophomoric mockery of his opinions on animal welfare.

 

[articulett]

I like Dawkins a lot, but I have also noticed that some people* I know don't like him because he's aggressive and insulting towards some of the morons. They feel that his attitude is going to prevent him from convincing anyone, and may in fact push religious people even further away from rational thinking. I think these people are mostly wrong, because I know from experience that no matter how politely you put an argument to a woo believer, they will get angry. If they don't get angry right away, they will get angry when you crush their counter arguments.

There are moments however, when even I feel that he's too aggressive, for example when he talked to Ted Haggard and immediately said that what he had just seen made him think of a Nuremberg rally^WP. It would have been more interesting to see him go in there well prepared to counter any argument Haggard might have, and own him completely when he says something dumb, like "...and it doesn't contradict itself". (Haggard said that about the bible).


* The people I'm referring to are atheists, but it feels silly to even mention that since I'm a science nerd living in Sweden.

I recall that episode, and I seem to recall that it was in response to something Haggard had just said... that WAS reminiscent of a Nuremberg Rally. And Haggard, I think, had just insinuated that maybe Dawkins grandchildren would find out he was wrong one day. To me, Haggard came off as arrogant while trying to make Dawkins sound arrogant.

 

[Lonewulf]

I remember wondering why Haggard didn't seem to "get" the Nürnberger Reichsparteitag reference. Maybe he was just pretending.

 

[articulett]

He (Haggard) just kept having that insane little duck lipped smile on his face...

 

[Gazpacho]

What ever made you think someone or other is trying to "validate" your disbelief? Maybe you are hearing things that aren't there.

You loaded your question with the assumption that anyone who is content for other people not to be atheists, isn't really an atheist. When I respond to a loaded question I do it properly.

I don't lose sleep or moan about the unfairness that there are people in the world with religious beliefs, but I've come across many atheists who do, and they rather annoy me.

 

[GreyICE]

And, whether it is "rude" to say this or not, there is something WRONG with believing in myths as though they are literally true.

Is this the same person who said there's nothing inherently worse about beliefs that lead to murdering women for talking to a man?

 

[articulett]

You loaded your question with the assumption that anyone who is content for other people not to be atheists, isn't really an atheist. When I respond to a loaded question I do it properly.

I don't lose sleep or moan about the unfairness that there are people in the world with religious beliefs, but I've come across many atheists who do, and they rather annoy me.

Once again, I think you are seeing stuff that isn't there. Most atheists don't care about other peoples inane beliefs more than they care about their astrological beliefs, their fetishes, or their superstitions... until or unless the beliefs cause harm, scare kids, cripple thinking, stall scientific progress, make people judgmental, etc. I know there is this straw man image of atheists trying to stop people from believing in god... but I think it's exaggerated in your head-- because you aren't used to seeing god as just another woo.

My question wasn't loaded. If you are smart enough to have thought your way away from superstitious thinking, why would you want others to be vulnerable to the likes of Popoff or the like? Weren't Sean Hornbeck's parents vulnerable because of this kind of thinking... isn't it wrong to stay silent as trusting kids are frightened with hellfire for touching themselves? Aren't the suicide bombers-in-training being told exactly what Allah wants? Shouldn't someone ask them how exactly their leader knows "souls" are real? Is it okay to shut up about people doing rain dances to improve crops when you know there is another way? How about witch hunts? Who are you to say who god is telling others to kill? What about genital mutilation for god? Or faith healing that allows kids to die or disallows blood transfusions.

Yes, it's condescending of those who claim to be atheists to run around acting like we must not let the kid's learn that Santa isn't real. That's what it sounds like to me. It's one thing to try to force people not to believe something (as though that was possible)... it's another to give them the tools to think their way out of their superstitions. And I think it's immoral not to. And no religion taught me that bit-o-morality.

I think you see what isn't there in the words of atheists while failing to see the harms of being quiet or deferent towards faith as a means of knowledge. In this way, you are being an "apologist"-- giving the courtier's reply... http://richarddawkins.net/article,463,The-Courtiers-Reply,PZ-Myers

You hear stuff that isn't there because you've been trained to take offense at the words of atheists. That is why I doubt you are an atheist... but a lot of atheists still share the prejudices of their society without realizing it. And a lot of non atheists come here pretending to be atheists, but I don't think I've ever run across the reverse-- though it would be understandable given the horrific prejudice towards people who have the "audacity" to disbelieve in gods.

There is no good reason to believe in gods or promote "faith" as something good is there? You can shut up the people who point out the naked emperor-- I'll be handing them the megaphone and applauding their courage, thanks. I find them much more inspirational than the apologists (who imagine themselves "middle of the road" and diplomatic it seems.) I think Dawkins and his ilk make far better role models than his critics. I don't think this "middle of the road" stuff is good for anything except building up the ego of the apologists as they exacerbate a prejudice towards atheism. But maybe I missed some evidence somewhere. Got any?

Can you cut and paste the words of those atheists you know who are losing sleep because of "the unfairness that there are people in the world with religious beliefs"-- or was that another "subjective truth"...