What's Wrong With Richard Dawkins?

[CFLarsen]

And I've already seen him twist my words so badly that I have no doubt that he will imagine that I've said Gould was the anti-christ if I keep up on the subject. He imagines I called Shermer a (gasp) wimp because I find his writing more "namby pamby" than Dawkins.

Your own words:

I think Shermer's approach is a bit wimpy and people seem to find more outspoken atheists such as Dawkins or Hitchens to speak for them. Like Sam Harris, I don't think religion or faith should be coddled or given special respect or be free from scrutiny. I like Shermer too. I just think that you need to provoke people a little more if you want them to think rationally. Shermer is more concerned that people learn about evolution... as is Eugenie Scott... they try to cultivate the idea that understanding evolution doesn't lead to atheism... they keep things softer because they feel it welcomes more people under the umbrella. I can't do it because I feel like I'm propping up faith...Source

Tick tock.

 

[Mashuna]

Your own words:

I think Shermer's approach is a bit wimpy

There seems to be a pattern here. An approach can be wimpy without a person being a wimp.

I seem to recall you saying that English is not your first language. Is this the case? It just seems as though you're inferring more than is actually written.

 

[articulett]

Way more... and it always spins into miasma land with Claus.

Being the narcissist that I am, I prefer people who like me and are like me.

That's why I like Dawkins and the Majority of people on this forum. That's why I leave Claus to his own kind.

I like Gould... and I like Shermer... way better than I like Claus. I don't think Shermer cares about my opinion of his style versus Dawkins, and I would be flattered if he did-- (I am a Shermer fangirl as well as a Dawkins (and Randi) fangirl.) I don't think Gould CAN care, because he's dead. I'm a groupie of both those guys-- but I like Dawkins more because he doesn't hedge or defer to the "faith in faith" crowd.

Opinions aren't facts. And my opinions aren't meant to be directive of anyone's actions. Claus imagines ill intent in all my words. I'm sure Dawkins is continually a victim of such nuttery.

 

[Faithkills]

It seems to me that your argument is hampered by the fact that killing off, torturing, and doing whatever we want to "lesser" species, would be much worse example when we end up the "lesser" species. However, I don't tend to put my moral philosophies around hypotheticals like the above, which rely on a few too many hurdles for my taste.

I think it will be bitter solace when those 'lesser' species do just that despite any example positive or negative. Which would be just as their evolutionary imperative will dictate. Organisms will consume or utilize other organisms to survive or breed. My argument doesn't rely on hypothetical graciousness of other people or species, which there is no reason to expect may exist. Except possibly with humans, since we are even having the discussion.

There's no precedent in biology of consideration of 'other', systematic or otherwise, and no precedent in political history of consideration of 'other' without inclusion and identification.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You're a girl and an American so you get a pass on what was a very clever joke by hgc. The guy in the photo he posted was Brazilian soccer player Pele.

Oh that's who that was. I'll take the pass but not based on your criteria.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

Well, it doesn't matter whether a person is a theist or atheist, the person's arguments matter, as do his actions. If Dawkins "came out" tomorrow and said he was actually a Christian or Mormon, it wouldn't/shouldn't impact his arguments or his books, or his impact in raising atheism's profile, etc. Nor would it in the future, if his arguments remain powerful.

Except that in the post where I said it, there was a direct relationship to the argument. Luzz pointed it out with the intent of supporting his opinion of Dawkins as based on behavior and not related to a conflict with Dawkin's positions per se.

...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.

So it goes directly to Luzz's assessment here of Dawkins whether or not Luzz is a theist lying for Jesus or an atheist who dislikes something else about Dawkins.

Dawkins is such a soft spoken man. He criticizes people but very politely, say for example, compared to Hitchens. So calling Dawkins a prick does not sound like a critique someone would make unless they objected to Dawkin's position on theists who attack evolution theory with non-science reasons.

So I'll accept your apology here too.

You shouldn't hide your opinions, which I generally find interesting, sorry if that's how you took it. I just don't see any value in assessing whether another poster is a true atheist or true christian or whatever. And I've been put on ignore by another poster here for not being a proper atheist, so apparently this line of thinking does have some consequence.

Thanks, I'm flattered you find some of what I say interesting. IMO there is no such thing as a 'proper atheist' except if you are saying atheism is the 'proper position'.

Is it relevant to another poster whether you're actually a "communist" just because you disagree with a single aspect of capitalism? It's a tar-and-feathering, used to besmirch another poster instead of honestly dealing with the arguments that they're putting forth....

I couldn't agree with you more in this example. I am a firm believer in regulated capitalism and I get pigeonholed as a leftest/socialist/communist all the time in the political forums.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Let me just say I was a Christian as little as three months ago and I am now an Athiest. It was the wit and clarity of Christopher Hitchens did the convincing and I actually read Dawkins well before Hitchens.

I got a few problems with The God Delusion, but that title and his thesis irk me the most.

He essentially says that religious people are deluded. This is a filthy rhetorical trick. It does the one thing a philosopher and scientist should never do. Namely, set himself up to be irrefutable. How do I as a religous person counter the charge that I am delusional? If I concede the point, naturally Dawkins wins. If I resist and argue that I am not deluded? Ah precisly what a deluded person would say. Dawkins wins.

So the book just becomes a series of reasons why the author thinks you have a mental defect. You engage in nothing thats the problem.

As for Harris, he argues so well. Love that guy

Would you say that a person who believed in Zeus was delusional?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Gould educated people about science and connected to the real world in a more articulate, interesting, and logical manner than Dawkins does. He really was one of the most interesting spokespeople for evolution and his theories were interesting from both a scientific and layman perspective.

Oh yeah, and it helps that he made a much better case for his theories than Dawkins. Evolutionary psychology seems about as useful as its predecessor.

To each his own. I happen to prefer Dawkin's writing more because it isn't as flowery and fluffy doesn't entail as much philosophy as Gould's. I prefer more direct discussions. I have no problem that other people like Gould's work more. But it isn't my favorite style.

Both are articulate, interesting, and logical writers.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Dawkins has written some perfectly good popular science books, but he's just not in the same league as Gould. It's possible to write good science, and it's possible to write easily understood science for the layman, but combining the two is next to impossible. Either you make it too inaccessible, or you lose important detail. Gould managed to circumvent this limitation.



I'm not qualified to comment on their relative merits as evolutionary scientists. Gould as a writer is far more appealing to me.

Maybe that's a better description of the difference between them. Perhaps it is more the topics of Dawkin's that I find more interesting. I read a lot of biology but my interests are more in the new discoveries of genetic science than in some of the theory in Gould's writings.

Maybe I'll have to revisit my Bully for Brontosaurus and Dinosaur in a Haystack books. I still have them. I did read them before I got involved in this attack on evolution theory. And I have not read Panda's thumb so perhaps I will.

 

[articulett]

I think Dragoonster may be referring to me, SG regarding someone ignoring him. I won't give an audience to bigots... and anyone who tries to associate evolution or atheism with murder (via Nazis or communism or Ben Stein like lies) are bigots whom I ignore. I won't give audience to such hate speech so they can spin their delusion of the "evil atheist" versus whatever it is they imagine themselves to be. They have a right to their opinion. They don't have the right to inflict it on me.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome

In this curious form of aphasia, the subject is unable to distinguish between a discussion and a contest. The subject approaches any online forum as a sort of playing field, and attempts to "win" the discussion by any means necessary. The rules of the imaginary contest are apparently clear to the individual as he or she will often point out when others break them, but when asked to outline these rules the individual is reluctant, perhaps not wishing to confer an "advantage" on any "opponents." The conditions for winning are similarly difficult to pin down, although in some cases the individual will declare himself the winner of a discussion that, to all others, appears to be ongoing.

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2007/06/alttext_0620

..

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think Dragoonster may be referring to me, SG regarding someone ignoring him. I won't give an audience to bigots... and anyone who tries to associate evolution or atheism with murder (via Nazis or communism or Ben Stein like lies) are bigots whom I ignore. I won't give audience to such hate speech so they can spin their delusion of the "evil atheist" versus whatever it is they imagine themselves to be. They have a right to their opinion. They don't have the right to inflict it on me.

Why would an atheist be so anti-atheist?

 

[Unalienable]

Yes... he didn't choose the title-- the broadcasting company did... as I said, the only concession they made to his protest was the ? (question mark) at the end. He has repeatedly said he doesn't consider it the root of all evil. Damn you guys are desparate to extrapolate all kinds of stuff.

I wouldn't call the assumption that an author chose (or at least endorses) the title of his work an "extrapolation" -- that's a default assumption until one learns otherwise. Now I've learned otherwise, and as I said, I stand corrected.

 

[Wheezebucket]

I like Dawkins. Checkmate!

 

[articulett]

Why would an atheist be so anti-atheist?

I don't know. I always suspect people who have to tell you they are an atheist... they remind me of "The Atheist" (forum member).

I presume everyone here is an atheist or on their way theree unless they tell me otherwise... because I assume it follows from critical thinking. Were you at the TAM where Paul Provenza said that he's known a lot of smart theists and a lot of dumb theists, but he's never known a dumb atheist. I haven't either... not in person... so I always suspect dumb people who claim to be atheists as being lying theists. I'm open to contrary evidence, but I never get it.

 

[articulett]

I wouldn't call the assumption that an author chose (or at least endorses) the title of his work an "extrapolation" -- that's a default assumption until one learns otherwise. Now I've learned otherwise, and as I said, I stand corrected.

Okay. I apologize. I may over react... but I just hear this Dawkins bashing as the Courtier's Reply...

http://richarddawkins.net/article,463,The-Courtiers-Reply,PZ-Myers

It doesn't seem based on anything substantial or even valid.

 

[Herzblut]

I have continuously asserted that you confuse the truth of a statement with a proof that a statement is true, and that these are different matters. You just seem to try to dodge and evade this point.

My argument is: empirical science does not deliver truth in the sense that no scientific theory can ever be proved true. Hence, suggesting science would reveal "truths" is a misunderstanding of the concept of science.

Here is your justification.
These are two different scientific theories:

(1)The earth goes round the sun.
(2)The earth doesn't go round the sun.

Not really. These are observations, which might lead to evidence for/against a theory.

 

[JoeEllison]

Why would an atheist be so anti-atheist?

I've seen it a good bit online... part of it comes down to the fact that some people feel like they are being "fair" by attacking what they claim is "their side". Somehow, they think that they are maintaining a superior position by being aggressively hostile towards those who aren't as "neutral" or "fair" or "polite" as they are.

 

[Herzblut]

A "delusion" is simply a false belief.

Not in German.

I think you are confounding the idea of a delusional _person_, someone who we lay people might call "psychotic", with a delusional _idea_.

A person who suffers from a delusion is insane. There's nothing to confound.

 

[RandFan]

Were you at the TAM where Paul Provenza said that he's known a lot of smart theists and a lot of dumb theists, but he's never known a dumb atheist. I haven't either... not in person... so I always suspect dumb people who claim to be atheists as being lying theists. I'm open to contrary evidence, but I never get it.

I was there and the jerk took my chair...

Actually, I saw this guy sitting in my chair next to my wife. So I tell him that it is my chair and suddenly realize it is Paul Provenza. I ended up getting a chance to talk to him for about an hour. One of the coolest guys I've ever met.