3 ms·

I read a couple of his books. I always thought of Dawkins as someone who would have been far more effective had he been a better communicator. In some of his

I read a couple of his books. I always thought of Dawkins as someone who would have been far more effective had he been a better communicator. In some of his books he can get very repetitive and takes way too long to cover subjects that could be explained far more clearly and with a lot less words. I think the same is true of his presentations. One aspect of this is that he sometimes takes complex and contorted paths to explain a concept. This is fine if the person reading or listening has scientific training. If the audience is the general public --or believers who he would like to have consider his perspective-- using this approach is a formula for failure. It's like trying to explain statistics to most people, you lost them before you even started. If you compare someone like Jordan Peterson to Richard Dawkins, the difference in the ability to communicate should be obvious. I enjoy what the has to say and have learned a lot from him. I just wish he was a better communicator.

DarylZero 5y ago
I cannot believe you just said that about the author of The Selfish Gene.
- robomartin 5y ago
  Not sure if you are being sarcastic. In fact, The Selfish Gene was the first of his books I read. I remember coming to a point where I found myself thinking “C’mon, get to the point!” and “How many more times are you going to repeat this?”. Still, I finished the book. Also read the Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion. We have some of his DVD’s and watched many of his lectures and debates online. Similar thoughts. It’s just his style. Believe it or not, this is constructive criticism. Of course, he isn’t reading this and nothing whatsoever will change at 80 years of age. He comes off as abrasive, which does not lend to someone not interested in listening to his message listening to him. If my family and I, struggled to stay with him I can’t imagine a religious person giving him even five minutes. That’s the whole point of this. Isn’t it? To have someone in the grips of religion consider an alternative model of reality. Nobody is going to be effective (at scale) using such a style. That’s my point. These books and presentations should not be made for those of us who left religious beliefs behind. What’s the point of that? The objective should be to bring a new message to those who may not have considered it yet.
atkailash 5y ago
One of the main reasons I dislike Dawkins is his arrogance seeps through the pages like wet ink. I think his filler is his attempt to make up for the poor arguments he’s making and as part of an arrogant “look how smart I am. My book is big”. Philosophers can make similar points in much less space.

DarylZero 5y ago

I cannot believe you just said that about the author of The Selfish Gene.

robomartin 5y ago
Not sure if you are being sarcastic. In fact, The Selfish Gene was the first of his books I read. I remember coming to a point where I found myself thinking “C’mon, get to the point!” and “How many more times are you going to repeat this?”. Still, I finished the book. Also read the Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion. We have some of his DVD’s and watched many of his lectures and debates online. Similar thoughts. It’s just his style. Believe it or not, this is constructive criticism. Of course, he isn’t reading this and nothing whatsoever will change at 80 years of age. He comes off as abrasive, which does not lend to someone not interested in listening to his message listening to him. If my family and I, struggled to stay with him I can’t imagine a religious person giving him even five minutes. That’s the whole point of this. Isn’t it? To have someone in the grips of religion consider an alternative model of reality. Nobody is going to be effective (at scale) using such a style. That’s my point. These books and presentations should not be made for those of us who left religious beliefs behind. What’s the point of that? The objective should be to bring a new message to those who may not have considered it yet.

atkailash 5y ago

One of the main reasons I dislike Dawkins is his arrogance seeps through the pages like wet ink. I think his filler is his attempt to make up for the poor arguments he’s making and as part of an arrogant “look how smart I am. My book is big”. Philosophers can make similar points in much less space.