3 ms·

You're setting up a strawman there jgrahamc. Dawkins does not equate religious to stupid. Anyone that has listened to him much at all is fully aware that what

You're setting up a strawman there jgrahamc. Dawkins does not equate religious to stupid. Anyone that has listened to him much at all is fully aware that what he was getting at here is those people that continue to indoctrinate children with rubbish like Intelligent Design/Creationism when they have been presented, repeatedly, with hard evidence for the reality of evolution and the fact that it does not require a guiding force. That willful ignorance is what he is appalled at, and quite frankly I don't know what else you can call someone that is willfully ignorant, if not stupid.

jgrahamc 15y ago
Right before that question from the interviewer Dawkins quoted a statistic that 40% of Americans think that Genesis is a true story and went on to say that 'they probably believe' that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt. You may be right that he's only talking about creationists directly but I still think name calling isn't the way to go. It's a bit like calling someone with a mental impairment 'retarded'. Doesn't help.
- demallien 15y ago
  "Right before that question from the interviewer Dawkins quoted a statistic that 40% of Americans think that Genesis is a true story" And did he then go on to say that he considers those 40% to be stupid? Or is it more likely that he considers those 40% to be the unfortunate childhood victims of the 'stupid' people? I think you're reading your own prejudices into his statement.
  - jgrahamc 15y ago
    The next question immediately after that was the one that brought up the word stupid (as posted on my blog). You may be correct that I am influenced by my own prejudices. It wouldn't be the first time.
- dgunn 15y ago
  Should we call them rationally impaired? For Dawkins to continue with the conversation, there had to be a way to refer to the collective and the interviewer already used the word, "stupid". Why stop the discussion just to reassign the group to a new word? In the context of the interview, those people are considered to be stupid and for clarity, they should be called stupid. They may be smart in other areas, but their willingness to not see evidence makes them stupid in this particular arena.
  - jgrahamc 15y ago
    He could have said "I don't think they're stupid, but to me they are irrational and dangerous".
    - shpoonj 15y ago
      He could have done a lot of things to embrace cultural marxism, but he didn't because he's not trying to beat around the bush or avoid hurting the feelings of the easily offended. It is not Dawkin's job to make you feel good about yourself. His life's work isn't about your, or anyone else's, comfort. It's a search for truth in the hope of a better future.
      - jgrahamc 15y ago
        I don't know what cultural Marxism is, but if Dawkins wants those 40% of Americans to change their beliefs or even just question them then the point of my blog post is that calling them stupid is unlikely to be the right angle to persuade them of a different viewpoint or to even hear what he has to say next.
      - dgunn 15y ago
        I fully agree. A lot of people grow up in a religious bubble (I did) and sometimes it requires bold statements to jar them into doing a little introspection. Defaults are powerful and it takes something equally powerful to cause a person to abandon them. Calling them stupid may seem childish, but it forced me to think about it. After that it only took a day or two to realize how stupid I actually was.
earnubs 15y ago
It may be that I haven't kept up, but doesn't evolution require a guiding force of some kind? Speaking purely scientifically, of course.
- loumf 15y ago
  Not according to the theory, no.
- cousin_it 15y ago
  Evolution is guided by the environment. For example, if customers always choose the best-looking pumpkins to take home and eat, and the ugliest ones end up being used for seed, the genes of ugly pumpkins will have more successors in each generation, and pretty soon your crops will consist of ugly pumpkins only. That's the complete mechanism of evolution right there. Would you say the customers unwittingly acted as a guiding force in evolving your population of pumpkins toward ugliness?
  - Tichy 15y ago
    I think your example is unfortunate because it involves intelligent decision makers, which could indeed be interpreted as a guiding force. There are of course forces in nature, namely the laws of physics.
- demallien 15y ago
  The easiest way to think about it is this: if evolution has a guiding force, in which direction is it guiding? And before answering that question, think about where most of the biomass of the Earth is found (hint, it's not in us humans).
jorangreef 15y ago
Another strawman is the idea that the theory and model of evolution should be retrofitted all the way back to the beginning of time, a moment for which we do not have many data points, that the discussion should take place there, and that it should necessarily preclude any model of creationism derived from Genesis, and thereby preclude any investigation into the historicity of the Resurrection, an event of 30 lifetimes ago, for which we have many data points, neutral, opposed and biased.
bluekeybox 15y ago
... continue to indoctrinate children with rubbish like Intelligent Design/Creationism when they have been presented, repeatedly, with hard evidence for the reality of evolution and the fact that it does not require a guiding force. Thinking about this used to make me angry, but I am glad it doesn't anymore since anger is a negative emotion and is not productive. What I realized is that people who "willfully indoctrinate" their children into a religion often do so not out of hubris ("I am smarter than those godless atheists") and not out of ignorance ("I don't care what others have to say"), but out of the following: "I have no idea how to raise children properly, therefore I will raise them to be religious because from among the people I know, most 'good, proper' people are religious, and because if you follow the ten commandments/whatever you cannot really be bad". So ultimately the indoctrination of children into a religion is no so much something particularly malicious (hubris/ignorance), but more an admission of defeat (i.e. "I have no idea how to teach children morals if I don't tell them the story of Jesus"). People are scared that their children will turn into anti-social monsters if they are not indoctrinated. They see sensational stories on TV of parents being murdered by their own children and they think that if they raise the children to be religious, something similar will never happen. Fear is a powerful force. Perhaps someone should come up with a popular atheist's guide to how to raise children, and a part of that religious indoctrination will go away. Unfortunately, if you look around, most of the people publishing such books are religious zealots and most of the outspoken atheists are busy attacking the zealots instead of being occupied with something more productive.

jgrahamc 15y ago

Right before that question from the interviewer Dawkins quoted a statistic that 40% of Americans think that Genesis is a true story and went on to say that 'they probably believe' that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt. You may be right that he's only talking about creationists directly but I still think name calling isn't the way to go. It's a bit like calling someone with a mental impairment 'retarded'. Doesn't help.

demallien 15y ago
"Right before that question from the interviewer Dawkins quoted a statistic that 40% of Americans think that Genesis is a true story" And did he then go on to say that he considers those 40% to be stupid? Or is it more likely that he considers those 40% to be the unfortunate childhood victims of the 'stupid' people? I think you're reading your own prejudices into his statement.
- jgrahamc 15y ago
  The next question immediately after that was the one that brought up the word stupid (as posted on my blog). You may be correct that I am influenced by my own prejudices. It wouldn't be the first time.
dgunn 15y ago
Should we call them rationally impaired? For Dawkins to continue with the conversation, there had to be a way to refer to the collective and the interviewer already used the word, "stupid". Why stop the discussion just to reassign the group to a new word? In the context of the interview, those people are considered to be stupid and for clarity, they should be called stupid. They may be smart in other areas, but their willingness to not see evidence makes them stupid in this particular arena.
- jgrahamc 15y ago
  He could have said "I don't think they're stupid, but to me they are irrational and dangerous".
  - shpoonj 15y ago
    He could have done a lot of things to embrace cultural marxism, but he didn't because he's not trying to beat around the bush or avoid hurting the feelings of the easily offended. It is not Dawkin's job to make you feel good about yourself. His life's work isn't about your, or anyone else's, comfort. It's a search for truth in the hope of a better future.
    - jgrahamc 15y ago
      I don't know what cultural Marxism is, but if Dawkins wants those 40% of Americans to change their beliefs or even just question them then the point of my blog post is that calling them stupid is unlikely to be the right angle to persuade them of a different viewpoint or to even hear what he has to say next.
    - dgunn 15y ago
      I fully agree. A lot of people grow up in a religious bubble (I did) and sometimes it requires bold statements to jar them into doing a little introspection. Defaults are powerful and it takes something equally powerful to cause a person to abandon them. Calling them stupid may seem childish, but it forced me to think about it. After that it only took a day or two to realize how stupid I actually was.

earnubs 15y ago

It may be that I haven't kept up, but doesn't evolution require a guiding force of some kind? Speaking purely scientifically, of course.

loumf 15y ago
Not according to the theory, no.
cousin_it 15y ago
Evolution is guided by the environment. For example, if customers always choose the best-looking pumpkins to take home and eat, and the ugliest ones end up being used for seed, the genes of ugly pumpkins will have more successors in each generation, and pretty soon your crops will consist of ugly pumpkins only. That's the complete mechanism of evolution right there. Would you say the customers unwittingly acted as a guiding force in evolving your population of pumpkins toward ugliness?
- Tichy 15y ago
  I think your example is unfortunate because it involves intelligent decision makers, which could indeed be interpreted as a guiding force. There are of course forces in nature, namely the laws of physics.
demallien 15y ago
The easiest way to think about it is this: if evolution has a guiding force, in which direction is it guiding? And before answering that question, think about where most of the biomass of the Earth is found (hint, it's not in us humans).

jorangreef 15y ago

Another strawman is the idea that the theory and model of evolution should be retrofitted all the way back to the beginning of time, a moment for which we do not have many data points, that the discussion should take place there, and that it should necessarily preclude any model of creationism derived from Genesis, and thereby preclude any investigation into the historicity of the Resurrection, an event of 30 lifetimes ago, for which we have many data points, neutral, opposed and biased.

bluekeybox 15y ago

... continue to indoctrinate children with rubbish like Intelligent Design/Creationism when they have been presented, repeatedly, with hard evidence for the reality of evolution and the fact that it does not require a guiding force. Thinking about this used to make me angry, but I am glad it doesn't anymore since anger is a negative emotion and is not productive. What I realized is that people who "willfully indoctrinate" their children into a religion often do so not out of hubris ("I am smarter than those godless atheists") and not out of ignorance ("I don't care what others have to say"), but out of the following: "I have no idea how to raise children properly, therefore I will raise them to be religious because from among the people I know, most 'good, proper' people are religious, and because if you follow the ten commandments/whatever you cannot really be bad". So ultimately the indoctrination of children into a religion is no so much something particularly malicious (hubris/ignorance), but more an admission of defeat (i.e. "I have no idea how to teach children morals if I don't tell them the story of Jesus"). People are scared that their children will turn into anti-social monsters if they are not indoctrinated. They see sensational stories on TV of parents being murdered by their own children and they think that if they raise the children to be religious, something similar will never happen. Fear is a powerful force. Perhaps someone should come up with a popular atheist's guide to how to raise children, and a part of that religious indoctrination will go away. Unfortunately, if you look around, most of the people publishing such books are religious zealots and most of the outspoken atheists are busy attacking the zealots instead of being occupied with something more productive.