3 ms·

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 al

by 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.
    - jgrahamc 15y ago
      That's an interesting counterpoint to my argument that calling people stupid would cause them to stop listening and not consider what's being said. Thanks.
- dgunn 15y ago
  Seems an unnecessary clarification to me since it doesn’t add anything. I’ll admit, however, that I am particularly fond of his boldness because it’s a good way to create awareness - which I think is his intention.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
robhu 15y ago
I know a few young earth creationists (who are much less common in the UK than the US I believe). I wouldn't say any of them were stupid or rationally impaired. Most of them are quite intelligent, but they are often uninformed scientifically about evolution. The impression I get is that in the US there is quite a lot of anti-evolution 'information' put out by the YEC organisations, some of which /looks/ scientific. To those who are not properly trained in such things it will be hard to tell the difference. Also for most religious people (in the UK at least) it's not a big issue so they have not put any time in to looking in to it. I work at a biological research institute in the UK, and my former group leader (an atheist) was extremely angry on one occasion about Dawkins. When I asked him why he said it was because Dawkins tries to use science to advance his atheism, leading to religious people feeling that they have to choose between science or religion. While for some they will choose science and become atheists, more often this leads to people rejecting science, and he was annoyed that Dawkins turns so many young people from religious families away from science. It's clear that religion in general, and Christianity in particular are not obviously incompatible with science (and particularly evolution) given organisations like Bio Logos http://biologos.org/ http://biologos.org/ and the Faraday Institute http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/index.php http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/index.php
- Tichy 15y ago
  The existence of religious people who claim to be scientists does not prove that religion and science are compatible.
  - robhu 15y ago
    Of course not. But it does show that there intelligent rational people who are at the top of their field (science) do not believe them to be incompatible.

by dgunn 15y ago

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.
  - jgrahamc 15y ago
    That's an interesting counterpoint to my argument that calling people stupid would cause them to stop listening and not consider what's being said. Thanks.
dgunn 15y ago
Seems an unnecessary clarification to me since it doesn’t add anything. I’ll admit, however, that I am particularly fond of his boldness because it’s a good way to create awareness - which I think is his intention.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

robhu 15y ago

I know a few young earth creationists (who are much less common in the UK than the US I believe). I wouldn't say any of them were stupid or rationally impaired. Most of them are quite intelligent, but they are often uninformed scientifically about evolution. The impression I get is that in the US there is quite a lot of anti-evolution 'information' put out by the YEC organisations, some of which /looks/ scientific. To those who are not properly trained in such things it will be hard to tell the difference. Also for most religious people (in the UK at least) it's not a big issue so they have not put any time in to looking in to it. I work at a biological research institute in the UK, and my former group leader (an atheist) was extremely angry on one occasion about Dawkins. When I asked him why he said it was because Dawkins tries to use science to advance his atheism, leading to religious people feeling that they have to choose between science or religion. While for some they will choose science and become atheists, more often this leads to people rejecting science, and he was annoyed that Dawkins turns so many young people from religious families away from science. It's clear that religion in general, and Christianity in particular are not obviously incompatible with science (and particularly evolution) given organisations like Bio Logos http://biologos.org/ http://biologos.org/ and the Faraday Institute http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/index.php http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/index.php

Tichy 15y ago
The existence of religious people who claim to be scientists does not prove that religion and science are compatible.
- robhu 15y ago
  Of course not. But it does show that there intelligent rational people who are at the top of their field (science) do not believe them to be incompatible.