14 ms·

Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

129 points by dctoedt 15y ago

xavoy 15y ago
I'm not a Christian, Muslim or Jew. I don't believe in God. I find it slightly unnerving that there's still religious fundamentalists out there that flatly refuse to accept scientific evidence of evolution and more, and yet... I can't stand Richard Dawkins. I know that there's some dangerous ideas put out there by fundamentalists, but for the most part, if they stick to themselves and are generally good people who don't interfere with others then I don't really care what they believe. Not necessarily this article, but generally, and especially listening to him talk live (radio, conferences etc) Richard Dawkins is arrogant and pig headed. It's kind of ironic that by dedicating his life to setting them straight, Dawkins has become as much of a fundamentalist evangelist as the religious fundamentalists he spends his time mocking.
- 5hoom 15y ago
  This is pretty much my take on Richard Dawkins. I remember when "The God Delusion" was a hot topic hearing groups of otherwise intelligent people hi-fiving each other over how smart they were because they were atheists, & how COMPLETELY WRONG religion of any kind is. Maybe I just got all my anti-religious rage out of my system early in my life, but observing people carry on like the very fundamentalists they claim to despise (but it's ok, cuz we're secular!) is very disappointing.
  - pjscott 15y ago
    If smugness and self-congratulation were the problem with fundamentalists, then the world would be a much better place. If it hadn't been for one really good science teacher, nobody at the high school I attended would have been taught about evolution. Large voting blocs are swayed into furious action by talk of "the sodomite agenda". I realize that a lot of people live in pretty secular areas, and can pretend that circlejerking is the only real problem with religious nuts, but that's just not true.
- logjam 15y ago
  I've listened to Richard Dawkins debate live several times. In no instance have I ever heard him being anything other than perfectly gracious, even when being repeatedly personally attacked, so I'm having a hard time understanding your criticism of him - which amounts to calling him names.
  - 5hoom 15y ago
    Why don't you ask Rebecca Watson (co-host of The Skeptics Guide To The Universe) what she thinks of him? There was an incident at a recent skeptics conference where Watson was accosted & hit on by an attendee in the small hours of the morning while riding an elevator. She used her podcast & blog to describe the incident, hinting that maybe hitting on an un-escorted female in the middle of the night while the two of you are stuck in an elevator together is a good way to make said female feel vulnerable & uncomfortable. Well, Dawkins wen't on to have a foaming at the mouth tirade about how she was carrying on like a hypothetical hysterical muslim woman who was all offended by being offered a coffee and that she should just toughen up. He was rightly slammed by many for this, but the guy sounds like a dick to me. [edit: in response to reply] I understand his message. I also think he was "foaming at the mouth" and a "dick". I am an atheist. I am also not so besotted by the cult of personality that I can't see past Dawkins contributions & still think he's a dick. [edit edit: after some thought] On reflection calling Richard Dawkins a "dick" is not the right thing to do. Replace "a dick" with "an insensitive man".
    - logjam 15y ago
      I see. The parent characterized Dawkins as "arrogant" and "pig headed", and now you've characterized him as "foaming at the mouth", on a "tirade" and a "dick". You've also misstated his argument. We get it. Many hate his message and because they can't argue coherently against that message, they mostly just call him names.
      - DarkShikari 15y ago
        What about people who agree with his message, but still think he's a dick? Are they not allowed to exist? Dawkins is an intelligent atheist skeptic, but he's also an incredibly sexist, insensitive ass whom many believe is consistently hurting the cause he claims to promote. You're allowed to think the latter even if you largely agree with his opinions as an atheist skeptic.
- jamesbritt 15y ago
  I know that there's some dangerous ideas put out there by fundamentalists, but for the most part, if they stick to themselves and are generally good people who don't interfere with others ... If only. When Dawkins et al get their own worldwide television networks and suitably sized fund-raising and political infrastructure then I'll entertain the idea that atheist advocates are anywhere near like that of the fundamentalists.
  - robertk 15y ago
    I agree. Here's why that will never happen (and I'm sure you know this): Only the mistaken need proclaim their philosophy with grandiloquence. It is painful for atheists to proselytize with the only effective mechanism--propaganda--as it is a cognitive dissonance. The psychological truth is that the young mind is highly pliable and choice of religion is an axiom--unlike a formal system, the human mind has no need for internal logical consistency. For some large percentage of people, the only effective method is propaganda and indoctrination--an unfortunate irony.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- jarin 15y ago
  It may be insensitive to be so blunt about it, but I think the longer you're an atheist the harder it gets to keep a "live and let live" attitude. I liken it to having a friend who truly, sincerely believes in Santa Claus. At first, you might just laugh it off as a harmless quirk. But as time goes on, and every day you're hearing about Santa Claus this and he won't stop going off about whether or not he's on the Naughty or Nice list this year, you might start to tactfully point out some of the flaws in his belief. How fast would Santa need to go to cover the entire world in one night? Why has there never been a photograph of Santa? What about people who don't celebrate Christmas? Your friend laughs, and explains that you need to have more faith in Santa Claus, and that if you don't watch out you're going to be on the Naughty List. And now every time you go out for a drink your friend is telling people about Santa Claus, and he's posting Santa-related links on your Facebook wall. How long can you put up with that before you just snap?
  - stephen_g 15y ago
    You could liken it to that, but you're using a logical fallacy (it's both a straw man and a reductio ad ridiculum).
    - jarin 15y ago
      Haha yes, you're totally correct. It was intended more as an illustrative analogy than a formal point of debate, but I take your point.
    - jarin 15y ago
      On second thought, I would dispute calling it a reductio ad ridiculum. We obviously share the opinion that serious belief in Santa Claus as an adult is ridiculous, but in reality belief in Santa Claus and belief in God share equal amounts of supporting evidence.
- Xetrill 15y ago
  Being a religious fundamentalist and good person who does not interfere with others, well those don't go together, at all. If you honestly think that is possible, you should seriously rethink your stance. Whether you tolerate them or not is meaningless, they cannot tolerate you, because of what you don't believe in. You might wanna learn to recognize an enemy when you see one. Edit 1: Relevant to my point (Sam Harris) http://www.youtube.com/user/Xetrill?feature=mhee#p/c/F25A63E02E561014/0/FHHOiF-dFEg http://www.youtube.com/user/Xetrill?feature=mhee#p/c/F25A63E... Edit 2: To the Rebecca Watson point (TheAmazingAtheist): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqU9JFbtucU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqU9JFbtucU
- abless 15y ago
  If you're describing Dawkins as fundamentalist, then you either a) don't know much about him, and what he stands for, or b) have a grave understanding of what fundamentalism means. It bothers me that Dawkins gets that accusation that often, when it's clearly false.
  - xavoy 15y ago
    According to Wikipedia, Fundamentalism is the "strict adherence to specific theological doctrines". According to my dictionary, the definition of theological is "Of or relating to or concerning theology". Atheism, according to Wikipedia again, is "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." It seems to me then that I could argue that one could be an "Atheist Fundamentalist" although that wasn't my point. I was using the term liberally, and by way of analogy. My point was that it is this stubborn adherence to a particular point of view that got Dawkins so fired up in the first place. And, although _I agree_ with Dawkins point of view, traveling the world telling people they are "idiots" for not thinking in a particular way is just as bad, or worse. Even if it is a view backed up by science. This video posted by Hacker News member 'robertk' gives you a good idea of Dawkins general attitude: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik
    - lyudmil 15y ago
      It is not just as bad. It is not worse. As you concede, Professor Dawkins' views are backed (and, in fact, a product of) science. This means that to the extent that anyone can be right or wrong about anything, Richard Dawkins is correct in his arguments. Maybe he isn't civil in the way he confronts people who disagree. Maybe he's ineffective in convincing them. Those are things that are important to you personally, but you're letting that distract you from the fact that what he's saying is true, which ought to be the only thing that matters. In a way, I think this is a major way you and people who share your attitude towards Richard Dawkins miss what is perhaps the most poignant part of his message. His crassness is actually a rebellion against the passivity and political correctness that he feels constrains non-believers socially and politically. The crux of his message is a call to arms to those people, encouraging them to deny religion the automatic respect it has enjoyed for centuries. To say that he isn't meek enough in delivering this message is undercutting it's core.
- adriand 15y ago
  > I know that there's some dangerous ideas put out there by fundamentalists, but for the most part, if they stick to themselves and are generally good people who don't interfere with others then I don't really care what they believe. It's easy to have this perspective if religious fundamentalism has not had a major impact on your life. However, if your parents were religious fundamentalists, you would likely view things in a different light (or, more likely, you'd be just as religious as them). Mine are, and I enjoyed a childhood characterized by a morbid fear of eternal damnation, church twice weekly, private Christian school to ensure that I did not come into contact with peers from less- or non-religious households, and a total abhorrence of modern science and particularly evolution. However, my parents are intelligent people - it was not their fault they were both born into religious households - and they instilled in me a great love of reading, which backfired for them because, as a science/computer geek, I eventually started in on science books and started to question everything. For me it was like a great window of truth opened on the world and suddenly, everything made sense - and was also so much better than I had been taught. Of course, that caused no end of problems within my family, in part because I passed along my newfound knowledge to my younger siblings. Dawkins would have been proud of me as a young adolescent. Most of my friends from those days never read what I read, and they carry on in the same fundamentalist, "the earth is 6,000 years old and homosexuality is evil" fantasy land. And of course, they indoctrinate their children just as thoroughly as they were indoctrinated. Religion excels at that. Meanwhile, my parents, who I love dearly, are still convinced they are both heading for an eternity burning in hell because they have yet to experience the born-again moment that Protestant Christians pine for. The problem, I think, is that they are too honest with themselves. They really just need that single powerful religious moment (aka hallucination) that they would get if they fasted for three days and prayed continually in a closet, but they haven't had it. So these dear, sweet, kind and incredibly honest and ethical people are still plagued by the morbid fear I managed to cast off as an adolescent. Just because people are "good" doesn't mean that the religious beliefs that have taken over their lives are not damaging to the lives of others and particularly children. I would take Dawkins' earnest, educated, rational and well-meaning brand of urgent atheism over fundamentalist religion any day.
  - xavoy 15y ago
    Earnest, educated, rational. Yes, these words might describe Dawkins, but well-meaning? I agree that indoctrination into a fundamentalist religion probably doesn't give a child the best chance at a happy, well balanced life. I think it is important that science continues to be made available, and people like Dawkins make it not only available, but easily digestible and understandable. But seriously, running around the world, telling people they are "idiots" and to "f*ck off" if they don't see the world the way he does? Doesn't sound very well-meaning to me.
- Xurinos 15y ago
  As a Christian... I wish everyone would agree not to call it "fundamentalism". There is nothing fundamental about the views of this subset of Christians. The term is pure marketing, wild enough for good TV and, thus, wild enough to acquire impressionable followers, and the beliefs are not fundamental. I see the stance against evolution as just a form of We vs They, a political tool more than religious, unnecessary for Christianity at large, and damaging to the religion in the long run if it persists. I have seen it create stupidity in otherwise fairly intelligent individuals because they want to be seen as part of the group, not ostracized from their equally-susceptible peers. For similar reasons, I have had friends reject the religion entirely, as they do not want to be a part of this insanity. As for me, it is another nail in the coffin of my interest in the organization aspects.
- niete 15y ago
  > Not necessarily this article, but generally, and especially listening to him talk live (radio, conferences etc) Richard Dawkins is arrogant and pig headed. It's kind of ironic that by dedicating his life to setting them straight, Dawkins has become as much of a fundamentalist evangelist as the religious fundamentalists he spends his time mocking. Hardly. Dawkins can be very blunt, be he is hardly a fundamentalist. How do you think he should act?
  - xavoy 15y ago
    With compassion and respect. He is an evolutionary biologist, so he should make what he knows about evolutionary biology available. Tell people about it, write books, grant interviews, attend conferences and seminars and host talks about his ideas. But show some respect. At the end of the day, no matter how loopy or wacky a persons beliefs are, they deserve respect. There is just no need to go around calling people "idiots" or telling them to "fk off" if they don't want to take on his world view.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      Respect is earned. If we were to all accept your premise that respect is a right, then it would hold no real meaning.
- sgentle 15y ago
  Argh. This makes my blood boil. There are many good responses to this comment but I want to address one idea in particular: the idea that by putting things in the same category you can make them equal. It's terribly poetic to say that Dawkins, in his opposition to fundamentalism, has become a fundamentalist himself. But poetic doesn't mean true, and this particular trope abuses poetry for deceptive ends. Let us exhaust this "fundamentalism" idea. What does fundamentalism mean? Does it mean strongly believing in something? Does it mean accepting that thing as true? Am I a fundamentalist gravitarian because I tell everyone who asks that gravity is true? Any definition of fundamentalism as "strong belief that something is true" is so common as to be useless. But that's not quite what's happening here. You might characterise a fundamentalist belief in God as one that would brook no counter-argument. A stronger definition than before: "belief that something is true that accepts no evidence to the contrary". Does Dawkins believe that? Let's ask him: "I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere. We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. [...] My belief in evolution is not fundamentalism, and it is not faith, because I know what it would take to change my mind, and I would gladly do so if the necessary evidence were forthcoming." This is from his book The God Delusion, which I infer that you haven't read. I don't blame you - I put it off until last year because I had heard that Dawkins was uppity and confrontational. I can't speak to who benefits by that impression, but it is fiction. The book is, if utterly uncompromising, extremely polite and calm in tone. Dawkins treats religion with neither kid gloves nor boxing gloves. His intent isn't to injure, it's to challenge. It frustrates me so much that people repeat mistaken ideas like "Dawkins is a fundamentalist" even while he seems to take such great pains to make his points clear. People who are not familiar with his work or his opinions accuse him for things he's never said. To gleefully point out that a biologist and someone who mutilates female genitals for a living are both "fundamentalists" is not clever. It's a deceptive attempt to make unequal things equal by putting them in the same category. You echo that idea in your earlier allusion that people should be left to believe what they believe. Can I label anything as a belief and therefore make it equally valid? Is a 'belief' that man was created by ejaculating into a river equally valid to a 'belief' that the total momentum within a closed system will remain constant? We can do better, and you owe it to yourself to do better. I know disagreement isn't in vogue, and it might not win you friends at parties, but it's the intellectually honest thing to do. Please, read Dawkins' work. Disagree with him if you like, but at least don't do it out of ignorance. Feel free to start with "Fundamentalism and the Subversion of Science", the entire chapter of The God Delusion dedicated to your "fundamentalists are equal" argument.
fecklessyouth 15y ago
Isn't the idea that the human race is progressing intellectually a remnant of Enlightenment philosophy? Espousing that is hardly bashing orthodoxy.
- barry-cotter 15y ago
  No, the idea that the human race is progressing morally is a highly contentious bit of Enlightenment philosophy. The fact that we can have this conversation over the freaking internet is ample proof that humanity is progressing intellectually, given that it requires an insane amount of distributed knowledge and capabilities that didn't exist when the Enlightenment was beginning.
TheRevoltingX 15y ago
This isn't reddit, this isn't related to programming or even computers. Yes, I'm Christian and I find this guy annoying. As a programmer though, I couldn't care less about him.
- freemarketteddy 15y ago
  this isnt the programming subreddit either....nowhere has it been ruled that Hacker News discussions will strictly be programming related....I understand that this annoys you but please dont be dogmatic!
  - TheRevoltingX 15y ago
    I should have been more precise. This has nothing to do with hacking. Dawkings is not attempting to disprove God in any consistent way. He makes up ideas of God and provides proof against them. There are no historical facts, no translations of scripture, etc. Post about him are usually nothing more than annoying rants against his own ideas of what God is. He is not hacking at biological molecules, nor is he constructing anything out of them. I'm a technical person, and if something that has nothing to do with hacking gets posted on a hacking forum. I get annoyed.
- davesims 15y ago
  Hacker is a state of mind, a kind of deep curiosity about how things work and what I can do about it. This topic, therefore, is about the ultimate hack...why are we here, how does the world work and what can I do about it?
  - TheRevoltingX 15y ago
    So I can post any writings on the bible because it hacks at it? It is after all in the same spirit. Would that be as well received? This is precisely why Dawkins annoys me. He doesn't offer a systematic approach to determining the existence of God. That is, he grabs at random floating information, not the bible or any trusted source. He makes up his own version of God that he's convinced doesn't exist. p.s. Wow, looks like defending Jesus got me so many downvotes that it got my account demoted. And they call Christians dogmatic.
FD3SA 15y ago
I must preface this comment with a personal note: Dr. Dawkins is the reason I understand biology, evolution, and all living things. I have read all of his books on evolution, including The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, and many others. This being said, I have always been appalled by Dawkins' deeply ironic crusade against religion. The simplest explanation for the widespread phenomenon of organized religion is best described by none other than Dawkins himself: Religion is a vestigial extended phenotype. Dawkins popularized the idea of an extended phenotype. This theory postulates that the phenotypic effects of genes are not restricted to a single organism. In effect, certain gene expressions could result in behaviours which affected the said gene's rate of survival. This is a profound theory, because it posits a very strong evolutionary foundation for human socialization and behaviour. As discussed in Robert Wright's "A Moral Animal", and Matt Ridley's "The Red Queen", among many other works, recent evidence has made Dawkins' extended phenotype theory extremely plausible. Thus, if we are to analyse religion from the view that it is a set of behaviours which maximizes a set of genes' reproductive success, everything begins making a great deal of sense. Paradoxically, if Dawkins used his his own theories to explain the phenotypic phenomenon that is organized religion, he'd have the vast support network of evolutionary scientists around the globe who would provide endless empirical examples[1] to validate his theory. Yet, Dawkins continues to treat religion as a philosophy, and attempts to tackle it philosophically. As many philosophers have pointed out, this is not Dawkins' strong point and he comes off sounding like an extremely misinformed amateur at best, and an inflammatory pundit at worst. Furthermore, it is the scientific explanation of religion which is likely to be the most useful and profound, and as Ridley, Wright, and many others have demonstrated, what we can learn from these insights are far more pertinent to the human condition than Dawkins' misplaced philosophical crusade. I sincerely hope Dr. Dawkins sees the unbelievable irony in his approach, and addresses it promptly. As one of the most popular scientists in media today, he could reverse a great deal of enmity that various religious groups have developed towards scientists and the scientific community. Scientific illiteracy is the greatest enemy of our time, and I do believe Dawkins is making the issue much worse by inflaming the public with his misinformed rhetoric. Science has explained every natural phenomena known to man, and its explanatory power is only growing as we gather new empirical evidence. There is a growing body of research which demonstrates that all human behaviour is guided by a deep evolutionary purpose. This is especially true of religious behaviours which are widespread and have severe fitness costs. Religious behaviours are thus best understood as a vestigial extended phenotype, and not as an ontological philosophy. [1]. http://evolution-of-religion.com/publications/ http://evolution-of-religion.com/publications/
abredow 15y ago
Ha, I did not know that he had a forthcoming children's book! This should be good.
shithead 15y ago
Would this "bashing" be tolerated against any group other than Christians? The 'intellectual fight' for 'enlightenment' is the thin veneer the anticlerical Jacobins lay on their murderous ideology. Loot the Church, rape the nuns, kill the christians - started here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vend%C3%A9e http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vend%C3%A9e, repeated too many times in many places over the last couple of centuries. And when their legitimate heirs Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot murder a few score million people, these Jacobins start talking about the "crimes of the Inquisition". Good going.
- freemarketteddy 15y ago
  > Would this "bashing" be tolerated against any group other than Christians? Yes..A lot of groups are more tolerant than Christians(on average)...but if you assume that the only 'groups' that exist are Abrahamic religions only then your hypothesis would be true.
davesims 15y ago
Dawkins doesn't bother me any more than any other atheist I've read. The fact that he lives and is popular in my time makes him no more threatening to my faith than Thomas Paine, Voltaire, Lucretius, A.J. Ayer or Bertrand Russell. I know where my faith fits in the history of ideas, and I'm comfortable in the capacious intellectual house it affords me. Dawkins is amusing at best, annoying at worst. As a philosophical atheistic thinker I find he's small beer indeed and I'd rather read Nietzsche. In my own intellectual journey (not necessarily the same as my journey of faith), I find no attraction to reductionism of any kind. It's always seemed to me a truncated worldview, artificial and strained, ignoring the real content of our deepest intuitions of meaning, beauty, love and justice. I side with Plato and Cicero contra Lucretius, Aquinas contra Bacon, etc. (yes, Bacon was a Christian, I disagree with his metaphysics). I believe the Scientific Revolution was a necessary reform on the excesses of Aristotelian Physics, but in many ways we through the baby out with the bathwater when we chucked Formal and Final causes out by fiat. But that's another discussion... I write that preface to provide some context on what my real concern is with regards to Dawkins and the legions of young enthusiastic atheists that I run into, in person and on the web: the absolute philosophical illiteracy of so many naively confident advocates of reductionist science and the silly caricatures of faith they hold to. Mostly what I find in this generation of non-believer is not reflective, self-conscious atheism but rather an inherited, brittle and angry atheism that assumes the final triumph of reductionist materialist science has been accomplished. For these dogmatics the mere existence of faith or religion of any kind is really appalling and a cause for anger and aggression. There's simply no difference between, say, Wendell Berry and Pat Robertson, C.S. Lewis and Jerry Falwell, Dostoevsky and Fred Phelps. It's just flat strange and saddening to me, to know that there are those who truly think that the Santa Clause analogy would have been devastating to St. Augustine or Tolstoy or Tolkien. That the existence of reflective intellectual Christians like Annie Dilliard, Flannery O' Connor or Walker Percy so long after Darwin is merely an anomaly to be ignored. This kind of naivety makes not only for fruitless engagement across the theistic/atheistic boundaries, but for increasing hostility and social disintegration. When I read Dawkins and those that find his simplistic reductions of religion intellectually appealing, I'm not offended as a believer, I'm not threatened intellectually, but I am discouraged about the future of community. If the main participants in the the great God Debate (which is really no more acute now than at any other time in history, and probably a good bit less than late 19th Century Britain at least) don't have the intellectual resources or emotional charity required for deep engagement of such a weighty matter, then we not only have more anger, hostility and misunderstanding, but we become more impoverished in our self-understanding on both sides.
cappsjulian1 15y ago
"You're not a whole person unless you read enough science...to understand why you exist in the first place."
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- davesims 15y ago
  Fair enough point. Both sides tend to exaggerate their own martyrdom. Atheists are treated appallingly in many quarters of society, and for that the anger is understandable. And if you're referring to my post (re: dismissing atheism) then I didn't express well enough that I was discouraged about the kind of atheism I run into all too often, that seems either angry or merely out to tweak and provoke rather than discuss. I have tremendous respect for many strands of atheism. Nietzsche had a staggering integrity, his writing still amazes me. I have had many great conversations over many good beers with thoughtful atheists. I don't dismiss it -- I want to understand it mostly. I don't 'get' atheism the same way they don't 'get' me, but that's ok. Bar's still open and we can keep talkin. That's the kind of discussion I was trying to advocate.
tzs 15y ago
As an atheist, I am uncomfortable with Dawkins' brand of atheism. It can get too close to the Thought Police for my liking. See this article of his: http://boingboing.net/2011/01/24/should-employers-be.html http://boingboing.net/2011/01/24/should-employers-be.html If a scientist is producing good research that is getting published in peer reviewed journals and is generally acknowledged to be contributing to the advancement of the field, I don't care how weird his personal beliefs are.
- tuxcanfly 15y ago
  If educating people is though-policing, so be it.
- tallanvor 15y ago
  I think the concern Dawkins tries to show in that article is that it is very difficult to trust people with religious beliefs in certain fields because those beliefs necessarily introduce a bias.
  - xavoy 15y ago
    Everyone is bias. Even if you are an Atheist you are bias. You have a cultural bias, a sexual bias, etc etc. Your everyday experiences condition you to react to particular situations in particular ways. Obviously sometimes people have a vested interest in the results of a study, but that's something different, and doesn't only apply to people of faith.
  - mmavnn 15y ago
    It has to said that Dawkins is one of the most heavily baised authors I've ever read. It makes it very difficult to trust his arguments about other religions, because he is so heavily biased towards his own... (and yes, I do think that when atheists hold such closed views as Dawkins that they are effectively religious).
jorangreef 15y ago
The argument often centers on evolution vs creationism. Yet Atheists and Christians would do well to pay more attention to Christ's resurrection, did it happen in history? Are there primary and secondary sources? How many of these sources are independent of each other and to what degree are they coherent, neutral, biased or opposed? How soon after the event were they written? Have they survived intact? As the apostles themselves declared: "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead." - 1 Corinthians 15:14-15
jorangreef 15y ago
Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, Mao's China: all examples of states who have exemplified Dawkin's anti-religious secularization and education in the utmost extreme. Thought-policing and religious intolerance have always lead to the massacre of countless thousands.
- ceejayoz 15y ago
  Stalin, Hitler, and Mao replaced (or in Hitler's case, supplemented) religion with cults of personality that might as well be called religion. This is a far cry from what Dawkins advocates - free thought.

129 points by dctoedt 15y ago

xavoy 15y ago

I'm not a Christian, Muslim or Jew. I don't believe in God. I find it slightly unnerving that there's still religious fundamentalists out there that flatly refuse to accept scientific evidence of evolution and more, and yet... I can't stand Richard Dawkins. I know that there's some dangerous ideas put out there by fundamentalists, but for the most part, if they stick to themselves and are generally good people who don't interfere with others then I don't really care what they believe. Not necessarily this article, but generally, and especially listening to him talk live (radio, conferences etc) Richard Dawkins is arrogant and pig headed. It's kind of ironic that by dedicating his life to setting them straight, Dawkins has become as much of a fundamentalist evangelist as the religious fundamentalists he spends his time mocking.

5hoom 15y ago
This is pretty much my take on Richard Dawkins. I remember when "The God Delusion" was a hot topic hearing groups of otherwise intelligent people hi-fiving each other over how smart they were because they were atheists, & how COMPLETELY WRONG religion of any kind is. Maybe I just got all my anti-religious rage out of my system early in my life, but observing people carry on like the very fundamentalists they claim to despise (but it's ok, cuz we're secular!) is very disappointing.
- pjscott 15y ago
  If smugness and self-congratulation were the problem with fundamentalists, then the world would be a much better place. If it hadn't been for one really good science teacher, nobody at the high school I attended would have been taught about evolution. Large voting blocs are swayed into furious action by talk of "the sodomite agenda". I realize that a lot of people live in pretty secular areas, and can pretend that circlejerking is the only real problem with religious nuts, but that's just not true.
logjam 15y ago
I've listened to Richard Dawkins debate live several times. In no instance have I ever heard him being anything other than perfectly gracious, even when being repeatedly personally attacked, so I'm having a hard time understanding your criticism of him - which amounts to calling him names.
- 5hoom 15y ago
  Why don't you ask Rebecca Watson (co-host of The Skeptics Guide To The Universe) what she thinks of him? There was an incident at a recent skeptics conference where Watson was accosted & hit on by an attendee in the small hours of the morning while riding an elevator. She used her podcast & blog to describe the incident, hinting that maybe hitting on an un-escorted female in the middle of the night while the two of you are stuck in an elevator together is a good way to make said female feel vulnerable & uncomfortable. Well, Dawkins wen't on to have a foaming at the mouth tirade about how she was carrying on like a hypothetical hysterical muslim woman who was all offended by being offered a coffee and that she should just toughen up. He was rightly slammed by many for this, but the guy sounds like a dick to me. [edit: in response to reply] I understand his message. I also think he was "foaming at the mouth" and a "dick". I am an atheist. I am also not so besotted by the cult of personality that I can't see past Dawkins contributions & still think he's a dick. [edit edit: after some thought] On reflection calling Richard Dawkins a "dick" is not the right thing to do. Replace "a dick" with "an insensitive man".
  - logjam 15y ago
    I see. The parent characterized Dawkins as "arrogant" and "pig headed", and now you've characterized him as "foaming at the mouth", on a "tirade" and a "dick". You've also misstated his argument. We get it. Many hate his message and because they can't argue coherently against that message, they mostly just call him names.
    - DarkShikari 15y ago
      What about people who agree with his message, but still think he's a dick? Are they not allowed to exist? Dawkins is an intelligent atheist skeptic, but he's also an incredibly sexist, insensitive ass whom many believe is consistently hurting the cause he claims to promote. You're allowed to think the latter even if you largely agree with his opinions as an atheist skeptic.
jamesbritt 15y ago
I know that there's some dangerous ideas put out there by fundamentalists, but for the most part, if they stick to themselves and are generally good people who don't interfere with others ... If only. When Dawkins et al get their own worldwide television networks and suitably sized fund-raising and political infrastructure then I'll entertain the idea that atheist advocates are anywhere near like that of the fundamentalists.
- robertk 15y ago
  I agree. Here's why that will never happen (and I'm sure you know this): Only the mistaken need proclaim their philosophy with grandiloquence. It is painful for atheists to proselytize with the only effective mechanism--propaganda--as it is a cognitive dissonance. The psychological truth is that the young mind is highly pliable and choice of religion is an axiom--unlike a formal system, the human mind has no need for internal logical consistency. For some large percentage of people, the only effective method is propaganda and indoctrination--an unfortunate irony.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
jarin 15y ago
It may be insensitive to be so blunt about it, but I think the longer you're an atheist the harder it gets to keep a "live and let live" attitude. I liken it to having a friend who truly, sincerely believes in Santa Claus. At first, you might just laugh it off as a harmless quirk. But as time goes on, and every day you're hearing about Santa Claus this and he won't stop going off about whether or not he's on the Naughty or Nice list this year, you might start to tactfully point out some of the flaws in his belief. How fast would Santa need to go to cover the entire world in one night? Why has there never been a photograph of Santa? What about people who don't celebrate Christmas? Your friend laughs, and explains that you need to have more faith in Santa Claus, and that if you don't watch out you're going to be on the Naughty List. And now every time you go out for a drink your friend is telling people about Santa Claus, and he's posting Santa-related links on your Facebook wall. How long can you put up with that before you just snap?
- stephen_g 15y ago
  You could liken it to that, but you're using a logical fallacy (it's both a straw man and a reductio ad ridiculum).
  - jarin 15y ago
    Haha yes, you're totally correct. It was intended more as an illustrative analogy than a formal point of debate, but I take your point.
  - jarin 15y ago
    On second thought, I would dispute calling it a reductio ad ridiculum. We obviously share the opinion that serious belief in Santa Claus as an adult is ridiculous, but in reality belief in Santa Claus and belief in God share equal amounts of supporting evidence.
Xetrill 15y ago
Being a religious fundamentalist and good person who does not interfere with others, well those don't go together, at all. If you honestly think that is possible, you should seriously rethink your stance. Whether you tolerate them or not is meaningless, they cannot tolerate you, because of what you don't believe in. You might wanna learn to recognize an enemy when you see one. Edit 1: Relevant to my point (Sam Harris) http://www.youtube.com/user/Xetrill?feature=mhee#p/c/F25A63E02E561014/0/FHHOiF-dFEg http://www.youtube.com/user/Xetrill?feature=mhee#p/c/F25A63E... Edit 2: To the Rebecca Watson point (TheAmazingAtheist): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqU9JFbtucU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqU9JFbtucU
abless 15y ago
If you're describing Dawkins as fundamentalist, then you either a) don't know much about him, and what he stands for, or b) have a grave understanding of what fundamentalism means. It bothers me that Dawkins gets that accusation that often, when it's clearly false.
- xavoy 15y ago
  According to Wikipedia, Fundamentalism is the "strict adherence to specific theological doctrines". According to my dictionary, the definition of theological is "Of or relating to or concerning theology". Atheism, according to Wikipedia again, is "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." It seems to me then that I could argue that one could be an "Atheist Fundamentalist" although that wasn't my point. I was using the term liberally, and by way of analogy. My point was that it is this stubborn adherence to a particular point of view that got Dawkins so fired up in the first place. And, although _I agree_ with Dawkins point of view, traveling the world telling people they are "idiots" for not thinking in a particular way is just as bad, or worse. Even if it is a view backed up by science. This video posted by Hacker News member 'robertk' gives you a good idea of Dawkins general attitude: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik
  - lyudmil 15y ago
    It is not just as bad. It is not worse. As you concede, Professor Dawkins' views are backed (and, in fact, a product of) science. This means that to the extent that anyone can be right or wrong about anything, Richard Dawkins is correct in his arguments. Maybe he isn't civil in the way he confronts people who disagree. Maybe he's ineffective in convincing them. Those are things that are important to you personally, but you're letting that distract you from the fact that what he's saying is true, which ought to be the only thing that matters. In a way, I think this is a major way you and people who share your attitude towards Richard Dawkins miss what is perhaps the most poignant part of his message. His crassness is actually a rebellion against the passivity and political correctness that he feels constrains non-believers socially and politically. The crux of his message is a call to arms to those people, encouraging them to deny religion the automatic respect it has enjoyed for centuries. To say that he isn't meek enough in delivering this message is undercutting it's core.
adriand 15y ago
> I know that there's some dangerous ideas put out there by fundamentalists, but for the most part, if they stick to themselves and are generally good people who don't interfere with others then I don't really care what they believe. It's easy to have this perspective if religious fundamentalism has not had a major impact on your life. However, if your parents were religious fundamentalists, you would likely view things in a different light (or, more likely, you'd be just as religious as them). Mine are, and I enjoyed a childhood characterized by a morbid fear of eternal damnation, church twice weekly, private Christian school to ensure that I did not come into contact with peers from less- or non-religious households, and a total abhorrence of modern science and particularly evolution. However, my parents are intelligent people - it was not their fault they were both born into religious households - and they instilled in me a great love of reading, which backfired for them because, as a science/computer geek, I eventually started in on science books and started to question everything. For me it was like a great window of truth opened on the world and suddenly, everything made sense - and was also so much better than I had been taught. Of course, that caused no end of problems within my family, in part because I passed along my newfound knowledge to my younger siblings. Dawkins would have been proud of me as a young adolescent. Most of my friends from those days never read what I read, and they carry on in the same fundamentalist, "the earth is 6,000 years old and homosexuality is evil" fantasy land. And of course, they indoctrinate their children just as thoroughly as they were indoctrinated. Religion excels at that. Meanwhile, my parents, who I love dearly, are still convinced they are both heading for an eternity burning in hell because they have yet to experience the born-again moment that Protestant Christians pine for. The problem, I think, is that they are too honest with themselves. They really just need that single powerful religious moment (aka hallucination) that they would get if they fasted for three days and prayed continually in a closet, but they haven't had it. So these dear, sweet, kind and incredibly honest and ethical people are still plagued by the morbid fear I managed to cast off as an adolescent. Just because people are "good" doesn't mean that the religious beliefs that have taken over their lives are not damaging to the lives of others and particularly children. I would take Dawkins' earnest, educated, rational and well-meaning brand of urgent atheism over fundamentalist religion any day.
- xavoy 15y ago
  Earnest, educated, rational. Yes, these words might describe Dawkins, but well-meaning? I agree that indoctrination into a fundamentalist religion probably doesn't give a child the best chance at a happy, well balanced life. I think it is important that science continues to be made available, and people like Dawkins make it not only available, but easily digestible and understandable. But seriously, running around the world, telling people they are "idiots" and to "f*ck off" if they don't see the world the way he does? Doesn't sound very well-meaning to me.
Xurinos 15y ago
As a Christian... I wish everyone would agree not to call it "fundamentalism". There is nothing fundamental about the views of this subset of Christians. The term is pure marketing, wild enough for good TV and, thus, wild enough to acquire impressionable followers, and the beliefs are not fundamental. I see the stance against evolution as just a form of We vs They, a political tool more than religious, unnecessary for Christianity at large, and damaging to the religion in the long run if it persists. I have seen it create stupidity in otherwise fairly intelligent individuals because they want to be seen as part of the group, not ostracized from their equally-susceptible peers. For similar reasons, I have had friends reject the religion entirely, as they do not want to be a part of this insanity. As for me, it is another nail in the coffin of my interest in the organization aspects.
niete 15y ago
> Not necessarily this article, but generally, and especially listening to him talk live (radio, conferences etc) Richard Dawkins is arrogant and pig headed. It's kind of ironic that by dedicating his life to setting them straight, Dawkins has become as much of a fundamentalist evangelist as the religious fundamentalists he spends his time mocking. Hardly. Dawkins can be very blunt, be he is hardly a fundamentalist. How do you think he should act?
- xavoy 15y ago
  With compassion and respect. He is an evolutionary biologist, so he should make what he knows about evolutionary biology available. Tell people about it, write books, grant interviews, attend conferences and seminars and host talks about his ideas. But show some respect. At the end of the day, no matter how loopy or wacky a persons beliefs are, they deserve respect. There is just no need to go around calling people "idiots" or telling them to "fk off" if they don't want to take on his world view.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    Respect is earned. If we were to all accept your premise that respect is a right, then it would hold no real meaning.
sgentle 15y ago
Argh. This makes my blood boil. There are many good responses to this comment but I want to address one idea in particular: the idea that by putting things in the same category you can make them equal. It's terribly poetic to say that Dawkins, in his opposition to fundamentalism, has become a fundamentalist himself. But poetic doesn't mean true, and this particular trope abuses poetry for deceptive ends. Let us exhaust this "fundamentalism" idea. What does fundamentalism mean? Does it mean strongly believing in something? Does it mean accepting that thing as true? Am I a fundamentalist gravitarian because I tell everyone who asks that gravity is true? Any definition of fundamentalism as "strong belief that something is true" is so common as to be useless. But that's not quite what's happening here. You might characterise a fundamentalist belief in God as one that would brook no counter-argument. A stronger definition than before: "belief that something is true that accepts no evidence to the contrary". Does Dawkins believe that? Let's ask him: "I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere. We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. [...] My belief in evolution is not fundamentalism, and it is not faith, because I know what it would take to change my mind, and I would gladly do so if the necessary evidence were forthcoming." This is from his book The God Delusion, which I infer that you haven't read. I don't blame you - I put it off until last year because I had heard that Dawkins was uppity and confrontational. I can't speak to who benefits by that impression, but it is fiction. The book is, if utterly uncompromising, extremely polite and calm in tone. Dawkins treats religion with neither kid gloves nor boxing gloves. His intent isn't to injure, it's to challenge. It frustrates me so much that people repeat mistaken ideas like "Dawkins is a fundamentalist" even while he seems to take such great pains to make his points clear. People who are not familiar with his work or his opinions accuse him for things he's never said. To gleefully point out that a biologist and someone who mutilates female genitals for a living are both "fundamentalists" is not clever. It's a deceptive attempt to make unequal things equal by putting them in the same category. You echo that idea in your earlier allusion that people should be left to believe what they believe. Can I label anything as a belief and therefore make it equally valid? Is a 'belief' that man was created by ejaculating into a river equally valid to a 'belief' that the total momentum within a closed system will remain constant? We can do better, and you owe it to yourself to do better. I know disagreement isn't in vogue, and it might not win you friends at parties, but it's the intellectually honest thing to do. Please, read Dawkins' work. Disagree with him if you like, but at least don't do it out of ignorance. Feel free to start with "Fundamentalism and the Subversion of Science", the entire chapter of The God Delusion dedicated to your "fundamentalists are equal" argument.

fecklessyouth 15y ago

Isn't the idea that the human race is progressing intellectually a remnant of Enlightenment philosophy? Espousing that is hardly bashing orthodoxy.

barry-cotter 15y ago
No, the idea that the human race is progressing morally is a highly contentious bit of Enlightenment philosophy. The fact that we can have this conversation over the freaking internet is ample proof that humanity is progressing intellectually, given that it requires an insane amount of distributed knowledge and capabilities that didn't exist when the Enlightenment was beginning.

TheRevoltingX 15y ago

This isn't reddit, this isn't related to programming or even computers. Yes, I'm Christian and I find this guy annoying. As a programmer though, I couldn't care less about him.

freemarketteddy 15y ago
this isnt the programming subreddit either....nowhere has it been ruled that Hacker News discussions will strictly be programming related....I understand that this annoys you but please dont be dogmatic!
- TheRevoltingX 15y ago
  I should have been more precise. This has nothing to do with hacking. Dawkings is not attempting to disprove God in any consistent way. He makes up ideas of God and provides proof against them. There are no historical facts, no translations of scripture, etc. Post about him are usually nothing more than annoying rants against his own ideas of what God is. He is not hacking at biological molecules, nor is he constructing anything out of them. I'm a technical person, and if something that has nothing to do with hacking gets posted on a hacking forum. I get annoyed.
davesims 15y ago
Hacker is a state of mind, a kind of deep curiosity about how things work and what I can do about it. This topic, therefore, is about the ultimate hack...why are we here, how does the world work and what can I do about it?
- TheRevoltingX 15y ago
  So I can post any writings on the bible because it hacks at it? It is after all in the same spirit. Would that be as well received? This is precisely why Dawkins annoys me. He doesn't offer a systematic approach to determining the existence of God. That is, he grabs at random floating information, not the bible or any trusted source. He makes up his own version of God that he's convinced doesn't exist. p.s. Wow, looks like defending Jesus got me so many downvotes that it got my account demoted. And they call Christians dogmatic.

FD3SA 15y ago

I must preface this comment with a personal note: Dr. Dawkins is the reason I understand biology, evolution, and all living things. I have read all of his books on evolution, including The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, and many others. This being said, I have always been appalled by Dawkins' deeply ironic crusade against religion. The simplest explanation for the widespread phenomenon of organized religion is best described by none other than Dawkins himself: Religion is a vestigial extended phenotype. Dawkins popularized the idea of an extended phenotype. This theory postulates that the phenotypic effects of genes are not restricted to a single organism. In effect, certain gene expressions could result in behaviours which affected the said gene's rate of survival. This is a profound theory, because it posits a very strong evolutionary foundation for human socialization and behaviour. As discussed in Robert Wright's "A Moral Animal", and Matt Ridley's "The Red Queen", among many other works, recent evidence has made Dawkins' extended phenotype theory extremely plausible. Thus, if we are to analyse religion from the view that it is a set of behaviours which maximizes a set of genes' reproductive success, everything begins making a great deal of sense. Paradoxically, if Dawkins used his his own theories to explain the phenotypic phenomenon that is organized religion, he'd have the vast support network of evolutionary scientists around the globe who would provide endless empirical examples[1] to validate his theory. Yet, Dawkins continues to treat religion as a philosophy, and attempts to tackle it philosophically. As many philosophers have pointed out, this is not Dawkins' strong point and he comes off sounding like an extremely misinformed amateur at best, and an inflammatory pundit at worst. Furthermore, it is the scientific explanation of religion which is likely to be the most useful and profound, and as Ridley, Wright, and many others have demonstrated, what we can learn from these insights are far more pertinent to the human condition than Dawkins' misplaced philosophical crusade. I sincerely hope Dr. Dawkins sees the unbelievable irony in his approach, and addresses it promptly. As one of the most popular scientists in media today, he could reverse a great deal of enmity that various religious groups have developed towards scientists and the scientific community. Scientific illiteracy is the greatest enemy of our time, and I do believe Dawkins is making the issue much worse by inflaming the public with his misinformed rhetoric. Science has explained every natural phenomena known to man, and its explanatory power is only growing as we gather new empirical evidence. There is a growing body of research which demonstrates that all human behaviour is guided by a deep evolutionary purpose. This is especially true of religious behaviours which are widespread and have severe fitness costs. Religious behaviours are thus best understood as a vestigial extended phenotype, and not as an ontological philosophy. [1]. http://evolution-of-religion.com/publications/ http://evolution-of-religion.com/publications/

abredow 15y ago

Ha, I did not know that he had a forthcoming children's book! This should be good.

shithead 15y ago

Would this "bashing" be tolerated against any group other than Christians? The 'intellectual fight' for 'enlightenment' is the thin veneer the anticlerical Jacobins lay on their murderous ideology. Loot the Church, rape the nuns, kill the christians - started here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vend%C3%A9e http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vend%C3%A9e, repeated too many times in many places over the last couple of centuries. And when their legitimate heirs Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot murder a few score million people, these Jacobins start talking about the "crimes of the Inquisition". Good going.

freemarketteddy 15y ago
> Would this "bashing" be tolerated against any group other than Christians? Yes..A lot of groups are more tolerant than Christians(on average)...but if you assume that the only 'groups' that exist are Abrahamic religions only then your hypothesis would be true.

davesims 15y ago

Dawkins doesn't bother me any more than any other atheist I've read. The fact that he lives and is popular in my time makes him no more threatening to my faith than Thomas Paine, Voltaire, Lucretius, A.J. Ayer or Bertrand Russell. I know where my faith fits in the history of ideas, and I'm comfortable in the capacious intellectual house it affords me. Dawkins is amusing at best, annoying at worst. As a philosophical atheistic thinker I find he's small beer indeed and I'd rather read Nietzsche. In my own intellectual journey (not necessarily the same as my journey of faith), I find no attraction to reductionism of any kind. It's always seemed to me a truncated worldview, artificial and strained, ignoring the real content of our deepest intuitions of meaning, beauty, love and justice. I side with Plato and Cicero contra Lucretius, Aquinas contra Bacon, etc. (yes, Bacon was a Christian, I disagree with his metaphysics). I believe the Scientific Revolution was a necessary reform on the excesses of Aristotelian Physics, but in many ways we through the baby out with the bathwater when we chucked Formal and Final causes out by fiat. But that's another discussion... I write that preface to provide some context on what my real concern is with regards to Dawkins and the legions of young enthusiastic atheists that I run into, in person and on the web: the absolute philosophical illiteracy of so many naively confident advocates of reductionist science and the silly caricatures of faith they hold to. Mostly what I find in this generation of non-believer is not reflective, self-conscious atheism but rather an inherited, brittle and angry atheism that assumes the final triumph of reductionist materialist science has been accomplished. For these dogmatics the mere existence of faith or religion of any kind is really appalling and a cause for anger and aggression. There's simply no difference between, say, Wendell Berry and Pat Robertson, C.S. Lewis and Jerry Falwell, Dostoevsky and Fred Phelps. It's just flat strange and saddening to me, to know that there are those who truly think that the Santa Clause analogy would have been devastating to St. Augustine or Tolstoy or Tolkien. That the existence of reflective intellectual Christians like Annie Dilliard, Flannery O' Connor or Walker Percy so long after Darwin is merely an anomaly to be ignored. This kind of naivety makes not only for fruitless engagement across the theistic/atheistic boundaries, but for increasing hostility and social disintegration. When I read Dawkins and those that find his simplistic reductions of religion intellectually appealing, I'm not offended as a believer, I'm not threatened intellectually, but I am discouraged about the future of community. If the main participants in the the great God Debate (which is really no more acute now than at any other time in history, and probably a good bit less than late 19th Century Britain at least) don't have the intellectual resources or emotional charity required for deep engagement of such a weighty matter, then we not only have more anger, hostility and misunderstanding, but we become more impoverished in our self-understanding on both sides.

cappsjulian1 15y ago

"You're not a whole person unless you read enough science...to understand why you exist in the first place."

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

davesims 15y ago
Fair enough point. Both sides tend to exaggerate their own martyrdom. Atheists are treated appallingly in many quarters of society, and for that the anger is understandable. And if you're referring to my post (re: dismissing atheism) then I didn't express well enough that I was discouraged about the kind of atheism I run into all too often, that seems either angry or merely out to tweak and provoke rather than discuss. I have tremendous respect for many strands of atheism. Nietzsche had a staggering integrity, his writing still amazes me. I have had many great conversations over many good beers with thoughtful atheists. I don't dismiss it -- I want to understand it mostly. I don't 'get' atheism the same way they don't 'get' me, but that's ok. Bar's still open and we can keep talkin. That's the kind of discussion I was trying to advocate.

tzs 15y ago

As an atheist, I am uncomfortable with Dawkins' brand of atheism. It can get too close to the Thought Police for my liking. See this article of his: http://boingboing.net/2011/01/24/should-employers-be.html http://boingboing.net/2011/01/24/should-employers-be.html If a scientist is producing good research that is getting published in peer reviewed journals and is generally acknowledged to be contributing to the advancement of the field, I don't care how weird his personal beliefs are.

tuxcanfly 15y ago
If educating people is though-policing, so be it.
tallanvor 15y ago
I think the concern Dawkins tries to show in that article is that it is very difficult to trust people with religious beliefs in certain fields because those beliefs necessarily introduce a bias.
- xavoy 15y ago
  Everyone is bias. Even if you are an Atheist you are bias. You have a cultural bias, a sexual bias, etc etc. Your everyday experiences condition you to react to particular situations in particular ways. Obviously sometimes people have a vested interest in the results of a study, but that's something different, and doesn't only apply to people of faith.
- mmavnn 15y ago
  It has to said that Dawkins is one of the most heavily baised authors I've ever read. It makes it very difficult to trust his arguments about other religions, because he is so heavily biased towards his own... (and yes, I do think that when atheists hold such closed views as Dawkins that they are effectively religious).

jorangreef 15y ago

The argument often centers on evolution vs creationism. Yet Atheists and Christians would do well to pay more attention to Christ's resurrection, did it happen in history? Are there primary and secondary sources? How many of these sources are independent of each other and to what degree are they coherent, neutral, biased or opposed? How soon after the event were they written? Have they survived intact? As the apostles themselves declared: "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead." - 1 Corinthians 15:14-15

jorangreef 15y ago

Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, Mao's China: all examples of states who have exemplified Dawkin's anti-religious secularization and education in the utmost extreme. Thought-policing and religious intolerance have always lead to the massacre of countless thousands.

ceejayoz 15y ago
Stalin, Hitler, and Mao replaced (or in Hitler's case, supplemented) religion with cults of personality that might as well be called religion. This is a far cry from what Dawkins advocates - free thought.