Richard Dawkins

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

What ever you think about Dawkins methods he has a goal, a reason for doing it, that is a bit more than laughing at people.

Hi Wicknight,

His reason for doing it? I've often heard it said that he does the 'bucket of cold water method'.....Forgive me, but this does sound like proselytzing in a weird, 'Science is great and we should all think like Spock...' kinda way.......Ignoring the fact that we are not all 'Vulcan' and don't want to be either.....However there is a vacuum in our knowledge and his bucket is overly ambitious with empty alternatives or answers.......He hasn't managed to 'touch' God.

You see this is the reason why people think he is arrogant. In effect, rather than demonstrate that faith and science are mutually exclusive.....His hyperbole only demonstrates that intelligence and arrogance are not mutually exclusive....

iUseVi

All this talk of arrogance, but is a little arrogance a bad thing? After all arrogance is just an excess of pride.

Soul Winner

Zulu wrote: »

Well, you see, it kinda is.
Diplomacy is an art from, and the language we use can be either diplomatic or not. Referring to something as a "brain fail" or "stupid" is going to provoke a negative reaction. You know this, and use it too effect, that effect is however your fault.

Dawkins could choose to make his arguments without provoking this reaction. His points can be perfectly succinct, and clearly obvious to those listening. His starts to loose people like myself once he chooses to intentionally insult those who are too ignorant or too fundamentally challenged to accept his points or those he just hasn't convinced.
The last 10% is always the hardest to get, but choosing to ridicule them just makes him unpalatable to a lot of other people.

Have you ever watched Louis Theroux? There is a fantastic example of how you can prove your point, exceptionally well, without insulting the "opposition". Now I understand I'm comparing an interviewer to a scientist, which isn't an exactly fair, however, the salient point here is in use of diplomacy.

And note: I'm not saying Dawkins (& other scientists) should be bound by diplomacy, however, we are all required to interact socially, and if one wishes to communicate successfully with a broader range, it's necessary.

No of course it's not. The arrogance come into it when we look at how one explains it as "stupid", and the deliberate use of the word "stupid". Why not explaine the "short commings" or "flaws" in the point? Unless one is looking to provkoe a reaction or insult.

I understand that, you were building a straw man.

Great points and really well articulated.

PDN

iUseVi wrote: »

All this talk of arrogance, but is a little arrogance a bad thing? After all arrogance is just an excess of pride.

A tsunami is just an excess of a wave, death by alcoholic poisoning is just an excess of beer, shaking a baby to death is just an excess of rocking it in your arms, and amputating your leg is just an excess of trimming your toenails. :pac:

Zombrex

Zulu wrote: »

Why do you choose to ignore the salient points?

I didn't.

Theroux goes after people who are nothing like mainstream. He uses "diplomacy" with them because it is the only way to get to film them and he doesn't have to do anything else, they end up making ridiculous fools of themselves on their own, such as the guy who claimed to talk to aliens



Dawkins isn't doing that, he is going after main stream entrenched views.

I'm sure Dawkins would be happy to use "diplomacy" if the subject ended up ridiculing themselves ad nausea, but if that was the case hardly anyone would be a theist in the same way that hardly anyone thinks they talk to aliens.

So it is not comparing like with like.

A better example is the new wave comedy in the late 70s and early 80s that challenged all the mainstream views about acceptable areas of comedy, and ended up ridiculing the heck out of the old guard working man's club style comedy and those who found it funny. They savagely destroyed that view point through ridicule and "consciousness raising"

In that case diplomacy was what irrelevant. If those comedians had used diploymacy we probably would see HMV stocked with rows of Bernard Manning DVDs each Christmas.

Zulu

iUseVi wrote: »

All this talk of arrogance, but is a little arrogance a bad thing? After all arrogance is just an excess of pride.

It's certainly not the worst crime - it's just in the origional context, the book really disappointed me. Thats all.:(

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

You see this is the reason why people think he is arrogant. In effect, rather than demonstrate that faith and science are mutually exclusive

I think he has demonstrated this to an awful lot of people.

But people with entrenched theistic views are never going to agree with this, so it is some what pointless to say Dawkins hasn't demonstrated this to them. He isn't trying to, he recognizes that it is pointless trying.

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

And ..... jackpot.

This is exactly what we have been arguing. That religion teaches you to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

You have just stated understanding the universe is not important because your religion is whats really important.

Thank you.

I have no problem with my religion teaching us that understanding the world is not as important than entering eternal life. But like I said to Wick in an earlier post, that does not mean that you have permission to make the jump from that to the Bible actively teaches that we shouldn't try to understand the world. Understanding the world is a wonderful endeavor but it is not more important than salvation. If you think that it is, then fine, but if I was forced to choose either or (which thankfully I'm not) I would choose the former.

drkpower

Zulu wrote: »

No of course it's not. The arrogance come into it when we look at how one explains it as "stupid", and the deliberate use of the word "stupid". Why not explaine the "short commings" or "flaws" in the point? Unless one is looking to provkoe a reaction or insult.

Yes, he is trying to provoke a reaction; and he has been hugely succesful, both from the religous and the silently irreligous. Whatever one feels about Dawkins, he has done an incredible service. He has gently removed the rock under which millions of silent atheists have been hiding. He has made atheism mainstream. That is a massive societal change. It is so so recent that atheism was a massive taboo - I certainly recall, in the 80s, as a teenager, believing it was akin to devil worship. The consequences of it will take a while; but it is quite clear. Secularism is on the rise and, in the 'west' at least, it will utterly dominate religon within a number of generations.

Of course, Dawkins isnt responsible for all of the above, but he will be looked on as a big stepping stone along the way. Whether he shows arrogance or not I am not sure, but I think he has good reason to be.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I have no problem with my religion teaching us that understanding the world is not as important than entering eternal life. But like I said to Wick in an earlier post, that does not mean that you have permission to make the jump from that to the Bible actively teaches that we shouldn't try to understand the world.

Which isn't what Dawkins quote said.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Understanding the world is a wonderful endeavor but it is not more important than salvation.

You hit the nail on the head there.

Zombrex

drkpower wrote: »

Yes, he is trying to provoke a reaction; and he has been hugely succesful, both from the religous and the silently irreligous. Whatever one feels about Dawkins, he has done an incredible service. He has gently removed the rock under which millions of silent atheists have been hiding. He has made atheism mainstream.

That is a good point. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of well known mainstream public figures in theism around the world who regularly discuss theistic issues and wider issues.

With atheism people call on Dawkins or Harris and some times, if there is wine involved, Hitchens.

People shouldn't under estimate the effect these guys have had in a very short time at brining atheism mainstream and making people not ashamed to hold the position of non-believe.

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

Secularism is on the rise and, in the 'west' at least, it will utterly dominate religon within a number of generations..

Where do religious secularists fit into your picture?

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a good point. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of well known mainstream public figures in theism around the world who regularly discuss theistic issues and wider issues..

Do they all base their arguments on the basis that those who differ from them have 'failed brains', have been brainwashed by parents, live wasted lives, are deluded etc etc?

Perhaps Dawkins should concentrate on atheism as a stand alone state of being. Instead he is curiously preoccupied with religion.

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

I think he has demonstrated this to an awful lot of people.

But people with entrenched theistic views are never going to agree with this, so it is some what pointless to say Dawkins hasn't demonstrated this to them. He isn't trying to, he recognizes that it is pointless trying.

Hi Wicknight,

Yes, reading the God Delusion, that seems to be the underlying driver to me....Perhaps he is trying to set atheism free? I don't know.... and sees a strong correlation with Science and Atheism...

It does sound a bit, "I want to set you free...." no?

The day 'Science' has a 'creed', I'll thank Clint Dawkins so....:D


However, the reason why I find it disappointing is his certainty that the only people who couldn't possibly be convinced are the thickos who are 'entrenched' as you say.......Which is obviously not true....

It sounds like a fabulous new way to introduce a new type of pc predjudice into a growing mainstream secular society....

Extremes???

'Live Long and Prosper '

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

Where do religious secularists fit into your picture?

Im not sure I have a picture!

Personally, I dont care what people believe - what I care about are the effects of belief. Therefore, as long as someone favours secular policies I welcome them fully into my picture!

There is an argument, for which I have some sympathy though (an argument made by Dawkins also, AFAIK..), that all religous people (even if they are secularists), provide a supportive matrix within which intolerant religon and fundamentalists prosper and that they should be sidelined/criticised/ridiculed also. They are the benign government that harbours Al-Quaeda, if you like, and that benign government should be treated harshly.

Personally, I dont go that far (yet!). Religon's influence on society has been so massive that an incremental approach is needed to rid us of it. And one of those increments is the cooperation between religious and secularist athesits. Most religous who favour secularism are almost there anyway and if they dont crack it eventually, their kids will.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

A tsunami is just an excess of a wave, death by alcoholic poisoning is just an excess of beer, shaking a baby to death is just an excess of rocking it in your arms, and amputating your leg is just an excess of trimming your toenails. :pac:

Good points. Except the last one, would like to see someone chop a leg off with those useless little nail thingys.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Hi Wicknight,

Yes, reading the God Delusion, that seems to be the underlying driver to me....Perhaps he is trying to set atheism free? I don't know.... and sees a strong correlation with Science and Atheism...

He is, he goes into detail in the first chapter about who the book is for.

Which is why it isn't surprising to find entrenched theists saying the book didn't convince them. It wasn't trying to.

It was for cultural Christians, those who don't really believe or think the whole thing sounds silly but who do not have support needed to articulate this or stand up and be counted.

He has likened it to the homosexual movement in the 60s and 70s where there were the same number of homosexuals as today but a lot were in the closet, embarrassed by society to actually say they were homosexual.

lmaopml wrote: »

However, the reason why I find it disappointing is his certainty that the only people who couldn't possibly be convinced are the thickos who are 'entrenched' as you say.......Which is obviously not true....

Really?

Do you have many examples of theists who have been convinced of atheism through argument?

Sam Vimes

Zulu wrote: »

Well, you see, it kinda is.
Diplomacy is an art from, and the language we use can be either diplomatic or not. Referring to something as a "brain fail" or "stupid" is going to provoke a negative reaction. You know this, and use it too effect, that effect is however your fault.

No of course it's not. The arrogance come into it when we look at how one explains it as "stupid", and the deliberate use of the word "stupid". Why not explaine the "short commings" or "flaws" in the point? Unless one is looking to provkoe a reaction or insult.

I don't think I was clear enough there. In cases like the "you can't prove god doesn't exist" argument it's not the act of calling the argument stupid that tends to offend, it's simply the mention of the flying spaghetti monster. They feel they are being "disrespected" and made to look ridiculous but the reality is that the actual reason they feel ridiculous is that they have just said something ridiculous and this has been pointed out to them. Imo if someone doesn't want to be made to look ridiculous, they should refrain from saying ridiculous things. Can you give me some examples where you think Dawkins insulted people?

Zulu wrote: »

Dawkins could choose to make his arguments without provoking this reaction. His points can be perfectly succinct, and clearly obvious to those listening. His starts to loose people like myself once he chooses to intentionally insult those who are too ignorant or too fundamentally challenged to accept his points or those he just hasn't convinced.
The last 10% is always the hardest to get, but choosing to ridicule them just makes him unpalatable to a lot of other people.

Have you ever watched Louis Theroux? There is a fantastic example of how you can prove your point, exceptionally well, without insulting the "opposition". Now I understand I'm comparing an interviewer to a scientist, which isn't an exactly fair, however, the salient point here is in use of diplomacy.

And note: I'm not saying Dawkins (& other scientists) should be bound by diplomacy, however, we are all required to interact socially, and if one wishes to communicate successfully with a broader range, it's necessary.

It's funny because I think the exact opposite. When I watch Louis Theroux talking to people he acts as if he's taking what they're saying in and listening intently but you and me both know that in a lot of cases he's just letting the nut jobs talk so the people at home can laugh at them. Not only do I find that patronising and very arrogant, I find it dishonest because he's pretending that he doesn't think these people's opinions are ridiculous in the hopes of getting them to open up to him for our amusement. At least Dawkins is honest enough to tell people to their face.

Zulu wrote: »

I understand that, you were building a straw man.

No, I wasn't. You said it was wrong to "aggressively" try to change someone's personal belief so I pointed out a personal belief that you would have no problem with someone "aggressively" trying to change to point out that it very much depends on the belief. Just calling it a straw man over and over doesn't make it so.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

Almost certainly not. Would Martin Luther King be the man we know of today if he didn't believe in a particular interpretation of the Bible? Would Desmond Tutu? Would Lech Walensa be the man he is if he didn't believe in something? We could play this game all day. People believe in things, what they believe to be true and right informs the decisions they make. For every one brilliant scientist who 'wasted' his opportunity there IMO are probably hundreds more who are seizing it be it in science, music, art, law, education, healthcare etc etc, and they too have beliefs.

We could play this game all day yes but I don't blame religion for every bad thing that a religious person does any more than I thank religion for every good thing a person does (despite many objections that I should), I only blame it in cases where it is clear that the bad thing would not have happened if they didn't believe and I only thank it in the cases where it is clear that the good thing would not have happened if they did not believe. In this case the guy very clearly gave up on his dreams even though it pained him to do it because he thought it was what his god wanted him to do. The best you can say about the people with beliefs who became scientists anyway is that their beliefs didn't interfere. Some religious people have tried to claim that a person's beliefs gave them the curiosity to try to understand the world but I don't buy that tbh.

prinz wrote: »

You have no reason to think it, simply because you don't want to acknowledge it. That's your pre-decided default setting if you will. Me, I don't know, maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. Only one of us is using our own beliefs/state of being, to inform us of an unknowable outcome.

I think you may have missed my point. I mentioned someone who I felt wasted their life because of their beliefs and you mentioned Martin Luther King et al. You were the one drawing causal connections between beliefs and doing great things, not me, I simply said that I see no connection between their beliefs and what they did. You pointing out that there were people who happened to be religious that did not waste their lives does not negate the fact that there are people who, in my opinion, did waste their lives as a direct result of their religion. As I said, I don't blame religion for all bad done by religious people but nor do I thank religion for all good done by religious people.

Zulu

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't think I was clear enough there. In cases like the "you can't prove god doesn't exist" argument it's not the act of calling the argument stupid that tends to offend, it's simply the mention of the flying spaghetti monster.

I disagree, I'd imagine calling someone stupid is far more offensive than presenting a logical argument (to most people).

Imo if someone doesn't want to be made to look ridiculous, they should refrain from saying ridiculous things.

Similarly if someone wanted to avoid appearing arrogant...

Can you give me some examples where you think Dawkins insulted people?

To what end?

At least Dawkins is honest enough to tell people to their face.

tell people what to their face?

No, I wasn't. You said it was wrong to "aggressively" try to change someone's personal belief so I pointed out a personal belief that you would have no problem with someone "aggressively" trying to change

Firstly, you attempted to create this pedophilia straw-man.
Secondly, I never said I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Just calling it a straw man over and over doesn't make it so.

No it doesn't, it simply is, by it's nature a straw-man.

Sam Vimes

Zulu wrote: »

I disagree, I'd imagine calling someone stupid is far more offensive than presenting a logical argument (to most people).

I think may have to be yet more clear. when I was explaining the scenario to you I called it a stupid argument but this is not necessarily the case at times when someone actually presents the argument. There will have been no mention of the word stupid or any pejorative term at all. They will say that I can't prove god doesn't exist, I will say they can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist and they will get offended. They are not getting offended because I have insulted them, they are getting offended because they have said something ridiculous and I have shown it to be ridiculous.

Zulu wrote: »

Similarly if someone wanted to avoid appearing arrogant...

You said yesterday that it's ok to tell someone that they're wrong and I presume it's ok, even preferable, to explain to them why they're wrong. If someone says something ridiculous that can easily be shown to be ridiculous, how do you suggest that I get this point across without appearing arrogant?

Zulu wrote: »

To what end?

I hear people go on and on and on about how Dawkins is an arrogant fundamentalist who straw mans religion and is *gasp* not a philosopher or a theologian but when I ask for examples there is, almost invariably, precious little forthcoming and usually that which is forthcoming is itself a straw man. So I would like you to back up your position that Dawkins is arrogant

Zulu wrote: »

tell people what to their face?

Tell them that he thinks they're wrong and exactly why he thinks they're wrong.

Zulu wrote: »

Firstly, you attempted to create this pedophilia straw-man.
Secondly, I never said I wouldn't have a problem with that.

No it doesn't, it simply is, by it's nature a straw-man.

Now you've called it a straw man for the fourth (fifth?) time but you have yet to justify that statement. Again, simply saying it over and over does not make it so. You said it's wrong to "aggressively" try to change someone's personal beliefs so why is it ok to "aggressively" change the personal beliefs of a paedophile? And what would be your opinion of the "Angelina Jolie" example I gave yesterday? Ok in that case?

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I simply said that I see no connection between their beliefs and what they did..

You see no connection between Mother Teresa's religious convictions and what she did in life? :eek: One of the weirdest statements I have yet come across on this forum. We've reached a new low in denial.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

You see no connection between Mother Teresa's religious convictions and what she did in life? :eek: One of the weirdest statements I have yet come across on this forum. We've reached a new low in denial.

Mother Teresa was a good person who cared about other people. Why do you think this would have been different had she not believed in a particular interpretation of a particular holy book?

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Mother Teresa was a good person who cared about other people. Why do you think this would have been different had she not believed in a particular interpretation of a particular holy book?

Of course her life and what she did in it would have been different. To try to argue otherwise is nonsense. You didn't say they'd be different as a person.... what you said is what that person did in life.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

Of course her life and what she did in it would have been different. To try to argue otherwise is nonsense. You didn't say they'd be different as a person.... what you said is what that person did in life.

Yes of course the religious aspects of her life would not have been there, I never suggested her life would have been identical, that would indeed be nonsense. I was talking about the fact that she helped people. She helped people because she was a good person who cared about others and I see no connection between that and believing in a particular interpretation of a particular holy book.

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I mentioned someone who I felt wasted their life because of their beliefs and you mentioned Martin Luther King et al. You were the one drawing causal connections between beliefs and doing great things, not me, I simply said that I see no connection between their beliefs and what they did.

You really should watch Martin Luther King: American Prophet, which was aired on BBC2 back in 08. The presenter, Oona King (no relation) was under the same impression as yourself.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You really should watch Martin Luther King: American Prophet, which was aired on BBC2 back in 08. The presenter, Oona King (no relation) was under the same impression as yourself.

Can you summarise?

Zulu

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think may have to be yet more clear. when I was explaining the scenario to you I called it a stupid argument but this is not necessarily the case at times when someone actually presents the argument. There will have been no mention of the word stupid or any pejorative term at all.

Ah fair enough - in that case, perhaps you are not being arrogant then? (By all accounts above, it wouldn't appear that you aren't)

You said yesterday that it's ok to tell someone that they're wrong and I presume it's ok, even preferable, to explain to them why they're wrong. If someone says something ridiculous that can easily be shown to be ridiculous, how do you suggest that I get this point across without appearing arrogant?

Well that really does depend; it's down to language and tone. See my other point on diplomacy.

So I would like you to back up your position that Dawkins is arrogant

I've already explained my opinion time and again on the thread, I've no urge to do it again.

Now you've called it a straw man for the fourth (fifth?) time but you have yet to justify that statement. Again, simply saying it over and over does not make it so.

I've provided a link which explains what a straw man argument is. That explains it for you.

You said it's wrong to "aggressively" try to change someone's personal beliefs so why is it ok to "aggressively" change the personal beliefs of a pedophile?

This is a straw man. Right here. We are not discussing a pedophile. You are attempting to "create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition".
We are discussing religion in this context. My point has nothing to do with pedophilia.

I've no interest in discussing pedophilia (your straw-man) in this thread. If you wish to persue it, feel free to create a new thread.

lmaopml

Hi Wicknight,
I certainly don’t have a problem with Dawkins mission to ‘Set your Inner Atheist free...’....he’s entitled to do that if he feels like it.....and I’m sure there are as many lukewarm atheists as there are lukewarm faithful......Who cares about that though? Not me, you're free to be whatever you want in my book...

I can also see why it looks like a new religious movement to those of faith, who wouldn’t when it’s clear that there is an agenda, and a devout following...... however, perhaps Atheists tend to look on it as a ‘political’ movement more so...? Am I right?
All this is beside the point though....


The point is

....That he - not unwittingly, encourages prejudice with his methods, on the false premise that you cannot be seriously interested in Science and have faith....Last time I checked nobody ‘owned’ Science!! In fact, most people who have heard his ‘voice’ and are reasonably intelligent should become atheists by default because of his supreme knowledge and rather monumental and presumptuous head.....
He is using his ‘intellect’ and science background to re-enforce a political stance; which is fine, but he has no right, in fact, his ‘intellect’ should tell him he has no right to create conditions for extreme opinions....and to make sure that it doesn’t cause and indeed encourage bias, especially at Uni level...
It’s not the ‘right’ to Atheism that upsets me; it’s the ‘brand’ he is marketing......it’s the small print I don’t like.....and it seems popular too
...and while the Atheists speaking here on this thread seem fair enough...

As drkpower says...

There is an argument, for which I have some sympathy though (an argument made by Dawkins also, AFAIK..), that all religious people (even if they are secularists), provide a supportive matrix within which intolerant religon and fundamentalists prosper and that they should be sidelined/criticised/ridiculed also. They are the benign government that harbours Al-Quaeda, if you like, and that benign government should be treated harshly.


This is fundamentalist garbage imo, and not something I would like to see in a fair and just society with open choice and learning...It’s the opposite of rational. It's 'weird' Science....
Unfortunately his ‘ideology’ along with his political agenda, seems to have seeped into the heart of Atheism though....
What a waste of time...*Shrugs*

PS. I wrote a much shorter reply than this TWICE and got timed out of boards.ie...Anybody know how I can fix that?

Sam Vimes

Zulu wrote: »

Ah fair enough - in that case, perhaps you are not being arrogant then? (By all accounts above, it wouldn't appear that you aren't)

And the thing is that from my perspective this is where a lot of the labelling of Dawkins as arrogant comes from.

Zulu wrote: »

Well that really does depend; it's down to language and tone. See my other point on diplomacy.

I saw your point on diplomacy, you mentioned Louis Theroux who I find patronising, dishonest, cruel (because he's allowing people to make fools of themselves for our amusement no the pretence of listening to them) and very arrogant indeed.

Zulu wrote: »

I've provided a link which explains what a straw man argument is. That explains it for you.

I know what a straw man is, I was asking you to explain why it was a straw man rather than just saying it was over and over

Zulu wrote: »

This is a straw man. Right here. We are not discussing a pedophile. You are attempting to "create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition".
We are discussing religion in this context. My point has nothing to do with pedophilia.

I've no interest in discussing pedophilia (your straw-man) in this thread. If you wish to persue it, feel free to create a new thread.

I know we're not discussing a paedophile, I was making a comparison. In order to show that my point is a straw man you must show that this is an invalid comparison. Just saying it's a straw man and saying that the comparison is invalid does not make either of those things true

Zulu

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And the thing is that from my perspective this is where a lot of the labelling of Dawkins as arrogant comes from.

Thats fair enough, but it doesn't apply to me (and I doubt my opinion is that unique).

who I find condescending, dishonest, cruel (because he's allowing people to make fools of themselves for our amusement no the pretence of listening to them) and very arrogant indeed.

Thats your opinion, I don't agree, but there you go.

I know we're not discussing a paedophile, I was making a comparison. In order to show that my point is a straw man you must show that this is an invalid comparison rather than just saying it is

Religion is a belief, paedophilia isn't.
Also, you made the leap that I felt "it is ok to "aggressively" change the personal beliefs of a pedophile". I never said or suggested that - you did.