Dawkins and the perception of his current---

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

(sorry Bob, but the Brights may say they're all about nicely being independent of dogma, but they're also the ones calling faith superstition and so on).

I've seen much of Dawkins' stuff, and on the whole, I find his arguments pretty well reasoned out.

That is, I cannot substantially disagree with much of what he says.

But.

He, like most of the Brights-movement folk, strike me as fanatical.

That was the FIRST word I thought of, when I started reading this particular thread.

And, it made me pause:  why would I react to someone who is pretty close to my own views, with such a strong reaction-word?

And, why that word?

And, upon reflection, I realized what it is:  I have a great deal of respect for believers, non-believers, dis-believers, sorta-believers and all across the spectrum of human thought.

What I DO NOT respect, however, is a fanatic.

ANY SORT of fanatic: be he a believing fanatic, non-believing or any portion of each-- it is the fanatic-thinking I cannot abide.

And, Dawkins is but a fanatic of a different stripe than the usual.  But, I think he is a fanatic nontheless.

And, thus, I find I do not respect him as much as I would someone like Carl Sagan, Ben Franklin or Douglass Adams.  Each of these gentlemen were also atheists in their own way, yet none struck me as fanatical.

It's why I changed my signature a while back - many of the Brights' folk also act in a fanatical way... why would I wish to leave religious fanatics behind, only to embrace philosophical ones instead?

I still find the term "brights" amusing, but I would not say non-brights were dim, rather I would say they were theists.  Each is a positive, and emphasizes the positive aspects of their respective philosophies.

As Vita points out, there are MANY very bright folk who are also theists.

I think Dawkins sometimes forgets this.

I make it a point not to.

[The Meromorph]

I think what we need to remember is that Dawkins is regularly directly and indirectly 'attacked' by Evangelical Christian fundamentalists, who also routinely tell outrageous lies about him personally, maliciously misquote his carefully reasoned books, organise trips for their sheeple to heckle him at serious scientific conventions, etc.
He rarely gets to knowingly meet ordinary decent christians (they rarely trumpet their faith), and they are certainly not the ones that stick in his mind. The barrage of hate, lies, and idiocy from the others is constant and relentless.

[Griffin NoName]

I think what we need to remember is that Dawkins is regularly directly and indirectly 'attacked' by Evangelical Christian fundamentalists, who also routinely tell outrageous lies about him personally, maliciously misquote his carefully reasoned books, organise trips for their sheeple to heckle him at serious scientific conventions, etc.
He rarely gets to knowingly meet ordinary decent christians (they rarely trumpet their faith), and they are certainly not the ones that stick in his mind. The barrage of hate, lies, and idiocy from the others is constant and relentless.

Mero is wise.

Although I take issue with the He rarely gets to knowingly meet ordinary decent christians. How do you know that? Has he said so? (it may be so). However, I know plenty of people who know him, move in those circles, and I'd say they get to meet plenty of every sort of person by personal observation. Heck they meet me, well they used to before I took to my bed.

While I'm on that topic, I was chatting to my mother about all this and saying I never say I know these people, and she said why not, and I said I hate people who are name droppers (ok hate is a bit unhumble). So for the record, I know Bronowski's daughter (well known in her own right) and also he was a friend of my grandfather's cousin, although that is not how I got to know his daughter. I struggle with knowing many of the people that get touted about or knowing people in their social sphere and know them well and this always affects my opinions which probably come out as a bit weird. It's hard to keep a perspective when you've been sat next to one of them at some ghastly Millenium firework display in the predictable English rain and groaned your way through the evening exchanging who just failed to get that job and why they didn't, who actually wrote that bad and viscious review of whosits latest. Etc. Ok so that's off my chest, so to speak.

Getting back to topic. I agree about fanatic. But I guess I like to see fair play. If there are fanatic religious people, a few fanatic scientists even up the balance. In evolutionary terms we will be all the better when we grow out of fanatics altogether. The prediction that computers will move ahead of human brains is I believe 2029 - that may sort things out. 

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

They played "The Root of All Evil?" on Canadian TV a few months ago (though I heard something about it being a slightly different version than the one that was on British TV) with a "town hall" session with Dawkins on satellite link-up after.  For me, he came across negatively in the documentary, and generally reasonable and rational in the "town hall" thing.

The show's web site took comments from the public.  Here's what I posted after watching:

I believe that in his film, Dawkins performed some logical sleight-of-hand: he discounts various religions as unsubstantiated or irrational, and then holds up his own beliefs as the only remaining alternative in a sea of rejected options. I think this is akin to a roulette player arguing with the people who have bet on 6, 7 and 8 that none of their numbers are likely to come up, so they should move their bet to 0.

Also, his reliance on the scientific method and rationality alone will naturally exclude some of that which is true; not all facts are repeatable or falsifiable.

I think the views that Dawkins presents are based on Occam's Razor (i.e. the simplest answer that agrees with the facts should be taken as correct), which may be a useful tool, but is no guarantee of correctness.

[Sibling Chatty]

In the arguing attached to the Alternet article, there were all sorts of ideas floated.

My bone to pick is that Dawkins attempts to set himself and those of his viewpoint as more rational and...responsible? with their knowledge. As superior thinkers, so to speak.

How frickin' stupid is it to sink to the level of the lowest comman denominator (or below) to 'make a point'?? Much like teaching a child not to bite by biting the child when HE bites, you can't induce, encourage, DEMAND, or even expect those that have behaved similarly in the past (but from the other direction) to modify their actions and words when you do the same thing.

He's reduced any chance at dialogue with 'liberal' 'moderate' 'open-minded' (whatever) persons of faith by being just as nasty as the fundie-raving 'people of faith' that WE decry.

If all you look for is rudeness and hate, that's what you'll likely find, right?

As i'm constantly pointing out to the "liberals/progressives" on several sites, there's a LOT of moderate, liberal, even far left wing people of faith (lots of faiths, but even lots of Christians) that are regularly, constantly marginalized by the left. Well, marginalized, insulted, etc...

The way to accomplish something is to NOT alienate those that agree with you. In science, in politics, you name it. And you don't gain respect by this method, well, except from those people who have no respect except for people that are just as rude as they are.

If the 'rest of the world' would quit lending credence to the loud-mouth fundamentalist My Way or the Highway hatemongers (whether Christian, Muslim, whatever, even athiests) and junt go on with their science, their research, their work, their lives, we'd all be better off.

But, if Falwell and Dobson and all those guys wanna be assholes, then Dawkins can be one, too. I can't imagine why he'd WANT to sink to that level, but, yeah he's entitled.

I had hoped we were past it.

Vita, i'm in a town with no library, in a county where the only library wouldn't have anything newer that 3 years (other that fiction and religious bestsellers) so, no, I have not read the Collins book. (I've looked for it at Half Price books, but nobody that has it is going to give it up.) I've read about it, but have not read it. I hate for you to go through that expense on my account, but I would love to read it. (Maybe Amazon has it used??)

Thank you so much for thinking of me.

[beagle]

...
He's reduced any chance at dialogue with 'liberal' 'moderate' 'open-minded' (whatever) persons of faith by being just as nasty as the fundie-raving 'people of faith' that WE decry.

...

The way to accomplish something is to NOT alienate those that agree with you. In science, in politics, you name it. And you don't gain respect by this method, well, except from those people who have no respect except for people that are just as rude as they are.

But, if Falwell and Dobson and all those guys wanna be assholes, then Dawkins can be one, too. I can't imagine why he'd WANT to sink to that level, but, yeah he's entitled.
...

I wouldn't argue with most of that, but is it the job of an Oxford science professor to gradually change the public perception by politically choosing which position to adopt, or to put forward a absolute case based on the evidence as he sees it, like it or lump it?
The first would be like telling Christians they should drop the virgin birth bit because they'll convince more of the public without it.

[Vita Curator]

If all you look for is rudeness and hate, that's what you'll likely find, right?


The way to accomplish something is to NOT alienate those that agree with you. In science, in politics, you name it. And you don't gain respect by this method, well, except from those people who have no respect except for people that are just as rude as they are.

If the 'rest of the world' would quit lending credence to the loud-mouth fundamentalist My Way or the Highway hatemongers (whether Christian, Muslim, whatever, even athiests) and junt go on with their science, their research, their work, their lives, we'd all be better off.

Exactly Chatty!  What is the old saying? "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar?"  Whatever happened to diplomacy and détente?  Sure, alienate ALL people of faith; that will do LOADS to further the promotion of teaching evolutionary biology in schools!

[Griffin NoName]

My bone to pick is that Dawkins attempts to set himself and those of his viewpoint as more rational and...responsible? with their knowledge. As superior thinkers, so to speak.

I think you're right. It's the way society is structured. Scientists are labelled rational, are expected to argue from knowledge rather than faith, and academics are elevated as superior thinkers. I'm not sure to what extent Dawkins "attempts" to set himself out as more of that than any of his like-minded peer group rather than playing out that role.

[beagle]

The worst critics can claim about Dawkins is that he may regard some of the most religious as a bit dim and overly superstitious.
Many religious leaders acquiesce in a system that they believe implements eternal torture.

Of the two, I'd rather be insulted.

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

Generally, I do agree with a lot of what Dawkins has to say, but a lot of what I've seen of him puts across the message that the scientific method logically flows into atheism.  When I watched the documentary (which was a few months ago now), I saw a running theme: "how can you expect me to believe your religion?  I'm a scientist."

It bothered me to watch him effectively point out the foolishness of theistic beliefs on the grounds that they couldn't be proven, then turn around and apply their logic to support atheism.

To be fair, though, I don't think he realizes he's doing this.  I think at the end of the day, he's more of a zealot than someone who's deliberately out to deceive.

Exactly Chatty!  What is the old saying? "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar?" 

If you're out of honey, bull-poop works equally well (if you want to follow the analogy to its logical conclusion ).

[beagle]

I think there's a long history of atheist "intellectuals" upsetting American religious sensitivities. I don't know if it's true but I'd heard the subtitle "A personal view" had to be tacked on to Bronowski's "Ascent of Man" for this reason, and that was back in the 70s.

If Dawkins is a bit much, you might prefer Jonathon Miller (more of an arty/philosophical atheist than Dawkins). Here's one of his quotes:

"In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners."

[goat starer]

I tend to think that there is a logical progression from scientific thought to atheism as we explain more with science. That does not mean I think people who do not see this are dim. darwin took years to publish his work as it conflicted with some of his core beliefs and he feared what the response would be. 150 years later it is largely accepted. Dawkins, if correct, should try having the patience to elucidate the ideas clearly and let the evolution of human knowledge take its course!

[beagle]

You Marxists do like your "historical inevitability" don't you.

Jonathon Miller tackled that head-on, pointing out that the early American presidents were often antagonistic to religion, in a way which would render them totally unelectable now. There's a mention of it in the director's interview off that link I posted.

More quotes from the series

President Thomas Jefferson –"I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature."

President Abraham Lincoln -"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my religion."

President James Madison - "A just government has no need for the clergy or the church."

[Sibling Chatty]

And, once again, rational moderate people of faith don't have a problem with that approach. But when my Hindu friend tells me that she's totally off Dawkins...this is a PhD/MD Cardiologist and Gastroenterologist that's probably the most intelligent person I know, and hardly a Christian Fundie...

Dawkins has a lot of former admirers. Too bad he's so set on leaving his Bright legacy, because it will badly tarnish his 'reputation' in the future. A legacy of solid scientific work will be lost under his presumtive superiority complex.

[Griffin NoName]

The C4 Liddle program - The Trouble with Atheism - seemed totally biased to me.

Unfortunately my blood boiled over at the inclusion of Polkinhorne who destroyed the most beautiful nineteenth century rose bushes in a silent blow of non-consultative arrogance that nearly destroyed my sanity as their smell and beauty were the main thing keeping me going at a time of utter desolation.

Aside from that, it just seemed to me to be a kick the atheists trip. A carefully crafted hype.

All respect to Chatty, but I detected nothing disrespectful in anything Dawkins said in this program.