Atheistic Friendly Fire

[DeterminedJuliet]

Dawkins (like all of us) is a product of his upbringing and experience.

Richard Dawkins

Dawkins was born in Nairobi, Kenya.[7] His father, Clinton John Dawkins (1915–2010),[8] was an agricultural civil servant in the British colonial service, in Nyasaland (now Malawi). Dawkins has a younger sister.[9] His father was called up into the King's African Rifles during World War II,[10][11] returning to England in 1949, when Dawkins was eight. His father had inherited a country estate, Over Norton Park, which he turned into a commercial farm.[8] Both his parents were interested in natural sciences; they answered Dawkins' questions in scientific terms.[12]

He has lived his life in academia and in my opinion has no empathy with 'the person in the street. I had an email exchange with him once while I was a mod on his forum. The thing he was most concerned with was how I had incorrectly used an apostrophe when writing his name. So I'm not particularly impressed with him as a person. I also agree that his attitude is to smug and patronising. Having said that, and ignoring my personal opinion, I think that Dawkins does do more good than harm. Primarily because he's given people the confidence to stand up to the bullies in the church that have had their own way for thousands of years too long. He won't be shouted down or intimidated and he calls idiots, idiots.

If you don't like RD then have a look at Dan Dennett and AC Grayling, it takes all sorts.

I liked Dawkins okay until I read this. I'd find it hard to respect anyone who could condescend to Tank.

[Amicale]

I think it's probably important for us both as people and atheists to avoid giving into the 'cult of celebrity' and idolizing people unrealistically, just because they're famous. I know the temptation's there to do so, especially in the skeptic camp where there are only a limited number of high-profile, well-known freethinkers "representing us"... but the trouble with cheering wildly anytime someone says something or writes something simply because they're an atheist is that they may have a VERY different idea of how best to live an atheist life than we do. Better, maybe, to see that most well-known atheists have some pretty good ideas, but not all of them are people persons, and none of them are perfect. Even Sagan, who I am/was fond of as a person had issues. We've all got issues. I guess some of our quirks are just more palatable than others are.

[Ali]

Dawkins (like all of us) is a product of his upbringing and experience.

Richard Dawkins

Dawkins was born in Nairobi, Kenya.[7] His father, Clinton John Dawkins (1915–2010),[8] was an agricultural civil servant in the British colonial service, in Nyasaland (now Malawi). Dawkins has a younger sister.[9] His father was called up into the King's African Rifles during World War II,[10][11] returning to England in 1949, when Dawkins was eight. His father had inherited a country estate, Over Norton Park, which he turned into a commercial farm.[8] Both his parents were interested in natural sciences; they answered Dawkins' questions in scientific terms.[12]

He has lived his life in academia and in my opinion has no empathy with 'the person in the street. I had an email exchange with him once while I was a mod on his forum. The thing he was most concerned with was how I had incorrectly used an apostrophe when writing his name. So I'm not particularly impressed with him as a person. I also agree that his attitude is to smug and patronising. Having said that, and ignoring my personal opinion, I think that Dawkins does do more good than harm. Primarily because he's given people the confidence to stand up to the bullies in the church that have had their own way for thousands of years too long. He won't be shouted down or intimidated and he calls idiots, idiots.

If you don't like RD then have a look at Dan Dennett and AC Grayling, it takes all sorts.

I liked Dawkins okay until I read this. I'd find it hard to respect anyone who could condescend to Tank.

This is a good point.

ETA: Amicale, the wise.  You has it.

[Tank]

Dawkins (like all of us) is a product of his upbringing and experience.

Richard Dawkins

Dawkins was born in Nairobi, Kenya.[7] His father, Clinton John Dawkins (1915–2010),[8] was an agricultural civil servant in the British colonial service, in Nyasaland (now Malawi). Dawkins has a younger sister.[9] His father was called up into the King's African Rifles during World War II,[10][11] returning to England in 1949, when Dawkins was eight. His father had inherited a country estate, Over Norton Park, which he turned into a commercial farm.[8] Both his parents were interested in natural sciences; they answered Dawkins' questions in scientific terms.[12]

He has lived his life in academia and in my opinion has no empathy with 'the person in the street. I had an email exchange with him once while I was a mod on his forum. The thing he was most concerned with was how I had incorrectly used an apostrophe when writing his name. So I'm not particularly impressed with him as a person. I also agree that his attitude is to smug and patronising. Having said that, and ignoring my personal opinion, I think that Dawkins does do more good than harm. Primarily because he's given people the confidence to stand up to the bullies in the church that have had their own way for thousands of years too long. He won't be shouted down or intimidated and he calls idiots, idiots.

If you don't like RD then have a look at Dan Dennett and AC Grayling, it takes all sorts.

I liked Dawkins okay until I read this. I'd find it hard to respect anyone who could condescend to Tank.

Awwwww. I just blushed. A lot!

[En_Route]

Awww, En_Route, don't be cross with poor old Dawkins.  It's not (ultimately) his fault he comes off that way.   

Well, he certainly won't go to hell for it.

[En_Route]

I'm not sure. Are we judging this by his influence on the spread of atheism (in other words, whether his movements have overall inhibited or encouraged acceptance)? I do dislike that he's gone more into debating creationism, "defending" evolution rather than focusing on advocating the teaching of good science and critical thinking skills to children. Debates don't sway true believers. Maybe he's smug sometimes . . . but mostly I think he's very genuine, and a good scientist and advocate of reason. I think he's done well in being a forerunner in opening up conversation between atheists and theists and encouraging the world to think about things that really matter from a logical perspective.

I take your point in principle. In practice though Dawkins is hectoring and sanctimonious rather than assertive. He is clearly deficient in social intelligence and his confrontionalism is not calculated to win hearts and minds. I'd add that much woe has been inflicted in the name of religion but I don't believe that if you eliminated theism you would eliminate barbarism.
I think his overt contempt for religion and the secular jihad he has waged against it has been very far from conducive to opening up channels of communication with those of a differing persuasion. He exudes a dogmatism and intolerance which is profoundly unattractive and represents the kind of  intransigent mindset which has been the instrument of much human misery. Unreconstructed non-believer though I may be, give me a tolerant theist (they do exist) over a fundamentalist atheist any day.

Is contempt for religion a bad thing? There's a lot to be contemptible about. I don't go around challenging everybody and making a nuisance of myself, and I don't think that his evangelistic method should be upheld as the way to talk about these things in general society. I also think the specific tenets of religion - like the ones that advocate suicide killing, or genital mutilation, or seek to indoctrinate themselves on others using the law - should be focused on, rather than raising the too-general flag of "Anti-religion", which for many people means "anti-morality" or "anti-purpose". Dawkins has taken on the 'muscle' role more so in the last few years. I don't think his role is as much representative of atheism as it is representative to atheism. Say he made a terse speech on the evils of indoctrinating children with creationism (which he has). The instinct on either side is to respond in agreement or disagreement, dividing the audience. The reasonable reaction is to look at the issue objectively, find out if the facts agree or are relevant, and judge the argument on its merits, not its stand. Increased awareness lead to discussion, and discussion leads to change. A guy like Dawkins has to stand out, has to speak a little louder and more assertively - not as a rolemodel for discussion, but as a precursor to it. That's my argument, anyways.

[Whitney]

I can't tell if Dawkins doesn't realize how he comes across or if he doesn't care...I think he does generally care even if caring only because he's annoyed being around such ignorance.

He's brilliant when it comes around to explaining biology in laymen's terms.

However, I'm not sure if his approach to explaining why religion is illogical is something that would get through to anyone who wasn't already tipping that direction a bit.  Stuff like that is better coming out of someone who is really personable....though Dawkins certainly does a better job than some other people in similar positions (like Penn from Penn and Teller).

[Dobermonster]

I can't tell if Dawkins doesn't realize how he comes across or if he doesn't care...I think he does generally care even if caring only because he's annoyed being around such ignorance.

He's brilliant when it comes around to explaining biology in laymen's terms.

However, I'm not sure if his approach to explaining why religion is illogical is something that would get through to anyone who wasn't already tipping that direction a bit.  Stuff like that is better coming out of someone who is really personable....though Dawkins certainly does a better job than some other people in similar positions (like Penn from Penn and Teller).

Interesting - I've only seen Penn in a few interviews, but he certainly comes across as more genial and friendly than Dawkins (though takes the 'call an idiot an idiot' approach on his own shows).

Certainly have to give the man props here - I don't think I would've kept my cool around this guy as easily: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSJV8mC8GYk

[Whitney]

I was thinking of more of how he came across in the bullshit episode(s?) dealing with religion....teller doesn't talk so he doesn't really come across in any certain way on them other than by association.  I liked the bullshit series but it would come across a little harsh if I happened to be a strong supporter of whatever he is calling bullshit just because of the tone used.

Then there was the time when he was at a skeptics thing in Vegas (probably TAM) and said something to the extent that the deists shouldn't be there.

Perhaps I should just consider Penn and Dawkins equal on the personable level...both can keep a cool head when they want to but both are a little out of touch.

[Guardian85]

I find it peculiar that when Hitchens literally told religious people to go f¤¤k themselves, everyone was Ok with that. He was supposed to be abrasive and confrontational, but when the "respectable" professor from England does something similar but less overtly he is critisized for being too arrogant, blunt and disrespectful.

Anyway, I think very much like both Dawkins and Hitchens. Religion has historically gotten way more respect then it deserves. Time to give religion just as much respect as it deserves. Hear 'em out, then shoot 'em down.

[En_Route]

I find it peculiar that when Hitchens literally told religious people to go f¤¤k themselves, everyone was Ok with that. He was supposed to be abrasive and confrontational, but when the "respectable" professor from England does something similar but less overtly he is critisized for being too arrogant, blunt and disrespectful.

Anyway, I think very much like both Dawkins and Hitchens. Religion has historically gotten way more respect then it deserves. Time to give religion just as much respect as it deserves. Hear 'em out, then shoot 'em down.

Unfortunately this high-handed, de haut-en-bas attitude just alienates people. Given that most people do possess  some form of religious leanings,indiscriminate contempt for religion is coming perilously close to contempt for humanity. Dawkin's self-regarding superiority complex
is repellent to many of those such as myself who are lifelong infidels as well as the waverers and undecided.

[Guardian85]

I find it peculiar that when Hitchens literally told religious people to go f¤¤k themselves, everyone was Ok with that. He was supposed to be abrasive and confrontational, but when the "respectable" professor from England does something similar but less overtly he is critisized for being too arrogant, blunt and disrespectful.

Anyway, I think very much like both Dawkins and Hitchens. Religion has historically gotten way more respect then it deserves. Time to give religion just as much respect as it deserves. Hear 'em out, then shoot 'em down.

Unfortunately this high-handed, de haut-en-bas attitude just alienates people. Given that most people do possess  some form of religious leanings,indiscriminate contempt for religion is coming perilously close to contempt for humanity. Dawkin's self-regarding superiority complex
is repellent to many of those such as myself who are lifelong infidels as well as the waverers and undecided.

I suppose that way of expressing oneself is a trait common of the intellectual elite. Someone who for a long time found himself in a teaching position at a prestigious teaching institution would find it second nature to draw upon that when faced with a "bad student".
But while it can certainly be offputting to some people, I don't really see it. Maybe I'm weird that way.

[Crocoduck]

I don't have much problem with Dawkins in fact he impressed me quit a bit when I was still a xtian. I had been told so many crazy things about atheists being immoral and I think he helped me have a more positive view of what a atheists really is.

Penn Jillette seems to be a huge loud mouth who loves the sound of his own voice. I don't hate him but can only take him in small doses.

PZ Myers...seems to be one of these.

I used to feel that way about Christopher Hitchens, when I first started reading his articles on Slate.  I just thought he was soooo antagonistic, and that was going to turn people off and prove their stereotypes about atheists as angry jerks.  But he wormed his way into my heart, and I eventually came to really respect and like him.

I felt the same about the Hitch.

[Firebird]

I respect Dawkins for what he's accomplished, but I don't really like his writing style. The God Delusion was too antagonistic for my taste, and The Selfish Gene, while interesting overall, was hard to get through as well for me. I found Dennet to be more readable, and I liked his approach to atheism and why he doesn't believe. His comparison of a religious person giving up his/her religion to someone giving up listening to music was really eye-opening, and the clearest explanation to me of why it still has such a hold on people.

[En_Route]

I find it peculiar that when Hitchens literally told religious people to go f¤¤k themselves, everyone was Ok with that. He was supposed to be abrasive and confrontational, but when the "respectable" professor from England does something similar but less overtly he is critisized for being too arrogant, blunt and disrespectful.

Anyway, I think very much like both Dawkins and Hitchens. Religion has historically gotten way more respect then it deserves. Time to give religion just as much respect as it deserves. Hear 'em out, then shoot 'em down.

Unfortunately this high-handed, de haut-en-bas attitude just alienates people. Given that most people do possess  some form of religious leanings,indiscriminate contempt for religion is coming perilously close to contempt for humanity. Dawkin's self-regarding superiority complex
is repellent to many of those such as myself who are lifelong infidels as well as the waverers and undecided.

I suppose that way of expressing oneself is a trait common of the intellectual elite. Someone who for a long time found himself in a teaching position at a prestigious teaching institution would find it second nature to draw upon that when faced with a "bad student".
But while it can certainly be offputting to some people, I don't really see it. Maybe I'm weird that way.

Only if he was a bad teacher.