Atheistic Friendly Fire

[Dobermonster]

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.

Disdain toward ignorance - especially willful ignorance - seems to be common among higher academics.

[Whitney]

Disdain toward ignorance - especially willful ignorance - seems to be common among higher academics.

I think it's common among many of us...not just the elite academics.

However, imo, there is value in not letting it come through when you are trying to approach those people.

I think Hawking does a very good job of this.  When he's explaining something that could be delicate for some he acknowledges it as difficult.  Though, his mode of communication does make it difficult to sense frustration as we would pick up in others.

[Crocoduck]

Disdain toward ignorance - especially willful ignorance - seems to be common among higher academics.

I think it's common among many of us...not just the elite academics.

However, imo, there is value in not letting it come through when you are trying to approach those people.

I think Hawking does a very good job of this.  When he's explaining something that could be delicate for some he acknowledges it as difficult.  Though, his mode of communication does make it difficult to sense frustration as we would pick up in others.

Hawking wrote one of the least understandable books of all time. At least as far as the target crowd is concerned. A Brief History of Time was a huge seller but very hard to understand. It's often call the least read best seller of all time.
Since then his publicists have hired people to try and make Hawking understandable to non-physicists. Most notably Leonard Mlodinow who as well as being a physicist is also a author and has written screenplays for Star Trek: The Next Generation and MacGyver.
I don't think Hawking has a clue how to communicate his ideas to non-physicists but because theres big money in what Hawking has to say his handlers find understandable people to say it for him.

[En_Route]

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

Indeed it isn't. I'm not angry at Dawkins precisely because his finger-wagging pomposity coupled with his apparent inability to see himself as others might see him is not of his own making. I might as well be angry at the weather. That doesn't change the fact that in my view he is the last person I'd choose as the public face of atheism.

[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.

Disdain toward ignorance - especially willful ignorance - seems to be common among higher academics.

Academics can often be found lodged firmly up their own fundaments.There are honourable exceptions. Modesty forbids....

[Ali]

Yes, I don't think being disdainful towards ignorance is a particularly useful trait in a teacher.  By definition, ignorance means a lack of knowledge on a given topic.  If everyone had unlimited knowledge on every topic, we would have no use for teachers.  The attitude is sort of self defeating.

[The Magic Pudding]

I like Dawkins.
There's so much idiocy directed at evolutionary theory, I wouldn't venture to censure his revulsion.

[Crocoduck]

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

Indeed it isn't. I'm not angry at Dawkins precisely because his finger-wagging pomposity coupled with his apparent inability to see himself as others might see him is not of his own making. I might as well be angry at the weather. That doesn't change the fact that in my view he is the last person I'd choose as the public face of atheism.

I think he is a good face of atheism......why so angry?

[Crocoduck]

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

Indeed it isn't. I'm not angry at Dawkins precisely because his finger-wagging pomposity coupled with his apparent inability to see himself as others might see him is not of his own making. I might as well be angry at the weather. That doesn't change the fact that in my view he is the last person I'd choose as the public face of atheism.

How is that not an "angry at Dawkins" statement? Why hate on him so much?

[En_Route]

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

Indeed it isn't. I'm not angry at Dawkins precisely because his finger-wagging pomposity coupled with his apparent inability to see himself as others might see him is not of his own making. I might as well be angry at the weather. That doesn't change the fact that in my view he is the last person I'd choose as the public face of atheism.

How is that not an "angry at Dawkins" statement? Why hate on him so much?

I feel neither hate nor anger towards Dawkins. I certainly wish him no harm , indeed the reverse.He is what he is, a textbook egomaniac, as a result of circumstances entirely beyond his control. That's no reason to pretend that he is other than he is.

[Dobermonster]

Yes, I don't think being disdainful towards ignorance is a particularly useful trait in a teacher.  By definition, ignorance means a lack of knowledge on a given topic.  If everyone had unlimited knowledge on every topic, we would have no use for teachers.  The attitude is sort of self defeating.

I am with you on simple ignorance, but I confess disdain for willful ignorance. For example, almost every creationist argument I've seen contains major myths about what evolution means or is - things that they should know about if their research had any depth. If someone decides to come to a different conclusion on something, that's their prerogative. And maybe being willfully ignorant in order to protect their position is their prerogative too. However, I do have a special hatred for this sort of attitude, this rejection of reason.

[Guardian85]

Yes, I don't think being disdainful towards ignorance is a particularly useful trait in a teacher.  By definition, ignorance means a lack of knowledge on a given topic.  If everyone had unlimited knowledge on every topic, we would have no use for teachers.  The attitude is sort of self defeating.

it is less that he is disdainful of ignorance, as much as he has contempt for willful ignorance. He can't stand the kind of people who are ignorant because they never tried, or are unwilling, to learn. A disdain I share, by the way.

[En_Route]

Some people  seem to feel that their very identity is bound up with their prejudices and they will defend them (sometimes literally) to the death. However,venting anger or scorn at them achieves nothing except maybe the release of bad chemicals.

[Tank]

Some people  seem to feel that their very identity is bound up with their prejudices and they will defend them (sometimes literally) to the death. However,venting anger or scorn at them achieves nothing except maybe the release of bad chemicals.

Hmmm. Not so sure. I think it's a good thing to stand up to the sort of manipulative, emotional and potentially physical bullies that Dawkin's credentials allow him to. His attitude to some of the day-to-day unthinking social/cultural theist is patronising. However some of the jumped up jackasses do need a damn good kicking. Not that they will respond to the kicking but just to show they can be kicked. Religion has been untouchable for millennia and what Dawkin's does is break down that taboo. 

One doesn't fight a war with just one weapon and one tactic.

[Guardian85]

One doesn't fight a war with just one weapon and one tactic.

That's right. One of the things that makes Dawkins popular is his ability to be the artillery barrage used against hardened religious targets. There are others who may be better deployed against softer faith heads, but I do love it when Dawkins goes up agaist people like creationist preachers.