What is your opinion of Richard Dawkins

[wildfire_emissary]

I've listened to RD's talks in TED and youtube, too. His accent makes him a gentle speaker but his onslaught on religion is fierce. You would be sad to know that much of what I know in evolutionary biology came from his literature and not from the academe. He's not the best atheist spokesman, if he ever becomes one, but IMO, he's better than Sam Harris.

[Tank]

I have to respectfully disagree with almost everything you have said, and I could cite probably a hundred reasons why I feel this way.  Religion at it's core posions EVERYTHING on earth, everything.  Tantum religio potiut suadere malorum. (To such heights of evil are men driven by religion)

IF we remove the myths from the core spiritual beliefs, RELIGION would have NOTHING left.  We would simply have humanism.

I could spend forever trying to explain the way I regard religion and spirituality.

My intense love of religion is surpassed by nothing but my extreme hatred of religion. And My hatred of religion is only surpassed by my love of religion. It's a perfect Yin Yang of love and hate.

I understand what you are saying here, and also what Martin is getting at. You're both on the same song sheet, in fact I'd go as far as saying singing the same words, just with slightly different semantics.

[Businessocks]

But religious faith (not a GOOD thing per say) is unique.  It gives people hope, (even if that hope isn't based on anything externally verifiable, it is still there inside the person's mind). Spirituality is a special bit of reality that appeals exclusively to your emotions. Inside your own mind, you can make whatever you want of it.  It isn't real, but anything you have faith in is as real as it needs to be.  Spirituality doesn't need religion.

...

...  I can't describe it properly, but having spiritual fulfillment is something that billions of people crave.  I know what it feels like, and it's harder to get over than God.  There is intrinsic good there, and it deserves to rise to the to surface before the very end.  I say fix the good, abolish the bad, and let the natural progression of human reason sort out the rest.  Just because it isn't real outside the human mind doesn't mean people shouldn't believe in it.

Instead of Attacking belief in God, like Richard Dawkins, Attack Dogma, Intolerance, and Myths.  God is more than just Dogma or Mythology, it's slightly more complex.  Let people have their idea of God, it's not hurting anything on it's own.  What needs to be done is the systematic dismantling of Organized Religion. Churches have got to go, god can stick around until people outsmart belief on their own.  It's not to be attacked, people have to define that reality for themselves.  On the question of Religion, I'm more inclined to agree with the Dalai Lama than Richard Dawkins.

I think I'm following you, and I agree to some extent.  I've bolded the parts that are the most poignant to me.  I would disagree with eliminating the myths, though.  And I would add that to me, the difference between religion and spiritually is the element of worship:  one can be spiritual = open to the possibility that something larger and beyond our current ability to understand exists beyond or within us without worshipping it or trying to please it (which then turns into religion).  So when one does acts to please a deity and those acts impact others, that's when we have a problem.  But eliminating wonder and questioning and imagining of wild possibilities would eliminate much wonder and art...and science, I would argue.  That's a part of the "human spirit" that I never want to be reduced to bit maps and chemical explanations.  I guess Brave New World is how I imagine a world based solely on science and logic.    This view is why I can't label myself as an atheist proper.  I agree there's no logical proof of the existence of god(s), but I still love marveling in the "what ifs" that inspire my creative writing and meditation.  And I value emotions.  Science can tell me all the evolutionary reasons why it makes logical sense and how it aids in survival of the species to "believe" that I "love" my children and reduce it to a chemical reaction produced in my brain; but it can never convince me that I should give up that belief in love.

So to wrap it back to the original post asking about RD.  I'm not a huge fan because I feel it's black and white to him:  If one holds any belief not backed by solid evidence or logic, they are an idiot or illogical or silly.  I couldn't disagree more.  Some of the most brilliant minds are exactly such because they cannot be logically explained.  

***Off to duck behind the couch****

[Thumpalumpacus]

The bible is evil and shitty.  That passage is unintelligible, because Hell isn't real.

I take it you don't think that even fiction can impart truth?

Matt 7:18 doesn't mention Hell, at all; in my NIV, it reads "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit."  Apply this to this discussion on religion in order to see my point.

Also, you may wish to google "hoist by one's petard", to see my aim.

[KDbeads]

The bible is evil and shitty.  That passage is unintelligible, because Hell isn't real.

I take it you don't think that even fiction can impart truth?

Matt 7:18 doesn't mention Hell, at all; in my NIV, it reads "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit."  Apply this to this discussion on religion in order to see my point.

Also, you may wish to google "hoist by one's petard", to see my aim.

That's what I thought you were implying with that passage Thump, I couldn't understand where 'hell' and 'unintelligible' came into play for KebertX, even with his/her explanation given when I asked about it.


My meager 2 cents added for this thread......
Been atheist for at least 20 years, never heard of Dawkins until I hit up this forum, neither had hubby and he's read more of this type stuff than I have.  So opinion?  Well I lived this long without him....

[KebertX]

I take it you don't think that even fiction can impart truth?

Matt 7:18 doesn't mention Hell, at all; in my NIV, it reads "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." Apply this to this discussion on religion in order to see my point.

Also, you may wish to google "hoist by one's petard", to see my aim.

[quote="KDbeads"]That's what I thought you were implying with that passage Thump, I couldn't understand where 'hell' and 'unintelligible' came into play for KebertX, even with his/her explanation given when I asked about it.[/quote]

Okay, I'm sorry but I don't know what you're trying to say with Matthew 7:18. I just read Matthew Chapter 7, and figured you were making a point about Dogmatism being implicit to religion. I still say it was going on with a metaphor about hell.

"even fiction can impart truth" I'm missing the point of what you're trying to say, sorry. I definitely don't know what the phrase "hoist by one's petard" has to do with anything. According to Wikipedia, that means: "to be harmed by one's own plan to harm someone else"

I'm just not getting it, sorry for the confusion.

[KDbeads]

I'm just not getting it, sorry for the confusion.

Heh, don't worry about me

[Thumpalumpacus]

Okay, I'm sorry but I don't know what you're trying to say with Matthew 7:18. I just read Matthew Chapter 7, and figured you were making a point about Dogmatism being implicit to religion. I still say it was going on with a metaphor about hell.

If theists can cherry-pick the Bible, so can I.  

"even fiction can impart truth" I'm missing the point of what you're trying to say, sorry.

Many works of fiction have deeper truth in them.  That is what makes great fiction great.  Even on a simple level, crummy fiction about, say, Pearl Harbor can still have truths in it about the interaction between the two nations.

I definitely don't know what the phrase "hoist by one's petard" has to do with anything. According to Wikipedia, that means: "to be harmed by one's own plan to harm someone else"

I'm just not getting it, sorry for the confusion.

That's Wiki's first explanation; immediately thereafter is the more pertinent, and equally valid, explication:  "To fall into one's own trap."  A point against Christianity assumes more weight in the Christian mind when it is propounded by their own holy book.

[The Magic Pudding]

I kind of agree with Dawkins that ALL religion is inherently wrong, mainly because at it's core religion seeks to control the masses and stifle free thought.  

I think of religion as a belief system, religious institutions are another matter.
I see religion as factually wrong because there is no evidence of god and so many reasons to invent one.
I think some clever people see religion as a means of control.  
When clever people take control they don't want no free thinking.

Do I believe that the world will ever be rid of religion, probably not, though I wish it would.  There are FAR more reasons to hate religion that to respect it.

Well I would like it to go away to.
Master Yoda says hate is the path to the dark side.
I don't respect religion.
There are religious people doing work worthy of respect.

I like Dawkins, but what about the simple folk, I don't mean to be patronizing, but a lot of people don't want to think that much.

[zerofivetwoseven]

I like Dawkins, but what about the simple folk, I don't mean to be patronizing, but a lot of people don't want to think that much.

Well as one of the simple folk myself, I feel that as long as one has a grasp of the fundamentals, that is acceptable. One doesn't need to have letters after their name or be employed in academia to have a general understanding of the relevant issues. Just a few little facts will suffice. Everyone should know:

The Universe was created 13.72 billion years ago.              

It is in a state of expansion.

Before it, time did not exist.

Earth was created 4.6 billion years ago.

Life began on it 3.5 billion years ago.

Man did not evolve from ape - they share a common ancestory.

He evolved 2 - 4 million years ago; dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago - they never co-existed.

All living entities are composed of the same chemical elements as the stars and planets.

The optimum distance Earth is from the Sun in order to sustain life is purely random.

If I can understand all that, then so can anyone. Nine little snippets - short, simple and precise.

Regarding Richard - he is a private man who nevertheless feels it is his moral duty to question religion, which he sees as the complete antithesis of science. This has thrust him into the public arena more than he may have wanted, but it is a price he willingly accepts. Yes he can be shrill and strident - we all can from time to time - but his natural demeanour is one of gentle persuasion. I feel sad when he is attacked when all he is doing is trying to increase our understanding of the physical world we inhabit. He isn't Christopher Hitchens who can dish it out as well as take it, but someone more meek and humble. By all means let his opponents question his views, but leave him alone personally - it's not right.

[The Magic Pudding]

Well as one of the simple folk myself,

I admire modesty (no Churchillian quotes please), but you may be overestimating the simple folk.
Perhaps if you had one of your facts printed on each can/bottle of beer we'd make progress.

[RosaRubicondior]

A genius, as a speaker, writer, biologist and thinker.  His meme theory, for example, is transforming the way we view history, cultures and cultural development, which can now be seen as evolving and diversifying by a selection process acting on imperfectly reproduced replicators (memes, or 'memory genes' as unit of cultural inherritance) in an almost exact replica of genetic evolution.  In fact, human evolution, including human cultural evolution, can now be seen as a single meme/gene co-evolutionary process.

Meme theory also neatly explains religion as a parasitic memeplex which uses its host, not for the host's benefit, but for the benefit of the parsite, so explaining how an organ like the human brain can evolve yet still be used in an apparently counter-Darwinian act such as being the guidance system for a bomb.  This is why we have 911, bombs on buses and underground trains and other suicide bombers.

Only the religion parasite can do this to humans and meme theory explains how.

[humblesmurph]

Dawkins is cool. He makes evolution interesting.  

Dawkins is a poor "spokesperson" for atheism because he is really only famous for being an atheist.   Of course he is a brilliant scientist, but there are many brilliant scientists who aren't well known.   You sell Pepsi by getting a celebrity to endorse it, not a soda pop specialist.  Warren Buffet or Bill Gates would make a much better spokesperson in my view--if they were so inclined.

His message is great, but he is getting paid (handsomely) to deliver it.  If ridding the world of religion was his real goal, he'd give his books away for free.