Atheistic Friendly Fire

[En_Route]

By which I mean to refer those public figures whose stand on atheism is most likely to alienate those who might otherwise be receptive to reasoned argument on the topic.My nomination is Richard Dawkins whose insufferable righteousness,smug condescension,self-importance and deficiencies in the sense of humour department do a huge disservice to the cause of enlightenment.

[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.

[Dobermonster]

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.

[Ali]

I don't have a problem with Dawkins.  I think he makes the science behind evolution really accessible to non-scientists such as myself, and I think there's a huge value in that.

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.

There was an atheist woman on Real Time once that I sincerely disliked.  But I can't remember her name. 

[Crow]

I have to agree with En Route I am not a Dawkins fan. I think this short radio debate highlights everything I dislike about the man - http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9696000/9696135.stm - primarily the big slip up he makes after being very forthright.

I do agree with a lot of what he says its just his smug, forthright attitude that annoys me but like Tank says its not exactly something a person can help.

[Recusant]

There was an atheist woman on Real Time once that I sincerely disliked.  But I can't remember her name.

I'm going to make a wild guess and say that maybe you're talking about Glenn Beck's pet atheist, S. E. Cupp.

[Ali]

There was an atheist woman on Real Time once that I sincerely disliked.  But I can't remember her name.

I'm going to make a wild guess and say that maybe you're talking about S. E. Cupp.

YES!!!!!!!  That's her.  *Mutters under her breath*

[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 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.

[Ali]

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

[The Magic Pudding]

There are literal people out there who contribute much to the world particularly in science.  I appreciate them though I often seem to annoy them.  I'm not sure I'd enjoy a planet populated by only such people but I do want them involved in decisions and discussion.

A personal interview in three parts, at the end the interviewer with serious face asks Dawkins what star sign he is.  Yes it was a joke Richard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD5ca9X043I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E825mkrk1uw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTX0p_1l2qA&feature=related

Denton is an underrated interviewer. He finds the perfect balance of being respectful, challenging and playful with his interviewees.

[Dobermonster]

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 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.

[Amicale]

I think when it comes to Dawkins, as educated and informative as he is... the fact remains: he's no Carl Sagan. Dawkins isn't necessarily out to unite everyone over the wonders of the universe, or the study of science. He isn't out to link humans together in their quest after knowledge. His MO appears to be 'call bullshit bullshit, and I don't care who it offends'. I've also found that in some ways, North American reactions to him generally range from "I like him but man, is he blunt" to "he's an angry, ranting, condescending atheist fundie". He doesn't sugarcoat stuff, and North Americans are generally used to opinions being sugarcoated, or at least stated politely. Dawkins doesn't seem to be out there to make friends, and get people to like him -- he just calls the shots as he sees them, and if others don't like what he has to say, then they're prettymuch deluded idiots. When he attacks religion itself, it tends to come off as though he's attacking the people who are religious, and not just their beliefs.

He just isn't much of a "people person" -- he thinks a bit too highly of himself to be one, perhaps. Maybe he can't take himself lightly, or maybe he just doesn't care to speak to people 'on their level'. I don't know.

I do know that while I don't think I'd ever be friends with him (and I very much doubt he'd ever want to be friends with me), I've read a good chunk of what he's written, and he is able to break science down to a more understandable level, so I can appreciate him for that at least.

[Too Few Lions]

I'm with you En_Route, I've always found Dawkins horribly smug and smarmy, and I've never heard him say anything on religion that didn't seem obvious to me or that I didn't know already.

[Anne D.]

I think when it comes to Dawkins, as educated and informative as he is... the fact remains: he's no Carl Sagan. Dawkins isn't necessarily out to unite everyone over the wonders of the universe, or the study of science. He isn't out to link humans together in their quest after knowledge. His MO appears to be 'call bullshit bullshit, and I don't care who it offends'. I've also found that in some ways, North American reactions to him generally range from "I like him but man, is he blunt" to "he's an angry, ranting, condescending atheist fundie". He doesn't sugarcoat stuff, and North Americans are generally used to opinions being sugarcoated, or at least stated politely. Dawkins doesn't seem to be out there to make friends, and get people to like him -- he just calls the shots as he sees them, and if others don't like what he has to say, then they're prettymuch deluded idiots. When he attacks religion itself, it tends to come off as though he's attacking the people who are religious, and not just their beliefs.

He just isn't much of a "people person" -- he thinks a bit too highly of himself to be one, perhaps. Maybe he can't take himself lightly, or maybe he just doesn't care to speak to people 'on their level'. I don't know.

I do know that while I don't think I'd ever be friends with him (and I very much doubt he'd ever want to be friends with me), I've read a good chunk of what he's written, and he is able to break science down to a more understandable level, so I can appreciate him for that at least.

I like your take, Amicale.

Camille Paglia made the point in one of her books (bear with me; she really wasn't always batshit crazy and sometimes had some interesting things to say) that there are movers and shakers in history whom we study not because they're great role models as people or because everything they said was spot on, but because they changed the course of the conversation (obviously a paraphrase). I think of Dawkins as one of those people.

I'm with you En_Route, I've always found Dawkins horribly smug and smarmy, and I've never heard him say anything on religion that didn't seem obvious to me or that I didn't know already.

For people like me who grew up in a really liberal religious environment, where "god is love" and tolerance of all religions and religious beliefs was highly valued, Dawkins's arguments that liberal religious traditions are, in fact, part of the problem and not the solution was very radical. I'm still trying to decide whether I agree with that idea, but it was definitely something new to me. (I know now that Dawkins is not alone in making that argument--didn't know it when I read The God Delusion, though.)

[Sandra Craft]

I think when it comes to Dawkins, as educated and informative as he is... the fact remains: he's no Carl Sagan.

I was about to make exactly that point myself.  There was no question of Sagan's atheism, but the man had sympathy for the religious impulse and he treated religious people with kindness, even in debates.

I often wish Chet Raymo was more of a common name as an atheist, but I think he's way too laid back for it.