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.
Dawkins (like all of us) is a product of his upbringing and experience.
Richard Dawkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins)
QuoteDawkins 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'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 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.
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.
Quote from: Ali on February 15, 2012, 10:30:17 PMThere was an atheist woman on Real Time once that I sincerely disliked. But I can't remember her name.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg826.imageshack.us%2Fimg826%2F4195%2Flolbymissbangles.gif&hash=a459a670b2fef67538964246ce892a4b5f7d96e2) I'm going to make a wild guess and say that maybe you're talking about Glenn Beck's pet atheist, S. E. Cupp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._E._Cupp).
Quote from: Recusant on February 15, 2012, 11:28:56 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 15, 2012, 10:30:17 PMThere was an atheist woman on Real Time once that I sincerely disliked. But I can't remember her name.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg826.imageshack.us%2Fimg826%2F4195%2Flolbymissbangles.gif&hash=a459a670b2fef67538964246ce892a4b5f7d96e2) I'm going to make a wild guess and say that maybe you're talking about S. E. Cupp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._E._Cupp).
YES!!!!!!! That's her. *Mutters under her breath*
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 15, 2012, 10:12:42 PM
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.
Awww, En_Route, don't be cross with poor old Dawkins. It's not (ultimately) his fault he comes off that way. :P :D
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
QuoteDenton is an underrated interviewer. He finds the perfect balance of being respectful, challenging and playful with his interviewees.
Quote from: En_Route on February 15, 2012, 11:51:48 PM
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 15, 2012, 10:12:42 PM
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. ;)
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'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.
Quote from: Amicale on February 16, 2012, 12:52:55 AM
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.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 16, 2012, 01:00:04 AM
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.)
Quote from: Amicale on February 16, 2012, 12:52:55 AM
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.
Quote from: Tank on February 15, 2012, 10:00:23 PM
Dawkins (like all of us) is a product of his upbringing and experience.
Richard Dawkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins)
QuoteDawkins 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.
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. ;)
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 16, 2012, 02:32:41 AM
Quote from: Tank on February 15, 2012, 10:00:23 PM
Dawkins (like all of us) is a product of his upbringing and experience.
Richard Dawkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins)
QuoteDawkins 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.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 16, 2012, 02:32:41 AM
Quote from: Tank on February 15, 2012, 10:00:23 PM
Dawkins (like all of us) is a product of his upbringing and experience.
Richard Dawkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins)
QuoteDawkins 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!
Quote from: Ali on February 16, 2012, 12:19:21 AM
Awww, En_Route, don't be cross with poor old Dawkins. It's not (ultimately) his fault he comes off that way. :P :D
Well, he certainly won't go to hell for it.
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 16, 2012, 12:38:34 AM
Quote from: En_Route on February 15, 2012, 11:51:48 PM
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 15, 2012, 10:12:42 PM
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. ;)
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).
Quote from: Whitney on February 16, 2012, 03:41:53 PM
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
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.
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.
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 16, 2012, 07:49:26 PM
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.
Quote from: En_Route on February 16, 2012, 09:53:09 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 16, 2012, 07:49:26 PM
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.
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.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.picturescream.com%2Fimages%2Fdouchebag1.jpg&hash=d7683ebf63eaa41d9a8b2db5c48f04f21461c7b3)
Quote from: Ali on February 15, 2012, 10:30:17 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 16, 2012, 10:02:00 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 16, 2012, 09:53:09 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 16, 2012, 07:49:26 PM
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.
Quote from: En_Route on February 17, 2012, 01:05:19 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 16, 2012, 10:02:00 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 16, 2012, 09:53:09 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 16, 2012, 07:49:26 PM
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.
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 18, 2012, 04:06:55 AM
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.
Quote from: Whitney on February 18, 2012, 06:26:32 AM
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 18, 2012, 04:06:55 AM
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.
Quote from: Ali on February 16, 2012, 12:19:21 AM
Awww, En_Route, don't be cross with poor old Dawkins. It's not (ultimately) his fault he comes off that way. :P :D
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.
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 18, 2012, 04:06:55 AM
Quote from: En_Route on February 17, 2012, 01:05:19 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 16, 2012, 10:02:00 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 16, 2012, 09:53:09 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 16, 2012, 07:49:26 PM
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....
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 like Dawkins.
There's so much idiocy directed at evolutionary theory, I wouldn't venture to censure his revulsion.
Quote from: En_Route on February 18, 2012, 02:38:03 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 16, 2012, 12:19:21 AM
Awww, En_Route, don't be cross with poor old Dawkins. It's not (ultimately) his fault he comes off that way. :P :D
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?
Quote from: En_Route on February 18, 2012, 02:38:03 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 16, 2012, 12:19:21 AM
Awww, En_Route, don't be cross with poor old Dawkins. It's not (ultimately) his fault he comes off that way. :P :D
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?
Quote from: Crocoduck on February 18, 2012, 04:55:20 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 18, 2012, 02:38:03 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 16, 2012, 12:19:21 AM
Awww, En_Route, don't be cross with poor old Dawkins. It's not (ultimately) his fault he comes off that way. :P :D
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.
Quote from: Ali on February 18, 2012, 02:50:17 PM
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.
Quote from: Ali on February 18, 2012, 02:50:17 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: En_Route on February 18, 2012, 09:27:37 PM
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.
Quote from: Tank on February 18, 2012, 09:37:17 PM
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.
Quote from: Tank on February 18, 2012, 09:37:17 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 18, 2012, 09:27:37 PM
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.
Being assertive and refusing to be cowed by bullying; who can demur? Dawkins for me though oozes a self-satisfaction and shrill righteousness which is wholly counter-productive. I don't think Dawkins in fact has any credentials which equip him to rebut theism; indeed some of his arguments are pretty callow.
Quote from: Whitney on February 16, 2012, 07:46:56 PM
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.
I can see why Penn comes across as a little abrasive, but I think that's, in part, because they're in the entertainment field. They work in Vegas where everything has to be a shocking and "in your face" to get noticed.
I've come to like him a lot better since I started following him on Twitter. He gets challenged by some pretty crazy/outspoken theists there and he always has really measured, reasonable responses. I also tweeted with him about tea and the fact that his grand-parents were from Newfoundland, so that raised his stock in my book ;D
I wish Professor Brian Cox would discuss religion more often as he is a fantastic speaker plus he is far more accessible and likeable than the majority of those that do speak openly about religion and atheism. Probably better though that he does focus on science rather than religion.
Quote from: Crow on February 19, 2012, 07:26:09 PM
I wish Professor Brian Cox would discuss religion more often as he is a fantastic speaker plus he is far more accessible and likeable than the majority of those that do speak openly about religion and atheism. Probably better though that he does focus on science rather than religion.
LOL. I saw him gliding close to a theistic comment once. It was quite amusing he really, really had to bite his tongue! I got the impression that if he had let rip he would make Dawkins look polite! :D
Quote from: Tank on February 19, 2012, 07:30:17 PM
Quote from: Crow on February 19, 2012, 07:26:09 PM
I wish Professor Brian Cox would discuss religion more often as he is a fantastic speaker plus he is far more accessible and likeable than the majority of those that do speak openly about religion and atheism. Probably better though that he does focus on science rather than religion.
LOL. I saw him gliding close to a theistic comment once. It was quite amusing he really, really had to bite his tongue! I got the impression that if he had let rip he would make Dawkins look polite! :D
I just like how straight forward his language is whilst not sounding condescending or particularly insulting whilst directly calling people "twats", "idiots", "morons" which is unusual for a scientist.
Quote from: Crow on February 19, 2012, 11:48:36 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 19, 2012, 07:30:17 PM
Quote from: Crow on February 19, 2012, 07:26:09 PM
I wish Professor Brian Cox would discuss religion more often as he is a fantastic speaker plus he is far more accessible and likeable than the majority of those that do speak openly about religion and atheism. Probably better though that he does focus on science rather than religion.
LOL. I saw him gliding close to a theistic comment once. It was quite amusing he really, really had to bite his tongue! I got the impression that if he had let rip he would make Dawkins look polite! :D
I just like how straight forward his language is whilst not sounding condescending or particularly insulting whilst directly calling people "twats", "idiots", "morons" which is unusual for a scientist.
It would be fun to see!
In defense of Dawkins, I think he's actually quite calm and focused considering that his subject (evolutionary theory and zoology) take all that they do from inane creationists. If I were him, I would feel very frustrated to fight what is a losing battle (since people prefer comfort over truth). There's nothing more annoying than having to debate someone who
a) doesn't know squat
b) doesn't care to know squat and
c) has a crowd of people who don't know squat and don't care to know squat cheering them on
When he does get into religion, though, IMO he's a bit over his head. 'The God Delusion' was unimpressive. He is good at describing biology for laypeople, though.
Anyways, I think there's a place for all types of people, and if Dawkins has a hand in converting someone who does better than him as an activist, then that's a gain regardless of his style.
Quote from: Tank on February 15, 2012, 10:00:23 PM
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.
That does sound a bit...odd. :-\
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on February 23, 2012, 12:35:46 AM
Quote from: Tank on February 15, 2012, 10:00:23 PM
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.
That does sound a bit...odd. :-\
Some folks are hardcore science people. Some folks are 'people' people. Some folks are both, and some just aren't. I think Dawkins is a hardcore science person, but not necessarily a people person. He sees his field and his message as being generally more important than having a sense of patience or acceptance.
I'm with En_Route in disliking Richard Dawkins. Partly because of his egomania but also because he's very boring.
I thought the God Delusion getting published and becoming so popular, that fact in itself, was valuable in that it opened up debate and cleared some of the taboo surrounding it. As for the content though, it doesn't accommodate the religious, which he admits, and any atheist who would go to the trouble of reading it must have had some previous interest in the subject, otherwise they wouldn't have been led there in the first place. In other words, they'll likely have thought through all of his arguments already, by themselves. It doesn't really bring anything new to the table, unless you enjoy having your views reiterated by others, which I don't. People who agree with me are idiots, frankly.
Quote from: xSilverPhinxHe is good at describing biology for laypeople, though.
Definitely worth some praise for that.
Quote from: Tank on February 15, 2012, 10:00:23 PM
He has lived his life in academia and in my opinion has no empathy with 'the person in the street.
...A quality I, for one, find rather appealing.
Quote from: Asmodean on February 23, 2012, 12:39:42 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 15, 2012, 10:00:23 PM
He has lived his life in academia and in my opinion has no empathy with 'the person in the street.
...A quality I, for one, find rather appealing.
:D
Quote from: Melmoth on February 23, 2012, 10:31:38 AM
People who agree with me are idiots, frankly.
I agree! Oh wait.