british press have knifes out for Richard Dawkins

by highdose 115 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  00DAD

  Now if RD took a different approach, maybe something more like this:

  “The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs. Them — the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive. It does not get our message across. It condemns us to permanent minority status.” - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (1996), p. 300

  Then maybe so many people wouldn't find him to be repulsive .

  The tragically funny thing, is that there are a great many people that agree with RD philosophically, more or less, but STILL can't stand his ways!

  I realize that some people, particularly RD Fanboys, feel that being "'Nice' is over-rated", the fact is, as my grandmother used to say, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar!"

  YMMV
• 

  cofty

  I realize that some people, particularly RD Fanboys, feel that being "'Nice' is over-rated" - 00DAD

  00DAD - When it comes to being obnoxious you are in no position to criticise anybody.
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  Dawkins is not for everyone. What I've personally seen/read of his is, in my opinion, typically informative and factual, usually reflective of the person he's speaking to or about, and naturally condescending to those holding a contradicting view. (EDIT: I think that's at least in part because we tend to see criticisms of our beliefs as criticisms of ourselves.) But I can see how he might rub someone the wrong way - even those who are in the same camp, occasionally.

  Nobody will mistake him for Jesus or Gandhi, nor should they. I think there's plenty of room for a personality like his in the League of SuperAtheists since the other side of the debate warrants it at times. (Kent Hovind, anyone?)
• 

  cofty

  I think context is important. How somebody acts in everyday life may be very different from how they act in an academic setting.

  Science is adversarial, ideas will be ruthlessly scrutinised by peers and wrong headed proposals will be mercilessly attacked. Its how we get to truth.

  I can't speak for Dawkins but I know that in my own personal life I like to be kind, polite and sensitive to others feelings. However if I am debating ideas and somebody says something that is factually incorrect and wont listen to evidence I wont stand on ceremony in criticising their error. It was in that context that I said "nice is over-rated".

  How frustrating it is when people pretend that in a funny sort of way everybody has their own truth and everybody's beliefs are equally valid. This is vaccuous nonsense, it is an attempt to be "nice" in a context in which it has no place.

  Creationists would be less concerned about being offended by the like of Dawkins if they had evidence to talk about instead of their precious feelings.
• 

  Matsimus

  Personally I am a big fan. I have read two of his books and I felt that they made me more down to earth and rational.

  I think the fact that he is an atheist on a war path againts theism might be one of the reasons they are attacking him. If I remember correctly he wrote in his book "the god delusion" that the world would be a much better place without any religions and superstition. No wonder people get a bit upset. Religion has deep roots in the UK. By the way, I highly recommend reading "the blind watchmaker" and "the god delusion". Really good books :)
• 

  NewChapter

  She was trying to make decisions about what children would be taught in public schools and yet had not even the slightest clue about what she was talking about. "Idiotic" is a kind description under the circumstances.

  Look, we have a real problem in America with creationists trying to hijack and undermine science in the schools. If this brainless person actually made the remark that her grandfather was not a monkey, and then tried to shove her stupid face into school curriculum---then she did indeed get off easy. It's one thing to sit all comfy in your intentional ignorance----it's completely another to try to put these thought killing ideas into the classroom.

  Why is it that we always have to be diplomatic about these things? The damage they are doing is very real. The hit to critical thinking sets these kids up to be deceived in many areas of their lives. I say, if someone is coming after our children's minds, we can call them any name we want. Dawkins used a lot of self control here, and education is a very high priority to him.
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  Cofty, would you say that using a term like "precious feelings" could be considered a bit more... uh, acerbic than, say, "personal beliefs"? I'm not coming down on you at all (because that would make me a hypocrite). Just trying to get a fix on why Dawkins and the like are so abrasive to some believers.

  I know when I get into a heated debate with creationists, my frustration is much more likely to bleed through in my choice of words, than when I'm talking to a non-pushy believer who can say "I don't know." But if the non-pushy Christian friend read some of my words of frustration on this forum, he'd probably consider me a real douche canoe. EDIT: Nvm, I think that's what you were saying about context.

  FWIW, when I was just starting to doubt the Bible, I was a bit irritated by Bill Maher's sarcasm the first time I heard him mock Christians who mock Scientology as ridiculous, yet have no problem with a talking snake and virgin birth. Now I see his point as valid and no more condescending than a Christian who mocks Scientologists, since that is the context.
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  BTW, we are going through The Magic of Reality iPad book/app with my kids (during Family Worship Night) and we love it. Can't recommend it enough! Fantastic.
• 

  cofty

  Cofty , would you say that using a term like "precious feelings" could be considered a bit more... uh, acerbic than, say, "personal beliefs"?

  Yes I agree but again its about context. When religious friends talk about the wonders of creation I don't say anything about it, its their personal belief. If they choose to publicly promote those erroneous beliefs though then the rules are different. Truth really matters more than a person's right not to be offended.

  Again there is a big difference between a private discussion where it would be appropriate to be very sensitive to another's beliefs and a public forum where a creationist has chosen to make their "personal beliefs" public.
• 

  00DAD

  Cofty: Science is adversarial, ideas will be ruthlessly scrutinised by peers and wrong headed proposals will be mercilessly attacked. Its how we get to truth.

  I definitely agree with your statement that "ideas should be scrutinized by peers" and that things which are factually wrong should be corrected. You're completely right here.

  But I just as completely disagree with your endorsement of the adversarial approach. That is actually more descriptive of the legal system in many countries. Facts are not something to be determined by judges or juries following the rhetoric of lawyers.

  The adjectives "ruthlessly", "wrong headed" and "mercilessly attacked" are needlessly subjective and emotional and are therefore, by definition, non-scientific.

  There really is no room in the scientific method for human emotions which unnecessarily cloud judgment:

  1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
  2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
  3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
  4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
  5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

  Observe that words like "ruthless, merciless and wrong-headed" are notably absent from the scientific approach. Its how we get to truth.