by KateWild 189 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Although he is a fundie and uses nonesense comparrisons like Holocaust deniers, his science cannot be faulted. So I wouldn't say I embrace him, but as an evolutionary biologist he has got it right. His teaching methods I disagree with.
You've misued the word "fundie" again and holocaust deniers are real, despite your previous claim.
Hi kate,I think only Dawkins really knows why he would call churchgoers uneducated. I suspect he is not being personal, but generalising which in the context of debate is understandable and of course as you have said there are churchgoers who would fit into the catagory of ' uneducated ' if against evidence to the contrary they cling on to the creationst line.
I think its more of a personality clash ie some folks just rub us up the wrong way.I don't think he'll ever be your pal?
Personaly I find him quite entertaining through the serious facade.
Best wishes
Agreed that Dawkins is a good science teacher, shame he's an embarrassment on nearly any other subject.
Viviane, what term would you use to describe someone who's atheistic/anti religious views you believed were extreme?
I think its more of a personality clash ie some folks just rub us up the wrong way.I don't think he'll ever be your pal?-galaxie
Yes you're right, he rubs me up the wrong way, but entertains many. I have no problem with his evolution though. Having said this I did mention on either this thread or my review of Chapter 2, I found it lacking in scientific data. I really liked the account of the fox experiment, but I wanted to see numbers, charts, and tables with all the details in.
Sadly I felt unstaisfied after reading the science. If I am going to read something on evolution I will probably read something more mainstream that is taught in schools and colleges from a commonly used curriculum text book.
Kate xx
Viviane, what term would you use to describe someone who's atheistic/anti religious views you believed were extreme?
I think those are two separate questions. If someone is an atheist already, I don't see how that person could be an extreme atheist, plumbing new depths of unbelief.
If someone is anti-religion to the degree you would consider extreme, then extreme is a good word.
Dawkins use of Holocaust deniers as an anology is simply down to his view that evolution as a theory has been proven beyond reasonable doubt and that anyone who denies the development of life on earth through the general evolutionary process is exhibiting a similar stubborness to accept a commonly held fact as someone denying that the Holocaust took place. I believe he also qualifies this in The Greatest Show if memory serves me right.
It is fair to say that in areas where he is convinced of the validity of a given theory he is passionate about this. It is also fair to say that his views on the dangers (as he sees it) of giving creationism an equal footing with current evolutionary theory in education are strong and he is not backward in coming forward to express them. He is also skeptical of any sort of view that there could be supernatural answers to open questions. His view is that is there is nothing that is not (or probably will not be) ultimately explained in a scientific manner and we do not have to revert to the supernatural.
There are differences between this and the sort of attitude demonstrated by religious fundamentalism however.
Firstly, the passion with which he expresses his views is no different to how any person may express their views on a subject they feel strongly about. If an employee and union member expresses their views on their employment contract and takes strike action then are they a fundamentalist, or simply convinced of their opinion?
Secondly, he is a scientist and open to changing his views should appropriate information come to light on the basis of valid scientific research. If it was proved in a scietifically valid manner that there was a supernatural explaination for some aspect of the natural world then he would be honour bound to accept it. Again, I believe he has said as much. This is very different to a religious fundamentalist who simply refuses to move from an entrenched position because it is unreconcilable with what commonly accepted science has to say.
I am sure that he has preferences for one or another position where conflicting hypothesies (sp?) exist. I would agree that sometimes he come across as superior and sneering at those whose viewpoints he disagrees with. Does that make him an entrenched extremist? Not at all, just human.
I think that he, in common with a number of Media Darlings, like the sadly missed Christopher Hitchins, do not sneer at the person holding silly views, but at the views themselves, there is a distinction.
I too do the same thing, I would never denigrate the person themselves, but if their views are way off, I will point out why and where.
The problem for rationalist thinkers is that many believers simply will not consider the evidence in an open-minded way, just look at the JW attitude, and many believers are like them, blinkered, ill-informed, not prepared to use Critical Thinking skills and very ready to make Ad Hominem attacks when they see they are losing the debate, i.e "You are only an Atheist because you do not wish to Blah Blah whatever..."
I can understand the frustration that Richard Dawkins feels with people like that, he has worked hard to make quite difficult Science accessable to the common man, and yet they will not even give his work the attention it deserves.
The Greatest Show on Earth is a truly great book.
Phizzy, I am glad you liked the book. I have just been discissing some problems with evolutionary biology that Dawkins does not know the answers to on another thread. Perhaps you can indulge me.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/279243/8/There-Was-No-First-Human#.U1aJ1fldW8A
Kate xx
I think that he, in common with a number of Media Darlings, like the sadly missed Christopher Hitchins, do not sneer at the person holding silly views, but at the views themselves, there is a distinction.
Apologies Phizzy - you are correct in making that distinction.
The Greatest Show on Earth is a truly great book.
You are also correct with this statement.
Not sure what we are arguing about here... I do not think that it is radical atheism to point out the truth or call attention to damaging beliefs. I'll point out the often sited thought - Radical atheists type on a keyboard, read books, post on social media, and strive for change. Radical religious types kill those who disagree.
When looked at unbiased, I don't see how you can call Dawkins radical. Muslim Jihadists are radical. Christian Crusaders were radical. People who blow up abortion clinics and shoot doctors are radical.
