What do you think of Richard Dawkins?

Caitlin Black · May 22, 2010

Title of thread says it all.

Discuss.

ETA: Without giving a lengthy essay, I'll just start the ball rolling with, "I'd like to meet him."

mccardey · May 22, 2010

I kind of like him - I think he's a good discussion starter. I like Sam Harris a little bit more, and I really like Christopher Hitchens because of getting himself water-boarded. I also love Reza Aslan because he writes so beautifully. And Karen Armstrong. I'd like to meet all of them

You could come too, if you bring cake....

Caitlin Black · May 22, 2010

I can get cake.

I'm more likely to bring coffee.

mccardey · May 22, 2010

Coffee and cake, then. Maybe not George Pell.....

NoGuessing · May 22, 2010

I think the man comes across as a bit of a cock in his debates, but he can argue a point well.

leahzero · May 22, 2010

He does important work, and has written some excellent books which have had an enormous impact on my thinking. (I'm referring to his evolutionary science stuff more than his skepticism.) Sometimes he takes his beliefs a bit too far, into a semi-kooky vigilantism, and paints himself in a bad light (e.g., arresting the Pope--not that I disagree with him in principle, but that the way he presented it seemed like showboating).

There is a double-standard, of course, because the fundies he's battling evince no compunction about being kooks, vigilantes, showboats, and any number of other delusional and fraudulent things. But I like to hold my skeptics to higher standards.

I disagree with the accusations of arrogance against him, however. It's a common criticism leveled at skeptics. My favorite science and skeptic blogger, P.Z. Meyers, also gets labeled "arrogant" for dismissing nonsense out of hand and showing zero tolerance for illogical and irrational thinking.

But that's the problem: skeptics have to argue with people who refuse to acknowledge (let alone abide by) the principles of intelligent debate, such as logic, consistency, clarity, and transparency. Of course Dawkins and other skeptics are going to sound arrogant when they sweep away the delusion and emotional appeals.

Yet few people, aside from skeptics, criticize the crackpots and fundies for trying to frame debate in their own special, illogical terms, or for failing to be internally consistent in their statements, or for various other faults. They assume that the two parties arguing--and their arguments--are equally credible. This is a false assumption.

And really, charges of arrogance show how insubstantial the arguments are against skeptical ideas and positions on issues. It's essentially admitting that there is little else to do but resort to ad hominem feces-flinging.

Shadow_Ferret · May 22, 2010

I loved him on Family Feud and how he had to kiss all the ladies.

Ruv Draba · May 22, 2010

I don't think I could invite Dawkins to a dinner-party without also inviting a religious humanist like John Shelby Spong. Spong shares many of Dawkins' concerns about religion, but has an empathy in his approach that Dawkins sometimes lacks.

NoGuessing · May 23, 2010

Leah Raeder said:
He does important work, and has written some excellent books which have had an enormous impact on my thinking. (I'm referring to his evolutionary science stuff more than his skepticism.) Sometimes he takes his beliefs a bit too far, into a semi-kooky vigilantism, and paints himself in a bad light (e.g., arresting the Pope--not that I disagree with him in principle, but that the way he presented it seemed like showboating).

There is a double-standard, of course, because the fundies he's battling evince no compunction about being kooks, vigilantes, showboats, and any number of other delusional and fraudulent things. But I like to hold my skeptics to higher standards.

I disagree with the accusations of arrogance against him, however. It's a common criticism leveled at skeptics. My favorite science and skeptic blogger, P.Z. Meyers, also gets labeled "arrogant" for dismissing nonsense out of hand and showing zero tolerance for illogical and irrational thinking.

But that's the problem: skeptics have to argue with people who refuse to acknowledge (let alone abide by) the principles of intelligent debate, such as logic, consistency, clarity, and transparency. Of course Dawkins and other skeptics are going to sound arrogant when they sweep away the delusion and emotional appeals.

Yet few people, aside from skeptics, criticize the crackpots and fundies for trying to frame debate in their own special, illogical terms, or for failing to be internally consistent in their statements, or for various other faults. They assume that the two parties arguing--and their arguments--are equally credible. This is a false assumption.

And really, charges of arrogance show how insubstantial the arguments are against skeptical ideas and positions on issues. It's essentially admitting that there is little else to do but resort to ad hominem feces-flinging.

I'm not religious, but I don't think you can call someone a crackpot and be surprised you're labelled arrogant.

You can say they're wrong, but you just proved my biggest beef with most atheists: it's straight into personal attacks.

Yes, I realise the other side is just as bad. You'll never see me question that.

I just lament that the only polite discussion these days seems to happen in fiction. Hell, if Rand and Moridin can have a polite chat by the fire in WoT, then people in the real world can manage it.

DrZoidberg · May 23, 2010

I think he's one of the most brilliant scientists that has ever lived. I think he's a so-and-so philosopher.

Ok, so God doesn't exist as an actual physical something, as an actual superman that swoops in and saves the day. We get it. But can't God exist anyway? Don't ideas exist? Can't we be effected (and affected) by ideas? Can't they be important to us. Love doesn't exist as anything tangible either. Few things are as important to humans. Aren't rituals important to humans, that feeling that we all have something in common, (besides bodily functions), common goals and common hopes. On this he's very silent indeed.

Ruv Draba · May 23, 2010

DrZoidberg said:
Can't we be effected (and affected) by ideas?

Yes, but we evaluate secular ideas very differently to the way that believers evaluate gods. In the absence of religious dogma, we normally evaluate ideas on an evidence-based moral framework: on balance, does this thing help people or hurt them? A secular moral analysis of religion can be undertaken on a case by case basis.

But if we do that, then theists don't normally get the results they want. Atheists have more stable relationships, better education, better jobs and fewer prison-sentences than theists. Moreover, a lot of deities are attributed behaviours that are morally indefensible from a secular perspective: torturing and destroying decent humans being among the most serious of their perfidies. If the deity is real then how is its worship morally different from worshipping a despotic dictator? And if the deity is false, how is its worship anything other than monstrous?

Love doesn't exist as anything tangible either.

If you mean romantic love, friendship or parental love then they're certainly material. There is an object of love; there are chemical and emotional states and triggers; there are objective measures of whether that love is nourishing and beneficial.

The same may well be true of religious love -- the love may be tangible even if the loved object is entirely imaginary. It might be interesting to compare religious love to the love of other abstracts -- like nationhood, or a piece of music.

DrZoidberg · May 23, 2010

Ruv Draba said:
Yes, but we evaluate secular ideas very differently to the way that believers evaluate gods. In the absence of religious dogma, we normally evaluate ideas on an evidence-based moral framework: on balance, does this thing help people or hurt them? A secular moral analysis of religion can be undertaken on a case by case basis.

But that's not how people work, do they? Does this situation make me happy, yes or no? Always ignoring the context. "Happy" being an incredibly vague. Humans aren't rational. Even if we rationally understand something doesn't mean our emotional inner life agrees. I have no problem imagining somebody entering a church and being surrounded by smiling welcoming faces, and by that being nudged/sucked into faith, no matter if it makes rational sense or not.

I had a friend over for dinner the other day who said this, "Of course God exists, we created him." I think it's a fantastic quote.

Ruv Draba said:
But if we do that, then theists don't normally get the results they want. Atheists have more stable relationships, better education, better jobs and fewer prison-sentences than theists. Moreover, a lot of deities are attributed behaviours that are morally indefensible from a secular perspective: torturing and destroying decent humans being among the most serious of their perfidies. If the deity is real then how is its worship morally different from worshipping a despotic dictator? And if the deity is false, how is its worship anything other than monstrous?

You forgot that atheists don't murder each other as much. I'd say you have post hoc ergo propter hoc situation. I put this down to class differences. People who are educated, have high status and money tend to be atheists and lawful. I don't think atheism is the causal agent at all. Neither is religion a causal agent in prompting people into being criminals or cruel. No, not Al Qaeda either. I just don't buy it. I think, when it comes to moral issues, religion is irrelevant. I rest my belief on the "Euthyphro dilemma". People wouldn't belong to a religion whose morals offends them, therefore, religion is irrelevant to morals.

I think it can be very rewarding to a person to be religious (regardless if they're poor or uneducated). Or I mean... obviously. Or religion would have died out ages ago. I think people only embrace atheism when religion and the concept of God is just too vague to have any meaning. Then I think atheism is inevitable. That's what I think Dawkins is lacking. I think he doesn't understand that he has, in his own life, replaced the emotional grounding religion gives with something else. We need a metaphysical backdrop to exist... or our concept of self evaporates. You can't just tell people God doesn't exist, pull the rug from out under them and then expect they'll, in an instant, weave together a secular metaphysical model in a blink of an eye. A person who has been raised within a religion, needs religion to exist (the idea of themselves). They can only embrace atheism once they have a secular alternative. Until then, people like Dawkins will only be seen as a humiliating torturer, and the cheering atheist crowds will come across as bullies.

The Judeo-Christian metaphysical model is extremely simple. I have no problem imagining that somebody who has gotten used to that model, simply can't imagine how deep the rabbit hole goes, because they haven't got any practice.

Ruv Draba said:
If you mean romantic love, friendship or parental love then they're certainly material. There is an object of love; there are chemical and emotional states and triggers; there are objective measures of whether that love is nourishing and beneficial.

The same may well be true of religious love -- the love may be tangible even if the loved object is entirely imaginary. It might be interesting to compare religious love to the love of other abstracts -- like nationhood, or a piece of music.

I love my wife eight. How much do you love your wife? That's not how we emotionally relate to abstract concepts, is it? Even if it's possible to measure and compare various types of love in a lab, doesn't mean it will ever be translated into anything meaningful by our emotional system. Human beings are fundamentally ruled by our emotions, even if we have the capacity to reason about things rationally.

Ruv Draba · May 23, 2010

DrZoidberg said:
Humans aren't rational. Even if we rationally understand something doesn't mean our emotional inner life agrees.

I concur, which is why I disagree with some of the policies advocated by Dawkins and nearly all of Sam Harris' position regarding the 'extirpation' of religion.

I don't think atheism is the causal agent at all.

Neither do I. I think that affluence, security and secular education improve the human condition, reduce violence, improve relationships and incidentally reduce religious faith, though not extirpating it. But this is something that many religious leaders wish to deny.

I don't profess that atheism serves any good other than assisting the discovery of truth, or that humans need profess to a single story unless it can be independently substantiated. But I oppose religions that systematically advocate outright deception and promote monstrous and inhuman values and beliefs. That's many, though not all of them, and certainly many of the oldest and most powerful ones.

I think it can be very rewarding to a person to be religious (regardless if they're poor or uneducated).

I do too. I think that religion can be a benificent aesthetic through which humans express the basic goodness of their humanity -- it's not my aesthetic, but I recognise that mine may not serve everyone else.

But if a religion is to serve humanity it must be made accountable to human decency and not superstition and bogiemen. Centuries of fearful and unquestioning obedience have turned many of our oldest and strongest religions into pompous, self-important edifices tended by corrupt, cynical and incompetent hierophants serving their own political ends. I think that such institutions should be challenged, wresteld pricked and deflated into suitable humility and service once again. So I support the challenges issued by Dawkins, Harris and the like. I just think their own ignorance and self-interest leads them at times to the wrong end-state.

I think people only embrace atheism when religion and the concept of God is just too vague to have any meaning.

Some may embrace atheism because religion fails, but for some (like me), atheism is a consequence of who they are. I find religion to be useless clutter, but what's clutter to me can be a very handy way for others to arrive at insight and strength.

We need a metaphysical backdrop to exist... or our concept of self evaporates.

Utter nonsense, Dr Z. I have a very clear concept of self and no metaphysical backdrop. But a sense of self that satisfies me may not satisfy others. They may need to weave in some story about the universe before they feel comfortable in who they are. To me that looks a bit self-important, but I don't begrudge it if that's what they need.

You can't just tell people God doesn't exist, pull the rug from out under them and then expect they'll, in an instant, weave together a secular metaphysical model in a blink of an eye.

I not only agree, I'd take it further. Magical belief is so foundational a part of the thought of most humans that if people had no religion today they'd probably reinvent it tomorrow. I'd still be an atheist though.

The Judeo-Christian metaphysical model is extremely simple.

Actually, I think that it's not. I think that it arose from a simple idea, but was complicated by time, politics and numerous cultural influences. I think that the resulting construct has grown inconsistent, overburdened with dogma and blinkered by supremacism.

I love my wife eight. How much do you love your wife?

Eleven. I tell her so nearly every day. But perhaps we use a different scale.

Human beings are fundamentally ruled by our emotions, even if we have the capacity to reason about things rationally.

It's an arrogant human trait to imagine that everyone's mind works like our own. Dawkins makes this mistake at times, Dr Z but I think you have too in your post. Rather than prescribing what is good for one another we need to observe and ask questions from a place of sympathy to discover it.

veinglory · May 23, 2010

I think Dawkins fills a necessary role as a fervent atheist. His thinking seems pretty sound to me and I see no reason why dogmatic atheism shouldn't have a role in society--although it isn't my own approach. There is plenty of dogmatic religion.

Jamesaritchie · May 23, 2010

[removed by moderator: posts in this forum are posited on the legitimacy of athiest viewpoints.]

Ruv Draba · May 23, 2010

veinglory said:
dogmatic atheism

I didn't find anything to disagree with in your point, Vein, but got curious about this term: what do you see as dogmatic atheism in this case, where is the dogma and who wrote it? I could agree that Mao's atheism or Marx's is dogmatic; I'm not clear that Dawkins' is -- though it's certainly strident.

Caitlin Black · May 23, 2010

I disagree that all humans are ruled by their emotions. I'm not. And it wasn't the vagueness of religion that made me an atheist - it was simply a "WTF? They expect me to believe THAT?" moment.

I had gone through my life up until I was 13, seeing what was in this world around me, and learning how to deal with it, like all people have to do. I wasn't surrounded by religion as a child, which I am eternally thankful for, and so when I got sent to a Catholic High School and they started "teaching" us things like, "And then God sent down a flood," well... my immediate reaction was literally WTF? It just seemed "additional" to what I had already learned about the world. There was no proof, and it was pretty far out there. It was my first touch with religion, and I already thought from that first moment that it was a load of old hooey.

So no, it wasn't vagueness. I understood what they were trying to teach me, and I saw no reason for it. Basically, God was the question, answer AND argument in between - it simply didn't relate to my life. If I had been raised to believe in God, then I'm sure at High School I would've thought, "Why?" and answered, "God?" and then asked myself, "God?" and answered, "Yes, because God." It's a self-contained system - you assume 1 thing, work through some complex arguments and wind up back at your assumption, only you've told yourself that you just proved it.

It didn't sit well with me. Let's just leave it at that.

I'm more opinionated about the fact that I'm not ruled by my emotions. I'm ruled by my thoughts - when I do something stupid, I can always trace it back to a falsehood of thought. When I do something I'm happy with, I can always remember the thought that made me want to do that. Emotions come afterwards, and aren't very strong (for me, at least).

I will acknowledge the following: I'll use depression as an example. Depression is an emotion. When I'm depressed, my thoughts are somewhat different to normal. So an emotion can hold sway over thoughts, but in the end, even when I'm depressed, my actions are still based on thoughts, and I have a fairly tuned censor in my brain, letting me know whether certain actions would be okay or not, or whether they are "like me to do that" if it's a grey area.

But even with depression, I don't "feel" very much at all. I'm not "moved" to speech or action by a "feeling" inside. For me, it's all thought.

Disclaimer: I've said, "For me" a number of times - and that means exactly what you think it means - for me, and not necessarily for anyone else.

But bringing us back to Dawkins - the only complaint I have with him is that his books "The God Delusion," and "The Greatest Show On Earth - Evidence For Evolution," didn't PROVE there was no God. So I was mildly disappointed, though I kind of expected as much. If he had PROVED there was no God, the world would be in an uproar and you couldn't NOT know about it. He DID provide very good reason to not believe, and unlike Jamesaritchie, I don't think his arguments had been "Shot down 500 times". His attempts at proving there is no God could be shot down, but his evidence for evolution (as an example) was impeccable.

Also, I think he's only responding as fiercely as he is because of the reception he's received - he's devoted his life to understanding Darwinian evolution (and took it to the next level with The Selfish Gene - great book) and nowadays, religions worldwide are moving for evolution to be stricken from the record. I think Dawkins saw the coming of another Dark Ages, where we attribute everything to the boogeyman in the closet and throw down scientific understanding (and indeed, a lot of decent morals, as I think Ruv was touching on) - that's certainly the impression you get from religious sects seeking to expunge an important piece of science. And so Dawkins defended himself as feverishly as the Pope would defend God.

The real friction comes from the fact that the 2 opposing sides are basically at a stand still, both sides saying, "You prove it." "No you prove it!" "Nyar nyar nuh nyar nyar, prove it bitch."

In the end, if either side could prove their claims, the world would be a much darker place. But it does create a lot of friction. Dawkins happens to be a leading expert on evolution, and so he's come into the firing line. He didn't lay down and take it, which I can respect, but now he's seen as the Devil of science - a complete bastard. It's all circumstantial. There's nothing special about what Dawkins has done in defense of his beliefs - the same thing has been happening for thousands of years.

EmpoweredOKC · May 24, 2010

I'm a theist, and a fan of Dawkins. I feel myself actually growing smarter as I devour his books, one by one! I found "The God Delusion" to be fascinating (but I remain a theist albeit one with a tendency to doubt and challenge my own beliefs at times).

As for Dawkins and Spong having a dinner conversation, I'd LOVE to be there and see that (I've read a few of Spong's books, too)!

veinglory · May 24, 2010

Ruv Draba said:
: what do you see as dogmatic atheism in this case, where is the dogma and who wrote it? I could agree that Mao's atheism or Marx's is dogmatic; I'm not clear that Dawkins' is -- though it's certainly strident.

I think Dawkins was the first of a small cadre of dogmatic atheists who have a number of arguments that they are trying to propell into the minds of the general public through the popular media. Dawkins, via his books, has established a particular brand which many others copy.

I would see him as roughly parallel to the approach taken by charismatic animal rights leaders like Singer, Regan and Francione who have some simple and fairly sound points to make, and they make them as loudly and as often as they can with the goal of chaging social norms.

The points, individually, are not new--but the entire package is distinctive and taking it to audiences like the Colbert Report is a new tack. There is a distinct "Dawkins brand" centred on his books and promulgated by his appearances.

AMCrenshaw · May 24, 2010

Religion and religious thinking can be explained by evolution, he says, doesn't he? His point being that these evolved so that humans could better survive, and therefore do not necessarily point to any truths.

And reason? Ah, well.

AMCrenshaw · May 24, 2010

Possibly derailing:

Ruv Draba said:
I have a very clear concept of self and no metaphysical backdrop.

... Really? I find the two parts of these statements contradictory.

veinglory · May 24, 2010

How so? As a person with a materialist outlook I can still comprehend the concept of the self and the subjective phenomena that create it.

AMCrenshaw · May 24, 2010

veinglory said:
How so? As a person with a materialist outlook I can still comprehend the concept of the self and the subjective phenomena that create it.

As an analogy, I don't think we'd know "the self" anymore than we'd know "a god". So in other words, I am personally skeptical that "the self" exists -or at the very least, no one I'm aware of is aware of the totality of that which constitutes "the self." How then to define it? How clear of a concept can one have of something so obviously nebulous?

Ruv Draba · May 25, 2010

My self is attached to an object -- my body. I understand it behaviourally, using the perceptions available to me, including my physical senses, my memories and the reflections I get from those around me.

Since I know that the stories I tell about myself may be influenced by things I can't always control, I tend not to get too attached to those stories, but my behaviour still stands for itself.

And from this perspective, I don't think metaphysical garnish helps much -- it just fortifies some self-interested stories with ideas of dubious provenance and questionable truth.

DrZoidberg · May 25, 2010

Ruv Draba said:
My self is attached to an object -- my body. I understand it behaviourally, using the perceptions available to me, including my physical senses, my memories and the reflections I get from those around me.

Since I know that the stories I tell about myself may be influenced by things I can't always control, I tend not to get too attached to those stories, but my behaviour still stands for itself.

And from this perspective, I don't think metaphysical garnish helps much -- it just fortifies some self-interested stories with ideas of dubious provenance and questionable truth.

What I mean with metaphysical backdrop, is a foundation on which to exist. You always need a narrative of your life to do anything. Why did you write this post? Why do you write at all? Why does anything matter? Why is life better than death? What is your meaning of life?

If you don't at least pretend there's a basic story of your life, a play to act in, you'd be paralysed. If there's no foundation from which to exist you have no way of distinguishing helpful acts from unhelpful acts. And act can only be helpful, if there exists a goal, right?

If you didn't have any metaphysical backdrop at all your consciousness would be floating around in a chaos without any method of distinguishing anything from anything else, and without the ability to evaluate them. There are neurological conditions when this happens. They see everything around them just fine, but nothing means anything. All acts are equally as arbitrary and meaningless.

Our basic instincts give us a good mammalian foundation. But when it comes to the fancy stuff, like meaning of life, our instincts can't really help us. That's what I mean with that we need to find or create a metaphysical foundation to pin ourselves on, a ride to take through life.

"If a man does not know to what port he is steering, no wind is favourable to him"
-Seneca

What do you think of Richard Dawkins?

Wild one

Wild one

Buzz

The colors! THE COLORS!

Court Jester

Buzz

aka TomOfSweden

aka TomOfSweden

volitare nequeo

Wild one

volitare nequeo

...

...

volitare nequeo

...

aka TomOfSweden