What is wrong with Dawkins?

[stan1980]

Well?

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Absolutely nothing at all.
He has a great ability to explain aspects of evolution in such a way as to make them more understandable to someone like me.

Later on in his career he seems to have appointed himself as the spokesman for atheist apologetics. This is unfortunate for hima nad atheism because he is rather poor on the subjects of philosophy and theology and seems to think or at least imply that not knowing anything about the latter somehow is OK for someone who wishes to speak about whether God exists or not. He is quite vocal about how rubbish he thinks theology is.

He would have saved himself a lot of time when writing the God Delusion if he would simply have written:

"Theology is poo, therefore God doesn't exist. Maybe that should be; God doesn't exist and therefore theology is poo. Either way, you get the general picture.
The End.
p.s. religion causes wars."

He probably would have sold the same number of copies as well because people mostly just want affirmation of something they already think is true anyway.

YNWA
Mike.

 

[cantata]

I don't know, but he has awesome hair.

In all seriousness, my main problem with him is when he goes outside his field of expertise and tries to pontificate about things about which he knows very little. The Blind Watchmaker is one of my favourite books, but he should have left someone with some actual knowledge in the areas of philosophy of religion, psychology of religion, and/or biblical criticism to write The God Delusion.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

I don't know, but he has awesome hair.

Really? Awesome you say?
How so?

 

[cantata]

Really? Awesome you say?
How so?

It's so elegantly coiffed!

Don't tell anyone, but I think I secretly fancy him a bit. The hair, the clipped enunciation, the biology... Rawr.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

It's not that uncommon an affliction cantata.

I have met a couple of women who secretly fancy Dawkings.

I personally don't see the attraction.
I'm trying to think who a female version of Dawkings would be to see if this rouses anything but I can't figure out who fits the bill.

 

[cantata]

It's not that uncommon an affliction cantata.

I have met a couple of women who secretly fancy Dawkings.

I personally don't see the attraction.
I'm trying to think who a female version of Dawkings would be to see if this rouses anything but I can't figure out who fits the bill.

Unfortunately the tragic shortage of female public faces of scholarship is probably to blame for that.

 

[stan1980]

Part of me sometimes thinks of the moderate religious people, of which there are many, and then I think there is no need to attack religion, because it is such a flawed and undefendable object anyway. It's a bit like kicking a kitten. But then I think of how people use religion to gain power, using it as a reason to start wars, how it separates people etc.

He does come across as quite sneery, but I like him, these ideas can't be attacked often or strongly enough. Religion effects all of us, and I think Dawkins does a good job of attacking it.

 

[brightmorningstar]

How does a religion that seeks to love ones neighbour, forgive and turn the other cheek, cause wars? Surely you mean abandoning such a religion causes wars?

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

He stirs debate about it. That can't be a bad thing in my opinion.
If I were an atheist, I would be a bit embaressed by some of his arguments; but I'm not so ... err, I'm not.
He gets people talking about whether God exists and this is good.

 

[stan1980]

How does a religion that seeks to love ones neighbour, forgive and turn the other cheek, cause wars? Surely you mean abandoning such a religion causes wars?

Yes, well it's not really the people who forgive and turn the other cheek that are the problem.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

How does a religion that seeks to love ones neighbour, forgive and turn the other cheek, cause wars? Surely you mean abandoning such a religion causes wars?

I'm not actually saying it does.
I was parodying Dawkings.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I'm not actually saying it does.
I was parodying Dawkings.

And his clubmembers claim he is intelligent.

 

[cantata]

And his clubmembers claim he is intelligent.

But of course, you know better.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

But of course, you know better.

I talk with them often.

Homogenized as a glass of processed milk.

Look, the guy is a hilarious cartoon character. If he wants to promote atheism as a peaceful club of idle, apathetic, self-appointed academic-moralists, good for him. He'll more than likely be unsuccessful (as I do get out in the reaal world everyday), but I applaud his playing the crowd and getting rich doing it. I've never had a poblem with Manson either. Good for them.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Having read his books (The Selfish Gene, The God Delusion, Unweaving the Rainbow, etc) watched his lectures (Growing Up in the Universe), and listened to his debates (Four Horsemen, etc), I agree with almost all of what he says.

But then, most people who say that seem to disagree with his approach to religion and philosophy, but I don't see why. People seem to criticism him on being "outside his field", as if that's any indictment on his arguments.

Is it just me?

 

[stan1980]

Having read his books (The Selfish Gene, The God Delusion, Unweaving the Rainbow, etc) watched his lectures (Growing Up in the Universe), and listened to his debates (Four Horsemen, etc), I agree with almost all of what he says.

But then, most people who say that seem to disagree with his approach to religion and philosophy, but I don't see why. People seem to criticism him on being "outside his field", as if that's any indictment on his arguments.

Is it just me?

No, I agree. A lot of people criticise him for this or that, but I haven't exactly heard any convincing arguments on any particulars they seem to have a problem with.

 

[cantata]

No, I agree. A lot of people criticise him for this or that, but I haven't exactly heard any convincing arguments on any particulars they seem to have a problem with.

I don't have my copy of The God Delusion here, so I can't give you a detailed exposition.

My main problems with him are that his approach to philosophy of religion is overly simplistic; he either ignorantly or deliberately chooses the weakest forms of the arguments he attempts to refute; he claims to be trying to convert people out of religion and on the next page says that religious people are statistically more likely to be stupid than atheists; and he grossly underestimates the emotional and social strains of losing one's faith.

You guys know I'm an atheist, so I'm clearly unconvinced by arguments for the existence of God. But I have also studied them at undergraduate level and I know that Dawkins doesn't approach them very well. You don't need to agree with the arguments to do them justice, but you do need to give them a charitable reading and find arguments against their strongest formulations, not the weakest or most popular ones.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I don't have my copy of The God Delusion here, so I can't give you a detailed exposition.

My main problems with him are that his approach to philosophy of religion is overly simplistic; he either ignorantly or deliberately chooses the weakest forms of the arguments he attempts to refute; he claims to be trying to convert people out of religion and on the next page says that religious people are statistically more likely to be stupid than atheists; and he grossly underestimates the emotional and social strains of losing one's faith.

You guys know I'm an atheist, so I'm clearly unconvinced by arguments for the existence of God. But I have also studied them at undergraduate level and I know that Dawkins doesn't approach them very well. You don't need to agree with the arguments to do them justice, but you do need to give them a charitable reading and find arguments against their strongest formulations, not the weakest or most popular ones.

I agree. Though I do agree with a lot of what Dawkins says, I don't think his approach is particularly comprehensive. If The God Delusion or other similar writings are intended to encompass a complete logical argument against the basic claims of theism, they fall somewhat short.

I have heard atheists lament that they have never read a more convincing argument for Christianity than The God Delusion. I wouldn't go that far, but I would say that inasmuch as people take it as a complete refutation it doesn't live up to expectations. Fortunately, we still have the Bible, which contains in my opinion some of the greatest arguments against Christianity.

 

[huldah153]

My only quarrel with Dawkins is his insistence that Darwinian evolution entails atheism, despite the fact that the main architects of the neo-Darwinian synthesis were devout Christians. Apart from that, he's entitled to his opinions.