What's Wrong With Richard Dawkins?

[Paranormal Inquirer]

Lately, I've encountered much opposition towards Richard Dawkins, but the suprising thing about this is that it's mostly coming from atheists. Even my good friend who is probably the most hardcore atheist I know said that he cannot stand the illogic and weak arguments of Dawkins and just wishes he would go back to writing about biology, where he truly belongs. Even on many other forums, many atheists would say that "Yeah, I'm an atheist, but not a Richard Dawkins atheist."

The question is this: why? Keep in mind that these same people tend to love Hitchens and Harris, but why the hate towards Dawkins. In all honesty, Dawkins was probably the biggest influence on my "conversion" to agnostic atheism with his book "The God Delusion." I never really liked Hitchens because despite his obvious wit and intelligence, he came off as too mean and condescending many times. Harris also came off as sort of weird towards me as well with his spiritual beliefs in like reincarnation and stuff like that, which is ironic as he is going against the idea of a god for lack of evidence.

Anyways, I was just curious as to the hostility towards Dawkins. The answer can't be that he's too much of an atheist fundamentalist because Hitchens and Harris probably "preach" just as much as he does. He's my favority of the three.

[CurtC]

I agree with you. Hitchens is fun to listen to for his razor-sharp wit, but has some downsides such as his support for an interventionist policy in the Middle East. Harris delivers some stunning rhetoric, but has those nagging woo-ish ideas.

Dawkins is pretty much just right. I get a little uneasy when he starts using the word "probability" to refer to gods, but I understand what he's saying. Dawkins is polite and to-the-point.

[qayak]

It is a weakness in the people who dislike Dawkins, not Dawkins himself.

Dawkins is an "uppity atheist," the 2008 equivilent to a 1950's "uppity ni**er."

[CFLarsen]

I would be more concerned if atheists found someone they all liked.

[westprog]

I get a little uneasy when he starts using the word "probability" to refer to gods, but I understand what he's saying. Dawkins is polite and to-the-point.


Since the probability argument is entirely central to his disproof of God, it's not surprising that many atheists have problems with it.

His dismissal of evil done by atheists, while blaming religion for the wrongs done by believers is also crude and unconvincing.

I'm wary of books that change people's lives. Generally when someone says that, whether it's The God Delusion or Dianetics, they're closing their eyes to the flaws and opposing arguments.

[Ginarley]

Anyways, I was just curious as to the hostility towards Dawkins. The answer can't be that he's too much of an atheist fundamentalist because Hitchens and Harris probably "preach" just as much as he does. He's my favority of the three.

I agree, and it doesn't make much sense to me either. For me Dawkins calls it straight, and without any significant political or ideological bias.



Since the probability argument is entirely central to his disproof of God, it's not surprising that many atheists have problems with it.

My take on his writings is that evidence (or more precisely it's absence) is central to his disbelief in gods, quite a different prospect. The probability point is a logical follow on from this.

His dismissal of evil done by atheists, while blaming religion for the wrongs done by believers is also crude and unconvincing.

With regards to this I think he pretty much follows Weinberg's famous statement (paraphrased: good do good, bad do bad, takes religion for good do bad). However it is not a point he raises very often unprovoked - it is almost always in response to the "Stalin proves atheists are evil" argument raised by others. The coverage of this in the God Delusion was to dismiss it as an argument for theism, not to push it as an argument for atheism.

I'm wary of books that change people's lives. Generally when someone says that, whether it's The God Delusion or Dianetics, they're closing their eyes to the flaws and opposing arguments.

People say that {insert inspirational book of choice here} changed their lives too - it really has little to do with the author (other than complimenting their writing). However I will say that IMO one would have to squint pretty hard while reading the God Delusion to end up becoming dogmatic about the issues in it. I do think a lot of people read it by cover only though which is most of the problem (both theists and atheists).

[Jekyll]

Since the probability argument is entirely central to his disproof of God, it's not surprising that many atheists have problems with it.

His dismissal of evil done by atheists, while blaming religion for the wrongs done by believers is also crude and unconvincing.

I'm wary of books that change people's lives. Generally when someone says that, whether it's The God Delusion or Dianetics, they're closing their eyes to the flaws and opposing arguments.

Did you read a different version of the God delusion to me?
In the one I read Dawkins doesn't claim to disprove god, just says he's 99+% certain he doesn't exist.
It's basically just a (good) rephrasing of Russell's arguments years before.

I'd love to see a disproof of god using probability theory if you have one though...

[Complexity]

What's wrong with Richard Dawkins?

Not a damned thing. He rocks.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Just my opinion, but what I have seen is that Dawkins is much more talked about than read. He is accused of many arguments that he never makes, so most of the dislike appears to be dislike of a straw Dawkins, not the real one.

[qayak]

I'm wary of books that change people's lives. Generally when someone says that, whether it's The God Delusion or Dianetics, they're closing their eyes to the flaws and opposing arguments.

What have you to say on The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain? It was a book that changed my life.

[Rasmus]

I am sure that with a bit of thought I could list a large number of books that have changed my life. The God delusion isn't one of them, but it might have been had it been written a few years earlier.

[Beerina]

I was unaware some athiests really disliked Dawkins. Learn something new every day...


In any case, I would say I'm 100% sure God doesn't exist, if by "God", you mean a god as generally described in the bible, be he the petty one of the old testament, or the oddbal one of the new who wants to be called "good" and "perfect" all the while he plans on sending most people who ever lived to Hell.

I also know there's no such thing as a theoretically greatest, most powerful god, as "it's turtles all the way up" as far as godly powers go.


Now if by "god", you mean some kid running a SimUniverse from the year 3535 in his basement, then that is an actual, if remote possibility.

[CurtC]

What have you to say on The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain? It was a book that changed my life.

Those damn atheists, always writing books that change people's lives.

[Primus]

I'm wary of books that change people's lives. Generally when someone says that, whether it's The God Delusion or Dianetics, they're closing their eyes to the flaws and opposing arguments.

Like the Bible?

[Civilized Worm]

My only real criticism of Dawkins is his constant use of the term "Darwinism" when refering to evolution.

[geni]

Being a self described bright probably doesn't help.

[JoeEllison]

My only real criticism of Dawkins is his constant use of the term "Darwinism" when refering to evolution.

I think that's a cultural thing. He's almost 70 years old, and British. He hasn't lived with the constant corruption of the word by Creationist liars the way Americans have.

[Senex]

Richard Dawkins is brilliant. He argues his point without being disrespectful to the woos. He argues logic/evidence led him to his belief. He seems a flat out straight arrow. I bet he doesn't even cheat on his taxes. He's flat out a heroic figure.

[NewtonTrino]

Love Dawkins and his books. The guy is a truly class act.

I also dig Hitchens as his writing is just amazing.

I like Ayaan Hirsi Ali enough that I sent a decent chunk of money to her security trust.

[Gregory]

With regards to this I think he pretty much follows Weinberg's famous statement (paraphrased: good do good, bad do bad, takes religion for good do bad).

Are you familiar with the Milgram experiment?

I think in regard to this issue, Dawkins is guilty of oversimplification; there was a thread a while ago about his claim that religion was the "primary" cause of a whole list of conflicts; it degenerated into a slap-fight over what "primary" means, but it was demonstrated to my satisfaction, at least, that his claim did not stand up to scrutiny.

Dawkins rubs me the wrong way; it's not something I'm prepared to quantify. But I like him better than Hitchens.

[Dunstan]

I am a big Dawkins fan, but I can see the reasons (some justified, in my opinion, and others not) why he attracts so much criticism:

1. He is, arguably, the world's most famous atheist. (I'm sure there are more famous people who are atheists, but he may be the person most widely known to be an atheist.) That alone is going to attract attention.

2. He does not have much good to say for religion. Many atheists will defend the proposition that "there is no [evidence for] God" just as doggedly as Dawkins, but make conciliatory statements about how religion may be a good thing, etc. -- what Dan Dennett has called "belief in belief."

3. More specifically, he repeatedly challenges the social convention that you don't question people's religious beliefs or subject them to the same scrutiny as other statements about the world. When you challenge social conventions, some people are going to agree with you that the conventions are wrong and should change, but others are going to think you're rude.

4. At times, he can be a little tone deaf, and/or simply doesn't seem to care how he is perceived. Thus he says things that tend to antagonize people or be easily misinterpreted in a way that does. For example, I think the whole "bright" campaign was ill-conceived, and am shocked that people as smart as Dawkins and Dennett thought it would work. Similarly, Dawkins' comments about "child abuse" were probably a little reckless; yes, they've mostly been misinterpreted, but when you use inflammatory phrases like that you open the door to that kind of thing. Titling his book "The God Delusion" was deliberately provocative. You can explain all you want in the foreword about the dictionary definition of "delusion," but you can hardly be surprised that many people are going to interpret it as a slam on the intelligence and/or sanity of religious people. Ditto for the title of his BBC documentary "Root of All Evil?" (And yes, I know he says it wasn't his idea, but he still bears some responsbility for it.)

5. Most of us like to think of ourselves, and want others to think of us, as moderate, reasonable people. So there's a natural tendency on any issue, whether it's atheism, political ideology, Star Trek fandom, or whatever to point to someone else on "your" side and say, "look, I'm a reasonable, moderate person, not a fanatic extremist like that guy." Mostly by virtue of points 1-4, Dawkins gets put in that role for a lot of people. I'm not saying it's dishonest for people to do that; most of them probably have real, substantive disagreements with the guy.

[NewtonTrino]

The funny thing is the "religion causes bad stuff" argument is completely a sidetrack. He could have left it out of the book completely. I think the only reason he has it is because the religious nutjobs use the same argument against "darwinists" to show how evil they are.

The bottom line RELIGION ISN'T TRUE. That's the main thrust of TGD.

[FireGarden]

I am a big Dawkins fan, but I can see the reasons (some justified, in my opinion, and others not) why he attracts so much criticism:

[...]

I think you nailed it.

1. Fame -- Though I've heard of the other two, I can't name their work.

2. Anti-religion -- His choice of words very often lack tact. eg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viruses_of_the_Mind

And, as an atheist, I don't want to be represented by anybody. Atheism isn't a club. Not that I think Dawkins has set out to represent me -- but other people see him as representative.

[homer]

As an atheist I don't believe in Richard Dawkins although I admire the book that has his name on the front .

[Ichneumonwasp]

I am a big Dawkins fan, but I can see the reasons (some justified, in my opinion, and others not) why he attracts so much criticism:

1. He is, arguably, the world's most famous atheist. (I'm sure there are more famous people who are atheists, but he may be the person most widely known to be an atheist.) That alone is going to attract attention.

2. He does not have much good to say for religion. Many atheists will defend the proposition that "there is no [evidence for] God" just as doggedly as Dawkins, but make conciliatory statements about how religion may be a good thing, etc. -- what Dan Dennett has called "belief in belief."

3. More specifically, he repeatedly challenges the social convention that you don't question people's religious beliefs or subject them to the same scrutiny as other statements about the world. When you challenge social conventions, some people are going to agree with you that the conventions are wrong and should change, but others are going to think you're rude.

4. At times, he can be a little tone deaf, and/or simply doesn't seem to care how he is perceived. Thus he says things that tend to antagonize people or be easily misinterpreted in a way that does. For example, I think the whole "bright" campaign was ill-conceived, and am shocked that people as smart as Dawkins and Dennett thought it would work. Similarly, Dawkins' comments about "child abuse" were probably a little reckless; yes, they've mostly been misinterpreted, but when you use inflammatory phrases like that you open the door to that kind of thing. Titling his book "The God Delusion" was deliberately provocative. You can explain all you want in the foreword about the dictionary definition of "delusion," but you can hardly be surprised that many people are going to interpret it as a slam on the intelligence and/or sanity of religious people. Ditto for the title of his BBC documentary "Root of All Evil?" (And yes, I know he says it wasn't his idea, but he still bears some responsbility for it.)

5. Most of us like to think of ourselves, and want others to think of us, as moderate, reasonable people. So there's a natural tendency on any issue, whether it's atheism, political ideology, Star Trek fandom, or whatever to point to someone else on "your" side and say, "look, I'm a reasonable, moderate person, not a fanatic extremist like that guy." Mostly by virtue of points 1-4, Dawkins gets put in that role for a lot of people. I'm not saying it's dishonest for people to do that; most of them probably have real, substantive disagreements with the guy.



Can't accept that analysis. It's too smart and on target.

[Luzz]

I am one of those atheists who dislike Dawkins, from my point of view;

1. He is condescending
2. He lacks empathy towards people who differ from his beliefs/thoughts
3. He is socially inept
4. He is very bad at debating (just look how bad he did on OReilly).
5. He doesn´t know how to hold a conversation with his audiance, he is argumentative.
6. He knows nothing about philosophy and can´t see the whole picture.

I could go on and on. Everytime I see him, I just feel disgust. I wish he could learn from Carl Sagan and the way he approached a non scientific public. Sagan was nice, understanding, easy going, and the most important thing, he wanted people to think critically and showed them how to do it. Dawkins only wants to create controversy and call stupid anyone who doesn´t agree with him.

[Luzz]

One more thing. I agree, he should go back to Oxford and just write about Biology. There, he is number one, he is great. :)

[NewtonTrino]

Dawkins has been much more successful in bringing this issue into the public eye than Sagan. We need someone who is willing to stand up and tell the truth in a way that garners some attention.

I think you are being very very harsh Luzz. You sound more like a religious apologist than an atheist and some of your points imho are just wrong.

[westprog]

Like the Bible?


Exactly like the Bible.

[Ginarley]

Are you familiar with the Milgram experiment?

I am and I tend to think the real problem sits in our tendency to believe authority figures, a fact that religion is built on, so replacing religion in that statement with "blind belief in authority" would probably be more accurate. The point remains however.

I think in regard to this issue, Dawkins is guilty of oversimplification; there was a thread a while ago about his claim that religion was the "primary" cause of a whole list of conflicts; it degenerated into a slap-fight over what "primary" means, but it was demonstrated to my satisfaction, at least, that his claim did not stand up to scrutiny.

Dawkins often talks about how there is no value in "totting up" the good and bad that different beliefs are responsible for - it is irrelevant to its truth - but people he debates bring it up almost every time he has a debate or discussion, and he is not the kind of person to avoid a point in a debate.

[Skeptic Guy]

I am one of those atheists who dislike Dawkins, from my point of view;

1. He is condescending
2. He lacks empathy towards people who differ from his beliefs/thoughts
3. He is socially inept
4. He is very bad at debating (just look how bad he did on OReilly).
5. He doesn´t know how to hold a conversation with his audiance, he is argumentative.
6. He knows nothing about philosophy and can´t see the whole picture.

I could go on and on. Everytime I see him, I just feel disgust. I wish he could learn from Carl Sagan and the way he approached a non scientific public. Sagan was nice, understanding, easy going, and the most important thing, he wanted people to think critically and showed them how to do it. Dawkins only wants to create controversy and call stupid anyone who doesn´t agree with him.

Are you talking about the same guy? We're talking about Richard Dawkins, right? He is probably one of the most eloquent speakers around and I have never heard or read of him calling anyone "stupid". And can you explain what you mean by "can't see the whole picture"?

Sagan, was great and is one of my heroes. But he fought a different fight than Dawkins and being nice and easy going may not be the only way to reach the objective.

[Gregory]

I think you are being very very harsh Luzz. You sound more like a religious apologist than an atheist and some of your points imho are just wrong.

How are atheists supposed to sound? Is there a rulebook that I somehow missed seeing?

Ginarley, I'm not inherently opposed to bringing up the evil done in the name of religion; but it's no good brining something up if you're then going to grossly oversimplify the matter to make rhetorical points. "In a world without religion, there would have been no ... Northern Ireland Troubles (no label by which to distinguish the two 'communities', and no sectarian schools to teach the children historic hatreds — they would simply be one community.)" Astonishing; here are some words for Dawkins: nationalism and unionism. Obviously religion is one motivating factor, but trying to put that entire mess on the doorstep of religion is hugely disingenuous, IMO, and just makes him look bad.

[Aerik]

@westprog: How does Dawkins dismiss the wrongdoings of atheists? I've read all his stuff. I've never seen him dismiss or deny the existence of immoral or dangerous atheists. However what I have seen is discussion about whether or not atheism was the cause of the evil deeds done by people. And about this, he is correct. A non-belief cannot ban an active cause.

Roger doesn't have to be a good person for Jerry to fail to prove a point.

@Civilized Worm: Dawkins doesn't say Darwinism. He says "Darwinian Evolution." It's just a vector.

@Luzz:

He's not condescending as far as I can tell. Unless you think a lack of "but remember I love you anyway" is condescending.

Lack of empathy? Heck no. He uses empathy all the time. He refrains from calling people "stupid" until absolutely necessary. He's more than willing to draw lines between ignorance, negligence and stupidity that places no blame on the merely ignorant.

Socially inept? Well excuse those of us who don't want the whole world to laugh with us all the damn time. Ooh, he doesn't have too many friends, he's unconventional, that means he deserves it. Stop that BS.

WTF: O'Reilly show wasn't a debate, it was an interview. And he did fine. Reserve debate criticisms for, I dunno, actual debates. Sheesh.

Nothing of philosophy, huh? Now you're just throwing things out. Look, either contribute to this conversation, or don't. Dawkins has not made it his job to discuss philosophy, but rather truth. Your crappy point is a complete non sequitor.

[Gazpacho]

The problem with Dawkins is that he never achieves anything more than rah-rahs from people who already know what he's going to say. Therefore, he contributes nothing of value.

Also he's a bigot, and people who say "it's OK to be a bigot if you're right" ought to know better.

[Gregory]

JohnTheRevelator asked why some people didn't like Dawkins, and Luzz gave a numbered list of reasons why he, Luzz, didn't. This is what most people call, "contributing to the conversation," Aerik.

[Lucky]

The funny thing is the "religion causes bad stuff" argument is completely a sidetrack. He could have left it out of the book completely. I think the only reason he has it is because the religious nutjobs use the same argument against "darwinists" to show how evil they are.

The bottom line RELIGION ISN'T TRUE. That's the main thrust of TGD.


Thing is, whilst the "religion causes bad stuff" argument is certainly irrelevant to atheist reasoning/opinion/belief, it's highly relevant to the atheist movement. If you're not content merely to be an atheist, but must be a proselytising atheist, you have to believe that religion is in principle harmful, absence of religion is in principle beneficial, and that therefore society will necessarily be improved if you can convert everyone to your opinion.

Sadly for Dawkins and other proselytising atheists, we cannot base this belief on any evidence. We don't know whether people are more or less likely to be free, moral, happy, intelligent or even educated, if {atheism|agnosticism|religion} is accepted by {everyone|most|some|few|no-one}, {tomorrow|in the foreseeable future|in the distant future}. I would suggest that, short of such a handy device as a universe replicator, we have no serious means of investigating the matter. We can guess, but we don't (yet) know enough about human minds and human society for our guesses to be worth much.

So, proselytising atheism must remain a matter of faith, which is exactly what proselytising atheist scientists have to deny.

I don't think it's so difficult to see why many atheists dislike the missionary mindset.

[Henners]

Since the probability argument is entirely central to his disproof of God...

It is?

Where did he say that, then?

Are you sure you're not mixing him up with William Hill?

[Henners]

Sadly for Dawkins and other proselytising atheists, we cannot base this belief on any evidence.

Have you been watching the news this week?

The very fact that there are religious nutters at all levels that want to persuade people that God wants them to be satisfied with their genetic defects is precisely the evidence that you claim is lacking.

Sadly, I fear that reality is not a factor in your argument. Higher truths (=lies) seem to carry more weight.

[Henners]

The problem with Dawkins is that he never achieves anything more than rah-rahs from people who already know what he's going to say. Therefore, he contributes nothing of value.

Also he's a bigot, and people who say "it's OK to be a bigot if you're right" ought to know better.

How profound.

Is there a playground missing you somewhere?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just my opinion, but what I have seen is that Dawkins is much more talked about than read. He is accused of many arguments that he never makes, so most of the dislike appears to be dislike of a straw Dawkins, not the real one.And straw Dawkins just like straw evolution theory scientists is promoted by organizations such as the Discovery Institute and movies like Expelled. So it is no surprise many people including atheists would have a lot of false beliefs about him.

Unfortunately being an atheist doesn't guarantee you have adopted a skeptical nature about everything.

[Skeptic Ginger]

What have you to say on The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain? It was a book that changed my life.The one that changed mine was "How to Travel and Get Paid for It". :D

But I digress.

[DoubtingStephen]

I hear folks say they don't believe in Richard Dawkins, but I have seen him in person, so I became convinced that he does exist.

And Dawkins seems to realize what a silly effort it is to disprove fantasies that have no trace of evidence. It is much more appropriate to sit back and wait for evidence of some all-powerful, omnipresent, genocidal, all-loving contradiction in terms.

And wait, and wait, and...

He uses the Bertrand Russell teapot claim in the way it was intended, as an opportunity for those afflicted with religious delusions to see how silly and unfalsifiable their sky fairies are. Of course some opportunites are not utilized.

I even hear people who seem to have no idea how stupid they sound say things like "I don't believe in atheists." As if to suggest they can find no evidence that there are persons without theistic delusions. One wonders if these folks have any interest at all in contact with reality.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Being a self described bright probably doesn't help.Brights get a bad rap because they tell it like it is instead of coddling theists with the I'm OK you're OK stuff.

I realize change is tough, but some of us think all god beliefs need to go the way of all the other god beliefs that have come to be called myths, the sooner the better. Other atheists prefer the non-confrontational, find an excuse route, like inventing the concept of faith based beliefs and claiming those don't require evidence while other beliefs are readily dismissed for lack of evidence.

I don't have an issue with the non-confrontational approach in specific settings where it is likely to be more productive. But I don't accept that approach as my over-riding philosophy.

[Gregory]

It's the word that gives them a bad rep; it makes them sound extremely arrogant.

[geni]

Brights get a bad rap because they tell it like it is instead of coddling theists with the I'm OK you're OK stuff.

Nah. Plently of groups like that. It's more the wierd self-righteous superiority/persicution complex. For example I am quite used to various people and groups lying to me about copyright. Trying to claim that a copyright policy is a form of religious persecution is ah novel (which reminds me I need to do some double checking on the copyright status of that darn logo).


I realize change is tough, but some of us think all god beliefs need to go the way of all the other god beliefs that have come to be called myths, the sooner the better.

I understand that aproach has been tried from time to time. So far it has resulted in an impressive number of deaths but well so have so many things.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thing is, whilst the "religion causes bad stuff" argument is certainly irrelevant to atheist reasoning/opinion/belief, it's highly relevant to the atheist movement. If you're not content merely to be an atheist, but must be a proselytising atheist, you have to believe that religion is in principle harmful, absence of religion is in principle beneficial, and that therefore society will necessarily be improved if you can convert everyone to your opinion.

Sadly for Dawkins and other proselytising atheists, we cannot base this belief on any evidence. We don't know whether people are more or less likely to be free, moral, happy, intelligent or even educated, if {atheism|agnosticism|religion} is accepted by {everyone|most|some|few|no-one}, {tomorrow|in the foreseeable future|in the distant future}. I would suggest that, short of such a handy device as a universe replicator, we have no serious means of investigating the matter. We can guess, but we don't (yet) know enough about human minds and human society for our guesses to be worth much.

So, proselytising atheism must remain a matter of faith, which is exactly what proselytising atheist scientists have to deny.

I don't think it's so difficult to see why many atheists dislike the missionary mindset.Well, this post combines shortsightedness with the 'discredited time and time again' argument that evidence based beliefs are just another religion.

Religion based beliefs are beliefs without evidence by definition and typically are not supposed to change though in reality they evolve all the time.

Evidence based beliefs are beliefs based on evidence (how profound) and they continually change as evidence accumulates. They are subject to error but the evidence acts as an anchor preventing cumulative group error from straying too far from reality for too long.

We have threads galore on this topic so resurrect one if you want to debate this yet again.

As far as needing another Universe to test the hypothesis we'd all be better off if there were no theists, I suggest breaking the problem down into smaller bits in order to look for the evidence. Religion offers some benefits in health and well being derived from belonging to a group and many many costs from the results of excluding everyone else from your perceived group.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's the word that gives them a bad rep; it makes them sound extremely arrogant.Nah. Plently of groups like that. It's more the wierd self-righteous superiority/persicution complex. Sounds like you've both read CSI's editorial, Not Too "Bright" (http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/brights/), or at least had a similar first impression of the Bright movement.


I think this reaction to the Brights is bizarre. Obviously a number of skeptics have this reaction. I joined the Brights quite a while back and had a number of discussions with skeptics and atheists who had a negative first impression of the idea. I have a hard time buying the idea the reaction is merely to using a word implying one is 'bright'. It seems to me to be more of a negative reaction to saying outright that god believers are wrong.

There is nothing inherently negative about the word, Bright, and further there is nothing on the Bright's website (http://www.the-brights.net/) that implies arrogance in the name:
What is a bright?

* A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
* A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
* The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview
...

The noun bright was initiated as a generic term that could refer to a host of independent individuals who declare “a naturalistic worldview.” Individuals who wish to do so could claim the umbrella label as a civic identity (I am a Bright) or could self-identify by other labels. As many groups consist largely of prospective Brights, we would welcome organizational recommendations to their membership that the individuals look into the movement.

Bright (n.)--What is the definition?

The noun form of the term bright refers to a person whose worldview is naturalistic--free of supernatural and mystical elements. A Bright's ethics and actions are based on a naturalistic worldview.

worldview: the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world; a set of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or group.

On the whole, the notion refers to an individual's belief system related to concepts such as the meaning and purpose of life, existence after death, the presence of deities, nature and origins, morality and human nature, rituals, and other major life stance considerations. You can find an extensive discussion and example definitions on the The Co-Directors' website.

naturalistic: conceiving of reality as natural (not supernatural)There is nothing here that describes what you are complaining about nor what Chris Mooney complains about in his editorial. I believe you are annoyed at something else. I think you are annoyed that Brights dismiss faith based beliefs while you likely prefer to excuse them. It has always bothered me that some skeptics excuse faith based beliefs. Brights are only arrogant to the degree that they are willing to conclude someone else's god beliefs are wrong.

I could be wrong about your personal views. But you tell me? Why is telling people who believe in CTs or homeopathy or astrology they are wrong not arrogant, while telling people that their god beliefs are wrong arrogant?

I think this reflects on what some atheists are reacting to with Dawkins. There seems to me to be a split in the skeptical community about whether or not to have the, I'm OK, you're OK attitude toward god beliefs, calling them faith based, and claiming religion and science are separate things in our lives. I don't believe faith based beliefs are any different from every other non-evidence based belief. I think it is just an excuse not to have to confront people whose beliefs are seen as sacred rather than woo. It's a way of allowing for a skeptic who can't let go of god to still be a skeptic. Well theist skeptics can be just as skeptical as anyone, except, they maintain a blind spot when it comes to critically evaluating the evidence for their god beliefs. There is a clear divide among skeptics about this matter and it does lead to tension.

[Skeptic Ginger]

For example I am quite used to various people and groups lying to me about copyright. Trying to claim that a copyright policy is a form of religious persecution is ah novel (which reminds me I need to do some double checking on the copyright status of that darn logo).I don't know what this is in reference to.


I understand that aproach has been tried from time to time. So far it has resulted in an impressive number of deaths but well so have so many things.So I should not tell theists their god beliefs are just as mythical as Zeus and Pele beliefs because I might be killed? I'm sorry, I am unsure what you mean here.

[Gregory]

Sounds like you've both read CSI's editorial, Not Too "Bright" (http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/brights/), or at least had a similar first impression of the Bright movement.


I think this reaction to the Brights is bizarre. Obviously a number of skeptics have this reaction. I joined the Brights quite a while back and had a number of discussions with skeptics and atheists who had a negative first impression of the idea. I have a hard time buying the idea the reaction is merely to using a word implying one is 'bright'. It seems to me to be more of a negative reaction to saying outright that god believers are wrong.

There is nothing inherently negative about the word, Bright, and further there is nothing on the Bright's website (http://www.the-brights.net/) that implies arrogance in the name:There is nothing here that describes what you are complaining about nor what Chris Mooney complains about in his editorial. I believe you are annoyed at something else. I think you are annoyed that Brights dismiss faith based beliefs while you likely prefer to excuse them. It has always bothered me that some skeptics excuse faith based beliefs. Brights are only arrogant to the degree that they are willing to conclude someone else's god beliefs are wrong.

I could be wrong about your personal views. But you tell me? Why is telling people who believe in CTs or homeopathy or astrology they are wrong not arrogant, while telling people that their god beliefs are wrong arrogant?

I think this reflects on what some atheists are reacting to with Dawkins. There seems to me to be a split in the skeptical community about whether or not to have the, I'm OK, you're OK attitude toward god beliefs, calling them faith based, and claiming religion and science are separate things in our lives. I don't believe faith based beliefs are any different from every other non-evidence based belief. I think it is just an excuse not to have to confront people whose beliefs are seen as sacred rather than woo. It's a way of allowing for a skeptic who can't let go of god to still be a skeptic. Well theist skeptics can be just as skeptical as anyone, except, they maintain a blind spot when it comes to critically evaluating the evidence for their god beliefs. There is a clear divide among skeptics about this matter and it does lead to tension.

When I first heard of the movement, my first reaction was "'Brights'? Seriously?" That was before I even knew exactly what they stood for; the name really does have that effect on me, whether you believe it or not.

I don't quite know what to make of the rest of your post; of course Brights dismiss faith. So do atheists who don't call themselves Brights, like me. If you're suggesting that I dislike the Bright movement because they're more confrontational about their nonbelief than I am, I can assure you that that isn't true, simply because I don't have any conception that people who call themselves Brights are any more confrontational than atheists who don't. Christopher Hitchens hates the term, and he's about the most confrontational, not-afraid-to-dismiss-faith atheist that I'm aware of.

Also, I'd like to know what was wrong with the words "atheists" "freethinkers" and "naturalists" that it was necessary to invent a new word to describe the same thing.

Finally, I think it doesn't matter whether people's dislike for the word is rational or not. Atheists already have PR problems; insisting on a name that offends people, whether or not the offense is rational, seems like it should be the last thing we should be doing. Stick to your guns, but don't create needless trouble for yourself...

[Dragoonster]

My views on Dawkins are almost entirely ignorant, but that won't stop me from making a long post. :p Until six months ago I thought he was Richard Leakey (I'd heard mention of Dawkins maybe 8 times in my life and Leakey much more and conflated the "Richard" and "evolutionary/anthropology" fields).

I haven't seen him on any debates, must have missed them. Never seen a live-action video of him as I'm on dial-up and downloading things is unadvised. Never read a book of his, the most reading I've done of his views are from wiki and quotes/links from this forum.

(If there's any question as to why I haven't heard of him, well I haven't been very interested in theological debates for a very long time, and the six major TV media channels I watch doesn't address it, or at least doesn't allow atheists a fair response time, or he wasn't the atheist they chose. I only learned of that theist Bishop in England--rowans? about the same time, so I'm equally ignorant...except for Pat Robertson and Noam Chomsky I guess which I know more of...)


So...anyway the few arguments I've read of his haven't been very convincing. And I don't see why an entire book needs to be devoted to "atheism" if "atheism" is "just non-belief" and nothing more as many here say. Why then would such a non-belief require a book?

So my hunch is that he's not only an atheist but an anti-theist, which is a moderate distinction. But he seems merely a rhetorical anti-theist, not advocating the banning of religion or anything. Just criticizing it or using it as a foil to advocate for its alternative.


My other observation is that he at least is of such a powerful figurehead that some atheists might be granting him "hero" status, where they ignore or dismiss any accurate criticism of him. That above all else gives me pause in a forum of skeptics.

Final opinion, subject to change due to my incredible ignorance of him or his works: He's a vocal atheist, perhaps anti-theist, who's succeeded at least in motivating other atheists to speak their mind more, and apparently raising public perception or profile (having never seen him on major media I can't verify that). I think this is a good thing, and hope others follow in his stead. He has great hair from the pictures I've seen. As for his arguments, the little I've seen aren't convincing. And he was unfortunate to have such a similar last name to Darwin, as some even more ignorant than me might mix up the two.

[PixyMisa]

I am one of those atheists who dislike Dawkins, from my point of view;

1. He is condescending
2. He lacks empathy towards people who differ from his beliefs/thoughts
3. He is socially inept
4. He is very bad at debating (just look how bad he did on OReilly).
5. He doesn´t know how to hold a conversation with his audiance, he is argumentative.
6. He knows nothing about philosophy and can´t see the whole picture.
"Your concerns are noted, and stupid."

[JoeEllison]

Believing in imaginary beings like Jesus, Santa, or the Easter Bunny is stupid and delusional, unless you're 5-6 years old. There's hardly any useful way of stating this rather mundane truth that won't be at least mildly insulting to theist. So, really, at some point an atheist is kind of required to either stay utterly quiet, or say "tough ****, theists, you're stuck in a small child's mindset" in one way or another.

[Gazpacho]

How profound.

Is there a playground missing you somewhere?
So I guess what you're saying is that you don't know better.

[CurtC]

"Your concerns are noted, and stupid."

:D

I for one get the reference.

[Dragoonster]

Believing in imaginary beings like Jesus, Santa, or the Easter Bunny is stupid and delusional, unless you're 5-6 years old. There's hardly any useful way of stating this rather mundane truth that won't be at least mildly insulting to theist. So, really, at some point an atheist is kind of required to either stay utterly quiet, or say "tough ****, theists, you're stuck in a small child's mindset" in one way or another.

Why is an atheist required to say anything? Some here say atheism is merely a lack of belief in something. So what exactly leads that into telling theists that their beliefs are stupid and delusional?

Whatever Dawkins is, he doesn't seem to be simply an atheist, at least how some atheists define/defend atheism as this completely neutral, non-actionating position.

I mean, I agree with your points and telling people their religions/faith is stupid or logically vacant is fine. But there's something other than mere atheism that would drive someone to tell them that. Whatever it is, the product isn't atheism anymore, it's social activism. Which again is fine, but call it for what it is.

[Luzz]

"Your concerns are noted, and stupid."

Another arrogant materialist, coming from your PixyMisa, it doesn't bother me. :D

[RandFan]

I'm a Dawkins fan. The guy has something of worth to say.

[Luzz]

Dawkins has been much more successful in bringing this issue into the public eye than Sagan. We need someone who is willing to stand up and tell the truth in a way that garners some attention.


He has been successful in giving Science a terrible name, he has portrayed Science as the ultimate truth and created his own little cult of followers (fundamentalists atheists). In no way, he can be compared to Carl Sagan, an honorable man who managed to get millions of young people to see Science as an interesting subject.

The fact that we are discussing "what is wrong with Richard Dawkins?" says a lot about that it may be something wrong with his tactics. But we are not alone. Even the Royal Society has noticed that people like Dawkins are giving the wrong impression about Science:
"If we give the impression that science is hostile to even mainstream religion, it will be more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important," Martin Rees head of the Royal Society
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/29/controversiesinscience.peopleinscience

So I am not the only one who thinks that Dawkins is giving Science a bad name and is creating the opposite effect.

[Luzz]

Sagan, was great and is one of my heroes. But he fought a different fight than Dawkins and being nice and easy going may not be the only way to reach the objective.

Your argument easily applies to a muslim terrorist, I mean, they also think there are other ways to reach their objective. They don't have to be nice and easy going, or even talk, they just need bombs.

[Dragoonster]

The fact that we are discussing "what is wrong with Richard Dawkins?" says a lot about that it may be something wrong with his tactics. But we are not alone. Even the Royal Society has noticed that people like Dawkins are giving the wrong impression about Science:
"If we give the impression that science is hostile to even mainstream religion, it will be more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important," Martin Rees head of the Royal Society
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/29/controversiesinscience.peopleinscience

So I am not the only one who thinks that Dawkins is giving Science a bad name and is creating the opposite effect.

In his defense, Dawkins only seems to be effecting a "thought revolution" rather than advocating violence or censure (from what I know which is almost nothing). Science itself is neutral, and criticisms of him from science are sullied in that the scientists have to enter the social paradigm fray themselves.

Such a though revolution would be harmless as long as any followers of it practiced liberarian actions. And if he's extreme, it may at least lead to a rebound towards moderacy, rather than a rebound to the opposite extreme. He's stretching the balloon, but it may bounce back to greater than its original volume, if that analogy makes any sense.

His science, his arguments, his logic are iffy to me at the moment. But he's seemed to be a draw in other areas, specifically widening social debate on theologic issues. The danger is in if some view him as infallible as that which they're criticizing.

[Gregory]

He has been successful in giving Science a terrible name, he has portrayed Science as the ultimate truth and created his own little cult of followers (fundamentalists atheists). In no way, he can be compared to Carl Sagan, an honorable man who managed to get millions of young people to see Science as an interesting subject.

The fact that we are discussing "what is wrong with Richard Dawkins?" says a lot about that it may be something wrong with his tactics. But we are not alone. Even the Royal Society has noticed that people like Dawkins are giving the wrong impression about Science:
"If we give the impression that science is hostile to even mainstream religion, it will be more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important," Martin Rees head of the Royal Society
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/29/controversiesinscience.peopleinscience

So I am not the only one who thinks that Dawkins is giving Science a bad name and is creating the opposite effect.

Well I think the problem is that people like Dawkins and (from this thread) skeptigirl are completely right: logically speaking, there is absolutely no difference between religion and any other form of woo like astrology and homeopathy. On the other hand, it's no use denying that people don't think about religion the same way; given a theist and an astrology believer, the theist is probably much, much more attached to his religion than the astrology believer is to astrology. And, therefore, the theist is likely to get more offended when you question is religion than the astrologer is when you question astrology.

So there's sort of a dichotomy ... do you treat religion exactly like any other woo belief, or don't you? On the one hand, treating it like any other woo belief is more intellectually honest, because it is a woo belief. On the other hand, treating it differently from other beliefs is sort of dishonest (because intellectually speaking, it isn't any different), but is probably more likely to get your views seriously considered, because you're avoiding attacking the beliefs that your audience hold closest to its collective heart, and this is obviously a boon to skeptics. If you tell somebody, "homeopathy is false," you're more likely to convince them than if you say, "homeopathy is false, and by the way your most cherished belief around which you base much of your life is a childish lie."

So, there's a question; do you do what's most intellectually honest, or do you do what's more likely to get converts to your way of thinking (in most areas)? Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. al have obviously opted for the first option; I tend towards the second. Either one is open to criticism.

I found your citation to be a little questionable, btw, because although Rees did say that, he wasn't explicitly criticizing Dawkins for it, based on your link.

[autumn1971]

@ Luzz,
Have you read The Demon Haunted World by Sagan? He says just about the same things Dawkins does. The fact that he didn't talk about gods in the Cosmos series is because of the simple reason that he recognized that they matter not a whit to science, and Cosmos was about science. Because there is no evidence of gods, and because there are alternative explainations which do not need to invoke gods, science is gods-free.
As to your "giving science a bad name" argument, Dawkins merely expresses the above given view of gods re science. Not only does Dawkins express an obvious viewpoint, and one which theistic scientists accept when they do science, i.e, miraculous explainations are not viable, he does this only in response to those who challenge him.
I have never had a stranger come to my door and offer me The God Delusion, or have an atheist want to come inside and discuss the lack of gods.
I have never seen a person picketing the theology building of a university with placards railing against the study of gods.
No atheist has ever stopped me on a public walkway to shout at the top of his lungs about how I was merely going to cease being upon death, and there is no such thing as a soul.
Unless you possess evidence that Dawkins has done any of these things, calling him a proselytizer is so utterly without merit as to not have merited the above response.

And yes, I have experienced all of the above being done by Christian proselytizers, including being told that, because I did not repent my sins, my immediate death would be a blessing to Christians.
But I'm sure that these men (they do it every day at the local university) are not "true Christians".

[RandFan]

...he has portrayed Science as the ultimate truth...Science is simply the objective search for truth. End of story. If you want to read tea leaves or smack yourself in the head with a hammer to find truth then have fun but there is no reason to suppose that you will find it other than using the scientific method.

[Gregory]

If you want to ... smack yourself in the head with a hammer to find truth then have fun but there is no reason to suppose that you will find it other than using the scientific method.

Are you questioning Gyro Gearless?

Heathen.

[Skeptic Ginger]

When I first heard of the movement, my first reaction was "'Brights'? Seriously?" That was before I even knew exactly what they stood for; the name really does have that effect on me, whether you believe it or not.

I don't quite know what to make of the rest of your post; of course Brights dismiss faith. So do atheists who don't call themselves Brights, like me. If you're suggesting that I dislike the Bright movement because they're more confrontational about their nonbelief than I am, I can assure you that that isn't true, simply because I don't have any conception that people who call themselves Brights are any more confrontational than atheists who don't. Christopher Hitchens hates the term, and he's about the most confrontational, not-afraid-to-dismiss-faith atheist that I'm aware of.

Also, I'd like to know what was wrong with the words "atheists" "freethinkers" and "naturalists" that it was necessary to invent a new word to describe the same thing.

Finally, I think it doesn't matter whether people's dislike for the word is rational or not. Atheists already have PR problems; insisting on a name that offends people, whether or not the offense is rational, seems like it should be the last thing we should be doing. Stick to your guns, but don't create needless trouble for yourself...Well I respect your opinion here. I'll take your word for it the name alone is the issue for some people then.

I thought the point of the name was to identify a specific movement as opposed to just an accurate term describing people's world view. I thought of it as a name of a group and as such it wasn't just an adjective. The people I have spoken to before that objected voiced the usual concern we shouldn't confront god beliefs. I've started a couple of threads that led to skeptics debating skeptics about this specific issue. There are many skeptics who have yet to let go of their own god beliefs and just as many agnostics who are sensitive when it is suggested god beliefs as just as woo as homeopathy.

As for the PR thing, I don't think it matters that you call yourself something that sounds arrogant if once you state your position it is perceived as arrogant anyway. And if you are going to say god beliefs are woo, then god believers are going to think you arrogant. And I don't accept the position god beliefs are exceptions to woo.

[Skeptic Ginger]

He has been successful in giving Science a terrible name, he has portrayed Science as the ultimate truth and created his own little cult of followers (fundamentalists atheists). In no way, he can be compared to Carl Sagan, an honorable man who managed to get millions of young people to see Science as an interesting subject.

The fact that we are discussing "what is wrong with Richard Dawkins?" says a lot about that it may be something wrong with his tactics. But we are not alone. Even the Royal Society has noticed that people like Dawkins are giving the wrong impression about Science:
"If we give the impression that science is hostile to even mainstream religion, it will be more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important," Martin Rees head of the Royal Society
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/29/controversiesinscience.peopleinscience

So I am not the only one who thinks that Dawkins is giving Science a bad name and is creating the opposite effect.

Might one conclude from this you are an evolution denier or you are offended because you have god beliefs? Or is it something else about Dawkins that offends you?

Just wanted some perspective on this post.


BTW, the article you have linked to is exactly what I have been talking about, to coddle theists in the hopes of getting through to more people or to confront theist beliefs because that is what the evidence supports and that is where science should be going. And it is this divide which is at the root of why some atheists dislike Dawkins.

[Herzblut]

Well I respect your opinion here. I'll take your word for it the name alone is the issue for some people then.

Not for me. I find their frivolous abandonment of humanistic values in favor of preposterous concepts like "animal rights" disgusting and potentially dangerous for a democratic society.

[Skeptic Ginger]

.....
I have never had a stranger come to my door and offer me The God Delusion, or have an atheist want to come inside and discuss the lack of gods....Me neither but when those theists come to my door, and they do, they get an earful from me about how disgusting I think the Biblical god is for all the condoning of slavery, the constant need to have animal sacrifices, the stupidity of forgiving disobedience by having your son tortured, the lack of knowledge of the germ theory noted in the Bible, the horrible treatment of women and so on and so on. :D

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not for me. I find their frivolous abandonment of humanistic values in favor of preposterous concepts like "animal rights" disgusting and potentially dangerous for a democratic society.Did you post in the wrong thread or something? :boggled:

[PixyMisa]

Another arrogant materialist, coming from your PixyMisa, it doesn't bother me. :D
It's a quote. Well, sort of a quote. ;)

[geni]

Science is simply the objective search for truth. End of story.

That would be nice but that isn't actualy the case. While I generaly wouldn't go as far as Paul Feyerabend he did have a point when you look at how science has behaved in the past.


If you want to read tea leaves or smack yourself in the head with a hammer to find truth then have fun but there is no reason to suppose that you will find it other than using the scientific method.

Hitting your head with with a hammer causes pain thus we conclude that hard impacts cause pain. Not of course a legitimate conclusion within most popular versions of the scientific method (you could do it with Lakato's method but given the right set of auxiliary hypotheses you could say that about almost anything).

[PixyMisa]

He has been successful in giving Science a terrible name, he has portrayed Science as the ultimate truth and created his own little cult of followers (fundamentalists atheists).
No.

In no way, he can be compared to Carl Sagan, an honorable man who managed to get millions of young people to see Science as an interesting subject.In many ways, he can be compared to Carl Sagan.

The fact that we are discussing "what is wrong with Richard Dawkins?" says a lot about that it may be something wrong with his tactics. But we are not alone. Even the Royal Society has noticed that people like Dawkins are giving the wrong impression about Science:
"If we give the impression that science is hostile to even mainstream religion, it will be more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important," Martin Rees head of the Royal Society
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/29/controversiesinscience.peopleinscience

So I am not the only one who thinks that Dawkins is giving Science a bad name and is creating the opposite effect.Yes, you are. What Rees is saying is that if scientists openly criticise religion, it can make it even harder than it already is to combat irrational anti-science opinions. If that was all that you were saying, I'd agree, but deem it largely irrelevant. But that's not all you are saying, is it?

[geni]

@ Luzz,
As to your "giving science a bad name" argument, Dawkins merely expresses the above given view of gods re science. Not only does Dawkins express an obvious viewpoint, and one which theistic scientists accept when they do science, i.e, miraculous explainations are not viable,

Except you can't actualy get that out of science useing any of the commonly accepted versions of the scientific method. The closest you can get is that they are not meaningful. Miracles as commonly described have, as far as our current level of knowlage is concernded, zero predictive power as do a number of versions of god.

Of course this may change in future. If you can create a series of universes for which the god value is know you can then compare them to ours and see which group it falls into. Time machines would be another approach if anyone could come up with a way to create a closed timelike curve that allowed you to go back before the machine's creation.

There are of course many religions that make more testable claims. Age of the earth, gods living on mount olympus etc but many avoid that these days. Weakly interacting massless particles are a bit of a problem.

[Aitch]

The impression I get is that what is "wrong" with Richard Dawkins is that he doesn't treat the god-botherers with the respect that they think they deserve.

[Dragoonster]

The impression I get is that what is "wrong" with Richard Dawkins is that he doesn't treat the god-botherers with the respect that they think they deserve.

Does Dawkins deserve respect?

[linusrichard]

So, really, at some point an atheist is kind of required to either stay utterly quiet, or say "tough ****, theists, you're stuck in a small child's mindset" in one way or another.

Why is an atheist required to say anything? Some here say atheism is merely a lack of belief in something. So what exactly leads that into telling theists that their beliefs are stupid and delusional?

I think JoeEllison accounted for that just fine. He's not saying atheists have to tell theists the bad news. He's saying that if atheists are going to talk about their atheism at all, which they don't have to do, then they're going to have to tell theists, "in one way or another," that their beliefs are stupid and delusional.

I may be alone on this, but this is the part I hate most about being an atheist. Feeling like I have to be either totally stifled or incredibly rude. I guess most theists have the same problem, though, if they're being honest. And decent. If they're talking about their beliefs with someone other than their coreligionists, they're telling that person that that person's beliefs are wrong, "in one way or another." It wouldn't be so bad if people wouldn't take this garbage so seriously.

[linusrichard]

The one that changed mine was "How to Travel and Get Paid for It". :D

But I digress.

The Da Vinci Code changed my life.

It made it, you know, several hours shorter.

:(

[Egg]

I think JoeEllison accounted for that just fine. He's not saying atheists have to tell theists the bad news. He's saying that if atheists are going to talk about their atheism at all, which they don't have to do, then they're going to have to tell theists, "in one way or another," that their beliefs are stupid and delusional.

I may be alone on this, but this is the part I hate most about being an atheist. Feeling like I have to be either totally stifled or incredibly rude. I guess most theists have the same problem, though, if they're being honest. And decent. If they're talking about their beliefs with someone other than their coreligionists, they're telling that person that that person's beliefs are wrong, "in one way or another." It wouldn't be so bad if people wouldn't take this garbage so seriously.

If you disagree along the lines of "I think that XYZ because of ABC" and the person who doesn't think XYZ takes offence then it's probably fair to say that they're being over-sensitive (assuming "ABC" isn't some kind of ad hom). Saying, however, something like "I think XYZ and it's so obvious to me that anyone who thinks otherwise is childish/delusional/stupid/has a 'mind virus' etc" strangely enough tends to offend anyone who doesn't think XYZ- it doesn't really matter what the "XYZ" happens to be.

I also think it shifts the burden of proof to the person claiming childishness, delusions, mind viruses etc.

[PixyMisa]

Except you can't actualy get that out of science useing any of the commonly accepted versions of the scientific method.
I think here we're getting into the area of science as a meta-experiment. If the scientific method works consistently, sooner or later it becomes inductively reasonable to suppose that causes that are not in evidence and are not natural do not in fact exist.

Inductive rather than deductive, yes, but that's all you get in the real world.

[Rasmus]

If you disagree along the lines of "I think that XYZ because of ABC" and the person who doesn't think XYZ takes offence then it's probably fair to say that they're being over-sensitive (assuming "ABC" isn't some kind of ad hom). Saying, however, something like "I think XYZ and it's so obvious to me that anyone who thinks otherwise is childish/delusional/stupid/has a 'mind virus' etc" strangely enough tends to offend anyone who doesn't think XYZ- it doesn't really matter what the "XYZ" happens to be.

I also think it shifts the burden of proof to the person claiming childishness, delusions, mind viruses etc.

Yeah, someone oughta write a book about that ...

[geni]

I think here we're getting into the area of science as a meta-experiment. If the scientific method works consistently,

Which one? For example Thomas Kuhn's aproach explicitly denies this is the case (although I've never found it very convincing myself).


sooner or later it becomes inductively reasonable to suppose that causes that are not in evidence and are not natural do not in fact exist.


Natural is again not a useful term.

[Lonewulf]

Your argument easily applies to a muslim terrorist, I mean, they also think there are other ways to reach their objective. They don't have to be nice and easy going, or even talk, they just need bombs.The fact that you seem to find words equivalent to using bombs is hilarious.

Why don't you compare him to Hitler or nazis next?

[Unalienable]

I disagree with several of Dawkin's assertions. The biggest one I have a gripe is essentially the the premise of the God Delusion: that religion is not only wrong, but a social evil responsible for some horrible crimes.

He's not wrong in that religion has motivated horrendous crimes. He is wrong in asserting that religion is bad, on the whole, because of this. It's no less naive of an argument as the creationists who equate evolution with Hitler and the Nazi movement.

Nevertheless, as obnoxious and irresponsible as he can be, I still love to hear him talk. He's entertaining and highly intelligent.

[Lonewulf]

What I think is hilarious is how many utterly 100% illogical arguments Dawkins brings up from his opponents.

For instance, on this very forum, in a thread over Richard Dawkins, I pointed out how Dawkins was indeed influential, as he sold many copies. I was told that this was illogical, and they pointed out the Bible, as if, indeed, the Bible had no influence over a good part of the world. Apparently, to a lot of people, "Influential" is automatically equivalent to "Right". Either that, or some JREF members really need to learn to read.

And in this very thread, someone compared Dawkins using harsher words than religious proponents are used to, to say, BOMBING civilians.

I love the ability to laugh, and laughing at the latest new idiocy from Dawkins opponents is hilarious.

Not to say that there isn't any actual logic there. Unalienable above, and several in this thread, really do bring up points that I don't innately disagree with. Yes, I can agree wholeheartedly -- though Religion can be a good excuse for doing evil, it is not evil in and of itself. Fundamentally, humans often twist religion in order to do evil things... much like they often twist logic or philosophy for the exact same thing. If humans really did wish to have peace on earth, they would find a way to make it happen, with or without religion.

That humans twist and construct religion to support some of the most god-awful things in the world, tells me that the cause is not religion itself, but the humans behind it. Regardless, basing anything of substance on a claim that is unfalsifiable does not seem to lead anywhere productive. But that's a whole new argument from "Religion causes evil".

[PixyMisa]

Which one? For example Thomas Kuhn's aproach explicitly denies this is the case (although I've never found it very convincing myself).
Kuhn's great insight was that scientists are people. Kuhn's great failing was thinking this was relevant.

Natural is again not a useful term.
Sure it is. It simply means that it follows the same rules - the laws of nature - as everything else.

[Lonewulf]

If something went against the laws of nature, wouldn't that be more of an excuse to redefine the laws of nature?

For instance, let's say that I built something that went the speed of light. Would this device by "supernatural"?

What if I somehow found a way to make the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine?

Of course, there's going to be a *reason* why they work the way they do -- which is a perfectly good reason to call for more research. But labeling them "supernatural"?

[Civilized Worm]

@Civilized Worm: Dawkins doesn't say Darwinism. He says "Darwinian Evolution." It's just a vector.


He says both.


The problem with Dawkins is that he never achieves anything more than rah-rahs from people who already know what he's going to say. Therefore, he contributes nothing of value.


http://richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner


Also he's a bigot, and people who say "it's OK to be a bigot if you're right" ought to know better.


Can you back up that accusation?

[Lonewulf]

Indeed, I'd also like to know how Dawkins is a bigot. I guess calling people "faithheads" might seem like bigotry...

[Civilized Worm]

I guess I must be a bigot for calling crack users "crack heads".

[Lonewulf]

I'm sure they wouldn't be very happy if you said it to their face.

Depending on the crack head, I mean.

[Lucky]

Well, this post combines shortsightedness with the 'discredited time and time again' argument that evidence based beliefs are just another religion.

Religion based beliefs are beliefs without evidence by definition and typically are not supposed to change though in reality they evolve all the time.

Evidence based beliefs are beliefs based on evidence (how profound) and they continually change as evidence accumulates. They are subject to error but the evidence acts as an anchor preventing cumulative group error from straying too far from reality for too long.

We have threads galore on this topic so resurrect one if you want to debate this yet again.

As far as needing another Universe to test the hypothesis we'd all be better off if there were no theists, I suggest breaking the problem down into smaller bits in order to look for the evidence. Religion offers some benefits in health and well being derived from belonging to a group and many many costs from the results of excluding everyone else from your perceived group.
What on earth are you on about?

Where did I say, or imply, that atheism is a religion or faith, or not evidence-based?

My post (which you plainly did not bother to read properly before launching into your standard harangue) was not about whether atheism is scientifically correct, but whether there is evidence-based justification for the belief that it would necessarily (or probably) lead to a more rational, prosperous, peaceful and educated world, and should therefore be aggressively promoted. I specifically pointed out that these are not at all the same question. I don't think that's off-topic, as my objection (apparently shared by many others) to Dawkins's position on atheism vs religion is that he consistently conflates the two questions.

Ask yourself - what kind of 'evidence' are you expecting? Where are the controlled studies? The point is that the evidence can only come from social experiments that have not yet been performed. At the very least you would need to take two societies with similar characteristics and histories that have diverged in that one has become primarily atheist while the other hasn't (but not in any other significant way), study them for several generations and perform suitable measurements and statistics on some relevant quantities (intelligence, health, happiness, crime, violence and the like).

Now, I believe that any social question can (and should) be tackled in a scientific way up to a point. It would be interesting to know, for example, whether religion increases or decreases the probability that a person will hold irrational beliefs in psychics, aliens, homeopathy, conspiracy theories etc. I suspect there isn't a general answer, and we can usefully investigate the interactions between the various social and personal factors involved. We can make some progress in these and related matters, but that still leaves an enormous part of the key question (whether or how society will be improved by universal atheism) that we can't hope to settle by evidence. We have to use our judgement, and the less judgement can rely on evidence the more it approximates faith.

Most of us manage to accept that unpalatable truth. For instance, I am a convinced, committed and to a limited extent proselytising socialist (and I have been taken aback by the irrational and fanatical belief in the free market shown by some US 'skeptics' here). But I have to recognise that my belief (or faith, if you prefer) that a planned, socialist economy can solve deep social problems that are intractable under capitalism, without introducing worse ones, can't be tested before the fact. (Also, it's a good idea to be aware in advance of the pitfalls, such as the danger of a dictatorship arising in a centralised economy.) The analogy is quite a close one, because capitalism as an economic system can be studied scientifically and found to be fundamentally flawed, but no amount of economic evidence can enable us to predict the social consequences of such a profound transformation of economic relationships.

What 'evidence' we have on the improvement of society by the abandonment of religion is not too encouraging so far. In the UK organised religion has ceased to have any real significance for most people, but it hasn't been replaced by humanism, as the atheist movement of the early and mid 20th century hoped and expected. Instead we have a gang culture, racism, mindless consumerism and an explosion of new age nonsense. However, I don't conclude too much from that, because it's early days yet.

I am perfectly willing to debate these issues with you, but would you kindly address yourself to what I actually said, not to some bizarre distortion or fantasy.

[GreyICE]

I would be more concerned if atheists found someone they all liked.

QFT

I feel Dawkins uses too many playground-level tactics. Obviously they were initially intended to be ironic, but overuse leads to sloppy thinking patterns. Eventually if you begin to use the terms that were begat by lousy thinking, you start to think in a lousy manner. Thought is, after all, a product of language.

[articulett]

I disagree with several of Dawkin's assertions. The biggest one I have a gripe is essentially the the premise of the God Delusion: that religion is not only wrong, but a social evil responsible for some horrible crimes.

He's not wrong in that religion has motivated horrendous crimes. He is wrong in asserting that religion is bad, on the whole, because of this. It's no less naive of an argument as the creationists who equate evolution with Hitler and the Nazi movement.

Nevertheless, as obnoxious and irresponsible as he can be, I still love to hear him talk. He's entertaining and highly intelligent.

But he doesn't indicate that religion is bad on the whole because of this-- people just imagine them saying that so they don't have to hear what he's really saying. He's saying it's weird to prop up belief and there is no good reason to believe in god-- it's dangerous in many ways and it requires this endless need to make atheists into bad guys.

To me, it's all the courtier's reply, isn't it.

People have been taught to protect religion at all costs and they end up hearing what isn't there and fearing those who "lack belief" because of it.

If you plug in any other woo that Dawkins was dissing, people would never extrapolate the exaggerated meaning or stridency. Dawkins has offered some of the most fascinating facts humans have been priveleged to know thanks to his ability to understand and explain evolution-- and yet he is demonized by those who are more trusted. He is honest and bright while the liars spread hatred of him and bigotry againsts him... I think they are either unaware of their bias or jealous of him-- or afraid he might be right.

I think the response is based on the same thing Pat Condell gets. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3719473&postcount=221

I think people have learned to imagine horrors in those who lack belief... they hear what isn't there and they excuse or become blind to the bigotry this allows for:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3713337&postcount=95

Whenever I ask people to cut and paste what he actually said, it never is as they charactherize it-- and when I plug in any other woo it just sounds mild. When I compare it to the atheist discrimination I linked above it sounds downright civil. I feel like religion makes people live in a topsy turvy doublethink reality. They praise the liars and the deluded while negating all harms from faith and imagine that harm and horrible things can happend from "lack of belief" in some nebulous poorly defined thing called god.

People are motivated by what they believe in-- not the infinity of things they don't believe in.

[articulett]

I'm sure they wouldn't be very happy if you said it to their face.

Depending on the crack head, I mean.

I've had crack heads call me a crackhead.

I think that is hysterical. I just find something funny about people using insults on me that describe them so much better... or using insults or judgements on other that are they really ought to check themselves for.

It's delicious irony.

[Egg]

I've had crack heads call me a crackhead.

I think that is hysterical. I just find something funny about people using insults on me that describe them so much better... or using insults or judgements on other that are they really ought to check themselves for.

It's delicious irony.

Nominated! Love it! :D

[JoeEllison]

Sounds like you've both read CSI's editorial, Not Too "Bright" (http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/brights/), or at least had a similar first impression of the Bright movement.


I think this reaction to the Brights is bizarre. Obviously a number of skeptics have this reaction. I joined the Brights quite a while back and had a number of discussions with skeptics and atheists who had a negative first impression of the idea. I have a hard time buying the idea the reaction is merely to using a word implying one is 'bright'. It seems to me to be more of a negative reaction to saying outright that god believers are wrong.

There is nothing inherently negative about the word, Bright, and further there is nothing on the Bright's website (http://www.the-brights.net/) that implies arrogance in the name:There is nothing here that describes what you are complaining about nor what Chris Mooney complains about in his editorial. I believe you are annoyed at something else. I think you are annoyed that Brights dismiss faith based beliefs while you likely prefer to excuse them. It has always bothered me that some skeptics excuse faith based beliefs. Brights are only arrogant to the degree that they are willing to conclude someone else's god beliefs are wrong.

I could be wrong about your personal views. But you tell me? Why is telling people who believe in CTs or homeopathy or astrology they are wrong not arrogant, while telling people that their god beliefs are wrong arrogant?

I think this reflects on what some atheists are reacting to with Dawkins. There seems to me to be a split in the skeptical community about whether or not to have the, I'm OK, you're OK attitude toward god beliefs, calling them faith based, and claiming religion and science are separate things in our lives. I don't believe faith based beliefs are any different from every other non-evidence based belief. I think it is just an excuse not to have to confront people whose beliefs are seen as sacred rather than woo. It's a way of allowing for a skeptic who can't let go of god to still be a skeptic. Well theist skeptics can be just as skeptical as anyone, except, they maintain a blind spot when it comes to critically evaluating the evidence for their god beliefs. There is a clear divide among skeptics about this matter and it does lead to tension.

This is the point where I think Dawkins is intentionally creating the most controversy, and doing the most potential good. He seems to be intentionally forcing the issue of unwarranted respect for delusions that most people give when those delusions have the religious stamp on them. I think that he's hoping that more people will "come out of the closet" about their atheism if they see someone publicly treating theism like just another foolish woo belief.

[Herzblut]

Did you post in the wrong thread or something? :boggled:
No, no. I am just the evil speciest. The Good Dawkins speaks up

Such is the breathtaking speciesism of our Christian-inspired attitudes, the abortion of a single human zygote (most of them are destined to be spontaneously aborted anyway) can arouse more moral solicitude and righteous indignation than the vivisection of any number of intelligent adult chimpanzees! [...] The only reason we can be comfortable with such a double standard is that the intermediates between humans and chimps are all dead.

What I am doing is going along with the fact that I live in a society where meat eating is accepted as the norm, and it requires a level of social courage which I haven’t yet produced to break out of that. It’s a little bit like the position which many people would have held a couple of hundred years ago over slavery. Where lots of people felt morally uneasy about slavery but went along with it because the whole economy of the South depended upon slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpeciesismEating)

Eating meat, beating slaves to death - what's the difference?

Here, Good Dawkins teaches us about the rights of some frikking lousy jungle apes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTZnBQ3aWVk

Those intelligent jungle apes, just look at their faces! I mean, they are like us, aren't they? We are nothing but african apes, african apes we are.

H.

[Lonewulf]

Ah, so you don't believe in Evolution, right, Herzblut?

Or do you just not know the branches that led to the Human species?

Can you logically attack any of his arguments, or can you just participate in childish mocking?

[Civilized Worm]

He has been successful in giving Science a terrible name, he has portrayed Science as the ultimate truth and created his own little cult of followers (fundamentalists atheists). In no way, he can be compared to Carl Sagan, an honorable man who managed to get millions of young people to see Science as an interesting subject.

The fact that we are discussing "what is wrong with Richard Dawkins?" says a lot about that it may be something wrong with his tactics. But we are not alone. Even the Royal Society has noticed that people like Dawkins are giving the wrong impression about Science:
"If we give the impression that science is hostile to even mainstream religion, it will be more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important," Martin Rees head of the Royal Society
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/29/controversiesinscience.peopleinscience

So I am not the only one who thinks that Dawkins is giving Science a bad name and is creating the opposite effect.


You might be interested in reading this paper by Austin Dacey that examines the effect made by Dawkins' approach on science communication: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2579,Framing-Science-and-The-Dawkins-Effect,Austin-Dacey

As a side note, it was Dawkins and the God Delusion that got me interested in science and scepticism.

[skeptical]

Also he's a bigot, and people who say "it's OK to be a bigot if you're right" ought to know better.

Care to elaborate on that? To me, a bigot is someone who doesn't _consider_ the ideas or beliefs of others and just dismisses them out of hand. I cannot see anything intolerant (i.e. bigoted) about asking someone what their evidence is for their beliefs when they are constantly throwing their beliefs in your face. I see even less reason not to ask when they are using those beliefs to try and affect social policy for the rest of us.

What is bigoted about asking someone what their evidence is for their beliefs, or holding religious beliefs to the same scrutiny that any other beliefs are held to?

[Gazpacho]

http://richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner
I see some people who were already atheists, a lot who changed their minds as a result of Dawkins' books on biology, and maybe one or two who specifically say that his writings on atheism made them atheists.

[Luzz]

Science is simply the objective search for truth. End of story. If you want to read tea leaves or smack yourself in the head with a hammer to find truth then have fun but there is no reason to suppose that you will find it other than using the scientific method.


So what does this have to do with religious beliefs? Does it mean that you can find objectively whether or not God exists? I don´t think so.
Dawkins has absolutely nothing to say about religion because this subject is not a scientific issue, he cannot even define what God is.
Honest scientists recognise this limitation and remain quiet because that is what they are forced to do ethically.
If they do have personal opinions, then it is ok, they can preach and call people names but they should do it without their "scientist" tag.

SCIENCE STANDS ON ITS OWN.

There is not a war between science and religion as Dawkins wants to make it look. There is a war between fundamentalism and tolerance, and from my point of view he is in the first group.

[Civilized Worm]

I see some people who were already atheists, a lot who changed their minds as a result of Dawkins' books on biology, and maybe one or two who specifically say that his writings on atheism made them atheists.


I see quite a few but that seems beside the point, he is changing peoples' minds which invalidates your claim.

Are you planning on backing up your "bigot" assertion?

[Luzz]

@ Luzz,
Have you read The Demon Haunted World by Sagan?
Yes


He says just about the same things Dawkins does.

No he doesnt. Not in the slightest. Sagan was tolerant, he knew that there was a high risk of alienating people by pretending to hold the ultimate truth, as Dawkins does. Although in the following quote Sagan does not talk about religion, he shows that he wouldn´t approve the tactics of some hard atheists/skeptics.


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. Whereas, an approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition, that recognizes that the society has arranged things so that skepticism is not well taught, might be much more widely accepted.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/saganws.htm


My opinion is that the only way to reduce religious and woo beliefs is to teach people (especially children) how the scientific method works and how we get knowledge from its application.

[Civilized Worm]

I think there's room for both the good cop and bad cop approaches. I know many people consider James Randi to be overly confrontational and dismissive.

[Luzz]

Yes, you are.

You can do better than that. :rolleyes:

Ok, we are two: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/25/evolution.religion (although I doubt it)

What is your point? You seem to come here only to defend your position instead of exchanging ideas and having a conversation.
Isaac Newton was a deeply religious person, nevertheless it didnt stop him from making scientific progress, and giving us his great works on physics. These are some quotes from Newton found in wikipedia


"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."


In a manuscript he wrote in 1704 in which he describes his attempts to extract scientific information from the Bible, he estimated that the world would end no earlier than 2060. In predicting this he said, "This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail."

So under yours and Dawkins standards -in our days- he would be a woo, a deluded religious nut who would deserve nothing but discredit. Newton and other great people -who despite lack of evidence believe in God or whatever- are not worse persons that you and me. It does not mean they are stupid or retarded. It just means we are different and we all are entitle to believe whatever we want to believe (only if we dont hurt others).

Dawkins is a PRICK, he thinks he has the absolute truth under his shoulders when he is nothing but a little annoying old man. I am atheist by the way, but I am also tolerant and peaceful. I only judge people by their actions, not their beliefs.

[Civilized Worm]

Dude Newton was a woo by any standards, he was an alchemist. Who the hell is saying he was stupid or retarded?

[Finnegan]

Dawkins is a PRICK, he thinks he has the absolute truth under his shoulders when he is nothing but a little annoying old man. I am atheist by the way, but I am also tolerant and peaceful. I only judge people by their actions, not their beliefs.

;)

[Herzblut]

Good posts!
My opinion is that the only way to reduce religious and woo beliefs is to teach people (especially children) how the scientific method works and how we get knowledge from its application.
Also, European tradition shows that democratic societies which provide prosperity and liberty and which guarantee human rights like religious freedom for all their people tend to be the most secular.

[JoeEllison]

So under yours and Dawkins standards -in our days- he would be a woo, a deluded religious nut who would deserve nothing but discredit. Newton and other great people -who despite lack of evidence believe in God or whatever- are not worse persons that you and me. It does not mean they are stupid or retarded. It just means we are different and we all are entitle to believe whatever we want to believe (only if we dont hurt others).

Dawkins is a PRICK, he thinks he has the absolute truth under his shoulders when he is nothing but a little annoying old man. I am atheist by the way, but I am also tolerant and peaceful. I only judge people by their actions, not their beliefs.
Since you're deliberately lying about what Dawkins actually says, we can very easily judge YOU, can't we? Your actions speak for you, in a very unflattering way.

You're entitled to believe whatever stupidity you want. You don't have a right to demand respect for your stupid beliefs.

[Herzblut]

Since you're deliberately lying about what Dawkins actually says, we can very easily judge YOU, can't we?

Who cares? You don't have a right to demand respect for your stupid beliefs.

[Nogbad]

I can't say Dawkins provokes strong feelings one way or another for me. I have read TGD and found it readable and interesting. I have seen him on TV where he did a couple of short series and his first outing was a bit stilted but the second was much better and he came across as quite a decent sort - would happily have a pint with the man.

No issue with him at all.

[articulett]

;)

Isn't that funny. It's like my sig article. I always like Dawkins much more than his critics. To me they just sound so self important, jealous, and stupid. They never have a real reason to dislike him... they just repeat their straw man version of him and imagine themselves so much better.

Who needs evidence when you have faith, eh?

I suspect the critics wish that they were as liked, intelligent, and as inspirational as Dawkins-- they dis him so they can feel better in their heads. Are any of Dawkins critics as likable as he is? I suspect Dawkins has given lots of people the impetus to begin thinking rationally and challenging faith as a means of knowledge.

[articulett]

I think there's room for both the good cop and bad cop approaches. I know many people consider James Randi to be overly confrontational and dismissive.

No matter how nice an atheist is, the apologist will hear stuff that isn't there-- he has a meme to protect the faith-- or "faith in faith" as Dennett puts it. (Could there be a nicer person than Dennett?-- and even he gets this nutty twisting of what he has said and all the imagine "evil" that goes with it.)

Yes, all atheists think that believers are deluded, mistaken, misguided, and so forth... just the same way believers feel about all those who don't believe as they do-- including atheists. Atheists don't claim to have divine truths. That's a hell of a lot less arrogant than those who claim to, not only know there is a god, but to know what he wants.

[articulett]

"Your concerns are noted, and stupid."

I know where that came from--
and I laugh out loud...

(as Dennett in pimp hat dances across my mind of to the side)

[RandFan]

So what does this have to do with religious beliefs? Real simple, religion isn't going to reveal any truth as truth that can't be gained through philosophical or scientific inquiry. Religion is superfluous when it comes to truth.

You are free to believe anything you want and it might be truth but then on the other hand it might not be. There's no way to know based simply on religion.

[PixyMisa]

You can do better than that. :rolleyes:

Ok, we are two: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/25/evolution.religion (although I doubt it)

What is your point? You seem to come here only to defend your position instead of exchanging ideas and having a conversation.
My point is this: It may be counter-productive in the short term to tell religious people that their beliefs are foolish nonsense, but on the whole I don't care, because their beliefs are foolish nonsense.

Isaac Newton was a deeply religious person, nevertheless it didnt stop him from making scientific progress, and giving us his great works on physics. These are some quotes from Newton found in wikipedia


"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." Newton believed in a number of strange ideas. So what?

In a manuscript he wrote in 1704 in which he describes his attempts to extract scientific information from the Bible, he estimated that the world would end no earlier than 2060. In predicting this he said, "This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail."As I said, Newton believed in a number of strange ideas. So what?

So under yours and Dawkins standards -in our days- he would be a woo, a deluded religious nut who would deserve nothing but discredit.He was a deluded religious nut. He was also a great scientist.

Neither Dawkins nor I are attacking people. We're attacking ideas.

Newton and other great people -who despite lack of evidence believe in God or whatever- are not worse persons that you and me.Who cares about "better" and "worse"? We're talking about deluded.

It does not mean they are stupid or retarded.Who cares?

It just means we are different and we all are entitle to believe whatever we want to believe (only if we dont hurt others).Yes, you're entitled to believe whatever you want. That doesn't make you any less deluded.

Dawkins is a PRICK, he thinks he has the absolute truth under his shoulders when he is nothing but a little annoying old man.Yes, you've whined about this before. Now, instead of attacking Dawkins personally, why not try showing that he actually acts as you claim?

I am atheist by the way, but I am also tolerant and peaceful. I only judge people by their actions, not their beliefs.There's nothing wrong with judging people by their beliefs; it's just that only certain judgements can be validly ascertained from beliefs alone. Being deluded doesn't make you bad, but it certainly makes you deluded.

And that's not a good thing.

[RandFan]

That would be nice but that isn't actualy the case. While I generaly wouldn't go as far as Paul Feyerabend he did have a point when you look at how science has behaved in the past. It is actually the case. How science has "behaved" is entirely irrelevant.

Hitting your head with with a hammer causes pain thus we conclude that hard impacts cause pain. In which case you would be doing science. Not doing it well but doing it nonetheless

[RandFan]

If the scientific method works consistently...

Which one? Asking "which one?" is a nonsensical question.

The scientific method encompasses a body of techniques to observe the natural world, investigate phenomena and acquire knowledge in an objective way.

[articulett]

Yes, and religion and gurus have shown us nothing real, good, useful, or true.

Dawkins has shared some of the coolest information humans have come to know-- he's a trustworthy source of information demonized by those much less trustworthy than him.

[JoeEllison]

Yes, and religion and gurus have shown us nothing real, good, useful, or true.

More importantly, they are incapable of showing us anything useful or unique. Religion is an intellectual dead-end... and deep down, I'm sure vary many theists know it.

[articulett]

Since they have no evidence in their favor, they've taken to spinning hatred of those that do.

[Herzblut]

Ah, so you don't believe in Evolution, right, Herzblut?

Or do you just not know the branches that led to the Human species?

Can you logically attack any of his arguments, or can you just participate in childish mocking?
It's totally irrelevant what I believe, know or can do.

[JoeEllison]

Since they have no evidence in their favor, they've taken to spinning hatred of those that do.

Well, it is important to go after Dawkins and other atheists for their "tone", because there's little else they can complain of without lying through their teeth... not that lying is especially uncommon among the theists.

[Herzblut]

Science is simply the objective search for truth. End of story.
Science is actually a process to gain knowledge. Philosophy, mathematics and logic deal with truth one way or the other.


Real simple, religion isn't going to reveal any truth as truth that can't be gained through philosophical or scientific inquiry. Religion is superfluous when it comes to truth.

Same as cooking, the local football club, sex etc. What does that have to do with science?


In which case you would be doing science.

Of course. Hitting yourself with a hammer is science.


The scientific method encompasses a body of techniques to observe the natural world, investigate phenomena and acquire knowledge in an objective way.

Much better than your truthisms. Just that objective doesn't make much sense here, at best it might be "inter-subjective".

[articulett]

I wonder if it's worse among the apologists claiming to be atheists. If they are really atheists, do they really think it's fine that other people hang on to their primitive beliefs while they've "moved beyond them"-- isn't that like a scam artist? What if it was Sylvia' Browne's church or somehell damning woo that the persons "faith" lead them to? Do they really think it's okay to defer to faith as a means of knowledge? They're atheists but they still have the "faith in faith" meme and the double standard about the "strident atheists versus the noble believer"?

Or are they lying about the atheist bit too?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I disagree with several of Dawkin's assertions. The biggest one I have a gripe is essentially the the premise of the God Delusion: that religion is not only wrong, but a social evil responsible for some horrible crimes.

He's not wrong in that religion has motivated horrendous crimes. He is wrong in asserting that religion is bad, on the whole, because of this. It's no less naive of an argument as the creationists who equate evolution with Hitler and the Nazi movement.

Nevertheless, as obnoxious and irresponsible as he can be, I still love to hear him talk. He's entertaining and highly intelligent.It really depends on what criteria you judge religion on and whether you are tallying a total or just concerned with the literal definition of 'all' bad.

If you look at all evil deeds over time in the name of god beliefs, that adds up to a whopper of a number. I don't think it would be that hard to show the balance of good and evil tipped the scale toward evil.

If you want to say some religious people are OK and some religious organizations do some good things, well sure.

But another measure not considering the burning people alive and slaughtering people right and left is that of religion's drag on the progress of science. Think how much further we would have progressed as a species if people hadn't blocked scientific discoveries every step of the way in the name of religion.



If you look at the social benefits of

[articulett]

Besides, Dawkins never said all religion is bad...
The title of his documentary call The Root of All Evil? was a title chosen by his production company. He didn't think it was correct, and they allowed him a concession-- the ? (question mark) on the end. Nowhere does he say all religion is bad. There's just no reason to think it's true or good or necessary-- and kids don't have a choice as to what beliefs their parents inflict upon them.

I'm tired of people hearing all religion whenever religion in general is criticized... and yet they don't realize that they are defending all religion whenever they defend faith as a means of knowledge. There is no way to tell a good faith from a bad one-- a true one from a false one, after all.

Don't let people rephrase what they think Dawkins is saying-- make them cut and paste and examine what he really said. Plug in some other woo and see if it sounds so "strident".

[RandFan]

Science is actually a process to gain knowledge. Philosophy, mathematics and logic deal with truth one way or the other. If you want to be pedantic, Science is actually a branch of philosophy. You have a valid point but it is misleading in the context of this discussion. Knowledge is of little value if it is false. Science concerns itself with trying to establish what is most likely true (see falsification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability)). Otherwise what is the point?

Same as cooking, the local football club, sex etc. What does that have to do with science? Amazing, you managed to answer your own question with a question. Good job. That's right. Religion has nothing to do with truth or science.

Of course. Hitting yourself with a hammer is science. VENKMAN: Egon, somehow this reminds me of the time you tried to drill a hole in your head. Do you remember that?

Yes, it IS science if it is done scientifically. It's not good science. It's not smart science but it is science.

Much better than your truthisms. Just that objective doesn't make much sense here, at best it might be "inter-subjective".Please to explain?

[articulett]

You'll probably regret asking that Randfan. Herzy is smart on occasion, but then he goes off into mean and crazy apologetic rants...

It's not you. Fasten your seat belt.

[Achán hiNidráne]

VENKMAN: Egon, somehow this reminds me of the time you tried to drill a hole in your head. Do you remember that?


SPENGLER: That would have worked if you hadn't stopped me.

:D

[Skeptic Ginger]

What on earth are you on about?

Where did I say, or imply, that atheism is a religion or faith, or not evidence-based?Here:... a proselytising atheist, you have to believe that religion is in principle harmful, absence of religion is in principle beneficial, and that therefore society will necessarily be improved if you can convert everyone to your opinion. [snip] So, proselytising atheism must remain a matter of faith, which is exactly what proselytising atheist scientists have to deny.

I don't think it's so difficult to see why many atheists dislike the missionary mindset.While you say atheism is the absence of religion and seem to think its fine in one sense, you use "proselytizing" and other religious terminology as if promoting science or concluding religion does more harm than good and working against it is just promoting one's beliefs like god believers promote their beliefs. It is not the same. Is teaching critical thinking and not sidestepping its application when it comes to god beliefs, proselytizing? Is Randi a proselytizer against psychics? Maybe you think so given your use of the word to describe yourself on the subject of socialism. I took you to be describing a dogmatic promotion rather than just a passionate promotion.


My post (which you plainly did not bother to read properly before launching into your standard harangue) was not about whether atheism is scientifically correct, but whether there is evidence-based justification for the belief that it would necessarily (or probably) lead to a more rational, prosperous, peaceful and educated world, and should therefore be aggressively promoted. I specifically pointed out that these are not at all the same question. I don't think that's off-topic, as my objection (apparently shared by many others) to Dawkins's position on atheism vs religion is that he consistently conflates the two questions.You think I didn't read your post because I see something different in it than you think is there. But it comes down to a difference in philosophy here. I do not view Dawkins as proselytizing. I think that is absurd. What is wrong with promoting science and critical thinking? It is offensive to god believers? It is moving too quickly? We should all take the, I"m OK, you're OK position?

So what about the evidence? That's a fair point. But you are wrong that there is none.

First, there is plenty of evidence that morals are not based in religion. They evolved as a natural process. There have been long debates on this issue in other threads and I have posted much evidence that morals exist in other species including non-human primates. The idea people are moral because of god beliefs or fear of hell is the thing that is not supportable with any evidence. Are you expecting atheists to start an anarchy movement anytime soon?

So my position is there is no evidence we need god beliefs to have any of the things you have listed. Whether or not the world would be better, I base on other criteria. Would we have world peace without religion. That's unlikely. But would we be worse off? I don't think so and I will address your concern about social behavior later in this post. So what other benefits would there be by ridding the world of god beliefs? We would move forward as a society. As a human species we would move past our ignorant days of believing rituals and magic would change the weather and heal the sick.

All one has to do to see that this is beneficial progress for humanity is to compare us today with us of 10,000 years ago. Science is progressive. It is successful. Belief in rituals and magic is regressive and unsuccessful. Maybe you don't want to move forward for fear of hurting people's feelings, but I want to move forward because I see incredible benefits coming from our having moved from magical thinking to critical thinking. We now know how to systematically observe the Universe and we know better rules for drawing conclusions so we don't make mistakes like thinking a prayer ritual healed someone. We can find something that really does heal a person.



Ask yourself - what kind of 'evidence' are you expecting? Where are the controlled studies? The point is that the evidence can only come from social experiments that have not yet been performed. At the very least you would need to take two societies with similar characteristics and histories that have diverged in that one has become primarily atheist while the other hasn't (but not in any other significant way), study them for several generations and perform suitable measurements and statistics on some relevant quantities (intelligence, health, happiness, crime, violence and the like).Broaden your perspective here and look for other evidence besides randomized controlled trials.

1) Atheists provide evidence god beliefs are not necessary. We will behave the same with or without god beliefs for the most part. Your concern cited below that social behavior is better when people belong to churches is not supported by the evidence. Just look at the Benny Hinns and the Jimmy/Tammy Bakers and the Jerry Falwells of the religious community. And look at the recent humanist movements and the social movements from the 60s-70s. God beliefs didn't make the former examples moral and god beliefs weren't needed for the latter examples. I think you will find the behaviors are going to be what they are based on social evolution more than religion. People who want to belong to a group will belong to a group. People who worship consumerism will do so whether they belong to a church or not.

2) You can weigh the benefits and cost of religion without RCTs. At the least you should conclude it's certainly worth a try going without, but I suggest a different evidential model. Look at history and anthropology. I think there is enough evidence there to suggest that societies which progress toward less religion on the whole lose some of the bigotry and divisions that religion promotes.

There are too many confounding variables to say something else isn't the cause, but at least you can see losing god beliefs doesn't cause harm.

3) Look for benefits beyond the ones you've listed. I like to think the collective mind of humanity is maturing. That is the benefit I see in calling god beliefs what they are, woo.


Now, I believe that any social question can (and should) be tackled in a scientific way up to a point. It would be interesting to know, for example, whether religion increases or decreases the probability that a person will hold irrational beliefs in psychics, aliens, homeopathy, conspiracy theories etc. I suspect there isn't a general answer, and we can usefully investigate the interactions between the various social and personal factors involved. We can make some progress in these and related matters, but that still leaves an enormous part of the key question (whether or how society will be improved by universal atheism) that we can't hope to settle by evidence. We have to use our judgement, and the less judgement can rely on evidence the more it approximates faith.You get to both ends by the same means. In other words, promoting critical thinking is the means. You are taking the ends, a lack of god beliefs, and suggesting that is the means to a different end, losing other irrational beliefs. I suggest it is harder to teach critical thinking if you ignore the lack of it needed to have god beliefs.

Most of us manage to accept that unpalatable truth. For instance, I am a convinced, committed and to a limited extent proselytising socialist (and I have been taken aback by the irrational and fanatical belief in the free market shown by some US 'skeptics' here). But I have to recognise that my belief (or faith, if you prefer) that a planned, socialist economy can solve deep social problems that are intractable under capitalism, without introducing worse ones, can't be tested before the fact. (Also, it's a good idea to be aware in advance of the pitfalls, such as the danger of a dictatorship arising in a centralised economy.) The analogy is quite a close one, because capitalism as an economic system can be studied scientifically and found to be fundamentally flawed, but no amount of economic evidence can enable us to predict the social consequences of such a profound transformation of economic relationships. Laissez faire aka Libertarian economics is an extreme and I fail to see why so many skeptics think it would be successful. I think a number of things are better managed economically as community services rather than as private services. But I would prefer regulated capitalism, not full socialism. .... [/side track]


What 'evidence' we have on the improvement of society by the abandonment of religion is not too encouraging so far. In the UK organised religion has ceased to have any real significance for most people, but it hasn't been replaced by humanism, as the atheist movement of the early and mid 20th century hoped and expected. Instead we have a gang culture, racism, mindless consumerism and an explosion of new age nonsense. However, I don't conclude too much from that, because it's early days yet.You ignore the things in the UK which are humanist in nature, mainly the socialism like universal health care. As far as the gangs and what you seem to be describing as the loss of a sense of community which a religion might provide, it is hard to determine cause or effect and what else may be more or less important. I think sometimes one is really only seeing the illusion of selective memory.

For example, when people claim behavior was better in the past in the US, Jon Stewart would say, "You mean in the days when we had slavery or the days we had lynchings in the South?" I think you should take that evidence based approach, which we both agree on BTW, and see if the data supports your assessment that things have really deteriorated in your local society as much as you think they have. Seems to me racism was alive and well in pretty much all of England's past.

I am perfectly willing to debate these issues with you, but would you kindly address yourself to what I actually said, not to some bizarre distortion or fantasy.Like I said, you used the words then objected to my reaction to them. What did you expect when you spoke of proselytizing atheists and their faith? That I would not take that description of atheists but rather see passionate atheists as religious and less passionate atheists as reasonable?


That doesn't mean I think anyone need be rude aggressive idiots when it comes to addressing god beliefs. But it does mean I agree it is time to call a spade a spade. I do think it is time to take a stand (a personal one in my case) and say faith based beliefs are no different from any other woo. You cannot distinguish between non-evidence based beliefs and faith based beliefs. The guy who has faith in homeopathy is no different from the guy who has faith in gods. So by definition, atheists promoting critical thinking and not sidestepping the god issues are not proselytizing their faith. They recognize that you cannot ignore the fact critical thinkers need a blind spot if they are going to maintain god beliefs.

[RandFan]

SPENGLER: That would have worked if you hadn't stopped me.

:D When I thought of someone hitting themselves for scientific purposes that instantly came into my head. The next thought was link (http://www.ridhughz.demon.co.uk/wav/scientist.wav).

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
I think people have learned to imagine horrors in those who lack belief... they hear what isn't there and they excuse or become blind to the bigotry this allows for:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3713337&postcount=95

Whenever I ask people to cut and paste what he actually said, it never is as they charactherize it-- and when I plug in any other woo it just sounds mild. When I compare it to the atheist discrimination I linked above it sounds downright civil. I feel like religion makes people live in a topsy turvy doublethink reality. They praise the liars and the deluded while negating all harms from faith and imagine that harm and horrible things can happend from "lack of belief" in some nebulous poorly defined thing called god. .....I, of course, observe the same world you observe. Amazing, just take the stand that god beliefs are undeniable woo and so many other things come in to focus such as the double standard applied to passionate atheism, or even just plain atheism of the truly convinced.

I'm sorry folks, Zeus, Jesus and Pele are all myths. If I said Zeus and Pele were myths, no one here would call me an atheist proselytizer.

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is the point where I think Dawkins is intentionally creating the most controversy, and doing the most potential good. He seems to be intentionally forcing the issue of unwarranted respect for delusions that most people give when those delusions have the religious stamp on them. I think that he's hoping that more people will "come out of the closet" about their atheism if they see someone publicly treating theism like just another foolish woo belief.Or maybe he just decided like many of us have to quit giving that unwarranted respect for woo with a religious stamp.

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, no. I am just the evil speciest. The Good Dawkins speaks up

Such is the breathtaking speciesism of our Christian-inspired attitudes, the abortion of a single human zygote (most of them are destined to be spontaneously aborted anyway) can arouse more moral solicitude and righteous indignation than the vivisection of any number of intelligent adult chimpanzees! [...] The only reason we can be comfortable with such a double standard is that the intermediates between humans and chimps are all dead.

What I am doing is going along with the fact that I live in a society where meat eating is accepted as the norm, and it requires a level of social courage which I haven’t yet produced to break out of that. It’s a little bit like the position which many people would have held a couple of hundred years ago over slavery. Where lots of people felt morally uneasy about slavery but went along with it because the whole economy of the South depended upon slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpeciesismEating)

Eating meat, beating slaves to death - what's the difference?

Here, Good Dawkins teaches us about the rights of some frikking lousy jungle apes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTZnBQ3aWVk

Those intelligent jungle apes, just look at their faces! I mean, they are like us, aren't they? We are nothing but african apes, african apes we are.

H.Well this is taking a different track in the thread but at least now I can see what you are on about.

I have no issue with the obligation we have to protect sentient beings from human cruelty and indifference. Doesn't bother me a bit that humans are great apes or that we are cousins to African gorillas, chimps, orangutans and bonobos. In fact, I find it fascinating.

So just what is your issue here? That we shouldn't feel any moral obligation toward other species? Well, somewhere along the way I developed an innate sense of a moral obligation such as the one Dawkins describes in the YT video. So I don't get the point you are making even though I have a better idea at least what you are talking about.

[Gazpacho]

If they are really atheists, do they really think it's fine that other people hang on to their primitive beliefs while they've "moved beyond them"
Yes, I think it's fine, and no, I don't need you or Dawkins to validate my atheism.

[Skeptic Ginger]

So what does this have to do with religious beliefs? Does it mean that you can find objectively whether or not God exists? I don´t think so.
Dawkins has absolutely nothing to say about religion because this subject is not a scientific issue, he cannot even define what God is.
Honest scientists recognise this limitation and remain quiet because that is what they are forced to do ethically.
If they do have personal opinions, then it is ok, they can preach and call people names but they should do it without their "scientist" tag.

I do believe, Luzz, it is the believers who have trouble defining god. Once you define god, then you have the issue of evidence against a god defined that way.

For example, if in your definition god answers prayers, then you can look for that evidence. But so far, no study using proper methodology has found any effect of prayer. I dare say if you could, you could get the million dollar prize from JREF. So, the definition moves back and starts to change the description of prayer. Something gets added to the definition like God doesn't want us to have evidence because we are to believe by faith or whatever it takes to shift that definition until you've not only moved the goal post back, you've moved it off the playing field. God must be something that cannot be detected.

Well if you can't detect god then god must be irrelevant, or at least undetectable which means no one should have any reason to believe. This just goes round and round.

No, it isn't Dawkins that can't define god, it is Dawkins asking believers to define god so the god belief can be discussed. But the believers cannot define god.

And you are just living a fairy tale claiming, "Honest scientists recognise this limitation and remain quiet". First, lots of scientists exercise that critical thinking blind spot and maintain their own god beliefs. Others have adopted the, 'god is outside of the Universe' or some similar description putting god outside of the evidence based Universe. This is what we've been discussing here because many of us, including Dawkins apparently, don't think there is any reason to allow this exception for god woo and the claim something exists such as spiritualism which is outside of the realm of science.

You can probably make a better argument for values being outside of the scientific realm than you can for god beliefs. But that isn't relevant to this discussion.

SCIENCE STANDS ON ITS OWN.

There is not a war between science and religion as Dawkins wants to make it look. There is a war between fundamentalism and tolerance, and from my point of view he is in the first group.You are saying that religion and science are compatible. They may tolerate each other, but I challenge your claim they are compatible. For every major scientific discovery about the solar system in the Middle Ages the church was threatened because the evidence did not support the Biblical history. Now we have this religious fight against evolution theory. We might as well be in the Middle Ages. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and irrefutable yet the ignorant and uninformed have not figured that out so they cling to the Biblical version of Creation. Those are not compatible.

Religion can acquiesce. Actually they will have to eventually. You cannot change the evidence. But this is hardly a compatible matter between the two groups.

And you can see from this discussion, why allowing that faith based blind spot for religious woo is doomed to fail eventually. Might as well just get it over with if you ask me.

[schlitt]

I am grateful to Richard Dawkins for helping (among others) to bring the matter of faith into the forefront of the public discussion arena.

The human species is surely doomed unless we are able to get rid of faith based superstition. (This is probably unlikely to happen, but we can at least give it a shot)

He is an excellent biologist, which is worthy of much respect.
He also has some eloquently presented cogent arguments against theism. I also see this as a positive thing. Whether or not you agree with, or like his personal style of presentation is subjective, yet I cannot understand any thoughtful Atheist who is anti Richard Dawkins to the point of contempt.

[articulett]

Yes, I think it's fine, and no, I don't need you or Dawkins to validate my atheism.

But of course. And you don't need Randi to validate your disbelief in the Yeti.

Nor do you need RSL to validate your disbelief in the powers of Sylvia Browne, I presume.

What ever made you think someone or other is trying to "validate" your disbelief? Maybe you are hearing things that aren't there. What a bizarre response.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes



No he doesnt. Not in the slightest. Sagan was tolerant, he knew that there was a high risk of alienating people by pretending to hold the ultimate truth, as Dawkins does. Although in the following quote Sagan does not talk about religion, he shows that he wouldn´t approve the tactics of some hard atheists/skeptics.


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. Whereas, an approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition, that recognizes that the society has arranged things so that skepticism is not well taught, might be much more widely accepted.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/saganws.htm


My opinion is that the only way to reduce religious and woo beliefs is to teach people (especially children) how the scientific method works and how we get knowledge from its application.You are confusing a means of confrontation with the act of confrontation. In other words the difference here is only in how you address a particular audience, not in how you feel about the beliefs of that audience.

From your link, words by Sagan. I searched for the word, god, it isn't in the piece. So I searched for the word, 'religion':So if you want to really be able to predict the future -- not in everything, but in some areas -- there's only one regime of human scholarship, of human claims to knowledge, that really delivers the goods, and that's science. Religions would give their eyeteeth to be able to predict anything like that well. Think of how much mileage they would make if they ever could do predictions comparably unambiguous and precise....

Now think of what other areas of human society have such a reward structure, in which we revere those who prove that the fundamental doctrines that we have adopted are wrong. Think of it in politics, or in economics, or in religion; think of it in how we organize our society. Often, it's exactly the opposite: There we reward those who reassure us that what we've been told is right, that we need not concern ourselves about it. This difference, I believe, is at least a basic reason why we've made so much progress in science, and so little in some other areas....


Then I searched for 'belief':The least effective way for skeptics to get the attention of these bright, curious, interested people is to belittle, or condescend, or show arrogance toward their beliefs. They may be credulous, but they're not stupid. If we bear in mind human frailty and fallibility, we will understand their plight.


Then I looked for your quote and added the paragraph preceding it for more context: Would you think less of me if I fell for it? Imagine I was never educated about skepticism, had no idea that it's a virtue, but instead believed that it was grumpy and negative and rejecting of everything that's humane. Couldn't you understand my openness to being conned by a medium or a channeler?

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. Whereas, an approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition, that recognizes that the society has arranged things so that skepticism is not well taught, might be much more widely accepted.*So what do you have here? You don't have Sagan saying faith based beliefs are a legit exception or that faith based beliefs should be left off the table. All you have is Sagan saying you catch more bees with honey than with vinegar and to have more patience and a little less judgment for woo believers.

I doubt Dawkins would disagree. I certainly don't disagree. But there is a time and place to approach individuals this way, and a time and place not to coddle woo beliefs.




I thought this was interesting, but it isn't related to the thread:* If skeptical habits of thought are widely distributed and prized, then who is the skepticism going to be mainly applied to? To those in power. Those in power, therefore, do not have a vested interest in everybody being able to ask searching questions....

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Isaac Newton was a deeply religious person, nevertheless it didnt stop him from making scientific progress, and giving us his great works on physics. It probably didn't help him either. But considering the circumstances at the time, we don't know what he believed since it wasn't politically safe to say you did not believe. In any case if this gives you permission to be a scientist and still maintain your god beliefs, go for it. It won't matter in the ling run.


....These are some quotes from Newton found in wikipedia


"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."


In a manuscript he wrote in 1704 in which he describes his attempts to extract scientific information from the Bible, he estimated that the world would end no earlier than 2060. In predicting this he said, "This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail."

So under yours and Dawkins standards -in our days- he would be a woo, a deluded religious nut who would deserve nothing but discredit. Newton and other great people -who despite lack of evidence believe in God or whatever- are not worse persons that you and me. It does not mean they are stupid or retarded. It just means we are different and we all are entitle to believe whatever we want to believe (only if we dont hurt others). Sorry, not a valid comparison. You are equating challenging the status quo with challenging a scientific hypothesis or theory with evidence. Those are completely different things.

The manuscript sounds interesting though, I may have to look into that.

....Dawkins is a PRICK, he thinks he has the absolute truth under his shoulders when he is nothing but a little annoying old man. I am atheist by the way, but I am also tolerant and peaceful. I only judge people by their actions, not their beliefs.Not sure I buy your claim of being an atheist. A lot of people on these forums lie for Jesus thinking if they say they are not a god believer we will somehow not reject their arguments. Funny thing is, the idea scientists reject god believers is a straw man. Scientists will look at the evidence regardless of who puts it out there. It is the Discovery Institute that most promotes that straw man. That was what was behind the whole change Creationism to ID movement. The idea was religion was being rejected so if it was presented as science it wouldn't be.

Well if it was presented as science that would be it had supporting evidence. If it had supporting evidence it wouldn't have been rejected. The DI doesn't want to face up to that fact so they go on claiming the straw man, the scientific community rejects Bible based ideas out of hand.

Anyway, sorry if you are an atheist. I don't like to call people liars. But you post an awful lot in defense of god beliefs. Do you not recognize woo is woo regardless of the lipstick? Or is it just that you want the I'm OK you're OK approach? If it is the latter, don't you think you should be more tolerant of Dawkins?

[Skeptic Ginger]

;)
I see you noticed that too. :D

[Skeptic Ginger]

You might be interested in reading this paper by Austin Dacey that examines the effect made by Dawkins' approach on science communication: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2579,Framing-Science-and-The-Dawkins-Effect,Austin-Dacey

As a side note, it was Dawkins and the God Delusion that got me interested in science and scepticism.Thanks for the link. The book Dacey is talking about, Secularism & Science in the 21st Century (http://www.trincoll.edu/secularisminstitute/), is free online and it is also a good link to put in another thread asking about responding to a high school sophomore's bad science.

[Herzblut]

Well this is taking a different track in the thread but at least now I can see what you are on about.

I have no issue with the obligation we have to protect sentient beings from human cruelty and indifference. Doesn't bother me a bit that humans are great apes or that we are cousins to African gorillas, chimps, orangutans and bonobos. In fact, I find it fascinating.

So just what is your issue here? That we shouldn't feel any moral obligation toward other species?
Hi skeptigirl,

I have no problem with animal wellfare. But with animal rights, and other ethical concepts, according to Peter Singer's consequentialism. If you want to dig into this, that's fine for me.

H.

[Dragoonster]

It probably didn't help him either. But considering the circumstances at the time, we don't know what he believed since it wasn't politically safe to say you did not believe.

Deal with evidence, not supposition. The dude had some woo theories and some nearly unique insight into the physical world. One doesn't necessarily insubstantiate the other.

Not sure I buy your claim of being an atheist. A lot of people on these forums lie for Jesus thinking if they say they are not a god believer we will somehow not reject their arguments.

(...)

Anyway, sorry if you are an atheist. I don't like to call people liars. But you post an awful lot in defense of god beliefs.

Again, come on. Labelling others is a poor argumentative technique for anyone, be they theist, atheist, Jesus, or Dawkins. I haven't seen much indicating he's acutally a theist, nor would it matter to his arguments, which seem to revolve primarily on a social liberatarian approach.

Atheists should no more weasel in pejorative assumptions than theists do. Or if they do they should likewise be called on it.

[Dragoonster]

btw, I say that because Dawkins and others, myself included, support argument-by-evidence, argument-by-logic. If we slip and diverge into any typical logical fallacies that the theists or woo-artists use, we've given up our advantage. We've been brought down to argue on their illogical terms, which we shouldn't do. And we'll rightfully be criticized as arguing from emotion, or baseless supposition, or agenda, just like they do. At that point we will be another typical ideology, no better or worse or more reasonable or more human-informing than any other argument.

What is the skeptics' advantage? Rationality and objectivity. Why sully that with personal prejudice?

[westprog]

Deal with evidence, not supposition. The dude had some woo theories and some nearly unique insight into the physical world. One doesn't necessarily insubstantiate the other.


Newton wasn't some atheist hiding his opinions and going to church just to get by. His religious and occult beliefs permeate his work. He didn't have to contend with the inquisition to get published.

[westprog]

Deal with evidence, not supposition. The dude had some woo theories and some nearly unique insight into the physical world. One doesn't necessarily insubstantiate the other.


Newton wasn't some atheist hiding his opinions and going to church just to get by. His religious and occult beliefs permeate his work. He didn't have to contend with the inquisition to get published.

[NewtonTrino]

Of course Newton grew up in a very superstitious time. Nobody is necessarily immune from that. I have no doubt whatsoever that if Newton were able to travel through time to the present day that he would become an atheist. The evidence at this point is simple insurmountable...

[JoeEllison]

I, of course, observe the same world you observe. Amazing, just take the stand that god beliefs are undeniable woo and so many other things come in to focus such as the double standard applied to passionate atheism, or even just plain atheism of the truly convinced.

I'm sorry folks, Zeus, Jesus and Pele are all myths. If I said Zeus and Pele were myths, no one here would call me an atheist proselytizer.And, whether it is "rude" to say this or not, there is something WRONG with believing in myths as though they are literally true.

[Fredrik]

I like Dawkins a lot, but I have also noticed that some people* I know don't like him because he's aggressive and insulting towards some of the morons. They feel that his attitude is going to prevent him from convincing anyone, and may in fact push religious people even further away from rational thinking. I think these people are mostly wrong, because I know from experience that no matter how politely you put an argument to a woo believer, they will get angry. If they don't get angry right away, they will get angry when you crush their counter arguments.

There are moments however, when even I feel that he's too aggressive, for example when he talked to Ted Haggard and immediately said that what he had just seen made him think of a Nuremberg rally. It would have been more interesting to see him go in there well prepared to counter any argument Haggard might have, and own him completely when he says something dumb, like "...and it doesn't contradict itself". (Haggard said that about the bible).


* The people I'm referring to are atheists, but it feels silly to even mention that since I'm a science nerd living in Sweden.

[Civilized Worm]

Still no evidence of Dawkins' alleged bigotry I see.

[Lonewulf]

Still no evidence of Dawkins' alleged bigotry I see.Nope. Just sophomoric mockery of his opinions on animal welfare.

[articulett]

I like Dawkins a lot, but I have also noticed that some people* I know don't like him because he's aggressive and insulting towards some of the morons. They feel that his attitude is going to prevent him from convincing anyone, and may in fact push religious people even further away from rational thinking. I think these people are mostly wrong, because I know from experience that no matter how politely you put an argument to a woo believer, they will get angry. If they don't get angry right away, they will get angry when you crush their counter arguments.

There are moments however, when even I feel that he's too aggressive, for example when he talked to Ted Haggard and immediately said that what he had just seen made him think of a Nuremberg rally. It would have been more interesting to see him go in there well prepared to counter any argument Haggard might have, and own him completely when he says something dumb, like "...and it doesn't contradict itself". (Haggard said that about the bible).


* The people I'm referring to are atheists, but it feels silly to even mention that since I'm a science nerd living in Sweden.

I recall that episode, and I seem to recall that it was in response to something Haggard had just said... that WAS reminiscent of a Nuremberg Rally. And Haggard, I think, had just insinuated that maybe Dawkins grandchildren would find out he was wrong one day. To me, Haggard came off as arrogant while trying to make Dawkins sound arrogant.

[Lonewulf]

I remember wondering why Haggard didn't seem to "get" the Nürnberger Reichsparteitag reference. Maybe he was just pretending.

[articulett]

He (Haggard) just kept having that insane little duck lipped smile on his face...

[Gazpacho]

What ever made you think someone or other is trying to "validate" your disbelief? Maybe you are hearing things that aren't there.
You loaded your question with the assumption that anyone who is content for other people not to be atheists, isn't really an atheist. When I respond to a loaded question I do it properly.

I don't lose sleep or moan about the unfairness that there are people in the world with religious beliefs, but I've come across many atheists who do, and they rather annoy me.

[GreyICE]

And, whether it is "rude" to say this or not, there is something WRONG with believing in myths as though they are literally true.

Is this the same person who said there's nothing inherently worse about beliefs that lead to murdering women for talking to a man?

[articulett]

You loaded your question with the assumption that anyone who is content for other people not to be atheists, isn't really an atheist. When I respond to a loaded question I do it properly.

I don't lose sleep or moan about the unfairness that there are people in the world with religious beliefs, but I've come across many atheists who do, and they rather annoy me.

Once again, I think you are seeing stuff that isn't there. Most atheists don't care about other peoples inane beliefs more than they care about their astrological beliefs, their fetishes, or their superstitions... until or unless the beliefs cause harm, scare kids, cripple thinking, stall scientific progress, make people judgmental, etc. I know there is this straw man image of atheists trying to stop people from believing in god... but I think it's exaggerated in your head-- because you aren't used to seeing god as just another woo.

My question wasn't loaded. If you are smart enough to have thought your way away from superstitious thinking, why would you want others to be vulnerable to the likes of Popoff or the like? Weren't Sean Hornbeck's parents vulnerable because of this kind of thinking... isn't it wrong to stay silent as trusting kids are frightened with hellfire for touching themselves? Aren't the suicide bombers-in-training being told exactly what Allah wants? Shouldn't someone ask them how exactly their leader knows "souls" are real? Is it okay to shut up about people doing rain dances to improve crops when you know there is another way? How about witch hunts? Who are you to say who god is telling others to kill? What about genital mutilation for god? Or faith healing that allows kids to die or disallows blood transfusions.

Yes, it's condescending of those who claim to be atheists to run around acting like we must not let the kid's learn that Santa isn't real. That's what it sounds like to me. It's one thing to try to force people not to believe something (as though that was possible)... it's another to give them the tools to think their way out of their superstitions. And I think it's immoral not to. And no religion taught me that bit-o-morality.

I think you see what isn't there in the words of atheists while failing to see the harms of being quiet or deferent towards faith as a means of knowledge. In this way, you are being an "apologist"-- giving the courtier's reply... http://richarddawkins.net/article,463,The-Courtiers-Reply,PZ-Myers

You hear stuff that isn't there because you've been trained to take offense at the words of atheists. That is why I doubt you are an atheist... but a lot of atheists still share the prejudices of their society without realizing it. And a lot of non atheists come here pretending to be atheists, but I don't think I've ever run across the reverse-- though it would be understandable given the horrific prejudice towards people who have the "audacity" to disbelieve in gods.

There is no good reason to believe in gods or promote "faith" as something good is there? You can shut up the people who point out the naked emperor-- I'll be handing them the megaphone and applauding their courage, thanks. I find them much more inspirational than the apologists (who imagine themselves "middle of the road" and diplomatic it seems.) I think Dawkins and his ilk make far better role models than his critics. I don't think this "middle of the road" stuff is good for anything except building up the ego of the apologists as they exacerbate a prejudice towards atheism. But maybe I missed some evidence somewhere. Got any?

Can you cut and paste the words of those atheists you know who are losing sleep because of "the unfairness that there are people in the world with religious beliefs"-- or was that another "subjective truth"...

[JoeEllison]

I like Dawkins a lot, but I have also noticed that some people* I know don't like him because he's aggressive and insulting towards some of the morons. They feel that his attitude is going to prevent him from convincing anyone, and may in fact push religious people even further away from rational thinking. I think these people are mostly wrong, because I know from experience that no matter how politely you put an argument to a woo believer, they will get angry. If they don't get angry right away, they will get angry when you crush their counter arguments.

There are moments however, when even I feel that he's too aggressive, for example when he talked to Ted Haggard and immediately said that what he had just seen made him think of a Nuremberg rally. It would have been more interesting to see him go in there well prepared to counter any argument Haggard might have, and own him completely when he says something dumb, like "...and it doesn't contradict itself". (Haggard said that about the bible).No offense, because you're a science nerd in Sweden, but Ted Haggard's sort of church can be pretty goddamned scary.

[Gazpacho]

My questions wasn't loaded-- you just hear stuff that isn't there because you've been trained to take offense at the words of atheists. That is why I doubt you are an atheist
Oh, that's beautiful. You deny saying what you said, then you repeat it, all in the space of two lines. I still don't need your validation.

[articulett]

Good gazpacho, I'm not handing out validation... nor is Dawkins. And you appear to be the only person who heard what you imagined. I didn't deny saying what I said-- what I said is still there for everyone to see. I just deny that it was loaded... I think you are bonkers-- seeing stuff that isn't there.

For example, where all these supposed atheists you know who moan about the "unfairness that there are people in the world with religious beliefs"-- can you cut and paste their words... or is that another one of your crazy straw men?

Let's see the actual words without your magical interpretation. Just because you think I was asking a loaded question... (and I don't think I was asking a question much less talking to you), doesn't make it so. What's going on in your head isn't translating to others. So let us draw our own conclusion of the words. Cut and paste Dawkins words that offend you so much if you want to, as well. I contend that you are hearing things that aren't there.

And, fwiw, ... I don't believe you are an atheist. The ones I know in person are all much smarter sounding than you. I suspect most of the theist are to, come to think of it.

[Unbudgeable Atheist]

Dawkins delivers! I promise!

Nobody ****s you up like Richard Dawkins. Nobody...

[Fredrik]

I recall that episode, and I seem to recall that it was in response to something Haggard had just said... that WAS reminiscent of a Nuremberg Rally. And Haggard, I think, had just insinuated that maybe Dawkins grandchildren would find out he was wrong one day. To me, Haggard came off as arrogant while trying to make Dawkins sound arrogant.
It's possible that I'm the one remembering it wrong, but as I recall the Nuremberg comment was one of the first things Dawkins said, maybe the very first thing after they sat down. It seemed to me that he just wanted to provoke some hostility from Haggard right away.

I agree that Haggard was even more arrogant, and also really creepy. It was the first time I saw him, so it was interesting to watch.

Ted Haggard's sort of church can be pretty goddamned scary.
I thought Haggard was really scary all by himself, but the fact that he had millions of followers is of course much more disturbing.

[Civilized Worm]

You're right Fredrik it was one of the first things he said.

[Gazpacho]

Good gazpacho, I'm not handing out validation... nor is Dawkins. And you appear to be the only person who heard what you imagined. I didn't deny saying what I said-- what I said is still there for everyone to see. I just deny that it was loaded... I think you are bonkers-- seeing stuff that isn't there.
Maybe you're hung up on the word "validation." Let me rephrase. I have no particular need to convince you that I'm an atheist.

For example, where all these supposed atheists you know who moan about the "unfairness that there are people in the world with religious beliefs"-- can you cut and paste their words... or is that another one of your crazy straw men?
How much detail do you want? Names? Citations? I don't have that. I remember a particular editorial I came across years ago, while in college, that started off something like "It boggles my mind that anyone would be so stupid as to believe in a god." There have been discussions I've had online (That they were online doesn't mean the other person didn't exist.) That included one Dawkins groupie who was ready to accuse just about anyone of being a neanderthal bible-thumper if they didn't share his intolerant atheism.

Now as to Dawkins himself: His comments about Nadia Eweida and Peter Kay show how he is on a hair-trigger to express his, not just disagreement, but sheer revulsion that there are people in the world who believe in a deity. He has said specifically that he wants to put an end to the notion that a person's religious beliefs are entitled to respect or politeness. He wants to be able to insult theists with impunity. When someone aspires to insulting entire classes of people for their beliefs, I think I'm justified in calling him a bigot.

[JoeEllison]

Forum fight! Woohoo!!

The Interwebs are ablaze!

[articulett]

Forum fight! Woohoo!!

The Interwebs are ablaze!

Nah, I like a bigger challenge... I'll let someone else deal with gazpacho. I just like to rile up the apologists and get them frothing... and then I step away... Clearly, he has no links... just memories of what he believes people said and meant-- and he can't coherently interpret my words which are there for everyone to read. The "mean oppressive atheist" is a big stereotype propagated by bigots like gazpacho. They never pull through with evidence. None for Dawkins either. They think what they hear or read translates to others--but if they plugged in different woo, they would understand how crazy they sound to me. I don't think any woo should get any special respect-- not religious woo or apologist woo. I do think it's ironic that HE would call Dawkins a bigot, however. Luckily his words ARE there for everyone to see. As are Dawkins words.

:)

One time, in 6th grade, a girl called me out and I agreed to fight her, and a big crowd gathered around, and I slipped out in the crowd. Really... people were gathering for the fight and I had already left.

[Civilized Worm]

Now as to Dawkins himself: His comments about Nadia Eweida and Peter Kay show how he is on a hair-trigger to express his, not just disagreement, but sheer revulsion that there are people in the world who believe in a deity.


What comments about Peter Kay? You mean the comments he was misled in to giving that he apologised for? http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/mar/10/leadersandreply.mainsection3 What a bigot!


He has said specifically that he wants to put an end to the notion that a person's religious beliefs are entitled to respect or politeness. He wants to be able to insult theists with impunity. When someone aspires to insulting entire classes of people for their beliefs, I think I'm justified in calling him a bigot.


That's a non-sequiter. Just because he wants to stop religious beliefs being afforded special privileges and being exempt from critical examination doesn't mean he wants to "insult theists with impunity". So no, I don't think you're justified in calling him a bigot at all.

[articulett]

You're right Fredrik it was one of the first things he said.

Yeah; you're right. But so was Dawkins. Watch.

uokV7UdGW_s

[articulett]

people who say "it's OK to be a bigot if you're right" ought to know better.

You're right. And you're a bigot. You hear things in the words of atheists that aren't there to promote a false view of them. Time to put you on ignore (3 straw men and you're out!). I hope you evolve. The first step in overcoming a problem is admitting you have one.

:)



Don't be like my sig... unless of course you want to be a font of amusement for those who love irony.

[Robin]

Maybe you're hung up on the word "validation." Let me rephrase. I have no particular need to convince you that I'm an atheist.


How much detail do you want? Names? Citations? I don't have that. I remember a particular editorial I came across years ago, while in college, that started off something like "It boggles my mind that anyone would be so stupid as to believe in a god." There have been discussions I've had online (That they were online doesn't mean the other person didn't exist.) That included one Dawkins groupie who was ready to accuse just about anyone of being a neanderthal bible-thumper if they didn't share his intolerant atheism.

Now as to Dawkins himself: His comments about Nadia Eweida and Peter Kay show how he is on a hair-trigger to express his, not just disagreement, but sheer revulsion that there are people in the world who believe in a deity. He has said specifically that he wants to put an end to the notion that a person's religious beliefs are entitled to respect or politeness. He wants to be able to insult theists with impunity. When someone aspires to insulting entire classes of people for their beliefs, I think I'm justified in calling him a bigot.
Hmmm... isn't there a bit of a contradiction here? If Dawkins says that religious beliefs should not be entitled to special privileges for respect and politeness you call him a bigot.

And yet you feel perfectly entitled to use insulting terms like "Dawkins groupie" about other people. Would you also describe yourself as a bigot in that case?

[Lithrael]

Good gazpacho, I'm not handing out validation... nor is Dawkins. And you appear to be the only person who heard what you imagined.

No he isn't. I don't agree with everything he said but I do agree that was loaded. Lots of people just naturally take umbrage when they read something that looks like an exaggerated description of a position they hold and goes on to wonder if the holders of the described position might be big lying liars.

Seriously, a few people on this board do seem to jump the fence into big jerk country once in a while, and land directly on a high horse. I spent my first month here thinking Claus was a troll.

I know it's not your job to worry about easily bruised egos, but I was also pissed off, because when I read your post, even though most of it didn't apply to my thinking, I felt like you were calling me a liar too, because I'm an atheist and want to stay friends with a few people who aren't.

[articulett]

I'm friends with tons of people who aren't atheists. So is Dawkins. You seem, also, to have heard stuff that isn't there. I suspect you know lots of people who believe things you don't believe-- not just god woo-- and you're still friends right? But you don't promote a stereotype that those who don't believe in astrology or don't believe in hell or don't believe in homeopathy are "strident" and mean, do you? They don't expect you to "respect" stuff just because they "believe" it.

Btw, Claus IS a troll.

Kidding. Claus is a lover of straw men. Like gazpacho-- he hears things that aren't there, and then you feel sucked into a miasma of trying to explain (yet again) why you didn't say what they are accusing you of saying.... conversational snafus abound as he does the gish gallop derailing conversations to win points in a game that is only in his head.

That's why I like direct quotes. We can examine them. I don't like these bizarre interpretations that I think are exaggerations or false memories-- there because people have learned to blind themselves to the deference they give religion.... and they imagine so much more should anyone treat it like they do every other woo. Not because religion is better or different or worth more than other woo-- but because they've learned to protect the meme that the Emperor is wearing clothes.

And yet there is no reason not to treat faith woo differently than we'd treat other beliefs or claims of divine knowlege or feel good fetishes, right? It's best if people keep these things to themselves unless they are prepared to hear your opinion on the subject. You don't let other people inflict other woo on you, right? You hope they keep it private or don't expect you to "respect" it and see them as special or good because of their "belief", right? Plug in other woo when people talk about god or some other kind of disbelief when you hear atheism and learn how cultural memes you've picked up about the topic are shading your view. That's why I like quotes. It's easy to plug in other woo and prove that the error is in the interpretation-- not the person speaking the words. I don't want to argue about caricatures of myself, others, or what someone thought I meant or insinuated. My words are good enough and I'm glad to clarify. The most annoying folks never let you clarify e.g. (Claus)-- they would rather believe that you meant whatever the hell they interpreted.

I'm asking you to go back and look at whatever I said that bothered you and imagine I was talking about Scientology or reincarnation or belief in hell. Go ahead. Instead of atheist, put in disbeliever of (insert whatever woo you use).

See what I mean?

People hear what isn't there? How can anyone fix that until they become aware of their biases. It's easier for me to ignore such people. They would rather believe their straw man then understand what I (or Dawkins) actually said.

[Robin]

Science is actually a process to gain knowledge. Philosophy, mathematics and logic deal with truth one way or the other.
Well, no, Randfan was right in the first place, the whole point of science is not simply to gain knowledge but to have a mechanism for deciding whether or not it is true.

In general philosophy does not have this mechanism.

Science is a subset of philosophy in any case and mathematics (including logic) is a key part of the scientific epistemology.

[articulett]

Here's the quote that I said where people appeared to take it personally and think I was saying something mean about them. I was responding to JoeEllison:

I wonder if it's worse among the apologists claiming to be atheists. If they are really atheists, do they really think it's fine that other people hang on to their primitive beliefs while they've "moved beyond them"-- isn't that like a scam artist? What if it was Sylvia' Browne's church or some hell-damning woo that the persons "faith" lead them to? Do they really think it's okay to defer to faith as a means of knowledge? They're atheists but they still have the "faith in faith" meme and the double standard about the "strident atheists versus the noble believer"?

Or are they lying about the atheist bit too?


So let's try my statement with alternate woo:

I wonder if it's worse among the woo apologists claiming to be skeptics. If they are really skeptics, do they really think it's fine that other people are paying money to Sylvia Browne while they've understood how she's scamming people?-- What if the promotion of faith over critical thinking leads to harm? Do they really think it's okay to defer to woo like it's something good or harmless? They're skeptics but they still have the "faith in faith" meme and the double standard about the "closed minded" skeptic versus the "open minded believer" in psychics.

Or are they lying about the skeptic bit too?

Why do you take offense at the former if you don't take offense at the latter. And what exactly is different if not the bias in your head? I said nothing about not being friends with people or nothing about moaning because people have faith or trying to oppress people nor did I "snarl" or reveal contempt... nor was it loaded...

and yet some people heard that in the first statement.

It's time to examine yourself and ask why? Is it my words or your bias?

[skeptical]

Now as to Dawkins himself: His comments about Nadia Eweida and Peter Kay show how he is on a hair-trigger to express his, not just disagreement, but sheer revulsion that there are people in the world who believe in a deity. He has said specifically that he wants to put an end to the notion that a person's religious beliefs are entitled to respect or politeness. He wants to be able to insult theists with impunity. When someone aspires to insulting entire classes of people for their beliefs, I think I'm justified in calling him a bigot.

So I have 2 questions:

1) Do you think there is a difference between criticizing an idea, and criticizing the person who has the idea?

2) Do you think an idea is entitled to automatic "respect" on the sole basis that someone says it is a _religious_ idea, or should all claims about the world be subject to the same criticism and scrutiny?

[Lithrael]

Here's the quote that I said where people appeared to take it personally and think I was saying something mean about them. I was responding to JoeEllison:

I wonder if it's worse among the apologists claiming to be atheists. If they are really atheists, do they really think it's fine that other people hang on to their primitive beliefs while they've "moved beyond them"-- isn't that like a scam artist? What if it was Sylvia' Browne's church or some hell-damning woo that the persons "faith" lead them to? Do they really think it's okay to defer to faith as a means of knowledge? They're atheists but they still have the "faith in faith" meme and the double standard about the "strident atheists versus the noble believer"?

Or are they lying about the atheist bit too?


So let's try my statement with alternate woo:

Why do you take offense at the former if you don't take offense at the latter.

But I do.

It's this line right here:

"If they are really atheists, do they really think it's fine that other people hang on to their primitive beliefs while they've "moved beyond them"-- isn't that like a scam artist?"[/QUOTE]

I fully acknowledge that I am reading into this, but to me it implies that I am not a real atheist (and possibly am like a scam artist?) because I do not want to piss my friends off by insisting that they ditch ghosts and gods. It implies that I am doing my friends a disservice by allowing them to go on thinking the way they do.

I do indeed think it's fine for people to hang on to their beliefs if I can't do anything about it. I don't care to start any (more) fights.

I said nothing about not being friends with people or nothing about moaning because people have faith or trying to oppress people nor did I "snarl" or reveal contempt... nor was it loaded...

and yet some people heard that in the first statement.

The 'loaded' part is the only thing I read into it. It read like you were accusing people of being liars, of being dishonest about their professed position. If you had accused a specific person I wouldn't have felt offended. Because it was vague I felt like I was being accused too. As if anyone who thinks that religion (or indeed woo) does work fine for some people, does not deserve to describe themselves as an atheist.

It's time to examine yourself and ask why? Is it my words or your bias?

I find the tone of that insulting as well, actually. It implies I do not examine myself and have not considered my bias. (In this case my bias is mostly that I am defensive as all hell.)

[articulett]

Well I don't think people should ditch their friends... nor would I tell anyone to stop their beliefs... but I don't believe faith is a good way to know anything and I don't think it's harmless to promote it or defer to it. I was a kid of faith... I was afraid of atheists... I wish I knew adults who could speak the way I now speak. There needs to be room for people to discuss doubts... to discuss whether belief is good or not. I guess I am just accustomed to people hearing it as an attack no matter how nice you say that. I'm sure Dawkins gets that too. I always think of this video:

xL3LY09PP_Y


I wish I was as brave as that kid... I don't want to be an adult that encourages this kind of bigotry. Most people don't mention their beliefs around me... I tend to assume that people are rational.... and I hardly say anything when they invoke astrology or god or whatever... unless there is the presumption that I agree or believe too. I don't treat religion any differently than I treat other woo. And I don't think a Christian is more entitled to blabber about their beliefs than a Scientologists nor a psychic believer. I don't think it's right to praise Jesus any more than I think it's right to praise Allah--

I think there is no nice way to tell people that their faith is as wooish as all the other faiths they don't believe, and by golly it would be nice if they kept their faith as private as they wish those who believe differently would keep theirs. I mean people always hear criticism of religion as criticism of believers or even oppression of believers. They always hear criticism of faith as a means of knowledge as criticism of the faithful. But if you support the paradigm or defer to the paradigm that "faith is good", then little girls kids like me sometimes grow into big kids ready to obey whomever and whatever they've come to have faith in. Whether it's hellfire Christianity, Sylvia Browne, Scientology, fundamentalism, or homeopathy. It creates sloppy thinking, and the only way to get people to consider this is to ruffle some feathers sometimes. If people hear stridency in Dan Dennett then there is no way I can avoid offending people. And if it means a little less prejudice like the clip I linked-- then I am glad. I wish I would have had smart people around speaking up when I was her (Nicole Smallkowski's) age. I would have been cowed into pretending in a similar situation. Heck, I was cowed into pretending. I hope I never am again.

I don't tell people my opinion of their beliefs in real life-- I'd prefer not to know them if they need me to respect them. But on line, I'm getting bolder.

And people do lie all the time about being atheists or not being creationists. You might not. But I've come across quite a few. Really. It's not hard. Ask them why they are atheists or what they were before and what changed their mind. They'll answer obliquely or with a stereotyped view of what an atheist was (mad at god).

[JoeEllison]

Well I don't think people should ditch their friends... nor would I tell anyone to stop their beliefs... but I don't believe faith is a good way to know anything and I don't think it's harmless to promote it or defer to it. I was a kid of faith... I was afraid of atheists... I wish I knew adults who could speak the way I now speak. There needs to be room for people to discuss doubts... to discuss whether belief is good or not. I guess I am just accustomed to people hearing it as an attack no matter how nice you say that. I'm sure Dawkins gets that too. I always think of this video:

xL3LY09PP_Y


I wish I was as brave as that kid... I don't want to be an adult that encourages this kind of bigotry. Most people don't mention their beliefs around me... I tend to assume that people are rational.... and I hardly say anything when they invoke astrology or god or whatever... unless there is the presumption that I agree or believe too. I don't treat religion any differently than I treat other woo. And I don't think a Christian is more entitled to blabber about their beliefs than a Scientologists nor a psychic believer. I don't think it's right to praise Jesus any more than I think it's right to praise Allah--

I think there is no nice way to tell people that their faith is as wooish as all the other faiths they don't believe, and by golly it would be nice if they kept their faith as private as they wish those who believe differently would keep theirs. I mean people always hear criticism of religion as criticism of believers or even oppression of believers. They always hear criticism of faith as a means of knowledge as criticism of the faithful. But if you support the paradigm or defer to the paradigm that "faith is good", then little girls kids like me sometimes grow into big kids ready to obey whomever and whatever they've come to have faith in. Whether it's hellfire Christianity, Sylvia Browne, Scientology, fundamentalism, or homeopathy. It creates sloppy thinking, and the only way to get people to consider this is to ruffle some feathers sometimes. If people hear stridency in Dan Dennett then there is no way I can avoid offending people. And if it means a little less prejudice like the clip I linked-- then I am glad. I wish I would have had smart people around speaking up when I was her (Nicole Smallkowski's) age. I would have been cowed into pretending. Heck, I was cowed into pretending.

I don't tell people my opinion of their beliefs in real life-- I'd prefer not to know them if they need me to respect them. But on line, I say what I'm getting bolder.

And people do lie all the time about being atheists or not being creationists. You might not. But I've come across quite a few. Really. It's not hard. Ask them why they are atheists or what they were before and what changed their mind. They'll answer obliquely or with a stereotyped view of what an atheist was (mad at god).

I'm looking foward(:mad:) to seeing how people attack THIS post.

[articulett]

The atheist is always the bad guy.

I don't mind. It feels so... forbidden. My friend, Mary, grew up as an atheist-- she is a tiny sweet lass... but she used to send the school girls screaming in fear by saying, "if there is a god may lightening strike me"... they considered very brave. I bet they still would. I admire the Rational Response Squad for giving others such "courage" to mock the fears which once bound them.

[Lithrael]

I'm actually far less outspoken now than I was when I was a kid. I used to get into full-on schoolyard fights trying to convince other little girls that it wasn't Satan's idea for me to tell them there's no God.

I don't respect religion more than woo, but I understand that belief and faith, in many people, are tied to things they are just not going to let go of.

I don't think I understand what context you are referring to when you talk about deferring to faith/woo/etc. I defer to it around people whose minds I know I can't change (or who I'm outright afraid of, heh). I do not have the energy or the will to make every other conversation into a forum debate.

For the record, I hearts Dawkins and I also hearts his beautiful wife. :D

ETA: Yes, I do know there are plenty of fake atheists around, but I think it's in poor taste to discuss that in terms that can easily be misinterpreted as a true-Scotsman attack on 'soft' atheists who are genuinely just trying to participate in the discussion.

[articulett]

I think we probably respond the same in real life. Sometimes I get in situations where someone will say something like, "of course we all were born in sin..." with the presumption that I agree... and I wonder if I should say something or let it slide.

I think there is a lot of bigotry against atheists... I might have even contributed to it myself when I was a believer. I understand why the faithful need to see the faithless as "bad guys". But now I feel responsible for a son who is an atheist... and people like the kid in that video. I think faith has done some nasty things while we've been thinking it was harmless. And I really don't want to give my assent to the idea that "faith is good".

Good for what?

Good for making people easy to manipulate as far as I can see-- or judgmental and arrogant while feeling humble and righteous.

If faith is good for something or lack of belief is bad--it's time to put the evidence on the table... or don't repeat these lies around me. I think it's time for humanity to grow up. Not by force. But I won't participate in a delusion I never asked for or wanted any part of in the first place. I value the truth. I feel immoral to even pretend that I think this sort of faith deference and atheist bashing is fine.

I think people worship the liars and the deluded while trashing people like Dawkins (who I also hearts :) -- and his beautiful wife too.) Good people. Smart people. Honest people. Funny people. Give me more of them. I like them so much better than their critics.

[UserGoogol]

Believing in imaginary beings like Jesus, Santa, or the Easter Bunny is stupid and delusional, unless you're 5-6 years old. There's hardly any useful way of stating this rather mundane truth that won't be at least mildly insulting to theist. So, really, at some point an atheist is kind of required to either stay utterly quiet, or say "tough ****, theists, you're stuck in a small child's mindset" in one way or another.

Everyone is stupid and delusional to some degree, that's human nature. Singling religion (or Bigfoot or psychics or magic beans or certain political philosophies or whatever) out and insulting it is unfair. The goal should be cold unfeeling reason (and ultimately, happiness), and atheism is just a pleasant side effect of that. Although I feel that Dawkins is more cold and unfeeling than most people give him credit for. He is not completely sterile and detatched, and that is unfortunate, but he's not the wrathful atheist that people paint him as either.

[JoeEllison]

Everyone is stupid and delusional to some degree, that's human nature. Singling religion (or Bigfoot or psychics or magic beans or certain political philosophies or whatever) out and insulting it is unfair. The goal should be cold unfeeling reason (and ultimately, happiness), and atheism is just a pleasant side effect of that. Although I feel that Dawkins is more cold and unfeeling than most people give him credit for. He is not completely sterile and detatched, and that is unfortunate, but he's not the wrathful atheist that people paint him as either.

Huh?

[articulett]

But he's not singling religion out... religion has been used to not being scrutinized like other crazy delusional ideas. And it's really delusional to imagine that somehow you were born into or stumbled upon some divine truth-- whether you call it god or the keys to nirvana--

Once again, I don't think he's harsher than any other critic of woo- from Scientology to psychics to truthers-- it's just that people "hear" so much more. It's the double standard. Everything an atheist says is heard with evil coldness no matter how nice it is-- and everything negative said about "faith as a means of knowledge" is taken as an attack upon the faithful.

I suspect Dawkins is more compassionate and less judgmental than his critics too, though they seem to imagine themselves worthy of giving advice on such topics.

[JoeEllison]

But he's not singling religion out... religion has been used to not being scrutinized like other crazy delusional ideas. And it's really delusional to imagine that somehow you were born into or stumbled upon some divine truth-- whether you call it god or the keys to nirvana--

Once again, I don't think he's harsher than any other critic of woo- from Scientology to psychics to truthers-- it's just that people "hear" so much more. It's the double standard. Everything an atheist says is heard with evil coldness no matter how nice it is-- and everything negative said about "faith as a means of knowledge" is taking as an attack upon the faithful.

I suspect Dawkins is more compassionate and less judgmental than his critics too, though they seem to imagine themselves worthy of giving advice on such topics.

That's exactly right, from start to finish. It isn't unfairly singling out religion to include it with all the other woo... it is unfair to claim that religion is being singled out at all.

[hgc]

I'm sorry folks, Zeus, Jesus and Pele are all myths. If I said Zeus and Pele were myths, no one here would call me an atheist proselytizer.


You say the awfulest things.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/5434836474bc4005.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12319)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Deal with evidence, not supposition. The dude had some woo theories and some nearly unique insight into the physical world. One doesn't necessarily insubstantiate the other. So the fact one could be arrested and burned alive for denying god beliefs is not evidence?



Again, come on. Labelling others is a poor argumentative technique for anyone, be they theist, atheist, Jesus, or Dawkins. I haven't seen much indicating he's acutally a theist, nor would it matter to his arguments, which seem to revolve primarily on a social liberatarian approach.

Atheists should no more weasel in pejorative assumptions than theists do. Or if they do they should likewise be called on it.Again you are unhappy with my assessment. I made an assessment and spelled out what led to my conclusions including a statement that I recognize it is just an opinion and I am willing to reconsider.

This is not the same as just calling people names and giving no explanation for the basis of the opinion. I see no reason I should hide my opinions just because you or anyone else doesn't approve.

[Skeptic Ginger]

btw, I say that because Dawkins and others, myself included, support argument-by-evidence, argument-by-logic. If we slip and diverge into any typical logical fallacies that the theists or woo-artists use, we've given up our advantage. We've been brought down to argue on their illogical terms, which we shouldn't do. And we'll rightfully be criticized as arguing from emotion, or baseless supposition, or agenda, just like they do. At that point we will be another typical ideology, no better or worse or more reasonable or more human-informing than any other argument.

What is the skeptics' advantage? Rationality and objectivity. Why sully that with personal prejudice?Perhaps you might broaden your view when defining what is relevant evidence.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You say the awfulest things.Care to elaborate? I was hoping for a response to calling Jesus a myth.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well I went to the Discovery Institute today. I'll have to start a thread about it later.

Well the name Dawkins came up and a burst of vocalizations from the audience rang out laughing at his position. No other incident during the entire 2 hour presentation had a similar response. Obviously Dawkins is their nemesis.

[articulett]

That evil truth teller.

(I can't wait to hear about your trip, SG)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Care to elaborate? I was hoping for a response to calling Jesus a myth.

You're a girl and an American so you get a pass on what was a very clever joke by hgc. The guy in the photo he posted was Brazilian soccer player Pele.

[Dragoonster]

So the fact one could be arrested and burned alive for denying god beliefs is not evidence?

You're right, it is evidence. Sorry (sincerely).

Again you are unhappy with my assessment. I made an assessment and spelled out what led to my conclusions including a statement that I recognize it is just an opinion and I am willing to reconsider.

This is not the same as just calling people names and giving no explanation for the basis of the opinion. I see no reason I should hide my opinions just because you or anyone else doesn't approve.

Well, it doesn't matter whether a person is a theist or atheist, the person's arguments matter, as do his actions. If Dawkins "came out" tomorrow and said he was actually a Christian or Mormon, it wouldn't/shouldn't impact his arguments or his books, or his impact in raising atheism's profile, etc. Nor would it in the future, if his arguments remain powerful.

You shouldn't hide your opinions, which I generally find interesting, sorry if that's how you took it. I just don't see any value in assessing whether another poster is a true atheist or true christian or whatever. And I've been put on ignore by another poster here for not being a proper atheist, so apparently this line of thinking does have some consequence.

Perhaps you might broaden your view when defining what is relevant evidence.

Is it relevant to another poster whether you're actually a "communist" just because you disagree with a single aspect of capitalism? It's a tar-and-feathering, used to besmirch another poster instead of honestly dealing with the arguments that they're putting forth.

ETA: The oxygen up here is getting pretty thin so I'll jump off the high-horse now!

[Mobyseven]

Science is actually a process to gain knowledge. Philosophy, mathematics and logic deal with truth one way or the other.

Oooh! A semantics game! Can I play?

Define 'knowledge' without any reference to 'truth'.

[The A-Team]

There's nothing wrong with Dawkins. In fact, if he was arguing any other point than that god doesn't exist, it would be obvious to almost everyone that he never (or almost never, though I can't find one example) steps out of line and remains the genteel Englishman at all times. If Anthony Daniels ever died and George Lucas needed a replacement voice for C3PO, Dawkins would fill in seamlessly. Dawkins is firm and unapologetic about his stance; that does not make him a fanatic. Harris is the same way, though doesn't have the science cred. Though I great admire the way Harris seems to begin all his lectures with the disclaimer that if he offends anyone, they should know that he's not trying to be deliberately provocative. Well, it sounds a lot better when he says it. In any case, Hitchens is far harsher than the other two. Now I'm huge Hitchens fan as well. He has a more combative style but he never seems to loose his cool either. That just seems to be his style. His brother, Peter Hitchens, though an evangelical Christian, debates no less combatively. I am a huge fan all Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. I think they all bring their own unique style to the discourse. And I think atheists like myself have every right to be really pissed off with how we've been treated throughout history and with how the religious LITERALLY get away with murder. And to comment on a previous poster's remark, Dawkins isn't letting atheists off the hook for the 20th century totalitarian regimes; he's stating the obvious, which is that atheism was not the reason they occurred in the first place. There can be no question that events like The Inquisition were religious in their very nature. Stalin on the other hand, did not commit his crimes out of atheism but was a power hungry dictator who just happened to be atheist and who happened to be smart enough to recognize that religious authority would always be a threat to the authority of the state. No one claims that atheists are incapable of being evil. But you won't find a person committing evil because of their atheism. That's just silly. And that's Dawkins point. It's as irrelevant to the proceedings as is the fact that all these dictators had mustaches.

[Aitch]

It's as irrelevant to the proceedings as is the fact that all these dictators had mustaches.

(Hides mustache behind well-thumbed copy of World Domination for Dummies.:o)

[GreyICE]

Oooh! A semantics game! Can I play?

Define 'knowledge' without any reference to 'truth'.Information that is useful.

[articulett]

(Hides mustache behind well-thumbed copy of World Domination for Dummies.:o)

Aha... you outed yourself!

even your avatar has a mustache.

Surely that makes for extra domination intent.

(Is there anyone who thinks any of Dawkins critics are as likable or as inspirational as Dawkins? As right as Dawkins? Would you rather listen to any of them than Dawkins? If so, which one?)

[Herzblut]

Well, no, Randfan was right in the first place, the whole point of science is not simply to gain knowledge but to have a mechanism for deciding whether or not it is true.

Not at all. Knowledge doesn't even have an attribute called truth, wtf is "true knowledge"? Something like a true Scottsman, I assume. :D

Scientific theories cannot be proved to be true. They might be useful, justified, general, special, good, bad, medioacre etc. But not true.

[Jekyll]

Scientific theories cannot be proved to be true. They might be useful, justified, general, special, good, bad, medioacre etc. But not true.

Firstly, you're confusing "true", and "proved true".

Secondly, under the standard Popperian description of science, as Robin said, theories can be shown to be not true.

[Herzblut]

Firstly, you're confusing "true", and "proved true".

Secondly, under the standard Popperian description of science, as Robin said, theories can be shown to be not true.
Thirdly, you're confusing "true", and "not proved false".

[Jekyll]

Thirdly, you're confusing "true", and "not proved false".

No I'm not. A theory can be true, we just can't prove it.

[westprog]

(Is there anyone who thinks any of Dawkins critics are as likable or as inspirational as Dawkins? As right as Dawkins? Would you rather listen to any of them than Dawkins? If so, which one?)


Gould.

[Herzblut]

No I'm not. A theory can be true, we just can't prove it.
This outright disproves the OP's proposition, namely that science is there to deliver truth. What you called "confusion" is in fact an argument.

And, btw: prove that a theory can be true!

[GreyICE]

Gould.

I would tend to agree. It's too bad that he is deceased, because Stephen Gould was a far better spokesperson than Dawkins.

[JoeEllison]

I would tend to agree. It's too bad that he is deceased, because Stephen Gould was a far better spokesperson than Dawkins.

Spokesperson for what? Limp apologies for religious stupidity? Gould was a nice guy, and a smart guy, but he was wrong in his approach, IMO.

[Jekyll]

This outright disproves the OP's proposition, namely that science is there to deliver truth. What you called "confusion" is in fact an argument.

And, btw: prove that a theory can be true!

A garbage man's job is to take away garbage, that we can't prove he does it doesn't detract from his work.

Why should science be any different?

[Unalienable]

But [Dawkins] doesn't indicate that religion is bad on the whole because of this-- people just imagine them saying that so they don't have to hear what he's really saying.
Are we talking about the same Richard Dawkins? The one who produced the series entitled "Root of All Evil?". Referring to religion as the root of all evil in my estimation is quite an accusation. I think evil was around before religion was, and if Dawkins' dream of religion falling away from society ever came to pass, I am quite sure that evil would survive, if not flourish.

I suppose to his credit, you could point out that he added a question mark to that title, but that was probably at the insistence of the publisher.

[Egg]

Are we talking about the same Richard Dawkins? The one who produced the series entitled "Root of All Evil?". Referring to religion as the root of all evil in my estimation is quite an accusation. I think evil was around before religion was, and if Dawkins' dream of religion falling away from society ever came to pass, I am quite sure that evil would survive, if not flourish.

I suppose to his credit, you could point out that he added a question mark to that title, but that was probably at the insistence of the publisher.

I believe it was the other way round, the title was what Channel 4 wanted to call it, and Dawkins added the question mark as he didn't agree with the title. I think that's what he says in The God Delusion book when he referred to it, anyway.

[Unalienable]

I believe it was the other way round, the title was what Channel 4 wanted to call it, and Dawkins added the question mark as he didn't agree with the title.
If that's a fact, then I stand corrected.

[articulett]

Are we talking about the same Richard Dawkins? The one who produced the series entitled "Root of All Evil?". Referring to religion as the root of all evil in my estimation is quite an accusation. I think evil was around before religion was, and if Dawkins' dream of religion falling away from society ever came to pass, I am quite sure that evil would survive, if not flourish.

I suppose to his credit, you could point out that he added a question mark to that title, but that was probably at the insistence of the publisher.

Yes... he didn't choose the title-- the broadcasting company did... as I said, the only concession they made to his protest was the ? (question mark) at the end. He has repeatedly said he doesn't consider it the root of all evil. Damn you guys are desparate to extrapolate all kinds of stuff. His film made a great case as to how religion could lead to evil and how faith is not a good way to know stuff-- how certain people can get over such non-evidenciary things.

Ugh... you keep promoting the stereotype and read nothing that will correct it. You want to believe something about Dawkins that isn't true... so you keep spinning things as though it was.

Faith claims to lead to great good-- it seems that it more often leads to evil than good and that it's far from necessary for good.

Sure there are lots of things that motivate people to hurt, judge, and torture other people... but what is the strongest motivator of all-- faith and obedience to an authority who demands that you do so-- to prove your faith and ensure your eternity-- that's what!

Dawkins has the guts to point this out. Religion isn't the nice little peace maker we've been lead to believe. We blind ourselves to the potentials of harm and make the truth teller into the bad guy. I think your accusation is worse than Dawkins-- and it isn't true.

[articulett]

Spokesperson for what? Limp apologies for religious stupidity? Gould was a nice guy, and a smart guy, but he was wrong in his approach, IMO.

I don't think he inspired people quite the way Dawkins has... neither in science, critical thinking, or standing up to religious bullies.

[Herzblut]

A garbage man's job is to take away garbage, that we can't prove he does it doesn't detract from his work.

A job description nobody can be measured against is null and void. Ask HR.

[westprog]

I would tend to agree. It's too bad that he is deceased, because Stephen Gould was a far better spokesperson than Dawkins.


He seemed to disagree with Dawkins on many different levels. I notice that most of the people who prefer one to the other tend to agree with the person they think is the better spokesman. A strange coincidence.

However, it didn't take long to see who should be Dawkins' evolutionary scientist popular author and amateur theologian alter ego.

[Jekyll]

A job description nobody can be measured against is null and void. Ask HR.

I'm sorry, this sophistry isn't really working for me.
We've got 4 distinct concepts: truth, proof of truth, proof and measure, and at the moment they're all quite easy to tell apart.

If you could go back and edit your posts so that you use the words "knowledge" or "knowing" as a place holder for all of these different concepts, it'd be prime sophism and I'd have much more trouble disagreeing with it.

[RandFan]

Information that is useful. I like it but false information can be very useful. To both religious leaders and folks who want to invade Iraq. I'm not naming names. ;)

[articulett]

Gould died some time ago... he and Dawkins both agreed not to debate creationists... Gould and his "NOMA" didn't forsee the Discovery Institute and the steady stream of creationist lies that would be infiltrating the US-- and the bigotry they'd spread against scientists, atheists, Darwin, and those who tell the truth.

He'd have become their villain too... heck, Eugenies Scott IS.

And Gould was not really a critic of Dawkins... they disagreed over punctuated equilibria and some of the finer points of evolution-- he didn't call him strident or mean or any of this petty crap.

[Civilized Worm]

I haven't read any Gould yet, where's a good place to start?

[CFLarsen]

Gould died some time ago... he and Dawkins both agreed not to debate creationists... Gould and his "NOMA" didn't forsee the Discovery Institute and the steady stream of creationist lies that would be infiltrating the US-- and the bigotry they'd spread against scientists, atheists, Darwin, and those who tell the truth.

Is there no limit to your ignorance?

The Discovery Institute was founded in 1990. Stephen J. Gould died on May 20, 2002. His idea of NOMA was first published in Rocks of Ages, from 1999.

There were plenty of creationists before Gould.

[Smiledriver]

Let me just say I was a Christian as little as three months ago and I am now an Athiest. It was the wit and clarity of Christopher Hitchens did the convincing and I actually read Dawkins well before Hitchens.

I got a few problems with The God Delusion, but that title and his thesis irk me the most.

He essentially says that religious people are deluded. This is a filthy rhetorical trick. It does the one thing a philosopher and scientist should never do. Namely, set himself up to be irrefutable. How do I as a religous person counter the charge that I am delusional? If I concede the point, naturally Dawkins wins. If I resist and argue that I am not deluded? Ah precisly what a deluded person would say. Dawkins wins.

So the book just becomes a series of reasons why the author thinks you have a mental defect. You engage in nothing thats the problem.

As for Harris, he argues so well. Love that guy

[Civilized Worm]

There's a difference between having a delusion and having a delusional disorder you know. Dawkins simply meant delusion as in an unjustified belief.

[skeptical]

He essentially says that religious people are deluded. This is a filthy rhetorical trick. It does the one thing a philosopher and scientist should never do. Namely, set himself up to be irrefutable. How do I as a religous person counter the charge that I am delusional? If I concede the point, naturally Dawkins wins. If I resist and argue that I am not deluded? Ah precisly what a deluded person would say. Dawkins wins.

I think you are extrapolating quite a bit from the title. A "delusion" is simply a false belief. If you say a belief is a "delusion", the way to counter that is to offer evidence that it is not, period. There's no rhetorical trick to it, its just saying "if you believe such and such, what is your evidence for that?". It is simply asking for the same amount of evidence for religious claims that everyone requires for all their other beliefs every day. Or, at least, proportioning the warrant of the belief to the amount of evidence that exists for it.

I think you are confounding the idea of a delusional _person_, someone who we lay people might call "psychotic", with a delusional _idea_. The book was not titled "The delusional religious", in which case you might have a point, it was the "The God delusion", as in the idea of a God having little if any evidence or a belief which is held completely disproportionate what is warrranted. Granted, the title is somewhat provocative, but controversy sells books. Hitchens didn't subtitle his book "how religion poisons everything" for nothing you know. I suppose he could have called it "The God mistake", but that doesn't sound quite as catchy.

[westprog]

I haven't read any Gould yet, where's a good place to start?

All his series of books are accessible, likeable and interesting. I'd go for one of the books of essays, like Bully For Brontosaurus or The Panda's Thumb. The one-theme books are a little heavier - such as The Mismeasure Of Man or Wonderful Life - but they're still good. One of the best popular science writers ever.

[Herzblut]

I'm sorry, this sophistry isn't really working for me.
We've got 4 distinct concepts: truth, proof of truth, proof and measure, and at the moment they're all quite easy to tell apart.

If you could go back and edit your posts so that you use the words "knowledge" or "knowing" as a place holder for all of these different concepts, it'd be prime sophism and I'd have much more trouble disagreeing with it.
Please express your proposition about what we discuss, or point me to where you did. I will then happily respond.

Edit: your only recognizable assertion is "scientific theories can be true" for which you have been kindly requested to provide a justification, but you didn't.

[GreyICE]

Spokesperson for what? Limp apologies for religious stupidity? Gould was a nice guy, and a smart guy, but he was wrong in his approach, IMO.
Gould educated people about science and connected to the real world in a more articulate, interesting, and logical manner than Dawkins does. He really was one of the most interesting spokespeople for evolution and his theories were interesting from both a scientific and layman perspective.

Oh yeah, and it helps that he made a much better case for his theories than Dawkins. Evolutionary psychology seems about as useful as its predecessor.

[articulett]

Besides, the believer thinks all those other religions, myths, and woo are "delusions"-- he just doesn't apply the same scrutiny to his own beliefs.

[RandFan]

This is a filthy rhetorical trick.:D Hi SD. Sorry for the smilie but your rhetoric attacking rhetoric really hit my funny bone. I say that not as an attack. I promise.

So, if I believe the guy down the road who claims to be Napolean is delusional what can I say about him that isn't a rhetorical trick?

[westprog]

Gould educated people about science and connected to the real world in a more articulate, interesting, and logical manner than Dawkins does. He really was one of the most interesting spokespeople for evolution and his theories were interesting from both a scientific and layman perspective.


Dawkins has written some perfectly good popular science books, but he's just not in the same league as Gould. It's possible to write good science, and it's possible to write easily understood science for the layman, but combining the two is next to impossible. Either you make it too inaccessible, or you lose important detail. Gould managed to circumvent this limitation.

Oh yeah, and it helps that he made a much better case for his theories than Dawkins. Evolutionary psychology seems about as useful as its predecessor.

I'm not qualified to comment on their relative merits as evolutionary scientists. Gould as a writer is far more appealing to me.

[NewtonTrino]

I'm sorry but Dawkins science books are simply top notch. The science is well explained in laymen's terms IMHO.

[andyandy]

The question shouldn't really be " what's wrong with Richard Dawkins?" but rather why he's been elevated to such a status where any mention of his name guarantees 200 posts in any thread. He's an excellent science writer and excellent scientist, a great public speaker and entertaining interviewee, but he's also a pretty average philosopher and hardly can have been said to made any original contributions to the discourse on religion. His only real achievement in this sphere seems to be writing a best-selling book, a commendable achievement in itself, but we don't see the same fervour or heat generated by a thread on Terry Pratchett or John Grisham. And so it is not the fame in itself, or indeed the book content (the God delusion whilst a fairly enjoyable read certainly doesn't tread new ground), can only be described as the cult of personality that has arisen about the man himself. Where any criticism of the man, his work or his writing is extrapolated from personal and taken as a general criticism of the atheist movement in general of which he is seen as the spearhead.

So, why are we all so bothered about Richard Dawkins? :)

[Jekyll]

Please express your proposition about what we discuss, or point me to where you did. I will then happily respond.

Edit: your only recognizable assertion is "scientific theories can be true" for which you have been kindly requested to provide a justification, but you didn't.
I have continuously asserted that you confuse the truth of a statement with a proof that a statement is true, and that these are different matters. You just seem to try to dodge and evade this point.

You didn't ask for a justification, you asked for a proof which is a different matter.

Here is your justification.
These are two different scientific theories:

(1)The earth goes round the sun.
(2)The earth doesn't go round the sun.

Now (2) is the same as "not (1)", so by the law of the excluded middle. $ (1) \vee (2)$ is true. So at least one of the statements (1) and (2) are true.
Therefore a scientific theory is true.

Now, if this doesn't meet your idea of a formal proof, I'll need your formal definition of proof, and a justification of your ability to recognise a valid proof.

[Civilized Worm]

Dawkins has written some perfectly good popular science books, but he's just not in the same league as Gould. It's possible to write good science, and it's possible to write easily understood science for the layman, but combining the two is next to impossible. Either you make it too inaccessible, or you lose important detail. Gould managed to circumvent this limitation.


On which count do you think Dawkins fails?

[Faithkills]

Ah, so you don't believe in Evolution, right, Herzblut?

Or do you just not know the branches that led to the Human species?

Can you logically attack any of his arguments, or can you just participate in childish mocking?

Wow I agree with Herz. This confuses me:P

I like Dawkin's in general but on this point..

Dawkins arguments parallel, on an evolutionary level, the pro life arguments on an individual level.. 'potential'.

There is nothing wrong with holding something special about the species to which I belong than holding something special about the person who I am.

More.. it's likely that soon these issues will become more of a concern for us, as geneering comes (will happen) and AI's get developed (likely to happen imo) our species will lose it's objective superiority, and conceivably may risk being superceded.

If other species have value because they have potential to be 'like us' then doesn't this lead to the possibility that they may have more value than us if they have potential to be better than us?

As technology advances then practically any animate entity will have this potential, and likely previously inanimate things will have this potential.

How can we justify our existence at all then? Our very existence takes resources from some potential entity that may be potentially superior.

I think speceism is just as valid, and in the same way valid, as individualism. We have the right to attempt to progress, to seek advancement, to seek personal 'evolution' or species evolution if you will, and this progression may sometimes take resources from other individuals, or other species.

Mind you I do not think that's an absolute right or law. And I think to so advance, our ethics must also advance, and that does mean limiting needless cruelty. To use the example that's always on everyone's mind.. don't experiment on cat's when rats will do. Don't experiment on rats when computer models will do.

But absolutely do not 'experiment' on humans with untested medical treatments when animals will do.

[articulett]

I'm pretty sure Dawkins point was that religion causes people to care more about zygotes that can't feel or suffer and most of whom die anyhow (due to "god's" natural abortions) than they do about actual people and animals that can feel and suffer and want-- that do exist.

That's twisted. At least it is to me. Humans that could be are not more important than life forms that are-- that exist and can feel and suffer. The idea of a special human soul causes people to do irrational things. This "soul" is supposed to make humans more moral... and yet other animals show morality without threats of hell and so forth.

Don't take Herzy's interpretation of what Dawkins said as your own. Read it for yourself.

[Egg]

If that's a fact, then I stand corrected.

That said, I pretty much agreed with your earlier post on the subject.

[Mobyseven]

Information that is useful.

Okay, I'll grant you that as a good attempt - but there are still hidden assumptions in your definition that I'd say incorporate the concept of 'truth'.

As a hint: When is something 'information' rather than just a 'belief'? And by what criteria can we determine that something is 'useful'?

[Lonewulf]

Wow I agree with Herz. This confuses me:P

I like Dawkin's in general but on this point..

Dawkins arguments parallel, on an evolutionary level, the pro life arguments on an individual level.. 'potential'.

There is nothing wrong with holding something special about the species to which I belong than holding something special about the person who I am.

More.. it's likely that soon these issues will become more of a concern for us, as geneering comes (will happen) and AI's get developed (likely to happen imo) our species will lose it's objective superiority, and conceivably may risk being superceded.

If other species have value because they have potential to be 'like us' then doesn't this lead to the possibility that they may have more value than us if they have potential to be better than us?

As technology advances then practically any animate entity will have this potential, and likely previously inanimate things will have this potential.

How can we justify our existence at all then? Our very existence takes resources from some potential entity that may be potentially superior.

I think speceism is just as valid, and in the same way valid, as individualism. We have the right to attempt to progress, to seek advancement, to seek personal 'evolution' or species evolution if you will, and this progression may sometimes take resources from other individuals, or other species.

Mind you I do not think that's an absolute right or law. And I think to so advance, our ethics must also advance, and that does mean limiting needless cruelty. To use the example that's always on everyone's mind.. don't experiment on cat's when rats will do. Don't experiment on rats when computer models will do.

But absolutely do not 'experiment' on humans with untested medical treatments when animals will do.It seems to me that your argument is hampered by the fact that killing off, torturing, and doing whatever we want to "lesser" species, would be much worse example when we end up the "lesser" species. However, I don't tend to put my moral philosophies around hypotheticals like the above, which rely on a few too many hurdles for my taste.

[westprog]

On which count do you think Dawkins fails?

I don't think Dawkins fails as a popular science writer - it's just that Gould is a master at it. It's not really a fair comparision.

[Mashuna]

I don't think Dawkins fails as a popular science writer - it's just that Gould is a master at it. It's not really a fair comparision.

I guess it's just a personal preference thing then. I've tried a couple of Gould's books, but never made it past halfway. It's very rare for me not to finish a book. The Dawkins' books that I've read I get through in a day or two, then go back and read them again, slowly.

I don't know if it's style, or just that the method of explanation clicks with me.

[articulett]

I guess it's just a personal preference thing then. I've tried a couple of Gould's books, but never made it past halfway. It's very rare for me not to finish a book. The Dawkins' books that I've read I get through in a day or two, then go back and read them again, slowly.

I don't know if it's style, or just that the method of explanation clicks with me.

Same here. Gould was prolific, but I can only digest a chapter or 2. Dawkins flows. I suspect Dawkins critics have not really read him. Nor an entire Gould book.

[CFLarsen]

Same here. Gould was prolific, but I can only digest a chapter or 2. Dawkins flows. I suspect Dawkins critics have not really read him. Nor an entire Gould book.

You mean, they haven't "read him" the way you have. Therefore, they are by definition wrong.

But I do find it telling that you admit that you have a hard time understanding Gould's arguments.

[Mashuna]

But I do find it telling that you admit that you have a hard time understanding Gould's arguments.

I must have missed this admission. Only reading part of a book is not the same as not understanding the arguments.

[westprog]

I guess it's just a personal preference thing then. I've tried a couple of Gould's books, but never made it past halfway. It's very rare for me not to finish a book. The Dawkins' books that I've read I get through in a day or two, then go back and read them again, slowly.

I don't know if it's style, or just that the method of explanation clicks with me.

De gustibus, YMMV, and so on. I find Gould's essay approach makes him an ideal bathroom book.

[Complexity]

I haven't read any Gould yet, where's a good place to start?


Wow. I'm jealous. I loved discovering Gould's books and had to wait until each came out. You're in for a great read.

Gould wrote a monthly column in Natural History magazine for many many years. Each month, he wrote an essay on some aspect of science. I think many of these essays are superb.

Many of these essays have been collected into a series of nine books. The essays are accessible, informative, thought provoking, and well written. I can't think of a better place to start - just read them in order:
Ever Since Darwin
The Panda's Thumb
Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes
The Flamingo's Smile
Bully for Brontosaurus
Eight Little Piggies
Dinosaur in a Haystack
Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms
The Lying Stones of Marrakech
He wrote several other books, many of which I've read, a few of which I still hope to read.

His book, The Mismeasure of Man, is a good read and is hated by at least one member of the forum - I recommend it highly.

His great life work is The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. I would love to read it some day.

He wrote several other books, but I think you've got enough to get started.

[Mashuna]

De gustibus, YMMV, and so on. I find Gould's essay approach makes him an ideal bathroom book.

It's been a few years since I tried last, I'll give the books another go.

[articulett]

when you "go".

[Mashuna]

De gustibus, YMMV, and so on. I find Gould's essay approach makes him an ideal bathroom book.

It's been a few years since I tried last, I'll give the books another go.

when you "go".

I suppose that's an option for a bathroom book. ;)