Is Richard Dawkins intellectually vain?

[plumjam]

Is it just me, or is Senor Dick Dawkins a bit of an unforseen genetic diversion ;)
I'm sure he's a more than averagely intelligent sort of bloke, but everytime i've seen him on tv or youtube he's had the air of someone quite impressed by his own existence.
Anyone else feel the same?

[nails3jesus0]

no.

[cyborg]

Nope.

Maybe it's merely one's own dumbassery been shown up against him?

[brodski]

He's so vain, he probably thinks this thread is about him.

[brettDbass]

I don't see him that way either.

I do, however, see people who like to portray him in that light, and it can be quite easy to start reading more into what you see once someone has planted an idea of what to expect into your mind.
Hey, that's one reason why they invented double-blind experiments!

[brodski]

I don't see him that way either.

I do, however, see people who like to portray him in that light, and it can be quite easy to start reading more into what you see once someone has planted an idea of what to expect into your mind.
Hey, that's one reason why they invented double-blind experiments!

There is also the fact that he speaks in an RP English accent, and so many people will be predisposed to see him as arrogant, irrgardless of the content of his speech.

[Minarvia]

I agree with all the above. When I hear him speak I don't see him that way, either. But I do see how some people could. I think it is mainly his accent combined with the fact that he uses words that are not as common to some people as they are to him. Some could see that as condescending when that is likely not his intention at all.
Heck, I don't understand everything he says! But I'm working on it. : )

[Phil]

Is it just me, or is Senor Dick Dawkins a bit of an unforseen genetic diversion ;)
I'm sure he's a more than averagely intelligent sort of bloke, but everytime i've seen him on tv or youtube he's had the air of someone quite impressed by his own existence. . . . .


You seem to imply that that's a bad thing.

I'm impressed with my own existence. What can we be impressed with if not existence?

[plumjam]

any English person, like me, will immediately recognise his aristocratic desire to be seen as some superior being, shame you americans seem to have such respect for him... he talks with a lot of hair-flicks and ideological pre-prepared nonsensey designed to impress society and the tv producers

[cyborg]

I'm English and I think you're full of crap.

[Hellbound]

any English person, like me, will immediately recognise his aristocratic desire to be seen as some superior being, shame you americans seem to have such respect for him... he talks with a lot of hair-flicks and ideological pre-prepared nonsensey designed to impress society and the tv producers

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's nonsense.

If you're going to acuse of this, I for one would appreciate some specific examples.

Otherewise, this simply smacks of a bit of Ad Hom 2007, made from the finest sour grapes around.

[Big Les]

I'm English and I think you're full of crap.

So am I, and so do I. Prejudiced, to boot. He can't help being posh for goodness sake. If he had a cheeky cockney chappie accent and wore a hoody, would you think the sun shone out of his Aristotle? I somehow doubt it.

[nails3jesus0]

any English person, like me, will immediately recognise his aristocratic desire to be seen as some superior being, shame you americans seem to have such respect for him... he talks with a lot of hair-flicks and ideological pre-prepared nonsensey designed to impress society and the tv producers


:roll: wow resorting to this kind of thing already?

[quixotecoyote]

If you don't like what he says but can't argue with what he says, there's always the option of attacking how he says it. After all, if you can move the debate from fact to opinion, you're halfway home.

[Pipirr]

any English person, like me, will immediately recognise his aristocratic desire to be seen as some superior being, shame you americans seem to have such respect for him... he talks with a lot of hair-flicks and ideological pre-prepared nonsensey designed to impress society and the tv producers


Your statement makes sense if you remove the first comma.

I'm an English person, and am evidently not like you.

[brodski]

So am I, and so do I. Prejudiced, to boot. He can't help being posh for goodness sake. If he had a cheeky cockney chappie accent and wore a hoody, would you think the sun shone out of his Aristotle? I somehow doubt it.

Same goes for me.

[Jimbo07]

I'm sure he's a more than averagely intelligent sort of bloke, but everytime i've seen him on tv or youtube he's had the air of someone quite impressed by his own existence.
Anyone else feel the same?

Whether I do or not is not important. I don't know the man. It's important to remember, however, that it doesn't matter. Arrogance doesn't make him wrong...

[sinnikal]

Yeah, I'll happily come out of the closet and declare myself an 'atypical' Englishman.
Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett. Different accent, same basic message, does it sound better out of a different mouth to you?
Try reading the written word, you can make up what it sounds like then, plus you won't get distracted by anyone playing with their hair or flirting with the camera.

[NeilC]

Is he "posh" anyway? Just sounds well spoken to me.

He might be vain, I don't know. Who cares. He's intellectually gifted for sure. He makes his living via his intellect and he values intellect so he would obviously place it as a very important characteristic. He has that characteristic in spades so I guess he should be somewhat pleased with himself.

[vexed]

I disagree Plumjam.

[brodski]

Just sounds well spoken to me.
.
his family name appears in Burke's landed Gentry, and he has family connections to minor aristocrats. Oh and BTW, RP != "well spoken".
:p

[JonWhite]

I'm English and I think you're full of crap.

Another big thumbs up for the Cyborg position from me too (also English).

Try paying attention to the message not the delivery.

[sinnikal]

Is it just me, or is Senor Dick Dawkins a bit of an unforseen genetic diversion ;)


It's just you.......apparently.
I assume you did want an answer.

[Skeptic Guy]

any English person, like me, will immediately recognise his aristocratic desire to be seen as some superior being, shame you americans seem to have such respect for him... he talks with a lot of hair-flicks and ideological pre-prepared nonsensey designed to impress society and the tv producers

I've watched a lot of Dawkins on the tube (You or otherwise) and I have never witnessed him doing a "hair-flick".

But I think the phrase "ideological pre-prepared nonsensey (sic)" belies your underlying reasoning. It would seem that you disagree with his views. Would your problem be with his support of evolution or atheism?

[plumjam]

well, i just find him overly self-satisfied, and find that he gives pretty pathetic excuses for neo-darwinism out of necessity... he has some emotional attachment to old Charlie when any really reflective and upstanding englishman would have backed away from old Chaz many years ago ;)

[cyborg]

well, i just find him overly self-satisfied, and find that he gives pretty pathetic excuses for neo-darwinism out of necessity...

Excuse me if I don't think you are able to talk intelligently on matters pertaining to evolutionary theory - especially since you feel that 'neo-darwinism' is a sensible term.

he has some emotional attachment to old Charlie

No. That's you speaking through Dawkins. I'm sure you have an emotional attachment to whatever belief it is that isn't supported by reality though.

when any really reflective and upstanding englishman would have backed away from old Chaz many years ago ;)

Which is why, of course, the educated English are increasingly atheistic and science facing?

Sorry, you're on the losing side of this debate. Deal with it.

[sinnikal]

Ah, so it's the old 'No true Englishman' now is it?

[cyborg]

Can I use that fallacy against plumjam?

Along with the fallacy of ad populam we can easily beat him since none of the English people here are going to support plumjam's bigotry.

Plumjam - you're not English.

[plumjam]

he definitely is impressed by his own existence, and seems so attached to his own theories that he would never give a fair hearing to anyone arguing against his own dear dogmas

[plumjam]

i'd love to know what my bigotry would involve, would I get a free cuddle? ;)

[cyborg]

Hmm, plumjam's channelling himself through Dawkins again.

But then I don't have to listen to anyone who isn't a True Englishman TM.

[Jekyll]

he definitely is impressed by his own existence, and seems so attached to his own theories that he would never give a fair hearing to anyone arguing against his own dear dogmas

Congratulations!
You're on a forum surround by people(many of them English) interested in what Dawkins has said. Feel free to demolish which ever of Dawkins' arguments you like, and we'll let you know how you're doing.

[Hourglassmemory]

No. Richard Dawkins, when he talks about stuff like religion and paranormal matters, he criticizes it quite innocently based on his scientific view of the world.
It just seems that it's arrogant and vain because these matters are rarely criticized.
Even when they're mildly criticized you suddenly find yourself facing a person who is about to cry or feel insulted.
His accent also might resemble stereotypes but....that argument is plainly stupid.
The fact is that the matters Dawkins talk about are sensitive, but even so should not be absent from scrutiny

[plumjam]

well said, Hourglass, you seem to be a wise old mucker

[cyborg]

So you're going to retract your prejudicial nonsense now then?

[Skeptic Guy]

well, i just find him overly self-satisfied, and find that he gives pretty pathetic excuses for neo-darwinism out of necessity... he has some emotional attachment to old Charlie when any really reflective and upstanding englishman would have backed away from old Chaz many years ago ;)

Ok, how 'bout you take a specific "pathetic excuse for neo-darwinism" and we can discuss it point by point? That way you can defend your interpretation of Dawkin's "emotional attachment to old Charlie".

Obviously, it is not Dawkin's accent or supposed arrogance that you have a problem with but rather the theory of evolution.

[sinnikal]

Can I use that fallacy against plumjam?

Along with the fallacy of ad populam we can easily beat him since none of the English people here are going to support plumjam's bigotry.


Yeah, go ahead, there's no DRM on it. Oh, you already have. I posted it in the hope that someone would go with it. Too easy really,................but fun:D

[Q-Source]

R. Dawkins is the most arrogant person I´ve ever seen. It gives Science a bad name. He needs to put his feet on the ground and stop attacking other people just because they are different. He is a major bully.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Is it just me, or is Senor Dick Dawkins a bit of an unforseen genetic diversion ;)
I'm sure he's a more than averagely intelligent sort of bloke, but everytime i've seen him on tv or youtube he's had the air of someone quite impressed by his own existence.
Anyone else feel the same?

Yes, I also am quite impressed by my own existence.

[plumjam]

crikey Q-Source, finally someone with a bit of real intelligence (y) what a relief ;-)

Dawkins has always struck me as someone who has read all the books on one particular shelf in the library, and he thinks that gives himself the right to decry the value of all the other shelves in the library.
Does he ever say anything about the species barrier or the stasis nature of the fossill record?
No, and neither do the "Skeptics"

[Darat]

R. Dawkins is the most arrogant person I´ve ever seen. It gives Science a bad name. He needs to put his feet on the ground and stop attacking other people just because they are different. He is a major bully.

And will you be supplying any evidence for your allegation of "bullying"?

[Complexity]

No, Dawkins is not intellectually vain.

Plumjam, however, is a troll.

[Buckaroo]

.
Does he ever say anything about the species barrier or the stasis nature of the fossill record?
No, and neither do the "Skeptics"

Ah-HAH! I knew it!

[plumjam]

perhaps you can all enlighten me, ..has Dawkins actually made any significant discoveries in biology/zoology?

[Locri]

R. Dawkins is the most arrogant person I´ve ever seen. It gives Science a bad name. He needs to put his feet on the ground and stop attacking other people just because they are different. He is a major bully.

I personally just get the impression that he doesn't care that people are touchy on the topics of religion and evolution because he feels that the sacredness of it is ridiculous (with good reason). Because of that he makes certain comments very easily that other people stuck with the stigma that we should respect religion as some sort of untouchable matter of respect cringe at.

And yes, I'd imagine he's quite impressed with his existence as he's quite impressed with the existence of the universe in general and states in his books that he loves the beauty of it. It's a lot easier to be impressed by existence when you aren't boiling things down to "God did it" :)

[plumjam]

I generally agree, I just find his arguments against religion particularly childish.. for example, one of them is that the religion of most people corresponds to the religion of their parents, therefore religion must be somehow false... how stupid is that?
would anyone, for example, say that the findings of a biologist were invalid because his/her father was a biologist rather than a physicist?
the problem is that most scientists have no grounding in philosophy and thus they have never been presented with a full range of alternative views of reality, so some of them end up being embarrassing bigots like Dawkins

[Mark A. Siefert]

crikey Q-Source, finally someone with a bit of real intelligence (y) what a relief ;-)

Dawkins has always struck me as someone who has read all the books on one particular shelf in the library, and he thinks that gives himself the right to decry the value of all the other shelves in the library.
Does he ever say anything about the species barrier or the stasis nature of the fossill record?
No, and neither do the "Skeptics"

When you get to a point, make it please.

[plumjam]

When you get to a point, make it please.

I've been making them all night, Socrates ;)

[sackett]

You bleedin' poms always takes the side of the posh-talker over the ord'nary bloke. Yer faintin' yob Dorkins is just the sort you rub up on 'n act like 'e's a bloody damn upper-class nob. Mob of tweedy feckin' growlers. Tug yer bleedin' forelocks why dontcher?

Plum Jam, meet me down pub 'n we'll 'oist a h'onest man's pint 'n drink damnation to all plummy-mouth bastards. Wotcher!

[Big Les]

I generally agree, I just find his arguments against religion particularly childish.. for example, one of them is that the religion of most people corresponds to the religion of their parents, therefore religion must be somehow false... how stupid is that?
would anyone, for example, say that the findings of a biologist were invalid because his/her father was a biologist rather than a physicist?

That is not what he argues. The argument regarding childhood indoctrination is nothing to do with refuting religion - it's a criticism of (you've guessed it) the way religions tend to indoctrinate children before they have a chance to make up their own mind.

the problem is that most scientists have no grounding in philosophy and thus they have never been presented with a full range of alternative views of reality, so some of them end up being embarrassing bigots like Dawkins

I live in a world bounded by reality, and I'm pretty sure you do too. Science does a great job of helping us understand that reality - a damn sight better job than any religion or belief system. Philosophy will help one understand the nature of the human condition and how humans perceive reality. Horses for courses.

[Phrost]

My favorite thing about Dawkins is that the only attacks his detractors can make on him are personal ones or to say he's "mean", etc.

Always a sign of doing something right.

[plumjam]

My favorite thing about Dawkins is that the only attacks his detractors can make on him are personal ones or to say he's "mean", etc.

Always a sign of doing something right.

maybe cos he hasn't actually contributed anything very significant to society's body of understanding, apart from his proseltyising religious paperbacks

[plumjam]

You bleedin' poms always takes the side of the posh-talker over the ord'nary bloke. Yer faintin' yob Dorkins is just the sort you rub up on 'n act like 'e's a bloody damn upper-class nob. Mob of tweedy feckin' growlers. Tug yer bleedin' forelocks why dontcher?

Plum Jam, meet me down pub 'n we'll 'oist a h'onest man's pint 'n drink damnation to all plummy-mouth bastards. Wotcher!

Multiple breaches removed

plumjam, you are again warned to be civil and polite.

[kbm99]

Is it just me, or is Senor Dick Dawkins a bit of an unforseen genetic diversion ;)
I'm sure he's a more than averagely intelligent sort of bloke, but everytime i've seen him on tv or youtube he's had the air of someone quite impressed by his own existence.
Anyone else feel the same?

No, but I do find your repeated use of "Senor Dick Dawkins," "my Old Mate Bill" and "old Charlie" for Richard Dawkins, William Shakespeare and Charles Darwin a trifle tiresome.

[asmodean]

maybe cos he hasn't actually contributed anything very significant to society's body of understanding, apart from his proseltyising religious paperbacks

Oh? So you have examined all papers Dawkins has authored, or co-authored and can show how none of them "contributed anything very significant to society's body of understanding"?

[Kahalachan]

I don't know and I don't really care.

He sounds confident and passionate about some things. His appearance of vanity isn't what I care about. If he flat out said things that were obviously vain, then yes I would care. "Creationists are dumb, but I'm smart" type stuff would make me think he's vain and lose my respect.

He always likes to tell that story of his professor shaking someone's hand for disproving him and seems moved by it. I would guess he has an admiration of people who admit they are wrong and want to further the search for truth.

[sinnikal]

Kittens or recipes?

[nails3jesus0]

moar cats plz

[plumjam]

Oh? So you have examined all papers Dawkins has authored, or co-authored and can show how none of them "contributed anything very significant to society's body of understanding"?

yes, he's crap,
just in it for the money

[Civilized Worm]

I've seen a lot of really pathetic ad hominems against Dawkins but god damn does this take the cake.

[articulett]

Is it just me, or is Senor Dick Dawkins a bit of an unforseen genetic diversion ;)
I'm sure he's a more than averagely intelligent sort of bloke, but everytime i've seen him on tv or youtube he's had the air of someone quite impressed by his own existence.
Anyone else feel the same?


To me, the people who criticize him are intellectually vain. I think they are jealous because he actually has valuable information to convey, and his critics wish people were as eager to listen to them.

Dawkins words and information earn him the fans he has. His critics seldom have anything of value to say, but they elevate themselves mentally by pretending to be "more intellectually" humble then him.

[articulett]

I've seen a lot of really pathetic ad hominems against Dawkins but god damn does this take the cake.

But...as my sig notes... the stupid ones never know it's them. The OP isn't as transparent to himself/herself as s/he is to us, and so can't learn how to improve communication-- you know the simple mind-- certain they have much to teach others... clueless at their own vast ignorance. (You must admire the forthrightness in which they blunder onto a skeptics forum and start posting blithely as if they don't realize they are blinking red on the woo meter.) Sometimes I think their "intelligent designer" sends them to us for our amusement. :)

When one starts threads with a much greater ratio than they respond to other threads... that's always a sure sign. Insincere questions as thread starters is another... It's kinda cute...

[Civilized Worm]

I'd like to at least see some originality, how about criticising the way he dresses?

[Dr Adequate]

well, i just find him overly self-satisfied, and find that he gives pretty pathetic excuses for neo-darwinism out of necessity... he has some emotional attachment to old Charlie when any really reflective and upstanding englishman would have backed away from old Chaz many years ago ;) If you consider yourself a "really reflective and upstanding englishman", perhaps you could distance yourself from Darwin by sending me any ten pound notes you don't want.

http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban/Images/DarwinTenPoundNote.jpeg

[articulett]

My favorite thing about Dawkins is that the only attacks his detractors can make on him are personal ones or to say he's "mean", etc.

Always a sign of doing something right.

Yeah. And strident and shrill and militant. When facts don't work-- use emotional semantics. The courtier's reply.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

[articulett]

If you consider yourself a "really reflective and upstanding englishman", perhaps you could distance yourself from Darwin by sending me any ten pound notes you don't want.

http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban/Images/DarwinTenPoundNote.jpeg

Cool! I wish I was British. We still have "In God We Trust" on our money. I'm part of "we"... I don't believe in any gods. But Darwin--he was brilliant!

[Dr Adequate]

Does he ever say anything about the species barrier or the stasis nature of the fossill record?
No, and neither do the "Skeptics" I imagine that, like us, he says that these are lies which creationists tell as a substitute for having any actual evidence for their views.

I've shown up your nonsense about the "species barrier" on the other thread you're trolling. Now, about that stasis ...

http://razd.evcforum.net/Pictures/CvE/foram_work.gif

http://skepticwiki.org/images/thumb/8/8e/Ceratopia.jpg/238px-Ceratopia.jpg

http://skepticwiki.org/images/thumb/2/2d/Dinosaur-to-Bird.jpg/575px-Dinosaur-to-Bird.jpg

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/jaws1.gif

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2_big.jpg

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/images/fossil_hominin_cranial_capacity_lg.png

[articulett]

feline time.

Kittens, recipes, assorted critters and other derails in the public areas are bad, mmkay?

[articulett]

And will you be supplying any evidence for your allegation of "bullying"?

Nah... he's just attacking Dawkins because he's "different" (ie smarter than him) and he's bullying us into buying his claim. :D Who needs evidence when you have faith?

[Kahalachan]

If you consider yourself a "really reflective and upstanding englishman", perhaps you could distance yourself from Darwin by sending me any ten pound notes you don't want.

http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban/Images/DarwinTenPoundNote.jpeg

I used to love the 10 pound note. I would always try and keep one handy when in England.

[Phrost]

Yeah. And strident and shrill and militant. When facts don't work-- use emotional semantics. The courtier's reply.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

Our tolerance of an individual's irrational beliefs or behavior should start tapering off as they leave childhood and enter adolescence, and end completely when they're considered by society to be adults.

Regardless, it's been established that facts don't work on people who rely on "faith" to make decisions. In those cases I ask, why not enjoy a laugh at their expense? You're not going to convert them with logic and reason anyway, and meanwhile, they're trying to twist society to be in-line with their irrational beliefs.

Dawkins is a thousand times more "nice" than these people deserve, and about a million times more nice than I would be in his shoes. A handful of courtesy weighs about as much as a shovelful of faith, and in many cases is just as useful in accomplishing things. But a fist full of shame, now that can get results, even if those results are just the amusement of other people like yourself.

[ImaginalDisc]

Dude, I've met intellectually vain people at university, and here's a list of qualities I think classify a person as intellectually vain.

1: Repeating other people's ideas as though they were your own, not only without attribution, but as though you had come up with them.

2: Name dropping famous people you know, who are irrelevant to the topic.

3: Using personal opinion as though it were a fact.

Just cite examples of Dawkins doing any of these three things. Or, if you find my criteria wanting, state your own and cite specific examples. If I claimed that, say, Bill O'Reily is vain, I'd cite the times he's claimed to have received awards he never got.

[asmodean]

yes, he's crap,
just in it for the money

Oh. care to gives us a wee list of all his papers and point out exactly why each and every one is "crap"?

Oh, and can you also provide some evidence that "he's just in it for the money"? Or shall this wild assertion just be jutted won on the list of other wild, unsubstantiated claims you have made?

[SusanB-M1]

he definitely is impressed by his own existence, and seems so attached to his own theories that he would never give a fair hearing to anyone arguing against his own dear dogmas

Whenever I have seen similar comments this week, I have asked for examples of where he is - in his own words, not those of people apparently quoting him - impolite, discourteous, arrogant etc. He gives to all the people he speaks to ample time to give their answers.

No responses so far.

[cj.23]

Dawkins appears positively charming, if at times irascible, and not at all arrogant, if that is what "intellectual vain" suggests to me. Mind you I always found Dr Sue Blackmore, with whom I disagree on everything pretty much, extremely friendly, considerate, charming and polite - whereas some of my friends says he is the "rudest woman in Christendom".

I therefore suspect that in some cases disagreement over other issues may influence some peoples perceptions - or i just regard people in a better light than most. :)

cj x

[sackett]

Multiple breaches removed

plumjam, you are again warned to be civil and polite.

Jeeze, I didn't think my lame Aussie-Cockney pastiche would enrage anybody; kinda hoped plumjan would get a smile out of it. I guess the class system is not funny across the puddle. Sorry.

prewitt81, is there any chance you could PM me with plum's invective? I have a lot of bad habits, and need to be STERNLY DISCIPLINED.

[IllegalArgument]

Not knowing Dawkins personally, he has seemed like a nice enough person at the conferences.

What if he is vain, so what! There are lots of vain people in the world, he is at least trying to improve our understanding of the universe and suceeding quite well in a number of ways.

I would expect a certain level of cockyness from people who have made major contributions to science. They are use to being right, just because they might be a bit vain, doesn't make their arguments wrong.

By definition, the OP is an ad hominem by trying to cast doubt on Dawkins ideas because of someone's perception of his personality.

[Buckaroo]

feline time.

Kittens, recipes, assorted critters and other derails in the public areas are bad, mmkay?

Awww, c'mon, Miss Anthrope! No kittens?! There's nothin' in the rules about them! :)

Plus, they're cute.

[brodski]

Awww, c'mon, Miss Anthrope! No kittens?! There's nothin' in the rules about them! :)


Actually, there is now.

[Big Les]

Yes, although the interpretation of the rules (as told to Cuddles in forum management) tells us that one kitten is OK.

[brodski]

Yes, although the interpretation of the rules (as told to Cuddles in forum management) tells us that one kitten is OK.

but his kitten was a turtle! I think this is about to fall foul of the erail rules in itself ;)

[Miss Anthrope]

Yes, although the interpretation of the rules (as told to Cuddles in forum management) tells us that one kitten is OK.

I'll ask you to look at the context (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2873765#post2873765) of Chillzero's answer. Chill did not answer the kitten part of Cuddle's post. More, she was answering about one off topic post.

Kittening is a deliberate derail.

Further discussion about this should be done in the in the thread about the new MA in forum management.

[timhau]

Lots of sciencey stuff with pictures and charts and things


I didn't understand those. That was vain. And mean.

[Skeptic Guy]

R. Dawkins is the most arrogant person I´ve ever seen. It gives Science a bad name. He needs to put his feet on the ground and stop attacking other people just because they are different. He is a major bully.

What bullying? Show me. I know of only one time that he gave a minister some trouble but it was pretty mild. Since then, I think he's been very understanding and calm when trying to make a point.

crikey Q-Source, finally someone with a bit of real intelligence (y) what a relief ;-)

Dawkins has always struck me as someone who has read all the books on one particular shelf in the library, and he thinks that gives himself the right to decry the value of all the other shelves in the library.
Does he ever say anything about the species barrier or the stasis nature of the fossill record?
No, and neither do the "Skeptics"

Ok, it's getting clearer. I don't believe you actually have a problem with Dawkins but are rather using this position to make a point with regards to evolution. I believe that Dr. Adequate put the lie to your claims of "species barrier" and the "statis nature of the fossil record". Next?

I generally agree, I just find his arguments against religion particularly childish.. for example, one of them is that the religion of most people corresponds to the religion of their parents, therefore religion must be somehow false... how stupid is that?
would anyone, for example, say that the findings of a biologist were invalid because his/her father was a biologist rather than a physicist?
the problem is that most scientists have no grounding in philosophy and thus they have never been presented with a full range of alternative views of reality, so some of them end up being embarrassing bigots like Dawkins

What "alternative view of reality" does science ignore? If it is the reality we all experience, it can be tested and supported by the resulting evidence.

???

[Big Les]

I'll ask you to look at the context (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2873765#post2873765) of Chillzero's answer. Chill did not answer the kitten part of Cuddle's post. More, she was answering about one off topic post.

Kittening is a deliberate derail.

Further discussion about this should be done in the in the thread about the new MA in forum management.

Ah, ok. Fair enough. Sorry for the derail-related derail. :(

[Miss Anthrope]

Ah, ok. Fair enough. Sorry for the derail-related derail. :(

The derail related derail has now been derailed.
Back to our regularly scheduled program. :D

[articulett]

Yes, although the interpretation of the rules (as told to Cuddles in forum management) tells us that one kitten is OK.

I posted a 2 headed kitten, so I guess I went over the one kitten limit. We can still post them on the "forum members only" section-- but who knows what the children will think if they come to JREF and see recipes and kittens. (Actually, I think it's to curb "inside jokes" on the general section...they do have a new cat smiley though.)
:bigcat

[articulett]

I didn't understand those. That was vain. And mean.

And strident, arrogant, and shrill (not to mention militant and radical.)

[CLD]

Kittens desperately needed in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2872602#post2872602).

[articulett]

Kittens desperately needed in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2872602#post2872602).


No can do... against the new rules. No cats except in forum members only...

:(

[Q-Source]

And will you be supplying any evidence for your allegation of "bullying"?

You just have to watch all his campaign against Catholics and Christians on youtube videos. I am not even a believer but he is attacking people without considering whether or not they are good people who happen to have faith. Period.
He is a coward too. Why doesn´t he attack Muslim beliefs in Britain? No, he knows it is politically incorrect and he would be banned from UK TV. I am sure of that. Instead he goes to the US and flames everybody.

[brodski]

You just have to watch all his campaign against Catholics and Christians on youtube videos. I am not even a believer but he is attacking people without considering whether or not they are good people who happen to have faith. Period.
He is a coward too. Why doesn´t he attack Muslim beliefs in Britain? No, he knows it is politically incorrect and he would be banned from UK TV. I am sure of that. Instead he goes to the US and flames everybody.

He does criticise Muslim belief, in fact one of his TV shows he shows he went to an Islamic nation and criticised Muslim belief!
And he's not attacking the people, rather he attacks their belief- indeed throughout his writings he has lots of praise for people who happen to have faith.

I'm also interested in why you separate out Catholics and Christians, don't you believe that Catholics are Christian?
Now if he is bullying people so often perhaps you would like to point out one concrete example to support your case, it should be easy for you.

[Q-Source]

Poor old Dawkins, he should learn from a GREAT scientist and humanist like Carl Sagan. In fact I would say that most of the people in this forum should learn from Sagan. In his book The Demon Haunted World he wrote:

quote

...the chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is in 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, you're beyond redemption. This is unconstructive....whereas a compassionate approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition might be much more widely accepted.

If we understand this, then of course we feel the uncertainty and pain of the abductees, or those who dare not leave home without consulting their horoscopes....such compassion for kindred spirits in a common quest also works to make science and the scientific method less off-putting, especially to the young.

Many pseudoscientific and New Age belief systems emerge out of dissatisfaction with conventional values and perspectives--and are therefore themselves a kind of skepticism. /quote

[Locknar]

Ok….I’m going to throw the “intellectually dishonest” flag again on plumjam.

He started a tread, then insulted anyone that does not agree with his view (post #9), and then brought Darwinism into the thread (post #25).

It is clear, plumjam, that your desire is to debate evolution…why not just state that up front; why the games?

[brodski]

Poor old Dawkins, he should learn from a GREAT scientist and humanist like Carl Sagan. In fact I would say that most of the people in this forum should learn from Sagan. In his book The Demon Haunted World he wrote:

quote

...the chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is in 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, you're beyond redemption. This is unconstructive....whereas a compassionate approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition might be much more widely accepted.

If we understand this, then of course we feel the uncertainty and pain of the abductees, or those who dare not leave home without consulting their horoscopes....such compassion for kindred spirits in a common quest also works to make science and the scientific method less off-putting, especially to the young.

Many pseudoscientific and New Age belief systems emerge out of dissatisfaction with conventional values and perspectives--and are therefore themselves a kind of skepticism. /quote

Would you care to show where Dawkins has divided the world into us versus them? For instance, talking about two different types of people rather than two different ways of looking at the world which may be applied by the same person at different times,

Especially given that he speaks very fondly of a number of religious people who are sceptical in other areas of their life, perhaps you should read and listen to what he actually says rather than what people say he says. You know look at the evidence first hand.

[Q-Source]

He does criticise Muslim belief, in fact one of his TV shows he shows he went to an Islamic nation and criticised Muslim belief!
And he's not attacking the people, rather he attacks their belief- indeed throughout his writings he has lots of praise for people who happen to have faith.

I would have to see that to believe it. He has never criticised openly the Muslim beliefs, at least not in the UK, he knows he would be in serious trouble as Muslims are intolerant to criticism.



I'm also interested in why you separate out Catholics and Christians, don't you believe that Catholics are Christian?
Now if he is bullying people so often perhaps you would like to point out one concrete example to support your case, it should be easy for you.

I live in a country where Catholics and Christians hold slightly different beliefs.
For references about Dawkins being aggresive you can check a video which was posted in this forum. It was about a religious girl asking him a question, there is also another proof in the conference given at Beyond Belief 2006.

[cyborg]

He has never criticised openly the Muslim beliefs, at least not in the UK, he knows he would be in serious trouble as Muslims are intolerant to criticism.

Do you read The Sun perchance?

I live in a country where Catholics and Christians hold slightly different beliefs.

HAHAHA.

...

HAHAHA.

There's not much more to say there. That you say this with no sense of irony...

[brodski]

I would have to see that to believe it. He has never criticised openly the Muslim beliefs, at least not in the UK, he knows he would be in serious trouble as Muslims are intolerant to criticism.
Rubbish, he has criticized all faiths. His program on C4 last week criticized Mullahs, TGD contains many quotes critical of Islam. You seem to be seeing just what you want to see, and wrapping it up with a PC conspiracy theory.


I live in a country where Catholics and Christians hold slightly different beliefs.
For references about Dawkins being aggresive you can check a video which was posted in this forum. It was about a religious girl asking him a question, there is also another proof in the conference given at Beyond Belief 2006.
Catholics are a branch of Christianity- I don't see why you separated them out from Christians in general. Why not say "Christians and Protestants" or "Christians and methodists"?

Him being "bullying" is responding to the question "what if you're wrong" by answering "well, what if you're wrong?". I'm sorry I fail to see how that is bullying. Would you care to explain it?

And perhaps you would like to bring some actual quotes from Dawkins into this debate, to support your point of view, rather than making vague references, which on examination turn out not to support your position.

[Q-Source]

Would you care to show where Dawkins has divided the world into us versus them? For instance, talking about two different types of people rather than two different ways of looking at the world which may be applied by the same person at different times,


Well, he calls himself and anyone who thinks like himself "Bright" :rolleyes:

From wiki

Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an "up" word, where homosexual is a down word, and queer, faggot and pooftah are insults. Those of us who subscribe to no religion; those of us whose view of the universe is natural rather than supernatural; those of us who rejoice in the real and scorn the false comfort of the unreal, we need a word of our own, a word like "gay". ... Like gay, it should be a noun hijacked from an adjective, with its original meaning changed but not too much. Like gay, it should be catchy: a potentially prolific meme. Like gay, it should be positive, warm, cheerful, bright.

[brodski]

Well, he calls himself and anyone who thinks like himself "Bright" :rolleyes:

From wiki

So will you make the same claims against anyone who has the affront to call themselves gay?
Are they condemning all heterosexual people to a life of misery?
How DARE they! :rolleyes:

Is this worse than Sagan using the word "skeptic"?
Explain how please.

[ImaginalDisc]

I would have to see that to believe it. He has never criticised openly the Muslim beliefs, at least not in the UK, he knows he would be in serious trouble as Muslims are intolerant to criticism.


To quote Dawkins.



To blame Islam for what happened in New York is like blaming Christianity for the troubles in Northern Ireland!" Yes. Precisely. It is time to stop pussyfooting around. Time to get angry. And not only with Islam.

My respect for the Abrahamic religions went up in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th. The last vestige of respect for the taboo disappeared as I watched the "Day of Prayer" in Washington Cathedral, where people of mutually incompatible faiths united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place: religion. It is time for people of intellect, as opposed to people of faith, to stand up and say "Enough!" Let our tribute to the dead be a new resolve: to respect people for what they individually think, rather than respect groups for what they were collectively brought up to believe.


It is not an exaggeration to say that religion is the most inflammatory enemy-labelling device in history. Who killed your father? Not the individuals you are about to kill in 'revenge.' The culprits themselves have vanished over the border. The people who stole your great grandfather's land have died of old age. You aim your vendetta at those who belong to the same religion as the original perpetrators. It wasn't Seamus who killed your brother, but it was Catholics, so Seamus deserves to die "in return." Next, it was Protestants who killed Seamus so let's go out and kill some Protestants "in revenge." It was Muslims who destroyed the World Trade Center so let's set upon the turbaned driver of a London taxi and leave him paralyzed from the neck down.


Source. (http://ffrf.org/timely/dawkins.php)


Care to retract your statement?

[Q-Source]

Rubbish, he has criticized all faiths. His program on C4 last week criticized Mullahs, TGD contains many quotes critical of Islam. You seem to be seeing just what you want to see, and wrapping it up with a PC conspiracy theory.

I don´t live in the UK anymore. But did he criticise -not the mullahs- but the Muslim faith? I mean, it is easy to criticise terrorists but what about the teaching of the prophet Mahoma.


Catholics are a branch of Christianity- I don't see why you separated them out from Christians in general.

I think it is the opposite, Christianity is a brach of Catholicism.


Him being "bullying" is responding to the question "what if you're wrong" by answering "well, what if you're wrong?". I'm sorry I fail to see how that is bullying. Would you care to explain it?

I am also sorry that you fail to see his bullying. Anyway, I don´t give a rat´s ass about Dawkins personal beliefs on other people´s beliefs. I just think he should stop using Science as an excuse for his aggresive behaviour. He should go back to Oxford University and work on what he is good at, as a biologist. He has absolutely no contribution to make on Philosophy and Religion.

[Q-Source]

So will you make the same claims against anyone who has the affront to call themselves gay?
Are they condemning all heterosexual people to a life of misery?
How DARE they!

YOU asked me a proof on where Dawkins separates himself from the rest of people who don´t think like him. I gave it to you. Now you turn the whole post into a gay discussion. Oh my god, what an embarrassment you are for the Skeptic movement.

[brodski]

YOU asked me a proof on where Dawkins separates himself from the rest of people who don´t think like him. I gave it to you. Now you turn the whole post into a gay discussion. Oh my god, what an embarrassment you are for the Skeptic movement.

Is the irony of criticising Dawkins for applying a label to to an intellectual position and then talking in general terms about the sceptic movement not lost on you.

If we except that Dawkins is dividing the world into them and it was with this quote how is it any worse than your hero Sagen, whose beliefs you contrasted with those of Dawkins, using the word "skeptic" to describe a group.

if you can't think t why I used the gay analogy in response to your quote you may wish to read your quote a little more closely.
Oh and please don't personalize the issue.

[ImaginalDisc]

YOU asked me a proof on where Dawkins separates himself from the rest of people who don´t think like him. I gave it to you. Now you turn the whole post into a gay discussion. Oh my god, what an embarrassment you are for the Skeptic movement.

Please address my previous post.

[brodski]

I don´t live in the UK anymore. But did he criticise -not the mullahs- but the Muslim faith? I mean, it is easy to criticise terrorists but what about the teaching of the prophet Mahoma. He's done that too.



I think it is the opposite, Christianity is a brach of Catholicism.
Then you are wrong. All catholics are Christian, but not all Christian are catholic. Simple really.


I am also sorry that you fail to see his bullying. [ perhaps that's because it's not there. Would you care to support your position?
I just think he should stop using Science as an excuse for his aggresive behaviour. You have yet to show any aggressive behavior, and seem totally unwilling to support your criticisms of Dawkins.


He should go back to Oxford University and work on what he is good at, as a biologist. He has absolutely no contribution to make on Philosophy and Religion.
He seems to be pretty good at fermenting a public debate on the role of religion in society.

[Q-Source]

Care to retract your statement?

Why should I retract? Your source is from 2001. RD wrote the God Delusion in 2006 and gave a conference in Beyond Belief (2006) where he clearly states that people should not show respect for conventional religion anymore. He says that it should receive open criticism in no polite terms.

[brodski]

Why should I retract? Your source is from 2001. RD wrote the God Delusion in 2006 and gave a conference in Beyond Belief (2006) where he clearly states that people should not show respect for conventional religion anymore. He says that it should receive open criticism in no polite terms.

What has that got to do with your Lie that Dawkins does not criticize Muslims and is therefore a coward?

[ImaginalDisc]

Why should I retract? Your source is from 2001. RD wrote the God Delusion in 2006 and gave a conference in Beyond Belief (2006) where he clearly states that people should not show respect for conventional religion anymore. He says that it should receive open criticism in no polite terms.

You said this:

I would have to see that to believe it. He has never criticised openly the Muslim beliefs, at least not in the UK, he knows he would be in serious trouble as Muslims are intolerant to criticism

Dawkins said this.

To blame Islam for what happened in New York is like blaming Christianity for the troubles in Northern Ireland!" Yes. Precisely. It is time to stop pussyfooting around. Time to get angry. And not only with Islam.

Your statement is untrue.

[Q-Source]

Just a final note.
Richard Dawkins has failed in this campaign to change the way people perceive religion. He has failed because he believes scientism (not the same as Science) has the monopoly of the truth. If anything, he is discouraging people from turning to Science to find answers. This is what pisses me off, because he is polarising the debate instead of contributing to a better understanding of the world.

[Q-Source]

Your statement is untrue.

So you think THAT is a criticism of Mahoma´s teachings? Not at all.
Anyway, he thinks and writes something different in 2006.

Bye, I have to work.

[brodski]

Just a final note.
Richard Dawkins has failed in this campaign to change the way people perceive religion. He has failed because he believes scientism (not the same as Science) has the monopoly of the truth. If anything, he is discouraging people from turning to Science to find answers. This is what pisses me off, because he is polarising the debate instead of contributing to a better understanding of the world.

Would it be too much to expect of you to support this accusation too?

[brodski]

So you think THAT is a criticism of Mahoma´s teachings? Not at all. can you find where he criticized the teachings of Jesus? He is largely crtical of how religion is applied.


Anyway, he thinks and writes something different in 2006.
Would you care to quote it?


Bye, I have to work. In your own time...

[ImaginalDisc]

So you think THAT is a criticism of Mahoma´s teachings? Not at all.
Anyway, he thinks and writes something different in 2006.

If you claim he is contradicting himself, prove it.

[Moochie]

He's so vain, he probably thinks this thread is about him.


:dl:



M.

[Darat]

You just have to watch all his campaign against Catholics and Christians on youtube videos.

...snip...



I have watched most of the stuff that has been linked to from this Forum so it's likely I've seen them. However your answer is not addressing the question I had. Which is will you provide evidence for your accusation of bullying?

[Q-Source]

I just said it before, laughting and ridiculing a girl in front of the public just because she asked "what if you´re wrong?" is being a bully. If you fail to see it then you lack neutrality. RD doesn´t engage in conversation but in confrontation most of the time.

[T'ai Chi]

I agree Q-Source.

Even Tyson thinks so, and told him that to his face at a conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

[Big Les]

I just said it before, laughting and ridiculing a girl in front of the public just because she asked "what if you´re wrong?" is being a bully. If you fail to see it then you lack neutrality. RD doesn´t engage in conversation but in confrontation most of the time.

Do you mean this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71848)? Perhaps you could point out where he either laughs or ridicules the girl for her question. I detect slight exasperation in his voice for her fairly trite and empty question, but he still goes on to answer it with all due respect. Rather well, too (to the effect that as a Christian she already disbelieves in other deities, why believe in hers? What if she's wrong?). The fact that audience members are tittering and cheerleading for him is hardly his responsibility. I suspect they are pleased and even surprised themselves to hear religion getting criticism. What does he actually say that ridicules the girl? He ridicules her religion by comparing it to other real and fantasy religions and deities. That's kind of his point - Christianity, Islam and the rest have no more evidence nor protected status than any other belief, and should be open to criticism. Any offence taken at that is taken quite deliberate and defensive in nature, in my view.

I think you're hearing what you want to hear because you disagree with what he says and what he stands for.

[brodski]

I just said it before, laughting and ridiculing a girl in front of the public just because she asked "what if you´re wrong?" is being a bully. If you fail to see it then you lack neutrality. RD doesn´t engage in conversation but in confrontation most of the time.

He neither laughed at nor ridiculed her, he asked her the same question she asked him. Is turnabout fair play?
If not, why not?

[Darat]

I just said it before, laughting and ridiculing a girl in front of the public just because she asked "what if you´re wrong?" is being a bully. If you fail to see it then you lack neutrality. RD doesn´t engage in conversation but in confrontation most of the time.

Again will you provide evidence that such a thing ever happened?

[sinnikal]

Again will you provide evidence that such a thing ever happened?
You'll be lucky!
This, one one side at least, is not an evidence-based thread.

[Darat]

Do you mean this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71848)? Perhaps you could point out where he either laughs or ridicules the girl for her question. I detect slight exasperation in his voice for her fairly trite and empty question, but he still goes on to answer it with all due respect. Rather well, too (to the effect that as a Christian she already disbelieves in other deities, why believe in hers? What if she's wrong?). The fact that audience members are tittering and cheerleading for him is hardly his responsibility. I suspect they are pleased and even surprised themselves to hear religion getting criticism. What does he actually say that ridicules the girl? He ridicules her religion by comparing it to other real and fantasy religions and deities. That's kind of his point - Christianity, Islam and the rest have no more evidence nor protected status than any other belief, and should be open to criticism. Any offence taken at that is taken quite deliberate and defensive in nature, in my view.

I think you're hearing what you want to hear because you disagree with what he says and what he stands for.

He neither laughed at nor ridiculed her, he asked her the same question she asked him. Is turnabout fair play?
If not, why not?

I think you both may be making an assumption - that cannot be the video that Q-Source is referring to since it does not match the description Q-Source gave.

[Big Les]

Perhaps he can clarify for us - then we wouldn't have to make any assumptions.

[Civilized Worm]

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7966994703230844049&q=Dawkins+root+evil&total=89&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2


Drop the strawmen Q.

[UserGoogol]

crikey Q-Source, finally someone with a bit of real intelligence (y) what a relief ;-)

Dawkins has always struck me as someone who has read all the books on one particular shelf in the library, and he thinks that gives himself the right to decry the value of all the other shelves in the library.
Does he ever say anything about the species barrier or the stasis nature of the fossill record?
No, and neither do the "Skeptics"

I think he has, actually, in a few places. Namely, that the "species barrier" is a stupid idea. One interesting example he tends to repeat are ring species, which are species that that sort of blend into each other, such that A can interbreed with B and B can interbreed with C, but A cannot interbreed with C. The concept of species, therefore, is just an extremely convenient and relatively natural way of categorizing organisms, but is not some group with rigid barriers per se. He says it in such places as The Ancestor's Tale conveniently online essay (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1993gaps_in_the_mind.shtml) about animal rights. I don't remember him saying too much about the "statis nature of the fossil record," but I do think he's said something.

You're not entirely wrong, of course. I don't think Dawkins is that pretentious, but if he wants to be able to really be able to evangelize for reason, he needs to counter his public image by being super-rigorous by rigorously evaluating even the most absurdly obscure theological arguments and being very apologetic and nice towards the very beliefs he's arguing against. Although at the same time, that might be a lot to demand from someone, and it may be better for that job to be set aside for some other person. But if he were nicer, that might help.

[Skeptic Guy]

I think you both may be making an assumption - that cannot be the video that Q-Source is referring to since it does not match the description Q-Source gave.

To me, it seemed to match pretty accurately what Q-Source was describing, but I'm willing to be proven wrong if Q would post the correct source.

[EdipisReks]

i think he's very arrogant and intellectually vain. i also think he's awesome and right much more often than he is wrong.

[Apathia]

I want to take this as an opportunity to confess that I'm intellectualy vain and work hard at putting on airs that I'm not.

[Darat]

To me, it seemed to match pretty accurately what Q-Source was describing, but I'm willing to be proven wrong if Q would post the correct source.

Which part does the description "I just said it before, laughting and ridiculing a girl in front of the public just because she asked "what if you´re wrong?" is being a bully." apply to in that video?

[Big Les]

How many other videos exist involving Dawkins and a girl asking him "what if you're wrong?" and getting a robust defence that could be stretched by interpretation to constitute ridicule?

He's very likely referring to that video, but is wrong about the contents.

[Apology]

I don't think he's intellectually vain necessarily, I just disagree with him on certain points. None of the things I disagree with him on are really about whether or not God exists. His approach is wrong in my opinion. He says that we shouldn't have to respect religion simply for the fact that it's religion. This is technically correct but not the entire truth. The reason we should respect religion is because the practitioners of religion are the ones we are trying to get to change. The statement "We should not respect religion merely because it's religion," suggests that we should abandon respect for religion completely, even though our arguments are better made to true believers if they are couched in respectful terms. Dawkins points out several wrongs that are perpetrated in the world in the name of religion. However, the people listening to Dawkins' speeches aren't the ones perpetrating these wrongs. In essence, he is preaching to people who are already inclined to believe him, and not actually changing the minds of the people who are causing the damage in the name of religion. As a result, his followers come off as a bunch of smug, self-congratulating jerks. He isn't addressing the problem of religion in a way that's going to change the minds of those perpetrating the problem. If you give people any reason to feel justified in being a jerk, many people will take it whether they believe the rest of what you say or not. I feel he does a great injustice to the cause of reason by suggesting that we can ignore the rules of providing an effective argument. The first rule is to show respect to your opponent.

[Morrigan]

I don't get why people say Dawkins is arrogant, shrill or aggressive. Every single time I see him he's a calm, mild-mannered chap. He did show some annoyance towards Ted Haggard, but then again who wouldn't? The guy was being a smug ***** and completely misrepresented science. That he became slightly annoyed hardly makes the man a shrill harpy.

The only possible reason why people would say that about him is because his criticism of their precious little "faith" hurts their pussies.

You just have to watch all his campaign against Catholics and Christians on youtube videos. I am not even a believer but he is attacking people without considering whether or not they are good people who happen to have faith. Period.

Which is why he slanders every single person of faith in "The Root of All Evil?", and tells them how he dislikes them and... oh wait, he doesn't. Hell, he even said he liked Michael Bray and his honest consistency of beliefs. Go figure.


He is a coward too. Why doesn´t he attack Muslim beliefs in Britain? No, he knows it is politically incorrect and he would be banned from UK TV. I am sure of that. Instead he goes to the US and flames everybody.What a staggeringly intellectually dishonest comment. Islam has quite a large section in "The Root of All Evil?".

I would have to see that to believe it. He has never criticised openly the Muslim beliefs, at least not in the UK, he knows he would be in serious trouble as Muslims are intolerant to criticism.

Just watch the documentary, Edited for civility Seriously, you're just embarrassing yourself. Laughed at and ridiculed the girl? His response was rational and intelligent. If rationality and intelligence ridicule people, they deserve it.

[Foster Zygote]

i'd love to know what my bigotry would involve...

You've demonstrated bigotry in your assertions of the moral inferiority of atheists.

BTW, did you ever come up with examples of JREF skeptics violating the civil rights of anyone else on this forum?

[Reinhard]

The only possible reason why people would say that about him is because his criticism of their precious little "faith" hurts their pussies.
:D

Anyway, this is an intriguing thread, because I had a similar discussion with a friend doon t'pub on Wednesday night. He considers Dawkins an "*******", but I disagree... Dawkins' views are strong, but they're not that strong. Like many others, I suspect that his directness offends people who actually have no real refutation of his position.

The reason we should respect religion is because the practitioners of religion are the ones we are trying to get to change. The statement "We should not respect religion merely because it's religion," suggests that we should abandon respect for religion completely, even though our arguments are better made to true believers if they are couched in respectful terms. Dawkins points out several wrongs that are perpetrated in the world in the name of religion. However, the people listening to Dawkins' speeches aren't the ones perpetrating these wrongs. In essence, he is preaching to people who are already inclined to believe him, and not actually changing the minds of the people who are causing the damage in the name of religion. As a result, his followers come off as a bunch of smug, self-congratulating jerks. He isn't addressing the problem of religion in a way that's going to change the minds of those perpetrating the problem.
Some points worth thinking about there, good one. Still, I'd argue that the 'people causing real harm' are never going to be changed by anything; and being nice to them just gives makes it easier for extremism to sneak in the back door (after all, that was the theory behind 'appeasing' Hitler, but in that case it demonstrably didn't work). Rather I think that Dawkins' position is to make as forceful a case as possible, so that those who aren't committed to religion and who don't 'believe in belief' could be swayed by his arguments. Believe me, this does work; Dawkins was the one who converted me.

As he says, it's really about 'conciousness raising'. Getting the message out there. More measured criticism can still follow, for example Daniel Dennet's latest book (though, unsurprisingly, it wasn't nearly as popular - go figure, heh).

[Foster Zygote]

I generally agree, I just find his arguments against religion particularly childish.. for example, one of them is that the religion of most people corresponds to the religion of their parents, therefore religion must be somehow false... how stupid is that?
would anyone, for example, say that the findings of a biologist were invalid because his/her father was a biologist rather than a physicist?
That is not what Dawkins meant.


The problem is that most scientists have no grounding in philosophy and thus they have never been presented with a full range of alternative views of reality, so some of them end up being embarrassing bigots like Dawkins
What is your grounding in philosophy? You've presented elements of the "Cogito" seemingly unaware that they have been around for centuries and that they are the starting point of Descartes' argument rather than the conclusion. You also seem unaware of centuries of philosophy since.

[Foster Zygote]

maybe cos he hasn't actually contributed anything very significant to society's body of understanding, apart from his proseltyising religious paperbacks

At least this time you waited 38 minutes between issuing a challenge and then making a declaration.

Among other things Dawkins has most famously contributed to the gene-centered understanding of evolution as well as the theory of memetics.

[Big Les]

Mitch Benn (http://www.myspace.com/mitchbenn) has created a rock song in Dawkins' honour. :)

[SusanB-M1]

Mitch Benn (http://www.myspace.com/mitchbenn) has created a rock song in Dawkins' honour. :)


I think Mitch Benn is brilliant, so I went straight to the link, but he appears to be singing about a James Blunt. Am I missing something here?! Could you please give further info?!

[brodski]

I think Mitch Benn is brilliant, so I went straight to the link, but he appears to be singing about a James Blunt. Am I missing something here?! Could you please give further info?!

yes, there are four songs on that page and they'll play at random, you can selelect the song which is playing on the right hand side, "Richard Dawkins" is the 4th link down.

[Civilized Worm]

Haha, I really pissed Mitch Benn off on another forum once.

[brodski]

Haha, I really pissed Mitch Benn off on another forum once.

do tell...

[Civilized Worm]

Oh he's just a whiny git prone to throwing tantrums if people slag off him or his mates. It seems a lot of comedians can dish it out but not take it.

[Big Les]

Oh he's just a whiny git prone to throwing tantrums if people slag off him or his mates. It seems a lot of comedians can dish it out but not take it.

Oo-er, trouble up t'mill Mr Wilks. I wouldn't know about that sor; I just like some of his songs, and he deserves a knighthood for the James Blunt one ("the only man alive who's his own rhyming slang") :D

I thought the Dawkins one was OK, but paid a bit too much attention to his media caricature IMO.

[brodski]

Oh he's just a whiny git prone to throwing tantrums if people slag off him or his mates. It seems a lot of comedians can dish it out but not take it.

Well, yeah, he's a performer- what did you expect. ;)

[jimbob]

I'm English dammitt, an have allways found it difficult when peepil arrogantly despley there supeer sooperior better grasp of langyage than me.

Hes so more arrogant than Billy Graham

Nope, I actually with Cyborg on this too.

What shelves on the library? Is this a metaphor for rejecting the ramblings of bronze-age pastoralists, and preferring to rely on observations and reason?

The thing about "gaps" in the fossil records is that they keep getting closed. I have never seen a new fossil evidence opening gaps*.


*conceptually it could: a fossil unicorn, a fish with fur, or a fossil dinosaur with a caveman for example...

[TuftedPuffin]

In any case, Dawkins accent isn't aristocratic. He sounds like a little like a little old english lady. Very unmasculine, prissy voice. I was surprised, as it really doesn't match his prose.

Oh, and species barrier?

[bpesta22]

Is it just me, or is Senor Dick Dawkins a bit of an unforseen genetic diversion ;)
I'm sure he's a more than averagely intelligent sort of bloke, but everytime i've seen him on tv or youtube he's had the air of someone quite impressed by his own existence.
Anyone else feel the same?

I think he's pretty arrogant, but it's justified. Arrogance when it's not justified is very annoying. Less so when one can back it up with accomplishments.

[Cuddles]

I think he's pretty arrogant, but it's justified. Arrogance when it's not justified is very annoying. Less so when one can back it up with accomplishments.

As the old saying goes, it's not arrogance if you really are better than everyone else.;)

[Darat]

I think he's pretty arrogant, but it's justified. Arrogance when it's not justified is very annoying. Less so when one can back it up with accomplishments.

I know it is just a perception you're conveying but could you explain why you consider "he's pretty arrogant"?


(Hoping you'll be more responsive than some other people at explaining why you have this impression and if not I'll stick you in a box and apply electric shocks to you, but I won't ring a bell.)

[SusanB-M1]

yes, there are four songs on that page and they'll play at random, you can selelect the song which is playing on the right hand side, "Richard Dawkins" is the 4th link down.

Thank you - found it!

[Skeptic Guy]

Which part does the description "I just said it before, laughting and ridiculing a girl in front of the public just because she asked "what if you´re wrong?" is being a bully." apply to in that video?

Ok, I think I misunderstood you. I believe that the video that Q is referring to is the one that was posted (i.e. he described the basic set-up correctly) but I don't see anything like Dawkins "laughing and ridiculing" the girl. Quite the contrary. I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.

[Darat]

Ok, I think I misunderstood you. I believe that the video that Q is referring to is the one that was posted (i.e. he described the basic set-up correctly) but I don't see anything like Dawkins "laughing and ridiculing" the girl. Quite the contrary. I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.

No problem - it's just that this description of arrogance, bullying and so on has piqued my curiosity recently. Apart from of course being nothing more than an ad hominem I'm curious how people who state they have this perception of him have come to this conclusion. So far whenever asked to support their opinion with evidence everyone I've asked (bar one as far as I can recall) has fallen quiet.

[Mojo]

In any case, Dawkins accent isn't aristocratic. He sounds like a little like a little old english lady.


Ironically, he sounds remarkably like an Anglican clergyman of a certain age.

[Skeptic Guy]

No problem - it's just that this description of arrogance, bullying and so on has piqued my curiosity recently. Apart from of course being nothing more than an ad hominem I'm curious how people who state they have this perception of him have come to this conclusion. So far whenever asked to support their opinion with evidence everyone I've asked (bar one as far as I can recall) has fallen quiet.

I've never seen Dawkins be bullying either.

[EHLO]

After just watching the second part of "The Enemies of Reason" I think the reason why RD comes across as arrogant and possibly bullying is his interview technique. Every one on one discussion he has with a "believer" boils down to both sides stating "I believe <insert belief> because of X", where X for RD is always Science, and X for the other is some sort of ancient text/wisdom/inner truth etc.

I imagine that the problem for most of the viewing public is that they don't know the difference, so RD comes across as a stereotypical colonial authoritarian figure pushing his own dogma.

This isn't helped by the fact that he appears to take himself waaayyyy too seriously. (Not a bad thing in itself, but not good for endearing one's self to the public)

[articulett]

I think that no matter how nicely he said things, he'd be accused of being bullying. What else are you going to say about it. He's right and he's honest. People need to find something to dislike about him if they are going to continue to prop of their woo as the true woo. All of the blather is about "killing the messenger" so people can stay in fantasy land. Whenever I ask people to actually quote him or show where he's rude-- I don't see it. His arrogance appears to exist in the mind of those who are envious of him or those who want to believe their woo is true.

[Enlighten]

Is Richard Dawkins intellectually vain?

No. In fact, he almost never speaks over peoples heads. That is, he avoids scientific jargon and speaks in a fairly informal way.

I think you take issue with the fact that he does not humor people who make false assertations. He tells them they are wrong without hesitation. Thus, if you disagree with him you are not likely to like his style.

[Apology]

I think the perception that Richard Dawkins is a jerk comes not from what he says, but from the presentation of his materials by his proponents. To state it simply, whoever referred Plumjam to Dawkins was probably being a jerk. Plumjam was probably already fuming by the time he/she watched the clip, and transferred those feelings onto the girl in the audience.

I was generally ignoring Dawkins, since as an agnostic, reading his stuff would pretty much be Dawkins preaching to the choir. I'd already spent endless hours pondering on the nature of belief and had other interests that were more compelling. It was only when some severely aggressive Dawkinites began insisting that I wasn't agnostic, I was just stupid, that I decided to take a look at some of Dawkins' work. I wanted to know exactly what it was in Dawkins' work that made his fans so aggressive. I couldn't find a lot of fault with what Dawkins himself said. I think a lot of the problem is that his fans aren't representing Dawkins very well at all. If your salesmen are crummy, everyone automatically assumes your product is crummy too.

[albie]

I'd like Dawkins to rationalise the creation of reality itself.

[Darat]

I'd like Dawkins to rationalise the creation of reality itself.
I'd like him to cut my hedge but that seems an equally spurious request. :)

Can I ask why?

[Belz...]

I'd like Dawkins to rationalise the creation of reality itself.

I'd like you to rationalise the liquification of cheese.

Thanks.

[nails3jesus0]

I'd like you to rationalise the liquification of cheese.

Thanks.

its delicious?

[Civilized Worm]

People don't like Dawkins because he treats the like adults at times when they're used the being infantilised.

[bigbossmatt]

any English person, like me, will immediately recognise his aristocratic desire to be seen as some superior being, shame you americans seem to have such respect for him... he talks with a lot of hair-flicks and ideological pre-prepared nonsensey designed to impress society and the tv producers

If "ideological pre-prepared nonsensey" (sic) is the yardstick by which we should measure whether we should disregard some one as simply arrogant or pompous, then how do you think religion holds up? ;)

On another point: Irrespective of whether Dawkins is or is not arrogant, pompous, or pretentiously aristocratic, if Dawkins doesn't deserve to behave that way, then who, I ask you, is?

Dawkins thinks clearly and has established himself as a contributing scientist to the world of knowledge. He now sees it personally important to raise the consciousness of the people of the world to the Atheist minority while offering his arguments for atheism. I think he is worthy of speaking in his tone, to wear his clothes, and otherwise to generally be himself.

That some people perceive Dawkins' manner in a negative light -for me- only reflects on how those people see themselves, and not on objectively how Dawkins is.

[AmyWilson]

He doesn't even know how to interpret the Bible.

He shouldn't bash something he doesn't understand.

I say: send him back to his white coat so he can observe and experiment with his physical things. Leave the spiritual things to people who understand them.

[jond]

He doesn't even know how to interpret the Bible.

He shouldn't bash something he doesn't understand.

I say: send him back to his white coat so he can observe and experiment with his physical things. Leave the spiritual things to people who understand them.

Amy--have you actually read The God Delusion?

[dannagain]

any English person, like me, will immediately recognise his aristocratic desire to be seen as some superior being, shame you americans seem to have such respect for him... he talks with a lot of hair-flicks and ideological pre-prepared nonsensey designed to impress society and the tv producers



What absolute nonsense (I'm English as well).

[dannagain]

well said, Hourglass, you seem to be a wise old mucker

But he was disagreeing with you........ :boggled:

[Big Les]

What absolute nonsense (I'm English as well).

Same here. It seems plumjam harbours some unfortunate class prejudice which is in any case irrelevant to the arguments Dawkins puts forward and supports. In other words, text-book ad hominem - the opening post of this thread likewise.