If she said something along the lines of her grandfather not being a monkey then her stupidity does not deserve respect.
british press have knifes out for Richard Dawkins
by highdose 115 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
tec
Well, you can call someone like that an idiot and treat them the same, or you can calmly correct their misunderstanding, or direct them toward literature that shows them what the facts state. Ignorance is not always willful ignorance. Perhaps she has no one around her to show her the facts of evolution other than those who call her an idiot for not understanding it and so believing it is something other than what it is. Calling her an idiot is not going to help her want to understand. It is just going to put her on the defense.
On the other hand, I also understand that Richard has had to deal with plenty of arrogant people looking down on him as well. But someone has to break that cycle.
I do not understand how some do not see that he can be quite condescending and arrogant in regard to people of faith. The whole 'brights' scenario ought to be enough to show his colors on that.
Peace,
Tammy
-
cofty
I will check out the video and see if we can get some context to his comment.
-
tec
Its an awesome video regardless, Cofty. I'm sure you'll enjoy it. I did.
Peace,
Tammy
-
Flat_Accent
The 'idiotic woman' Dawkins seems to be referring to is one that Krauss brought up (around 17 minutes) - the one who said to him "Well my Grandfather wasn't a monkey!" That's such a stupendously remedial argument, and obviously such a half-baked understanding about evolution , that to call her 'idiotic' is almost a let off. It shows a clear willful ignorance about what evolutionary theory actually says.
Something along these lines:
-
cofty
I found the section at around the 17-20 minute mark. Kraus relates an experience when he was testifying against the Texas school board who wanted to get creationism into schools. He mentioned a woman who argued with him saying that she didn't have a monkey for a grandfather. Dawkins later referred to how he would explain truth to "that idiotic woman".
She was trying to make decisions about what children would be taught in public schools and yet had not even the slightest clue about what she was talking about. "Idiotic" is a kind description under the circumstances. Remember Dawkins did not call her an idiot to her face he spoke about her in the third party. He then goes on to explain at length why she was mistaken. What could be offensive about that?
Later he referred to any doctor who rejects evolution as a "scientific ignoramous and a fool". I agree, I would change my doctor if I discovered he had no respect for science.
Its a very interesting discussion they are having.
-
cofty
Flat_Accent got there first
-
Flat_Accent
Yes, and I'd like to add further - how Dawkins got through 60 minutes of conversation without punching that woman in the face changed my opinion of him.
-
zagor
zagor - Do you really want to stand by that comment? What about a lifetime of making difficult science accessible to millions of non-experts, does that get him any credit?
I believe I already answered that. But to clarify it.
Perhaps a good reflection of what I mean is this. When any other scientist says outright, there is no god, few dare to argue. I never saw the name of Stephen Hawking dragged through mud for saying there is no god, or Roger Penrose or just about any other public figure of science. Perhaps it is because these guys have drawn the line how far they allow themselves to go. Ironically perhaps to quote Jesus of Nazareth here "do not throw your pearls to pigs" Which is what Richard does. That woman in the video is an idiot of course, but she keeps dragging him down and he goes along. I think he really tries hard to krack every nut, but perhaps too hard. I believe in dignity of science and it should be kept elevated without resorting to mud wrestling. Until I saw him live, I like many here have laughed at his goofs, but then have realized there must be a better way, and there is. -
Pistoff
Metatron said:
Life is myth. Life is sociology. Life is human relations. Life is marketing.
This seems like the exact reason that society needs someone to be loudly proclaiming exactly what Dawkins does, and what Hitchens did.
Life is NOT myth, but religion consistently forces old testament situations into rational life; a book gets accidentally burned in Afghanistan and more than 20 innocent people are killed by myth loving Muslims.
In America, we have a candidate for president that wants to deny birth control because of what HE perceives his god to want. (Incredible, really; in the face of what radical religion has done to the mideast, the religious right want MORE religion, THEIR religion, in public life.)
ENOUGH is enough.
Dawkins and Hitchens point is that we must see religion AS myth, and no longer let it rule our lives.
I am proud of Dawkins for calling the woman an idiot; she wants to reduce the argument to a sound bite.
In the American press, the creationist side of the argument gets one on one, equal representation; it is not a science, it's believers are not scientists, and to put them one on one against scientists gives creationism weight it should not have.