My view regarding Dawkins is that he is part of, and encourages, the parasitical relationship between new atheists and religious fundamentalists. It’s like they are part of the same coin, while less room exists as a result for the much more harmonious relationship between theists who don’t have a book as an idol and don’t reject science, and atheists who don’t feel the need to condescend in arrogant patronisation of other views on the ground of scientific materialism and logical empiricism. It always the bullies in the playground that get all the attention at the expense of those who want to get on and study.
Is Richard Dawkins giving atheists a bad name?
by slimboyfat 59 Replies latest social current
-
-
cofty
Seraphim if you disagree with anything specific that Dawkins has said you have two options.
You could explain why he is wrong and present evidence for others to consider.
Or you could dismiss him as condescending, arrogant, patronising and a bully.
You chose the second option.
I never thought I would hear anybody refer to logic as if it was a bad thing.
-
Seraphim23
I actually like him Cofty which is more than I can say for some. I would also critic Christian or religious fundamentalists in the same way, so I’m quite Partisan. However my word `logic` was in reference to logical positivism:
“logical positivism also called logical empiricism, a philosophical movement that arose in Vienna in the 1920s and was characterized by the view that scientific knowledge is the only kind of factual knowledge and all traditional metaphysical doctrines are to be rejected as meaningless…..”
-
cofty
Are you saying you think he is an arrogant, patronising bully but you like him?
-
Seraphim23
If you read what I said carefully, which I know is an issue for you; you will see that I didn’t actually call him a bully or anything at all. Although he is patronising at times but he has other qualities which I like. I guess love covers a multitude of sins.
-
Caedes
I was summarising. Have you read the God delusion?
Yes, I have read it, have you? Just a page reference will do, or are you backing away from your earlier statement?
Perhaps after that we can talk about intellectual vapidity?
I am surprised anyone would want to defend this, particularly since the argument has nothing to do with whether or not there actually is a God.
Defend what? Your interpretation of his words? The thread is about Dawkins not the existence of god(s).
-
Caedes
What an obnoxious statement. I read The Blind Watchmaker first in 1999. You were probably still singing hallelujahs at that point.
So if I read this one particular popular science book before 1999 that makes me better than you? Wow, who knew!
Hmmm, the hypocrisy is strong in this one.
-
Laika
Caedes:
I have read the book, though as I said I no longer have a copy, but I think I am mainly referring to chapters 6 and 8. I didn't put much thought into my original comment, though I am not backing away from it, but I will flesh it out a bit more, with the disclaimer that as I don't have a copy of the book I am writing from memory. Firstly I also want to add that Dawkins is obviously a very intelligent man (certainly far more so than I!) he's a great writer and he has helped me a lot in understanding the flaws in my Watchtower learned position on evolution. It's just that when he makes comments like that posted by sbf in his OP, I don't know why anyone would claim of him something like he is the greatest mind of our time (vm44's article)
Regarding my specific objection, whilst I think Dawkins accepts that religion can play a role in good choices, he downplays it significantly and attempts to argue (chapter 6?) that most of our good actions are due to a kindness and compassion that we have evolved as a survival mechanism and have little to do with faith. On its own I don't think this is that strong an argument, whilst I certainly accept that nonbelievers can do very good things, that religion is not the only source of good morals and that evolution may have played a role in this, I would point to the example of the pagan religions in the Roman empire as a counterpoint. Prior to the spread of Christianity, charitable giving was very rare in the Roman empire. Christianity has of course never been perfect, but with its religious belief in Jesus commands to do good, and doctrines on the value of all peoples, it practically invented charity in the West. If good actions were mainly a result of natural processes, than surely one religion could not have made such a difference to the way the poor, widows and orphans etc... were treated and viewed.
However, this argument becomes worse, imo, when Dawkins tries to argue (chapter 8?) that the reasons why he is so opposed to religion is because it so often causes terrible and violent actions. But isn't this inconsistent? Either faith can inspire good and bad actions (which I would think should call for a more balanced view of faith) or good and bad actions are primarily caused by various evolutionary factors, in which case faith has little to do with it either way.
-
cofty
Belief in god can motivate people to do good things.
Atheists also do good things.
Therefore religion adds nothing to morality that cannot be achieved otherwise.
Religion also provides a reason for good people to do wicked things.
On balance religion is a negative thing.
-
mP
@slim
Richard Dawkins speaks for himself and not me or you. Can we please let group hate and responsibility die like it should. This is the same garbage that keeps the Middle East killing and hating. One group hates another because their great great G g g g g father stole a chicken.