Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 145 posts

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#41

Post by freemarketteddy »

shithead wrote: post #32

Would this "bashing" be tolerated against any group other than Christians? The 'intellectual fight' for 'enlightenment' is the thin veneer the anticlerical Jacobins lay on their murderous ideology. Loot the Church, rape the nuns, kill the christians - started here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vend%C3%A9e , repeated too many times in many places over the last couple of centuries. And when their legitimate…

> Would this "bashing" be tolerated against any group other than Christians?

Yes..A lot of groups are more tolerant than Christians(on average)...but if you assume that the only 'groups' that exist are Abrahamic religions only then your hypothesis would be true.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#42

Post by dolphenstein »

5hoom wrote: post #9
logjam wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've listened to Richard Dawkins debate live several times. In no instance have I ever heard him being anything other than perfectly gracious, even when being repeatedly personally attacked, so I'm having a hard time understanding your criticism of him - which amounts to calling him names.

Why don't you ask Rebecca Watson (co-host of The Skeptics Guide To The Universe) what she thinks of him? There was an incident at a recent skeptics conference where Watson was accosted & hit on by an attendee in the small hours of the morning while riding an elevator. She used her podcast & blog to describe the incident, hinting that maybe hitting on an un-escorted female in the middle of the night while the two of y…

That was a case of misinterpreting each other and then raising the level of misinterpretation with each subsequent comment.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#43

Post by xavoy »

lyudmil wrote: post #39
xavoy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Wikipedia, Fundamentalism is the "strict adherence to specific theological doctrines". According to my dictionary, the definition of theological is "Of or relating to or concerning theology". Atheism, according to Wikipedia again, is "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." It seems to me then that I could argue that one could be an "Atheist Fundamentalist" although that wasn't my point. I…

It is not just as bad. It is not worse. As you concede, Professor Dawkins' views are backed (and, in fact, a product of) science. This means that to the extent that anyone can be right or wrong about anything, Richard Dawkins is correct in his arguments. Maybe he isn't civil in the way he confronts people who disagree. Maybe he's ineffective in convincing them. Those are things that are important to you personally, b…

He is _right_ about evolution, there are no two ways about it and I never said otherwise. If someone tries to tell him that he is wrong about that, he has every right to put them straight. He is, after all, an evolutionary biologist.

My problem isn't this. My problem is his you're wrong, I'm right attitude. There is a place for that, and it is indeed Science. When you're dealing with people though, you should have some respect. If his message is to automatically _deny_ respect to others simply because of a belief they hold, then he's more like a religious fundamentalist than I thought.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#44

Post by guygurari »

FD3SA wrote: post #12

I must preface this comment with a personal note: Dr. Dawkins is the reason I understand biology, evolution, and all living things. I have read all of his books on evolution, including The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, and many others. This being said, I have always been appalled by Dawkins' deeply ironic crusade against religion. The simplest explanation for the widespread phenomenon of organized religion is…

As pointed out by others, Dawkins does consider the evolutionary mechanisms behind evolution. In The God Delusion he offers additional possible mechanisms to the one you mention. But Dawkins' goal is not to understand the mechanism by which religion came about. Rather, it is to show people that religion is both wrong and harmful.

You see, even if you find the spot in the brain that causes people to believe in God (if such a thing exists), it will not convince anyone that there is no God. The believers will simply say that God put it there. If you want to convince, logically, that there is no God, you have to do so at a philosophical level like Dawkins does. Having said that, I think it that there are more effective ways to achieve this goal than to ram people with the truth head-on like Dawkins does.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#45

Post by Xurinos »

xavoy wrote: post #2

I'm not a Christian, Muslim or Jew. I don't believe in God. I find it slightly unnerving that there's still religious fundamentalists out there that flatly refuse to accept scientific evidence of evolution and more, and yet... I can't stand Richard Dawkins. I know that there's some dangerous ideas put out there by fundamentalists, but for the most part, if they stick to themselves and are generally good people who do…

As a Christian... I wish everyone would agree not to call it "fundamentalism". There is nothing fundamental about the views of this subset of Christians. The term is pure marketing, wild enough for good TV and, thus, wild enough to acquire impressionable followers, and the beliefs are not fundamental.

I see the stance against evolution as just a form of We vs They, a political tool more than religious, unnecessary for Christianity at large, and damaging to the religion in the long run if it persists. I have seen it create stupidity in otherwise fairly intelligent individuals because they want to be seen as part of the group, not ostracized from their equally-susceptible peers. For similar reasons, I have had friends reject the religion entirely, as they do not want to be a part of this insanity. As for me, it is another nail in the coffin of my interest in the organization aspects.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#46

Post by abless »

xavoy wrote: post #43
lyudmil wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not just as bad. It is not worse. As you concede, Professor Dawkins' views are backed (and, in fact, a product of) science. This means that to the extent that anyone can be right or wrong about anything, Richard Dawkins is correct in his arguments. Maybe he isn't civil in the way he confronts people who disagree. Maybe he's ineffective in convincing them. Those are things that are important to you personally, b…

He is _right_ about evolution, there are no two ways about it and I never said otherwise. If someone tries to tell him that he is wrong about that, he has every right to put them straight. He is, after all, an evolutionary biologist. My problem isn't this. My problem is his you're wrong, I'm right attitude. There is a place for that, and it is indeed Science. When you're dealing with people though, you should have so…

"I respect you as a person too much to respect your ridiculous beliefs."

(I originally thought Dawkins once said that; if he did, he seemed to have quoted Johann Hari [1])

[1] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/334644

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#47

Post by emp_ »

5hoom wrote: post #9
logjam wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've listened to Richard Dawkins debate live several times. In no instance have I ever heard him being anything other than perfectly gracious, even when being repeatedly personally attacked, so I'm having a hard time understanding your criticism of him - which amounts to calling him names.

Why don't you ask Rebecca Watson (co-host of The Skeptics Guide To The Universe) what she thinks of him? There was an incident at a recent skeptics conference where Watson was accosted & hit on by an attendee in the small hours of the morning while riding an elevator. She used her podcast & blog to describe the incident, hinting that maybe hitting on an un-escorted female in the middle of the night while the two of y…

You can't defy the abundant flaws in religion unless you are a perfect human being.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#48

Post by jarin »

stephen_g wrote: post #11
jarin wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be insensitive to be so blunt about it, but I think the longer you're an atheist the harder it gets to keep a "live and let live" attitude. I liken it to having a friend who truly, sincerely believes in Santa Claus. At first, you might just laugh it off as a harmless quirk. But as time goes on, and every day you're hearing about Santa Claus this and he won't stop going off about whether or not he's on the Naug…

You could liken it to that, but you're using a logical fallacy (it's both a straw man and a reductio ad ridiculum).

On second thought, I would dispute calling it a reductio ad ridiculum. We obviously share the opinion that serious belief in Santa Claus as an adult is ridiculous, but in reality belief in Santa Claus and belief in God share equal amounts of supporting evidence.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#49

Post by FD3SA »

guygurari wrote: post #44
FD3SA wrote: post #12

I must preface this comment with a personal note: Dr. Dawkins is the reason I understand biology, evolution, and all living things. I have read all of his books on evolution, including The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, and many others. This being said, I have always been appalled by Dawkins' deeply ironic crusade against religion. The simplest explanation for the widespread phenomenon of organized religion is…

As pointed out by others, Dawkins does consider the evolutionary mechanisms behind evolution. In The God Delusion he offers additional possible mechanisms to the one you mention. But Dawkins' goal is not to understand the mechanism by which religion came about. Rather, it is to show people that religion is both wrong and harmful. You see, even if you find the spot in the brain that causes people to believe in God (if…

"religion is both wrong and harmful"

This is akin to saying that human sexuality is wrong and harmful, or male competition is wrong and harmful.

It is taking a purely evolutionary phenomenon and assigning it a nebulous moral value. Religious behaviour is a direct result of natural selection. Comparable phenomena include homosexuality and extra-marital pairing. As scientists, we cannot make value judgements on these natural phenomena. If we do so, we must clearly leave the realm of science and enter the realm of advocacy.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#50

Post by lyudmil »

xavoy wrote: post #43
lyudmil wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not just as bad. It is not worse. As you concede, Professor Dawkins' views are backed (and, in fact, a product of) science. This means that to the extent that anyone can be right or wrong about anything, Richard Dawkins is correct in his arguments. Maybe he isn't civil in the way he confronts people who disagree. Maybe he's ineffective in convincing them. Those are things that are important to you personally, b…

He is _right_ about evolution, there are no two ways about it and I never said otherwise. If someone tries to tell him that he is wrong about that, he has every right to put them straight. He is, after all, an evolutionary biologist. My problem isn't this. My problem is his you're wrong, I'm right attitude. There is a place for that, and it is indeed Science. When you're dealing with people though, you should have so…

Yes, I understood your position to be that from your previous comment. I'll repeat that I think you're missing the point.

The offensive part about religious fundamentalism isn't stubbornness or denial of respect. These are corollaries to dogmatic thinking, but not its defining features. Positions rooted in science are by definition not dogmatic and therefore cannot be fundamentalist. Lack of respect for differences of opinion is indeed a shared trait between Richard Dawkins' views and those of fundamentalists, but that's a rather trivial similarity. At their core, they are philosophical and moral opposites.

Consider as an analogy what would happen if I had a difference of opinion with my doctor about what my illness is that was completely counter to the best information available through examinations and tests. My doctor wouldn't be stubborn or dogmatic for considering me an idiot in that instance. My opinion has no value and therefore is owed no respect.

Post reply on HN