Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy • Hacker News Board

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#31

Post by chunkyslink » Tue, Sep 20, 2011, 1:20 AM UTC

logjam wrote: post #5

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…

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.

I agree!

The man is one of the most important thinkers of our time. He is gracious and intelligent. His arguments cut with such logic that they often offend. When people have their belief systems ripped from under them there is bound to be high emotions but Dawkins handles all this brilliantly.

I think an excellent ambassador for Science.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#32

Post by shithead » Tue, Sep 20, 2011, 1:24 AM UTC

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 heirs Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot murder a few score million people, these Jacobins start talking about the "crimes of the Inquisition".

Good going.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#33

Post by xavoy » Tue, Sep 20, 2011, 1:25 AM UTC

abless wrote: post #21

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…

If you're describing Dawkins as fundamentalist, then you either a) don't know much about him, and what he stands for, or b) have a grave understanding of what fundamentalism means. It bothers me that Dawkins gets that accusation that often, when it's clearly false.

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 was using the term liberally, and by way of analogy.

My point was that it is this stubborn adherence to a particular point of view that got Dawkins so fired up in the first place. And, although _I agree_ with Dawkins point of view, traveling the world telling people they are "idiots" for not thinking in a particular way is just as bad, or worse. Even if it is a view backed up by science.

This video posted by Hacker News member 'robertk' gives you a good idea of Dawkins general attitude: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#34

Post by barry-cotter » Tue, Sep 20, 2011, 1:26 AM UTC

fecklessyouth wrote: post #3

Isn't the idea that the human race is progressing intellectually a remnant of Enlightenment philosophy? Espousing that is hardly bashing orthodoxy.

No, the idea that the human race is progressing morally is a highly contentious bit of Enlightenment philosophy. The fact that we can have this conversation over the freaking internet is ample proof that humanity is progressing intellectually, given that it requires an insane amount of distributed knowledge and capabilities that didn't exist when the Enlightenment was beginning.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#35

Post by microarchitect » Tue, Sep 20, 2011, 1:35 AM UTC

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…

the guy sounds like a dick to me.

As I said below, I think he probably is a sexist, but I wouldn't go so far as calling him a dick. As someone who only recently became a feminist, I think it's easy to make the mistake of thinking that Watson was over-reacting. This is probably what Dawkins thought - which of course makes him a sexist, and unaware of his privileges, but all this, IMHO, still isn't enough to make him a dick.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#36

Post by xavoy » Tue, Sep 20, 2011, 1:47 AM UTC

adriand wrote: post #22

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…

> 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 don't interfere with others then I don't really care what they believe. It's easy to have this perspective if religious fundamentalism has not had a major impact on your life. However, if your parents were religious fundamentalists, you would likely view thi…

Earnest, educated, rational. Yes, these words might describe Dawkins, but well-meaning?

I agree that indoctrination into a fundamentalist religion probably doesn't give a child the best chance at a happy, well balanced life. I think it is important that science continues to be made available, and people like Dawkins make it not only available, but easily digestible and understandable.

But seriously, running around the world, telling people they are "idiots" and to "f*ck off" if they don't see the world the way he does? Doesn't sound very well-meaning to me.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#37

Post by 5hoom » Tue, Sep 20, 2011, 1:52 AM UTC

microarchitect wrote: post #35

5hoom wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

the guy sounds like a dick to me. As I said below, I think he probably is a sexist, but I wouldn't go so far as calling him a dick. As someone who only recently became a feminist, I think it's easy to make the mistake of thinking that Watson was over-reacting. This is probably what Dawkins thought - which of course makes him a sexist, and unaware of his privileges, but all this, IMHO, still isn't enough to make him a…

You have a fair point, name calling isn't particularly endearing in intelligent conversation.

I suppose the strong language is a response to my feeling that Dawkins did abuse his position in that incident.

I also feel that he is an unnecessarily divisive personality due to the hard line he takes (look at the controversy his name being mentioned on HN has caused amongst a group who I would imagine are sympathetic to his message).

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#38

Post by ugh » Tue, Sep 20, 2011, 1:55 AM UTC

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…

He was wrong about that. Humans tend to be wrong from time to time and say stupid things. That’s just how it is. He certainly, however, wasn’t foaming at the mouth or being a dick.

I don’t always like what Dawkins has to say (which, I should add, is perfectly normal – I do feel that way about most people) but I don’t think you can call him arrogant in general. Most of the time he is very polite in what he says.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#39

Post by lyudmil » Tue, Sep 20, 2011, 2:10 AM UTC

xavoy wrote: post #33

abless wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're describing Dawkins as fundamentalist, then you either a) don't know much about him, and what he stands for, or b) have a grave understanding of what fundamentalism means. It bothers me that Dawkins gets that accusation that often, when it's clearly false.

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, but you're letting that distract you from the fact that what he's saying is true, which ought to be the only thing that matters.

In a way, I think this is a major way you and people who share your attitude towards Richard Dawkins miss what is perhaps the most poignant part of his message. His crassness is actually a rebellion against the passivity and political correctness that he feels constrains non-believers socially and politically. The crux of his message is a call to arms to those people, encouraging them to deny religion the automatic respect it has enjoyed for centuries. To say that he isn't meek enough in delivering this message is undercutting it's core.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#40

Post by freemarketteddy » Tue, Sep 20, 2011, 2:13 AM UTC

TheRevoltingX wrote: post #6

This isn't reddit, this isn't related to programming or even computers. Yes, I'm Christian and I find this guy annoying. As a programmer though, I couldn't care less about him.

this isnt the programming subreddit either....nowhere has it been ruled that Hacker News discussions will strictly be programming related....I understand that this annoys you but please dont be dogmatic!