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

81–90 of 145 posts

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#81

Post by raptorex »

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…

"Yet, Dawkins continues to treat religion as a philosophy, and attempts to tackle it philosophically. As many philosophers have pointed out, this is not Dawkins' strong point and he comes off sounding like an extremely misinformed amateur at best, and an inflammatory pundit at worst."

I've heard this before but I don't know much about religion or philosophy so to me Dawkins usually seems to make sense. Can you explain why you think he comes off as an amateur?

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#82

Post by xavoy »

sgentle wrote: post #72
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…

Argh. This makes my blood boil. There are many good responses to this comment but I want to address one idea in particular: the idea that by putting things in the same category you can make them equal. It's terribly poetic to say that Dawkins, in his opposition to fundamentalism, has become a fundamentalist himself. But poetic doesn't mean true, and this particular trope abuses poetry for deceptive ends. Let us exhau…

I _never_ stated that Dawkins and someone who circumcises unwilling females should be compared. I never said all fundamentalists are equal. I used the word fundamentalist liberally, as I have explained elsewhere.

The comparison was made because both religious evangelists and Dawkins both believe they know what is best for someone else and would like to force that upon them.

And yes, you should be allowed to hold you own beliefs, no matter how wacky they might be, and still be respected. And you do. They mightn't be as wild or deep rooted as the world being created in six days, but you still have them. You might find that many of your beliefs aren't based on reality, or scientifically provable.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#83

Post by davesims »

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.

Hacker is a state of mind, a kind of deep curiosity about how things work and what I can do about it. This topic, therefore, is about the ultimate hack...why are we here, how does the world work and what can I do about it?

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#84

Post by jemfinch »

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…

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.

No, there was an instance where a man asked Watson to his room for coffee, and when she turned him down, he accepted it. No one accosted anyone at any point in that exchange, and that's precisely the point Dawkins and others were making.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#85

Post by TheRevoltingX »

davesims wrote: post #83
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.

Hacker is a state of mind, a kind of deep curiosity about how things work and what I can do about it. This topic, therefore, is about the ultimate hack...why are we here, how does the world work and what can I do about it?

So I can post any writings on the bible because it hacks at it? It is after all in the same spirit. Would that be as well received?

This is precisely why Dawkins annoys me. He doesn't offer a systematic approach to determining the existence of God. That is, he grabs at random floating information, not the bible or any trusted source. He makes up his own version of God that he's convinced doesn't exist.

p.s. Wow, looks like defending Jesus got me so many downvotes that it got my account demoted. And they call Christians dogmatic.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#86

Post by ugh »

xavoy wrote: post #82
sgentle wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Argh. This makes my blood boil. There are many good responses to this comment but I want to address one idea in particular: the idea that by putting things in the same category you can make them equal. It's terribly poetic to say that Dawkins, in his opposition to fundamentalism, has become a fundamentalist himself. But poetic doesn't mean true, and this particular trope abuses poetry for deceptive ends. Let us exhau…

I _never_ stated that Dawkins and someone who circumcises unwilling females should be compared. I never said all fundamentalists are equal. I used the word fundamentalist liberally, as I have explained elsewhere. The comparison was made because both religious evangelists and Dawkins both believe they know what is best for someone else and would like to force that upon them. And yes, you should be allowed to hold you…

Why should I respect people’s believes? What’s the reasoning behind that? Shouldn’t I be free to not respect what other people think?

Also: Where are you getting the idea that Dawkins would like to force something on people? I would like a quote for that. Does Dawkins really demand, say, laws?

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#87

Post by TheRevoltingX »

freemarketteddy wrote: post #40
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!

I should have been more precise. This has nothing to do with hacking. Dawkings is not attempting to disprove God in any consistent way. He makes up ideas of God and provides proof against them. There are no historical facts, no translations of scripture, etc.

Post about him are usually nothing more than annoying rants against his own ideas of what God is.

He is not hacking at biological molecules, nor is he constructing anything out of them. I'm a technical person, and if something that has nothing to do with hacking gets posted on a hacking forum. I get annoyed.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#88

Post by tzs »

As an atheist, I am uncomfortable with Dawkins' brand of atheism. It can get too close to the Thought Police for my liking. See this article of his: http://boingboing.net/2011/01/24/should-employers-be.html

If a scientist is producing good research that is getting published in peer reviewed journals and is generally acknowledged to be contributing to the advancement of the field, I don't care how weird his personal beliefs are.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#89

Post by xavoy »

ugh wrote: post #86
xavoy wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I _never_ stated that Dawkins and someone who circumcises unwilling females should be compared. I never said all fundamentalists are equal. I used the word fundamentalist liberally, as I have explained elsewhere. The comparison was made because both religious evangelists and Dawkins both believe they know what is best for someone else and would like to force that upon them. And yes, you should be allowed to hold you…

Why should I respect people’s believes? What’s the reasoning behind that? Shouldn’t I be free to not respect what other people think? Also: Where are you getting the idea that Dawkins would like to force something on people? I would like a quote for that. Does Dawkins really demand, say, laws?

I never said you should respect people's personal beliefs. I said you should respect people, irrespective of their beliefs, out of common decency. Simply for being another human being.

And Dawkins carries on like a child when people won't accept his version of events (once again, a version that I believe). Watch any one of his hundreds of interviews or YouTube videos. Specifically, if you like, linked twice on this thread, where he quotes someone else to enable him to tell those who don't believe him to 'f##k off'. Or the innumerable where he calls people idiots for not agreeing with him.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#90

Post by ugh »

xavoy wrote: post #89
ugh wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should I respect people’s believes? What’s the reasoning behind that? Shouldn’t I be free to not respect what other people think? Also: Where are you getting the idea that Dawkins would like to force something on people? I would like a quote for that. Does Dawkins really demand, say, laws?

I never said you should respect people's personal beliefs. I said you should respect people, irrespective of their beliefs, out of common decency. Simply for being another human being. And Dawkins carries on like a child when people won't accept his version of events (once again, a version that I believe). Watch any one of his hundreds of interviews or YouTube videos. Specifically, if you like, linked twice on this t…

You make no sense. Dawkins respects people and is polite. If you had read his books or watched his talks you would know that.

You also seem quite unfamiliar with this concept called humor and jokes.

Post reply on HN