| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/9/2009 4:48:34 PM | Is anyone else a fan of this lovely man? Although I do love his idea, talks and films, I have to admit I find his writing pretty boring :) shhh
He still teaches at Oxford right?
Has anyone ever come close to meeting him...or met him, or saw him speak? | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/9/2009 4:51:57 PM | No, he doesn't teach at Oxford. He recently retired as Professor for the public understanding of science.
I don't believe you think his writing is boring! He's one of the best science writers around. Read The Ancestor's Tale. It's a fantastic book. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/9/2009 4:56:51 PM | | my favorite of his books is The Blind Watchmaker....first couple of chapters are kind of bland and consist of basic science....once you get passed that, excellent book | |
|
| |
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/9/2009 6:12:40 PM | I had a few bad years with my favourite authors (Carl Sagan, James Clavell, Isaac Asimov, and Gerald Durrell) falling off the twig between 1992 and 1996.
I've always enjoyed Richard Dawkins' TV work and interviews on radio, so I bought "The God Delusion". I have to confess I found several parts hard going, and a couple of passages were still beyond me even after several readings, but maybe I'm just not as bright as I thought I was. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/9/2009 6:44:02 PM | Big fan of his, although I've read only 2 of his books: the God Delusion and the Selfish Gene. Loved both of them, as they make you look at life from a different point of view.
Will say that he goes a bit far in antagonizing theists....for my taste in any case | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/9/2009 7:06:26 PM |
Will say that he goes a bit far in antagonizing theists....for my taste in any case
Once upon a time I was in the "live and let live" camp, but with the rise of Christian fundamentalism and the increase in politicians choosing to wear their religion on their sleeves I'm now in Dawkins' camp. It's not so much a matter of turning people to The Dark Side as speaking up and letting people know that their way isn't the only way. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/9/2009 7:07:19 PM | | I had some pretty nasty grammar/typos going there too, sorry for any brain hurting I caused. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/9/2009 7:14:58 PM | I've read a pretty good number of his books and I agree for the most part with his views.
It's also nice that he goes further than "GOD DOESN'T EXIST, BUT I WON'T GIVE YOU ANY PROOF" or simply complaining about religion. He really does have pretty solid arguments to back up whatever claim he's making. Him being one of the top biologists doesn't hurt, either. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/9/2009 8:27:42 PM | | I am a fan of Richard Dawkins. His ability to speak out gives me great hope - because he is one of the first of many. The fact that Dawkins exists and hasn't been killed by a religious mob tells me that the persecution of atheists is coming to an end, and maybe, just maybe, mankind is beginning to come to its senses. | |
|
| |
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/9/2009 9:44:49 PM | | If I were to have any criticism of him, it would be his style. He comes across as a bit arrogant, a bit strident, but his message is good. However, given some of the nonsense that comes from creationists' mouths, I don't blame him for getting a bit...annoyed?...with 'em. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/10/2009 3:12:11 AM |
given some of the nonsense that comes from creationists' mouths, I don't blame him for getting a bit...annoyed?...with 'em.
Yeah, I think his aggressive style is more reactionary than proactionary. He took a lot of flack for the Selfish Gene from creationists. Unfortunately not everyone realizes that and they see him as the leader of the movement to destroy religion.
I also agree with the poster who said he cites some pretty sound arguments. He has a refreshing outlook and kind of pioneered the way for atheists to have their voice heard | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/10/2009 5:09:17 AM | RE Msg: 13 by novascotialass:
Yeah, I think his aggressive style is more reactionary than proactionary. He took a lot of flack for the Selfish Gene from creationists. Unfortunately not everyone realizes that and they see him as the leader of the movement to destroy religion. I doubt that. Young Earth Creationists don't agree with evolution anyway. So their criticism of the Selfish Gene is irrelevant. However, from what I've picked up, a lot of evolutionary scientists think that the "selfish gene" argument is far too simplistic to fit what we know about biology, and at best, is a hypothesis, which would anyway require rigorous testing, both from a mathematical perspective to work out how evolution would have worked if it was true, and from an empirical perspective, by conducting many scientific trials. Peer review is the Selfish Gene's downfall, because it is Dawkins' peers who have a lot of criticism for this idea.
I also agree with the poster who said he cites some pretty sound arguments. He has a refreshing outlook and kind of pioneered the way for atheists to have their voice heard In the UK, we've had many, many atheists speaking their views, for hundreds of years. Dawkins is just another one, and not even in the top ten of ones with good arguments at that. If atheists wanted to take anyone as their hero, Sartre, or Russell, or plenty of other people would do much better. But they are "old news". Dawkins is just the latest fad. Atheists are really not winning any points or any respect by picking him, just that they follow the latest fads.
Seriously, if atheists wish to be taken seriously, they would get respect by quoting Russell. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/10/2009 5:26:06 AM | Russell's teapot is pretty good. It's too hard for most people today to read through any noteworthy philosophy.
And heck, it's pretty hard for even philosophy majors to make it through Being and Nothingness. (I should know) | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/10/2009 6:17:30 AM |
Will say that he goes a bit far in antagonizing theists....for my taste in any case
It is NOT POSSIBLE to go to far in agonizing theists! If that is the only way of getting through their ignorance and letting a little slice of reality in, so be it! | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/10/2009 6:42:26 AM | RE Msg: 15 by asgard1913:
Russell's teapot is pretty good. It's too hard for most people today to read through any noteworthy philosophy.
And heck, it's pretty hard for even philosophy majors to make it through Being and Nothingness. (I should know) I agree that it is entirely conceivable that most people in our time, find it too hard to read through philosophical works. But back then, people DID. So it's doable. Moreover, we believe that we are better educated and smarter than they are. So if they could do it, it should be easy for us.
Moreover, you don't NEED to. There's Sophie's World, for those who just about finished high school, and not much more. For the graduates among us, Isaiah Berlin is really a worthwhile read.
But Dawkins doesn't give a full history. He gives his philosophy, which is the philosophy of Daniel Dennet. Just reading Dawkins' books, and accepting what he writes, just because he sounds good, is just reading the Gospel of Dennet and Dawkins, and taking it literally, without seeing all of the problems in it. Athiests and agnostics are quick to point out how stupid it is for many religious people just believe what they are told without thinking about it. I think it's only reasonable if they do not do the same with their favourite authors. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/10/2009 6:46:55 AM | RE Msg: 16 by INTOART:
It is NOT POSSIBLE to go to far in agonizing theists! If that is the only way of getting through their ignorance and letting a little slice of reality in, so be it! That's exactly how Westboro and other such groups feel: "It is NOT POSSIBLE to go too far in agonizing atheists! If that is the only way of getting through their ignorance and letting a little slice of reality in, so be it!"
Moreover, since atheists declare it to be OK, then they have no reason to complain when they get a taste of their own medicine. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/10/2009 7:04:12 AM | I'd pound him if I met him, only because I think he deserve it.
I agree with him to some extent on almost everything (almost), but he sure is an ignorant pr!ck, and I'm using 'ignorant' in a street context. I'm surprised nobody UFC'd him yet. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/10/2009 7:21:49 AM |
which would anyway require rigorous testing, both from a mathematical perspective to work out how evolution would have worked if it was true, You mean work out the probability with a 0 error term and 100% confidence coefficient? Because that is what it'll take to convince most (but not all) of how one gene's mutation got up the sidewalk, around the corner, and arrived at the slide at the park. That's the Big slide, not the small one in the kiddy section. Let me know if someone ever works that out. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/10/2009 7:42:56 AM | RE Msg: 20 by Mojo4Free:
which would anyway require rigorous testing, both from a mathematical perspective to work out how evolution would have worked if it was true, You mean work out the probability with a 0 error term and 100% confidence coefficient? Because that is what it'll take to convince most (but not all) of how one gene's mutation got up the sidewalk, around the corner, and arrived at the slide at the park. That's the Big slide, not the small one in the kiddy section. Let me know if someone ever works that out.
Those are all questions I'd consider important to ask of any such theory, in physics, chemistry, or biology. Why should I treat Dawkins with kid gloves? Is he a child? No? Then why should we not treat him like any normal person who claimed to have discovered a theory.
Don't forget, that by "gene", Dawkins means "a particular type of molecule". If someone came up with the theory that all molecules were selfish, if they were of a certain type, then we'd say he was insane, and needs immediate psychiatric treatment. But if he happens to use the word "gene", then we get all dewey and misty-eyed, all because Mendel did some experiments with genetics. No need to start getting fuzzy-minded, just because someone uses a word. It's just a word. We have no reason to demand that the Selfish Gene theory is any less tested or expected of accuracy than Relativity. But we do. That's the irony. We treated Einstein far worse than anyone treated Dawkins. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/10/2009 8:18:28 AM | Moreover, since atheists declare it to be OK, then they have no reason to complain when they get a taste of their own medicine.
Well, no, mate. We're merely tasting the same medicine we've been fed since the beginning of atheism. What you're witnessing is a backlash, as atheists begin to assert themselves, and move from atheism to active, militant antitheism.
We've been attacked and oppressed by religious fundamentalists for so long, that it's given rise to a fundamentalist atheist: an antitheist - I personally believe religion to be backward savagery; anyone who subscribes to religion deluded; and feel that these people should be broken of their delusions by force, if necessary. I realize this makes me no different from the religious fundies, but I'm tired of turning the other cheek or taking the moral high ground. If the religious fundamentalists won't live and let live, I see no bloody reason why I should, and I'll do my best to convert people of all these soon-to-be-obsolete religions to my frankly superior and correct viewpoint.
The beautiful thing about it is, unlike any world religion, our "faith" is the end viewpoint, the omega conclusion - once a society goes atheist, it really doesn't go back to being stupid, superstitious and deluded, barring the collapse of civilization. Already, the secularization of the West continues un-checked, with fewer and fewer identifying themselves as religious. In a few more generations, the religious in the West will be relegated to a minority, and despised by the rational majority for their ebbing attempts to impose their savage, barbaric rules on a society which has by then largely outgrown the need for such theologically inspired rigour. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/10/2009 8:33:26 AM |
Well, no, mate. We're merely tasting the same medicine we've been fed since the beginning of atheism. What you're witnessing is a backlash, as atheists begin to assert themselves, and move from atheism to active, militant antitheism.
We've been attacked and oppressed by religious fundamentalists for so long, that it's given rise to a fundamentalist atheist: an antitheist - I personally believe religion to be backward savagery; anyone who subscribes to religion deluded; and feel that these people should be broken of their delusions by force, if necessary. I realize this makes me no different from the religious fundies, but I'm tired of turning the other cheek or taking the moral high ground. If the religious fundamentalists won't live and let live, I see no bloody reason why I should, and I'll do my best to convert people of all these soon-to-be-obsolete religions to my frankly superior and correct viewpoint.
Extremely well put! I couldn't have said it better myself.
Growing up in the bible belt among evangelical idiots and their backward laws is EXCACTLY what turned me into a militant anti-theist.
I don't care in the slightest how much I upset or offend religious fools, because they have been upsetting and offending me my whole life. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/10/2009 2:37:31 PM | There are 2 types of atheists, those who were raised with the garble-di-gook and chose to push it aside, and those never introduced to it in the first place. I'd be the latter. Never opened a bible in my life, never been to church, couldnt tell you the who's who about anything.
So hearing tales from that stuff sounds absolutely no different to me than being told theres a real life My Little Pony sporting a machine gun in my backyard. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/10/2009 3:04:56 PM | I'm not sure if you've actually looked up his track record, or read much of anything beyond the God Delusion as far as Dawkins's work, Scorpio. He's one of the more renowned biologists in his field for a reason.
He really does know what he's talking about when it comes to evolutionary biology. Say what you will about his militant atheism, but I don't know that questioning his scientific credentials is called for.
Dawkins isn't a philosopher, he's a biologist. | |
|
Home
login 
