Support NeoGAF

[Panda Bear]

I get a feeling most of the hate comes from people completely unfamiliar with his writing. Here's an interesting did you know: Dawkins does not claim there is definitely no god!

Semantics games are fun.

 

[KHarvey16]

Semantics games are fun.

Semantics?

 

[FiRez]

good but not that shocking, is a shame that I will probably not going to see the current major religions become the new mythology.

and yes any reasonable person will say that he/she can't disprove the existance of god, is just so improbable that it falls in the same category of werewolves, fairies, santa claus, etc

 

[Verano]

Non-religious dwarf Jews? Are there a lot of those?

Reading Comprehension is.

 

[Dark Octave]

Some people may need the crutch and more power to them, but religion is pretty pointless in my life.

 

[Zoltrix]

:O

 

[mj1108]

Is GAF a religion?

 

[itsinmyveins]

KHarvey16:

I know we've had that Dawkins-discussion, and while I think listening to him can be quite interesting I still understand why some people feel talked down to or kinda offended by some of his examples. I'm not saying he's not right, I'm saying he probably just isn't the best choice when it comes to diplomacy.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Semantics games are fun.

He very clearly states he is highly skeptical of a god and specifically the christian/judaic/ and muslim idea of a god and puts his belief system on scale.

 

[Stoney Mason]

KHarvey16:

I know we've had that Dawkins-discussion, and while I think listening to him can be quite interesting I still understand why some people feel talked down to or kinda offended by some of his examples. I'm not saying he's not right, I'm saying he probably just isn't the best choice when it comes to diplomacy.

I don't think his goal is diplomacy. His goal is the outreach of his views and ideas. If somebody wants a diplomatic and friendly atheist there is always Sam Harris.

 

[Lucky Forward]

I get a feeling most of the hate comes from people completely unfamiliar with his writing. Here's an interesting did you know: Dawkins does not claim there is definitely no god!

Somebody should tell the Vatican:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29484902/

Cardinal William Levada, head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith...said that while the Vatican did not exclude any area of science, it did reject as "absurd" the atheist notion of biologist and author Richard Dawkins and others that evolution proves there is no God.

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

Semantics games are fun.

You can all it that if you want, but you'd be wrong.

It's simply a form of syllogistic reasoning, in trying to define your intentions.

After all, neither Dawkins (or any other rational atheist) arrives at a position of atheism through faith; we use deductive logic to get there.

Moreover, we cannot deduce on the basis of available evidence that there's no god whatsoever; but that we can conclude that there are a wide range of gods that are impossible (i.e. contradicted by their own internal logic, or contradicted by the evidence we find), and that any particular incarnation of god is extremely, nearly infitesimally improbable (given that infitesimal range of non contradictory gods out there), and that with knowledge of science and the considerable understanding we have of our universe (or existence itself), we can conclude that a non-deistic explanation is highly probable.

 

[Panda Bear]

Semantics?

Sure Dawkins doesn't claim there is no God. But he might as well. A major portion of the God Delusion deals with attacking theistic arguments and defending atheistic arguments. This wouldn't contradict what you said if he wasn't so arrogant and adamant about it. I think it's quite clear that he sees absolutely no value in any theistic belief system. So you're right, he doesn't say there is no God but he says the idea that there is one is so ridiculous that is not worthy of consideration. It seems to be the same thing to me, just worded differently.

That being said I agree with many of the things Dawkins says about organized religion and I certainly love listening to him debate or lecture about the subject. The problem of course is that he will never be successful in gaining the respect or consideration of most religious people due to his antagonistic approach. I wouldn't really care about that if it didn't cause fundamentalists to gain power and voice. That's the major problem I think.

 

[Monroeski]

Of course, depending on the phrasing of the question, "non religious" does not necessarily mean atheist or agnostic. I personally know people that believe in God and religious texts (the bible, Koran, etc.) but do not identify themselves with a specific religion.

 

[Panda Bear]

I don't think his goal is diplomacy. His goal is the outreach of his views and ideas. If somebody wants a diplomatic and friendly atheist there is always Dan Dennett.

Fixed.

 

[KHarvey16]

KHarvey16:

I know we've had that Dawkins-discussion, and while I think listening to him can be quite interesting I still understand why some people feel talked down to or kinda offended by some of his examples. I'm not saying he's not right, I'm saying he probably just isn't the best choice when it comes to diplomacy.

Oh I can understand religious people being upset at him. He has a contrary view so it goes without saying he'll be criticized by those who disagree. I guess I'm mostly referring to the atheists who take issue with him. I guess it may be his supposed lack of diplomatic usefulness but I think he should be the one to determine his role in all of this. If he doesn't want to be a diplomat I don't think he should be criticized in that context.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Sure Dawkins doesn't claim there is no God. But he might as well. A major portion of the God Delusion deals with attacking theistic arguments and defending atheistic arguments. This wouldn't contradict what you said if he wasn't so arrogant and adamant about it. I think it's quite clear that he sees absolutely no value in any theistic belief system. So you're right, he doesn't say there is no God but he says the idea that there is one is so ridiculous that is not worthy of consideration. It seems to be the same thing to me, just worded differently.

If you can point out specifics where you disagree with what he has written or said in context then it is much easier to have a discussion on this. There are for instance certain things in the God Delusion that I disagree with but when you talk in very general terms like this about his beliefs it is very hard to defend or attack. Because I don't know specifically what you are referring to.

 

[FiRez]

Somebody should tell the Vatican:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29484902/

yes, evolution just disproves ID, but is one more nail to the coffin... so yeah

 

[KHarvey16]

Somebody should tell the Vatican:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29484902/

Someone should! Evolution is evidence against the necessity of a god, yes, but Dawkins believes you cannot assert there is definitely no god and remain intellectually honest.

 

[djtiesto]

Some people are religious without ever going to church. My mother listens to gospel music, and says her prayers, but rarely ever goes to church.

And who can blame her? Church is boring. It needs to be seriously updated. Especially the hymnals. They're dreary and most who don't know the lyrics just slur them to fake it. Plus, when was the last new hymn put into a hymnal? Like, 200 years ago? They need to modernize.

They should replace the gospel with that super soulful, gospel style deep house... that MAY get me to go to church... actually wait, no that probably wouldn't help.

 

[SpeedingUptoStop]

Yea, I predict this number is going to increase rapidly.

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

Sure Dawkins doesn't claim there is no God. But he might as well. A major portion of the God Delusion deals with attacking theistic arguments and defending atheistic arguments. This wouldn't contradict what you said if he wasn't so arrogant and adamant about it. I think it's quite clear that he sees absolutely no value in any theistic belief system. So you're right, he doesn't say there is no God but he says the idea that there is one is so ridiculous that is not worthy of consideration. It seems to be the same thing to me, just worded differently.

That being said I agree with many of the things Dawkins says about organized religion and I certainly love listening to him debate or lecture about the subject. The problem of course is that he will never be successful in gaining the respect or consideration of most religious people due to his antagonistic approach. I wouldn't really care about that if it didn't cause fundamentalists to gain power and voice. That's the major problem I think.

He's adamant about his positions because of the rigeur he used to arrive at them. It's this same riguer that he uses against other arguments and point of views.

 

[KHarvey16]

Sure Dawkins doesn't claim there is no God. But he might as well. A major portion of the God Delusion deals with attacking theistic arguments and defending atheistic arguments. This wouldn't contradict what you said if he wasn't so arrogant and adamant about it. I think it's quite clear that he sees absolutely no value in any theistic belief system. So you're right, he doesn't say there is no God but he says the idea that there is one is so ridiculous that is not worthy of consideration. It seems to be the same thing to me, just worded differently.

That being said I agree with many of the things Dawkins says about organized religion and I certainly love listening to him debate or lecture about the subject. The problem of course is that he will never be successful in gaining the respect or consideration of most religious people due to his antagonistic approach. I wouldn't really care about that if it didn't cause fundamentalists to gain power and voice. That's the major problem I think.

Oh no, there's a huge difference! To claim you know there is definitely no god is probably more unscientific than claiming you know there is one.

 

[Night_Trekker]

Maybe if you pray enough, God will rapture you away!

Ridicule just a little harder. A post-religious society is just around the corner!

 

[Assemble!]

What's amazing is how "church" has come to mean a place where people go, instead of a group of who people are. Also, the word "religion" means nothing in today's context. I never answer questions that have the word "religion" in them.

 

[itsinmyveins]

I don't think his goal is diplomacy. His goal is the outreach of his views and ideas. If somebody wants a diplomatic and friendly atheist there is always Sam Harris.

Probably not, but that's kinda beside my point and to some extent I think he might distance some people by it more than necessary. I'm not saying he shouldn't say what he says, all I'm saying is that it's sorta understandable that some peope feel slightly offended.

For me, who isn't that much into that debate at all in general since atheism/agnosticism is pretty wide spread here, there are few persons I know of who does debate these things. So I mainly hear about Dawkins since he's gotten quite a bit of air time.

Oh I can understand religious people being upset at him. He has a contrary view so it goes without saying he'll be criticized by those who disagree. I guess I'm mostly referring to the atheists who take issue with him. I guess it may be his supposed lack of diplomatic usefulness but I think he should be the one to determine his role in all of this. If he doesn't want to be a diplomat I don't think he should be criticized in that context.

I understand that Dawkins maybe isn't putting himself out there as a diplomat or anything, but I do think that he does have influence the general perception to some degree -- no matter what he wants to call himself.

 

[lopaz]

Dawkins is ridiculously polite. People just expect a higher degree of respect for religion, so anything he says against it is rude, apparently.

 

[Karakand]

welcome back, spec

 

[Panda Bear]

If you can point out specifics where you disagree with what he has written or said in context then it is much easier to have a discussion on this. There are for instance certain things in the God Delusion that I disagree with but when you talk in very general terms like this about his beliefs it is very hard to defend or attack. Because I don't know specifically what you are referring to.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I wasn't referring to any specific belief he has, I'm talking about the way in which he articulates his beliefs.

Oh no, there's a huge difference! To claim you know there is definitely no god is probably more unscientific than claiming you know there is one.

I understand that and in that regard I admire his responsible approach to the question. I'm referring more to the way he acts and the attitude he has about the subject. To me, his approach to the subject is indistinguishable from a person who claims there is no God.

 

[speculawyer]

Somebody should tell the Vatican:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29484902/

Well, that may be the Vatican getting it wrong or it may be NBC getting it wrong. But Dawkins does indeed believe that evolution is strong evidence that there probably is no god. (But he does not state that evolution proves that there is no god.)

 

[Stoney Mason]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I wasn't referring to any specific belief he has, I'm talking about the way in which he articulates his beliefs.

Well see that is something I'm less interested in having a discussion on so I'll pass. There are friendly atheists and less friendly atheists. If they are functionally doing something wrong with their belief systems or thought process that's a good discussion imo but I don't really care if somebody thinks he isn't warm and friendly enough.

 

[Kevtones]

Go team!

 

[ckohler]

But I think he serves a purpose . . . his confidence tends to stiffen the backbone of nonreligious and make them realize that it is OK to stand up for your non beliefs. He is probably not an effective person for getting converts, but he does a good job preaching to the choir so to speak.

He basically said those exact things in a speech not too long ago. An atheist student in the audience who was respectfully debating religion with his mormon friend, asked Dawkins if he had any helpful suggestions. This was his reply:

"It's not known to be my long-suit. (audience laughter) I have colleges who are extremely good at doing the 'seduction technique'... (audience laughter).. as my friend Laurence Kraus puts it. I could very well be persuaded that his approach is better than mine. I actually think it's a rather good thing that both approaches are out there. I think there is something to be said for the... we'll, it's the sort of 'good cop/bad cop/' partnership. (laughter) I notice this especially in the whole difficult problem of the war in America over the teaching of Creationism and Evolution."

"I had lunch last year with the lead lawyer for our side (if I can put it like that) of the Dover Pennsylvania trial and we got on very well but at the end of the lunch he said to me, 'Well, thank goodness we didn't call YOU as an expert witness!" and I, of course, agreed with him. I would have been an extremely bad witness to be called at such a trial because the lawyer for the other side would only have to say, 'Mr. Dawkins is it true that your extreme hostility towards religion originated with your evolutionary science?' and I would have to say 'yes' and in which case he would simply turn to the jury and say, 'My case rests.'" (laughter)

"So, I have to agree with you and recognize that I don't do that kind of thing well. Perhaps there are other things I do well but diplomatically 'wooing' religious people to become non-religious is not what I do well. Possibly what I do is... what shall I say?... encourage those who are already non-religious to stand up and say so or encourage those who are not particularly convinced one way or the other [...] to come off the fence but I would fully accept that I would not be very good at converting your mormon friend. You're doing a better job than I could."

 

[KHarvey16]

I understand that and in that regard I admire his responsible approach to the question. I'm referring more to the way he acts and the attitude he has about the subject. To me, his approach to the subject is indistinguishable from a person who claims there is no God.

Well of course. But the person who claims there is definitely no god has little to no scientific justification to do so. I'm not sure what the issue is. Are you claiming his arguments are somehow tainted because they're also used by people who have less regard for logical consistency?

 

[speculawyer]

I understand that and in that regard I admire his responsible approach to the question. I'm referring more to the way he acts and the attitude he has about the subject. To me, his approach to the subject is indistinguishable from a person who claims there is no God.

Well, not if you listen carefully. But indeed many people do get that incorrect impression. But that is sometimes due to what the person wants to hears. It is much easier to dismiss someone who states they have evidence proving there is no god . . . but Dawkins does not do that. And since many want to dismiss him, that is what they are likely hear . . . even though it is not said.

 

[Panda Bear]

Well see that is something I'm less interested in having a discussion on so I'll pass. There are friendly atheists and less friendly atheists. If they are functionally doing something wrong with their belief systems or thought process that's a good discussion imo but I don't really care if somebody thinks he isn't warm and friendly enough.

My point is you should though. People who think that about him are much more prone not only to reject secularism and scientific thought but to embrace religious fundamentalism. It's not a debate about people's feelings, it's about the way they act because of them.

Well of course. But the person who claims there is definitely no god has little to no scientific justification to do so. I'm not sure what the issue is. Are you claiming his arguments are somehow tainted because they're also used by people who have less regard for logical consistency?

No I'm trying to first of all explain why so many people have a problem with him, since you asked. I'm also trying to explain why I think his approach is counter-productive to his and partially my own cause.

 

[Panda Bear]

dp.

 

[Stoney Mason]

My point is you should though. People who think that about him are much more prone not only to reject secularism and scientific thought but to embrace religious fundamentalism. It's not a debate about people's feelings, it's about the way they act because of them.

No. There are many prominent atheists and I cited one of the more "friendly" ones earlier in Sam Harris. There is no king of the atheists. If somebody doesn't like Dawkins and rejects secularism or embraces religion because of him that is on them. That is his entire point. His goal isn't to be the warm and cuddly atheist that is trying to convert religious people. (Although Douglas Adams embraced atheism more fully after reading The Blind Watchmaker on his own)

 

[cryptic]

The world is gonna end if we don't throw off ancient superstitions and replace them with science.

Don't get me wrong . . . I am all for the freedom of religion and would absolutely fight against any bans. But I want people to look at things as they are and see that science has benefited mankind more than religion. Bans do not work . . . religion has to die off on its own. If communism didn't fall due to its own problems, but instead we had invaded Russia and took it over, there would still be zillions of advocates for communism. It is only because it collapsed due to its own bad policy that we know it is gone for good. (Yeah there are still tiny groups that believe in it but they are small enough to ignore.)

Religion has served a very useful purpose during our societies infancy. But we are outgrowing it a bit and it can be dangerous when we now have such destructive power in the form of WMDs and pollution. It doesn't need to go away, just become less dangerous. We need to stop people from thinking that being a suicide bomber will get you and your family into heaven.

Nietzsche?


Also, I can't wait until everyone is on the same wavelength that nothing we do matters as ultimately we're all going to be eaten by maggots and the worlds reverts to a 70's like era of constant sex and endless weed smoking.

 

[KHarvey16]

No I'm trying to first of all explain why so many people have a problem with him, since you asked. I'm also trying to explain why I think his approach is counter-productive to his and partially my own cause.

I should have made my point more clear(I tried to in a previous response)...I'm not questioning why religious people have a problem with Dawkins. I can certainly see why someone criticizing their beliefs would upset them. I have an expectation regarding the reactions of religious people. I was wondering why non-believers have an issue with him, keeping in mind diplomacy is not a role he's chosen for himself.

 

[RedShift]

Anyone who thinks Dawkins is rude, see his interview with Bill O'Reilly on YouTube. He remained calm when most people would have felt the urge to throw something at him. The best part is when he says God is needed to explain the tides and the rising and setting of the sun, which most school children can explain.

Fuck Bill O'Reilly.

 

[Panda Bear]

No. There are many prominent atheists and I cited one of the more "friendly" ones earlier in Sam Harris. There is no king of the atheists. If somebody doesn't like Dawkins and rejects secularism or embraces religion because of him that is on them. That is his entire point. His goal isn't to be the warm and cuddly atheist that is trying to convert religious people. (Although Douglas Adams embraced atheism more fully after reading The Blind Watchmaker on his own)

I would strongly disagree with your claim that Sam Harris is nice. As I stated before I think Dan Dennett is an excellent example of a nice atheist. But that aside, it is true that Dawkins is not the "king of the atheists" but he is by far the most famous one today I think we can agree. Most people whether religious or not I think would think of Dawkins when they think of atheist before anyone else.

It's true that the blame lies with people who automatically dismiss him and his beliefs because of his attitude but the fact remains that if you truly want to see scientific thought and secularist ideas embraced, those are the people you have to reach. To alienate them seems to go directly against that goal. Pleasing your friends and alienating your enemies will hardly make you or your goals popular, especially if you already constitute a minority.

 

[itsinmyveins]

I was wondering why non-believers have an issue with him, keeping in mind diplomacy is not a role he's chosen for himself.

But he is a rather public figure, you know. I do think that's good though, I should mention.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

Sure Dawkins doesn't claim there is no God. But he might as well. A major portion of the God Delusion deals with attacking theistic arguments and defending atheistic arguments. This wouldn't contradict what you said if he wasn't so arrogant and adamant about it. I think it's quite clear that he sees absolutely no value in any theistic belief system. So you're right, he doesn't say there is no God but he says the idea that there is one is so ridiculous that is not worthy of consideration. It seems to be the same thing to me, just worded differently.

That being said I agree with many of the things Dawkins says about organized religion and I certainly love listening to him debate or lecture about the subject. The problem of course is that he will never be successful in gaining the respect or consideration of most religious people due to his antagonistic approach. I wouldn't really care about that if it didn't cause fundamentalists to gain power and voice. That's the major problem I think.

I would defy you to try to explain to a grown person, one who believes with everything they are that the Tooth Fairy is real, that he doesn't exist without sounding a little bit arrogant.

 

[Ashodin]

Humanists unite!

 

[Calcaneus]

Am I the only one who looks at these percentages and just goes "meh"? Lately I just don't really care what other people believe.

 

[speculawyer]

I don't think his goal is diplomacy. His goal is the outreach of his views and ideas. If somebody wants a diplomatic and friendly atheist there is always Sam Harris.

:lol No. Sam is quite caustic as well. Lacking British accent probably helps, but he offends a lot of people. He is harsher on Muslims than Christians though.

I think Daniel Dennett is the most milquetoast atheist of the "Four Horsemen" (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens). But then again, Dennett can offend people too. It is just a subject that is bound to offend people.

Edit: I think Julie Sweeney presents a friendly face of atheism.

 

[itsinmyveins]

:lol No. Sam is quite caustic as well. Lacking British accent probably helps, but he offends a lot of people. He is harsher on Muslims than Christians though.

I think Daniel Dennett is the most milquetoast atheist of the "Four Horsemen" (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens). But then again, Dennett can offend people too. It is just a subject that is bound to offend people.

Well, it's one thing if people are offended simply by having that discussion, what I'm saying is that I can see how people feel ridiculed when their god is compared to an almighty cloud of spaghetti bolognese.

 

[Stoney Mason]

I would strongly disagree with your claim that Sam Harris is nice. As I stated before I think Dan Dennett is an excellent example of a nice atheist. But that aside, it is true that Dawkins is not the "king of the atheists" but he is by far the most famous one today I think we can agree. Most people whether religious or not I think would think of Dawkins when they think of atheist before anyone else.

It's true that the blame lies with people who automatically dismiss him and his beliefs because of his attitude but the fact remains that if you truly want to see scientific thought and secularist ideas embraced, those are the people you have to reach. To alienate them seems to go directly against that goal. Pleasing your friends and alienating your enemies will hardly make you or your goals popular, especially if you already constitute a minority.

Dawkins has no obligation other than to himself and his thoughts and what he wants to express. He owes no obligation to the atheist front. Nor does anyone. There are lots of ways to express a broad umbrella of a concept and not everybody has to have the same method or manner of reaching it. Atheism will be demonized whether it's a nice friendly man talking about it or some other more aggressive person talking about.

As I said I don't like Hitchens personally but it's absurd to categorize him as the "face" of a concept. In some political sense you are probably right that nicer guy would make religious people less angry. So would an especially handsome or attractive women. None of this stuff goes to the core of the actual ideas they are talking about which is what I'm interested in. So I agree. Dawkins wouldn't be an elected political official. Thats not his job, or his goal. He is an a theorist, a philosopher. He is about the transmission of ideas. Not the seduction of kind words.

 

[KHarvey16]

Well, it's one thing if people are offended simply by having that discussion, what I'm saying is that I can see how people feel ridiculed when their god is compared to an almighty cloud of spaghetti bolognese.

Well that's a misunderstanding of the analogy . The spaghetti monster is not used to say, "hey look! You're belief is so silly it's like saying there's a god made of pasta! Haha you're dumb!" It's used to refute the common response of religious individuals to criticism from an atheist. Mainly "you can't prove god doesn't exist." Well, you can't prove a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist either but that doesn't make it any more attractive as something to actively believe in.