Quotes from Prof Dawkins

[Gob]

BigRR I think you should read some of Dawkin's work, as I hope you will be surprised.


I'm not disagreeing with you that he can come across as an abrasive and aggressive person in the press, but there are two, and sometimes three players involved, interviewee(s) and press, when the press get stuck into someone.

The press often has an agenda in stirring someone up, and reporting them in a harsh light, to sell copy.

[thestoat]

Gotta agree with Gob. It's hard to whisper when everyone around you is shouting. And he has never (presumably) sent death threats or messages wishing certain people and their families would die slowly and horribly.

[Gob]

Never known him to fly a plane into a building either..

[Big RR]

Gob--maybe if I get a chance I'll try again, but generally I just find him to be a passive aggressive intellectual lightweight who says "outrageous" things for attention. In this way I see him as much more akin to those whom he attacks than among philosophers or intellectuals, relgious or not, who try to stimulate real dialogue and understanding of differing points of view. Inded, some of his points may well be worth discussing, but when he cloaks them in ridiculous imagery (like the "giant spaghetti monster" proxy for a supreme being), it (IMHO) tends to stifle, rather than prompt meaningful discussion.

FWIW, some of the most moral and trustworthy people I know (and count among my friends) are atheists/agnostics. And we have had many discussions on our beliefs and views that end up with drinks all around and everyone happy; no one seeks to ridicule anyone else (or their beliefs) and there is an open dialogue and sharing of ideas that comes because we have mutual respect for one another. That is what I think is missing from Dawkins (at least the little I have read and the parts of his speeches I have seen). He doesn't have respect for anyone who chooses to believe, tending to lump them in as worshipers of/believers in something that might as well be a giant spaghetti monster or something similarly ridiculous. How can you have a discussion with that>

Would you have a recommendation for any of his works that discuss the issues in a more scholarly way?

edited to add:

Never known him to fly a plane into a building either..

Nor have most people who believe, or even claim to believe, in a supreme being. And this has been done by people in times of war and peace (I recall a sotry of strategic bomber hitting the empire state building in the 50s), without any religious prompting. IMHO, it's much more of a political act than a religious one.

[thestoat]

The Spaghetti Monster, of course, has no connections with Prof Dawkins except to the extent they are all atheists. It was created in Kansas to combat a move by the state to treat intelligent design on a par with scientifically observable evidence of evolution simply because some people believe in intelligent design; the point is that if you can admit peoples' belief in something as as credible as something that can be observed, then why not a spaghetti monster? I don't see the monster ridicules religion - I see it as an aid to highlight flaws in a system that treats the two as equal: because someone believes in something doesn't make it so.

I have met with a person who told me that the Earth was about 5000 years old and built by his god. When I pointed out that observable evidence such as carbon dating suggested the earth was considerable older, his response was : "that was put there by god to confuse you". I mentioned dinosaur fossils. "put there by god to confuse you". Against such stupidity I would suggest the spaghetti monster is a very credible response.

I have nothing whatsoever against people who chose to have a religion and believe in a god. But I don't believe that having faith that something exists is as important as observing something exists and this, to me, is what the spaghetti monster is about.

[Big RR]

I stand corrected about the origin of the spaghetti monster, but I can swear i have heard Dawkins use it. But I disagree that it doesn't ridicule religion; the idea of worhsipping/believing in a spaghetti monster inspires lughter, which is what it is intended to do. One could use any number of models for a supreme being that would not be as funny, but a walking, talking plate of spaghetti is just ridiculous image.

As for your point of the discussion with the apparent fundamentalist, I agree that any discussion with him or her is useless. But don't ridicule all beleiefs jsut because some who claim to believe don't want to question or discuss their beliefs in any rational way. And, as tempting as it is, don't ridicule their beliefs by comparing it to faith in a talking plate of spaghetti--it accomplishes nothing but ill will.

I fully understand your point about your choosing to believe only what you can observe and test, and agree that this is a rational approach--one that I follow every time I have my scientific hat on. But once you can see and test something it becomes no longer a belief but a fact; a belief is something entirely different. Belief is irrational precisely because it cannot be proven, and i accept that my beliefs in a supreme being are irrational in that way. All I ask is that, in any discussion, that my beliefs be taken as something I have arrived at after considerable thought and searching--they are no something to be ridiculed if you want an open and frank discussion. I am not saying something is so because I believe it; i am saying I believe it to be so and for me it is so. Now i am more than willing to discussion my understandings and their limitations, and I am more than willing to discuss where they fall short and where faith/belief begins. i am even more than willing to discuss where my beliefs differ from the beliefs of those who belong to establsihed insitutions claiming the "same" beliefs. I don't feel I am morally or intellectually superior to anyone because i choose to believe, and i would trust that those who do not would extend me that same courtesy. It's the only way to have a discussion.

[thestoat]

Big PR, what you say is entirely reasonable. There is largely nothing to be gained from antagonising or ridiculing someone of their beliefs. Personally I would never bring the subject of religion up publically, since I have seen that it can offend some just by questioning their beliefs - I see that you are not one of those since we are having this discussion

[Gob]

It's worth noting BigRR that Dawkins was "Professor for Public Understanding of Science "at Oxford Uni, and his fame grew from that. He certainly has opened up avenues of debate, and acted as a figurehead for the evolutionist/atheist movement in the UK, and hopefully popularised and promoted science.

PM me your address, I'll mail you my copy of The God Delusion.

[thestoat]

The God Delusion is well worth reading. Sometimes he goes well deep into Meme theory (one of his passions, obviously), but otherwise it is, in my view, nicely put together. He doesn't ridicule religion, but tries to explain why, in his view, it exists at all. The underlying message in the book is - think for yourself, and if you still believe in a god then great.

(Sorry Gob - didn't want to spoil the ending of the book )

[Big RR]

Gob--a PM is forthcoming.

Gob and thestoat--perhaps i am a little over the top in criticism of him, but a lot of what I have seen and heard from (and read by) him seems to remind me a lot of the arrogant polemics of Michael Moore. I do recall seeing one part of a treatise where he was chastising a flow academic who tried to juxtify the belief in a loving god in light of the holocaust as being a holocaust apologist/justifier. Now I'll grant I didn't read what he was criticizing, but the quotes he used were obviously out of context and the whole attack was a lot like some of what Moore does.

So my question is, do you think he's anything like Moore (and some people like Moore and his style, so it's not necessarily a bad thing--I just tire of the smugness and cindecension), or am I being unfairly critical of him?

[Gob]

There are similarities mate, they are both polemicists.

I don't think you are being unfair on him, and it may be a cultural issue too.

English academia has a long history of academic going for the jugular.

[Gob]

(Sorry Gob - didn't want to spoil the ending of the book )

It's ok, I know the Butler did it...

[Rick]

Flying Spaghetti Monster