Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?
- Thread starter francois
- Start date
I already have.
I have discussed his use of polemic to further his atheist cause, under the guise of reason and rational thought, while holding different standards for theists and atheists and ignoring all evidence which does not support his claims (like the atheist suicide bombers)
I have also discussed how he is using his credentials as a platform for reason based on an assumption that religion is false.This is clear disinformation, since there are many many theists who are scientists and who are being discriminated against by this kind of rhetoric. I personally know of scientists who abstain from revealing their theism due to fear of discrimination.
As far as the meme theory goes, it is a construct, not a hypothesis. This is another example of disinformation as it muddies the waters of scientific methods. People search for ways to justify a philosophical construct as a scientific basis for examining culture. ???? Thats pure lunacy.
That is not disinformation, however.SAM said:
And it does not speak to Dawkins's argument, which does not (for example) require that all suicide bombers be theists.
And it's a bit strange: are polemicists dishonest, then, when they use reason and rational thought?
Not only have you not shown, let alone discussed, Dawkins's use of his scientific credentials as a platform, but that is not disinformation either.SAM said:
And you should decide whether you want to present Dawkins as someone arguing/polemicising against theism or assuming that religion is false - or both, alternately and invalidly. Not only is the confusion of theism and religion a serious one, but the implicit contention that Dawkins is assuming his conclusions is indistinguishable from the possibility that you haven't noticed the difference.
No but apparently, it does involve ignoring all violence by atheists as a matter of course, and supposing all violence by theists as a matter of religion.
When I see any reason or rational thought, I'll let you know,
Do you suppose it is his popularity as an atheist that has led to advancing his cause celebre?
So Dawkins is supportive of religion? Strange, I could have sworn he used the terms indistinguishably ( I am against all Gods, everywhere) except when he gets confused about exactly which notion of God he is addressing; mostly he seems hung up on an anthropomorphic God, apparently in a white robe with a flowing beard, but I could be mistaken.
So would you say he assumes all religion is false?
I don't know about all religions. The reason I'm somewhat reserved in saying so is because some people may have different definitions of religion from me. But for the most part, it definitely appears he thinks religions, in which there is a god, are false.
There were two excellent reviews in spiked! on these themes; lemme look them up.
Is religion the root of all evil?
The root of all anti-science?
It certainly isn't his scientific credentials. I doubt one in a hundred Dawkins readers could tell you what they are.SAM said:
It is now clear that you do not distinguish theism from religion.SAm said:
Which confuses, for example, this:
Now it's been a while since I read Dawkins, but as far as I recall the examples of theistic violence he chose were self-identified: simply taking the theists' word for their motives.SAM said:
Do you propose that we dismess as inadequate the self-identification of motive ? I would willingly follow along there - but that leads to a different argument: one in which we may also doubt the self-asserted atheism even (let alone the obviously dubious areligious nature) of Marxist/Leninist motivation, for example.
Every book except the latest one.SAM said:
So: you post links to two reviews you describe as "excellent" that contain absolutely no information about a TV program I missed except that Dawkins appeared arrogant and strident to the reviewers (and Ted Haggard, bless his exemplary theistic heart, came off as relaxed and persuasive and a good spokesman).
(The one review spent far more time on sociological meandering from the terminally confused Durkheim than on the program being reviewed, the other found Dawkins's attitude a poor one for representing "atheistic humanism" to the masses. )
So we still have no actual argument against Dawkins's arguments except that he strikes people as arrogant and strident, and therefore a poor evangelist. Seems reasonable to me - his website shows no tendency to humble self-effacement in the face of the unknown - but then evangelism has never been something I admired anyway, outside of the skill involved. Are we to prefer the assertions of the good evangelists, on those grounds alone?
I think you should watch that TV program, if you can.
And its not just arrogance, many people are arrogant, its cherry picking the most extreme and ascribing them to the majority; its ignoring all the evidence that does not support his pseudohypothesis.
You appear to be a diligent fan and I respect your opinions, but you choose to see his criticism as personal, so I have a feeling you won't see anything wrong with what he says.
In my opinion, a TV program on religion entitled "The Root of all Evil" (not to mention faith-sufferer
) in the face of the evils faced by secular society in the modern world and from those proposing areligious ideologies, is disinformation. In your view, its merely style.:shrug:<< Dawkins fails to appreciate how religion has contributed to the humanism he is seeking to defend. Instead he presents atheist humanism as something straight out of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World - all machine-like creatures bedazzled by reductive technology yet blind to what makes us truly human.
By fixating on irrational explanations, Dawkins ignores why values, beliefs and solidarities are a key plank of major religions. This is why he gets tongue-tied when arguing with an Islamic fundamentalist >>
:bravo:
By fixating on irrational explanations, Dawkins ignores why values, beliefs and solidarities are a key plank of major religions. This is why he gets tongue-tied when arguing with an Islamic fundamentalist >>
:bravo:
Really he's simply a throwback to the days of the Witchfinder General. Everything vaguely humanitarian or altruistic is boiled down and reduced in the crucible of mere reason — he is simply turning the clock back to a pre-modern age of obscurantism, dogma and secular witch-hunts.
Merely style? No. Contention. A dubious one, that needs support. No idea whether it was supported, of course. Little idea even exactly what it was.SAM said:
No. Again, I have a basic and fundamental quarrel with Dawkins - one I do not have with (say)Dennett, who far better "represents" my little eddy - that has proven invisible to you and the rest of the Dawkins critics here; apparently for the same reason that missing important structure and points of Dawkins's arguments seems all but universal among his critics in general (as illustrated here by every link you have posted).SAM said:
I would have to, if I wanted to find out what Dawkins said. None of the reviews or mentions here give much of a hint - this, instead:SAM said:
?
The criticism of Dawkins seems to be, in total, that as an evangelist for "atheistic humanism" to the masses he comes across as arrogant and strident. Is that how we "atheistic humanists" are supposed to evaluate his representation of us?
Last edited:
Could you elaborate? I am willing to be edified. :truce:
<< The criticism of Dawkins seems to be, in total, that as an evangelist for "atheistic humanism" to the masses he comes across as arrogant and strident. >>
" He comes across" ?
In other words he isn't really strident and arrogant he just needs an image consultant. lol!
" He comes across" ?
In other words he isn't really strident and arrogant he just needs an image consultant. lol!
Somewhere on this thread I quoted a linked (by somebody else, IIRC you) review containing a comment by Dennett: that his mind and Dawkins's parted company over Dawkins's denial of net worth to religion.SAM said:
In fifty words or less: my current tentative leaning is that
1) Spirituality is an inevitably but justifiably flawed recognition of the real,
2) religion is a probably necessary but dangerous systemization of the spiritual
3) deity is an unnecessary and potentially disastrous corruption of religion.
And I am not alone in this general take on things. If you are talking about "atheist humanists", you are talking about a fair number of people like me.