Dawkins on the Late Late Show

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

If Dawkins were campaigning the same way for better personal hygeine rather than atheism, he would still be an extremist.

I'd generally agree with the substance of what you're saying, but I'm not sure 'extremist' is the right word. I think the essence of his problem is he's over simplistic when he leaves his field of expertise - admittedly a problem shared with extremists.

Just focussing on one tangent where his blind spot takes him, he seems to go through a whole routine of trying to convince himself that religion is a byproduct of something else, presumably because he cannot happily contemplate the possibility that evolution produced a species which functions best when deluded.

There's also a certain irony in the way he expressing a degree of comfort with the Church of England, as its familiar to him. Obviously if ever challenged in Belfast, he's a Protestant atheist.

I bet he can't figure his wife out at all.

pH

Scofflaw wrote:

Whether one is correct or not is not a determinant of whether one is an extremist. If Dawkins were campaigning the same way for better personal hygeine rather than atheism, he would still be an extremist.

We've been over this before, are you arguing that Dawkin's views on atheism are extremist, in a way that say the Pope's on Catholicism aren't, or would you be prepared to say that the Pope's views are also extremist, militant even?

If not what in your opinion makes Dawkins militant and extremist, and the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury not?

Zombrex

The_Minister wrote:

He has said that teaching your children to believe in God is child abuse. And that's just the start.

Well lots of people hold to the idea that raising a child in the wrong religion is very bad. My father (Catholic) had to sign a paper for his priest saying he would raise all children from the marriage as Catholics when he married my mother (non-Catholic). He didn't take it seriously, but a lot of people would. A lot of people still believe in the principle of that idea, or would shun the idea of a mixed religious marriage in the first place.

I'm not saying I agree with Dawkins on this, I don't. I'm just wondering are his views that "extreme" compared to views commonly held by others.

I think, as Schuhart says, "extreme" might be the wrong word to use here.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

We've been over this before, are you arguing that Dawkin's views on atheism are extremist, in a way that say the Pope's on Catholicism aren't, or would you be prepared to say that the Pope's views are also extremist, militant even?

If not what in your opinion makes Dawkins militant and extremist, and the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury not?

First, Dawkins' views on atheism I would of course not consider extreme.

Second, I'll repost an earlier comment:

Scofflaw wrote:

'm not sure extreme is quite the right word. "Simplistic" is closer, I think.

Finally, I'll quote another earlier post:

Scofflaw wrote:

Overall, then, I would say that Dawkins can hardly escape the charge of extremism - he sets forth his own case in the most uncompromising terms, describes the entirety of religious belief in terms appropriate only to a few extremists, denounces those less extreme as wishy-washy, is baffled by anyone scientifically trained who is not an atheist, proclaims that the truths of science are the only truths....if I were describing a Christian, we would have no doubt about his extremism - that he is "on our side" should not blind us to it.

Dawkins operates as an extremist a lot of the time - not all the time, since some transcripts show a more moderate position (uncompromising, of course, but simply being uncompromising is not the same as extremism).

cordially,
Scofflaw

violatom

personally my favourite view is Ross Noble's view at the end of one of his shows. When asked about his religious beliefs he said: "Well, its all bollocks really"

aidan24326

Since Dawkins seems to be the subject of much debate on this forum recently (not surprisingly) I thought this tour journal http://richarddawkins.net/tourJournal of his might interest some. It's an account of the experiences he is having in various places while promoting the book. Worth a look.

Couple of samples:

Richard Dawkins wrote:

My talk at McGill was greeted, like several others, with a reassuringly wholehearted, and almost universal, standing ovation. I am under no illusions that I deserve these enthusiastic receptions personally, or that they reflect the quality of my own performance as a speaker. On the contrary, I am convinced that they represent an overflowing of bottled-up frustration, from masses of decent people pushed to breaking point and heartily sick of the sycophantic ‘respect’ that our society, even secular society, routinely and thoughtlessly accords religious faith. Time after time, people in the signing queues thank me for doing no more than say in public what they have, in private, long wanted to say, and probably could say more eloquently than I can. I think people are fed up to the gills with the near universal expectation that religious faith must be respected. Let us, by all means, respect what people say when it is well thought-out and makes sense. Let us not respect it just because it shelters behind a citadel of ‘faith’. Faith is nothing. Faith is empty. Beliefs that are worth respecting are beliefs that are defended with evidence and reason

I have repeatedly been asked what I think of South Park and of Ted Haggard’s downfall. I won’t say much about either. Schadenfreude is not an appealing emotion so, on Haggard, I’ll say only that if it wasn’t for people of his religious persuasion, people of his sexual persuasion would be free to do what they like without shame and without fear of exposure. I share neither his religious nor his sexual persuasion (that’s an understatement), and I’m buggered if I like being portrayed as a cartoon character buggering a bald transvestite. I wouldn’t have minded so much if only it had been in the service of some serious point, but if there was a serious point in there I couldn’t discern it. And then there’s the matter of the accent they gave me. Now, if only I could be offered a cameo role in The Simpsons, I could show that actor how to do a real British accent

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

he must be pretty daft if he missed the point of those episodes of south park..
it was a pretty terrible point to be making now, but it was there

aidan24326

Mordeth wrote:

he must be pretty daft if he missed the point of those episodes of south park..
it was a pretty terrible point to be making now, but it was there

Yeah I kinda agree. Though I'm sure he did see what they were hinting at, him becoming the cult hero of atheism and all that. But they were just taking the p1ss anyway, in the usual south park fashion. So I guess he is justified in saying that they weren't making any serious point.

Slightly off-topic, but in fairness to south park they just take the mick out of everyone equally, nobody is spared. Though poor old Matt Damon must have done something terrible to them...:eek:

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

the point I was thinking about was that some people just need religion to live.. 'oh my science' 'science H. Logic' etc..

although dawkins christ was pretty funny