Richard Dawkins

branie

Anyone here read any of his books, and what's their opinion on them? apologies if there are threads on this already.

Zulu

Read the god delusion after it was recommended by a friend.

His arrogance is palpable.

Didn't rate it.

crotalus667

Zulu wrote: »

His arrogance is palpable.
.

which parts did you think where arrogant ???


I liked it but Christopher Hitchens is better (his style is a lot different than in his debates )

vodafoneproblem

The Dawkins Delusion. (Ha!)

Dawkins is a very arrogant man, imo. With a rather small, unevolved head!

This picture from his wiki says it all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ariane_Sherine_and_Richard_Dawkins_at_the_Atheist_Bus_Campaign_launch.jpg

I'd love to know how he calculates the probability of God existing or not. Oh, wait, he's an uninspired copycat biologist flogging books, not a mathematician...

Sam Vimes

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

Dawkins is a very arrogant man, imo.

Zulu wrote: »

His arrogance is palpable.

That doesn't actually make him wrong though does it? Addressing his points successfully would make him wrong. Calling him arrogant is an ad hominem argument

vodafoneproblem

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That doesn't actually make him wrong though does it? Addressing his points successfully would make him wrong. Calling him arrogant is an ad hominem argument

Richard Dawkins is probably wrong. Now start worrying.

antiskeptic

If he stuck to what he is best at (breaking down complex scientific ideas so as to make them accessible to untrained audiences) I'd have no issue with him - indeed, I'd enjoy his books more. His tendency to go off at the deep end, when attacking (what are often straw-men) aspects of faith, tend to try my patience however. What could and should be a good read swiftly renders itself unreadable - a little fundamentalist yeast infecting the whole batch.



In a nutshell? Richard is a faith-head (he believes by faith that the assumptions at the root of his doctrina are true) who makes a career out of knocking other faith-heads (who also believe that the assumptions at the root of their doctrina are true).

Turtwig

Dawkins is a Dick.;)
Given that I expect most of this thread to be full on inflammatory remarks. I thought I'd take away the opportunity for the obvious name related one.:)

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That doesn't actually make him wrong though does it? Addressing his points successfully would make him wrong. Calling him arrogant is an ad hominem argument

The OP asks folk what they think of his books. Arrogance is something that can be delivered in book form.

lmaopml

pml...:pac:

Turtwig

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

With a rather small, unevolved head!

That statement tells me that either you haven't read his books or you didn't really pay any attention to his explanations of evolution.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

The OP asks folk what they think of his books. Arrogance is something that can be delivered in book form.

Yes I know it can and, while I disagree, I recognise that an awful lot of religious believers see Dawkins as arrogant. Once we have established that we should at some point move on to the problems that you see in his arguments, otherwise we're just engaging in ad hominem attacks. To quote Jimmy Carr for the second time in three days:

I'm not arrogant. The word you're looking for is 'correct'

vodafoneproblem

Malty_T wrote: »

That statement tells me that either you haven't read his books or you didn't really pay any attention to his explanations of evolution.

Or it could be a joke. If you can believe in them...

prinz

Malty_T wrote: »

That statement tells me that either you haven't read his books or you didn't really pay any attention to his explanations of evolution.

I think it was meant as a joke :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

To quote Jimmy Carr for the second time in three days:
I'm not arrogant. The word you're looking for is 'correct'

He's a self-obsessed, intellectually arrogant, hypocrit. For a smart man he sometimes fails to see the irony in his own name-calling, put-downs etc.

dlofnep

I read his book. I thought it was great, and I think he has done extremely well when debating the merits of his book. Naturally, depending on what way you view the world - you'll either like his work, or dislike it. I'm an atheist, so there's more chance of me liking it.

I like that fact that he's provoking debate on the issue. It's the most important question from a philosophical standpoint that we can ask.

The Mad Hatter

Anyone got anything more considered to say than "He is arrogant. *points*"?

Ickle Magoo

I'm not sure what kind of response the OP was expecting...I can't imagine any theist is going to suggest Dawkins is a fine author who makes some excellent points.

If you read a book already determined that it's evidence based nonsense about beliefs held dear that don't require empirical evidence, then it's fairly obvious what kind of reviews such a demographic will provide.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

He's a self-obsessed, intellectually arrogant, hypocrit. For a smart man he sometimes fails to see the irony in his own name-calling, put-downs etc.

Fair enough. So what specifically were the problems that you had with his arguments?

Zulu

crotalus667 wrote: »

which parts did you think where arrogant ???

Well the tone really.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That doesn't actually make him wrong though does it?

No it doesn't. That's quite the defensive assumption you've made there. And, for the record, I'm agnostic.

It's a disappointing book because it promised alot but delivered nothing. He picks through the parts of christianity with an arrogant and mocking tone that I (and alot of christians) wouldn't believe or take literally.

He makes a concerted point of trying to claim other scientists (like Einstein) as athiests, when they clearly believe in a concept of "god" - WHICH he recognises himself, but chooses to ignore (and freely admits ignoring) so he can continue his assault on more fundamentalist beliefs. Why?

I'd have prefered if he'd accatually address this concept of a 'god' as this is the concept at the hub of the argument. Alas he's more interested in attacking others than addressing salient points.

Hence I felt the arrogance was palpable. Hence I didn't rate it as a good book.

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

I like that fact that he's provoking debate on the issue. It's the most important question from a philosophical standpoint that we can ask.

Debate is good.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure what kind of response the OP was expecting...I can't imagine any theist is going to suggest Dawkins is a fine author who makes some excellent points.

He's a terrible author. Take the subject matter out of it and he's still a terrible author.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Fair enough. So what specifically were the problems that you had with his arguments?

Mostly the part where he cannot see that he has set himself up as the RCC Church, the same one he criticises for mocking scientists like Galileo as being deluded, misguided etc. Rather ironic that he would then dismiss all opinions contrary to his own in the same manner. Christians/religious have a lot to learn from Dawkins, Dawkins has a lot to learn from them. He castigates the religious folk for not learning from him, and simultaneously mocks the idea of him ever learning anything from a Christian..

Ickle Magoo

prinz wrote: »

He's a terrible author. Take the subject matter out of it and he's still a terrible author.

Again, exactly what you'd expect a theist to say. Here's a man who challenges the core of their beliefs - or at least has the cheek to try to - and now lots of people are reading him and questioning their faith, which must be really galling. It's little wonder theists can't stand him.

I have several of his books and I think they are quite entertaining and make some interesting observations which trigger plenty of debate, which, as you say yourself, is good.

Sam Vimes

Zulu wrote: »

Well the tone really.

No it doesn't. That's quite the defensive assumption you've made there. And, for the record, I'm agnostic.

It's a disappointing book because it promised alot but delivered nothing. He picks through the parts of christianity with an arrogant and mocking tone that I (and alot of christians) wouldn't believe or take literally.

He makes a concerted point of trying to claim other scientists (like Einstein) as athiests, when they clearly believe in a concept of "god" - WHICH he recognises himself, but chooses to ignore (and freely admits ignoring) so he can continue his assault on more fundamentalist beliefs. Why?

No he very specifically doesn't

He says that Einstein and a number of scientists believed in deistic gods and that the book deals only with interventionist type theistic gods

Zulu wrote: »

I'd have prefered if he'd accatually address this concept of a 'god' as this is the concept at the hub of the argument. Alas he's more interested in attacking others than addressing salient points.

Hence I felt the arrogance was palpable. Hence I didn't rate it as a good book.

I think rather than him failing to address certain points, you may have missed the point of the book. It was about theistic gods, not the vague idea of some kind of ill-defined generic being that may or may not have existed before the universe and may or may not have had some hand in its creation

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes I know it can and, while I disagree, I recognise that an awful lot of religious believers see Dawkins as arrogant.

I gather it's not just religious readers that find him abit of a buffoon.

Once we have established that we should at some point move on to the problems that you see in his arguments, otherwise we're just engaging in ad hominem attacks.

I agree. The "Faith .. the evidence of things not seen" thread outlines the biblical view of faith and we see the kind of trouble atheists get into when they begin to supposing what God can and cannot do. Dawkins view of faith, in contrast, supposes it blind - when what he really means is that it isn't empirically measurable > therefore it is empirically evidential-less > therefore it is empirically blind.

Richards an empiricist (a philosophical position that cannot be demonstrated to be true - not even in theory) who forgets his own postion is built on less-than-concrete moorings. It's this intellectual blind-spot (papered over at times with a rabbit-out-of-hat "probabilities") torpedo his faith-deconstructing arguments.

The place for you to 'support' Richard is over in said thread. That's where biblical views on faith are argued. Seeing as Richard never deals with that view, preferring to build his argument on attacking a strawman version of faith, perhaps you'd like to pick up his standard.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

I agree. The "Faith .. the evidence of things not seen" thread outlines the biblical view of faith and we see the kind of trouble atheists get into when they begin to supposing what God can and cannot do.

I didn't see any atheists getting into trouble in that thread tbh but then I suppose we have different views. Any time we supposed what god can and can't do, it was based on the christian view of god.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Dawkins view of faith, in contrast, supposes it blind - when what he really means is that it isn't empirically measurable > therefore it is empirically evidential-less > therefore it is empirically blind.

Richards an empiricist (a philosophical position that cannot be demonstrated to be true - not even in theory) who forgets his own postion is built on less-than-concrete moorings. It's this intellectual blind-spot (papered over at times with a rabbit-out-of-hat "probabilities") torpedo his faith-deconstructing arguments.

The place for you to 'support' Richard is over in said thread. That's where biblical views on faith are argued. Seeing as Richard never deals with that view, preferring to build his argument on attacking a strawman version of faith, perhaps you'd like to pick up his standard.

Ah so the problem is empiricism. We'd had this debate before about what can and can't be considered evidence so really there's no point going into it again. Let's just leave it at I did not accept your position in the slightest so I'm still waiting for a problem with Dawkins' arguments.

prinz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Again, exactly what you'd expect a theist to say. Here's a man who challenges the core of their beliefs - or at least has the cheek to try to - and now lots of people are reading him and questioning their faith, which must be really galling. It's little wonder theists can't stand him..

Like I said regardless of content IMO they are badly written. I love John Grisham books, that doesn't make him a great author.. they are fairly poorly written tbh from a literature point of view.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I have several of his books and I think they are quite entertaining and make some interesting observations which trigger plenty of debate, which, as you say yourself, is good.

Debate is good. Debate founded on the opinion that your opponent is a brainwashed, ignorant fool, is not. Like I said theists could learn a lot from his position, likewise he could learn something from them.. but his mind is closed.

Turtwig

Zulu wrote: »

He makes a concerted point of trying to claim other scientists (like Einstein) as athiests, when they clearly believe in a concept of "god" - WHICH he recognises himself, but chooses to ignore (and freely admits ignoring) so he can continue his assault on more fundamentalist beliefs. Why?

I'd have prefered if he'd accatually address this concept of a 'god' as this is the concept at the hub of the argument. Alas he's more interested in attacking others than addressing salient points.

The concept of God Dawkins was dealing with in his book was the intervention theist type which Dawkins tries to argue can be examined under scientific inquiry. The other God Concepts he acknowledges can't be tested by science so he chose to only give brief mention to them. More importantly though, Dawkins book isn't a philosophical tour-de-force; it was never meant to be. All he wanted to do was what he has dubbed "Conscious Raising" let people know it's ok to criticise religion. Deism, in his view, is far less irrational than theism. There are over 1 billion people who believe in what Dawkins considers the most irrational interventionist type God(s), so clearly that is the God you must first destroy if your interest is in combating irrational belief. Which is Dawkins main goal : raise peoples awareness about how irrational the theistic God is and how dangerous he considers religion to be a society.

Zulu

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think rather than him failing to address certain points, you may have missed the point of the book.

...or you've missed my point.
I was asked for an opinion on any book I may have read by Dawkins - I gave that opinion: it was a let down. It let me down for reasons like I've detailed.

Perhaps the point of the book was something other than I expected, that however doesn't make it any less disappointing. (or arrogant in tone for that matter)

Zulu

Malty_T wrote: »

The concept of God Dawkins was dealing with in his book was the intervention theist type which Dawkins tries to argue can be examined under scientific inquiry. The other God Concepts he acknowledges can't be tested by science so he chose to only give brief mention to them.

Avoid them more to the point. Why doesn't he address the concept of god as opposed to poking fun at a strawman?

Look I was expecting this great read that would answer some questions I may have. It did no such thing. I never believed in a man with a white beard sitting on a cloud smiting people with thunderbolts.

So perhaps it's great - great to people who'd rather point and laugh than educate - great in the way that Mills & Boon is great, but personally I prefer more from a book.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I didn't see any atheists getting into trouble in that thread tbh but then I suppose we have different views. Any time we supposed what god can and can't do, it was based on the christian view of god.

Can God demonstrate his existance to someone? And if he does, would they know he existed? It's a Christian view of God that he can and they do.

I can see no way out of this for atheists.

Ah so the problem is empiricism. We'd had this debate before about what can and can't be considered evidence so really there's no point going into it again. Let's just leave it at I did not accept your position in the slightest so I'm still waiting for a problem with Dawkins' arguments.

Dawkins arguments rest on empiricism being true. That's the problem.

I'll await Wicknights attempt to circumvent the dilemma over in the other thread then..

Ickle Magoo

prinz wrote: »

Like I said regardless of content IMO they are badly written. I love John Grisham books, that doesn't make him a great author.. they are fairly poorly written tbh from a literature point of view.

I appreciate that, I don't think an atheist could write a book which criticises religion and ever be considered a great author by theists was my point. There are plenty of criticisms from theists and atheists alike about his books but the content is what seems to drive the strength of feeling towards the author.

prinz wrote: »

Debate is good. Debate founded on the opinion that your opponent is a brainwashed, ignorant fool, is not. Like I said theists could learn a lot from his position, likewise he could learn something from them.. but his mind is closed.

I think it just comes down to your initial views when you read the book, theists think they are enlightened, non-theists clearly wouldn't agree with that synopsis and how do you put that across concisely without offending anyone? Sometimes the language Dawkins uses is certainly inflammatory but I think it's deliberately so, to give balance to the aeons of unquestioning respect some of the views he is attacking have had.