Richard Dawkins

[Clydeside_Sheep]

It seems that Richard Dawkins - formerly a respected scientist, now known more for being a slavering comic figure - is having the effect of converting people to Christianity.

 

This is the second such article I have seen recently, what a hoot!

 

Some snippets:

 

"I read The God Delusion and it was… total crap. So bad that I started questioning my own atheism. Then he started tweeting."

Like a loony on top of the bus, no?

"Exactly!"

 

and

 

Judith Babarsky, an academic … having only a “surface level” understanding of Christianity as she admits, was recommended Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion to read. She writes that when she began, she thought she would read “a logical, sceptical, nay scientific critique of religion.” Instead, she was surprised to find “strings of pejorative adjectives pretending to be argument, bald assertion pretending to be evidence, an incredibly arrogant attitude and a stance of moral equivalence incapable of distinguishing between the possible strengths and weaknesses of different religions…”

 

Indeed, Babarsky found Dawkins’ arguments so unsatisfactory, coupled with his own atheistic and fundamentalist stance, that they prompted her to examine for the first time what Christianity was all about. Her examination was to lead to her conversion to Catholicism

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100267804/is-richard-dawkins-leading-people-to-jesus/

 

Dawkins has certainly fallen off the media stage rather abruptly, I dont think he will approve of his name re-emerging in article like this!

[robbojunior]

Yes right enough you have found two examples of people who have coverted to Christianity as a result of reading a Dawkins book.

 

No mention of the many reports of people who have become atheist as a result of reading one of his books.

 

If I was a cynic I'd say that was very much the typical tactic of a Theist.

[The Boofon]

He's done well for being in a wheelchair for so long.

[StandFree1982]

He does protest a bit too much...he's maybe a closet christian!

[Hewitt1983]

Dawkins has CS absolutely rattled.

[The Oxford Don]

The Selfish Gene converted me from slightly sceptical Christian into full-blown atheist.

 

The God Delusion is pretty crap and is also frankly unnecessary, as his scientific works are a far better riposte to the religious than a half-baked diatribe mocking religion.

 

My only objection to Dawkins is that he is a dick, and I prefer people who aren't dicks, generally. He is entirely right in his outlook, but if you are going to be a dick about it then there is little point in being right.

[robbojunior]

The Selfish Gene converted me from slightly sceptical Christian into full-blown atheist.

 

The God Delusion is pretty crap and is also frankly unnecessary, as his scientific works are a far better riposte to the religious than a half-baked diatribe mocking religion.

 

My only objection to Dawkins is that he is a dick, and I prefer people who aren't dicks, generally. He is entirely right in his outlook, but if you are going to be a dick about it then there is little point in being right.

 

I agree with you, but you kind of need to be a dick to deal with the number of dicks you have to respond to when it comes to discussing religion.

 

Christopher Hitchens can also come across as a dick, but I think he's brilliant and far better at it than Dawkins, but by god i'd be a dick if I had to respond to some of the stuff he had presented to him.

[Bluto10]

Who ate these dicks anyway?

They dont exactly sound like cool fun guys?

[Bluto10]

Seminars.

Ace.

[The Oxford Don]

Who ate these dicks anyway?

They dont exactly sound like cool fun guys?

 

Best. Typo. Ever.

 

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Yes right enough you have found two examples of people who have coverted to Christianity as a result of reading a Dawkins book.

 

No mention of the many reports of people who have become atheist as a result of reading one of his books.

 

If I was a cynic I'd say that was very much the typical tactic of a Theist.

 

Fortunately you are not a cynic, then! :-)

 

I dont think Dawkins books have convinved anyone of anything.

 

His (commendable) science books deal with science, not religion, and his ranting books only make a fool of him. I think some people are (were) happy to side with him mainly because he has (had) a reputation for being intelligent.

 

But thats no reason to side with anyone.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

He does protest a bit too much...he's maybe a closet christian!

 

Aye haha - thats what the article suggested, that maybe hes been a trojan horse all along!

[robbojunior]

 

Fortunately you are not a cynic, then! :-)

 

I dont think Dawkins books have convinved anyone of anything.

 

His (commendable) science books deal with science, not religion, and his ranting books only make a fool of him. I think some people are (were) happy to side with him mainly because he has (had) a reputation for being intelligent.

 

But thats no reason to side with anyone.

 

Then there are a lot of liars who have claimed to have become atheist as a result of reading his books.

 

I agree, having a reputation for being intelligent is no reason to side with anyone.

 

For example you come across as reasonably intelligent

[Clydeside_Sheep]

The Selfish Gene converted me from slightly sceptical Christian into full-blown atheist.

 

Actually Christian? Or Knoxian / Henry-the-Eigthian etc etc?

The God Delusion is pretty crap and is also frankly unnecessary, as his scientific works are a far better riposte to the religious than a half-baked diatribe mocking religion.

I dont see that his scientific works impinges on religion at all (unless the religion is Bible-literalist protestantism)

 

I definitely agree with you that rational debate / enquiry etc is a better route (for any topic) than his intemperate attacks.

 

My view of him is that he was an accomplished scientist who was aggreived at his

lack of celebrity - compared to eg Stephen Hawking, or the fella out of D:Ream etc - and his inept attacks on religion were a cheap and easy way to achieve celebrity, which was moderately successful for a brief time.

 

He was fascinating to me, in terms of how someone so brilliant in one field, could be so inept in another. (Personally, I prefer to be mediocre in everything haha!)

 

That he did nothing to make science more accessible to ordinary people betrays his motivation for me. Sure, he wrote books, but nothing like Hawkings "Brief history of time" which was a revelation in terms of the public engagement it caused.

My only objection to Dawkins is that he is a dick, and I prefer people who aren't dicks, generally.

He is entirely right in his outlook, but if you are going to be a dick about it then there is little point in being right.

I agree he is a dick. I actually feel a bit sorry for him, it cant be easy being a lonely old dick who is aggreived at his lack of celebrity.

 

And I agree that being a dick takes precedence over opinions: variety of opinion is what makes life interesting, but you are dead right that no-one is interested in a dick!

 

Cheers!

[Clydeside_Sheep]

I agree, having a reputation for being intelligent is no reason to side with anyone.

 

For example you come across as reasonably intelligent

 

Its all an act, I assure you! (Glad to hear it is working though haha!)

[AndrewW]

I think Dawkins is bad for the antitheism cause but at the same time it's pretty hard to tell folk that something they believe is not only false but a horrible and frankly disgusting idea without sounding like a bit of a dick.

[Ke1t]

Ah, C_S, min... you're trying ower hard there.

 

Dawkins and Hitchens base their arguments on rational thought and straightforward logic. In any debate regarding the supernatural versus the scientific, that I've seen, rational thought wins out over theistic dogma every single time.

 

To hold up a couple of very debatable 'examples' of people 'converting' to theism as a result of the rational argument should be beneath a man of your obvious intelligence, though it's long been clear that you use logical fallacy as a primary tool when debating those who are unfamiliar with the technique.

 

I've yet to see anything even approaching a refutation of the scientific argument.

[dervish]

Dawkins comes across as a baw bag. Only read god delusion but to me it's like shooting fish in the barrel.

 

Also in god delusion he attacks the position of being agnostic even when 'On whether God exists':

I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102758/Richard-Dawkins-v-Archbishop-of-Canterbury-how-do-they-compare.html

 

 

Which is near to the definition of being agnostic. That is not actively believing either way, while a true atheist would say "I do not believe there is not a god". The degrees of agnostic are even in his book. In the debate with the Archbishop he at one point even admitted he was.

 

It's actually hard for a scientist (and me) to be "fully" atheist. How can you fully prove there is not "a god" in whichever pixie/fairy magic land definition human beings can come up with? Probability very very strongly is that it's not likely but... can you prove not? Maybe we are all riding the big spaghetti monster?

[Ke1t]

Dawkins comes across as a baw bag. Only read god delusion but to me it's like shooting fish in the barrel.

 

Also in god delusion he attacks the position of being agnostic even when 'On whether God exists':

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102758/Richard-Dawkins-v-Archbishop-of-Canterbury-how-do-they-compare.html

 

 

Which is near to the definition of being agnostic. That is not actively believing either way, while a true atheist would say "I do not believe there is not a god". The degrees of agnostic are even in his book. In the debate with the Archbishop he at one point even admitted he was.

 

It's actually hard for a scientist (and me) to be "fully" atheist. How can you fully prove there is not "a god" in whichever pixie/fairy magic land definition human beings can come up with? Probability very very strongly is that it's not likely but... can you prove not? Maybe we are all riding the big spaghetti monster?

 

But this is the thing... you don't have to prove there is no god. And since you don't have to prove there is no god there is no reason to vacillate on the subject.

 

If you're going to be agnostic regards a 'god' then you may as well be agnostic about pixies, elves, fairies, Lennon's Unicorn and the leprechaun in my arse.

 

The default position isn't 'I don't know if there are underpants gnomes', the default position is, 'In the absence of any evidence regarding underpants gnomes then there is no compelling reason to expect the existence of underpants gnomes.'

 

god is underpants gnomes.

 

Agnosticism is pandering to the irrational.

[dervish]

If I say "God is unlikely" that is agnostic. I'm accepting the possibility there is. Which is what Dawkins said. Which is not, in the most classical definition, being an atheist "There are no gods".

 

Thats why I dropped in the spaghetti monster comment. In the book he uses the same argument against agnostics.

 

EDIT:

 

From the debate "I'm am agnostic".

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

 

I will say that I think all extant religion is balls (firm believer in that). Also that it's almost completely unlikely there is "a god" or many, I just can't say that for certain.

[Ke1t]

If I say "God is unlikely" that is agnostic. I'm accepting the possibility there is. Which is what Dawkins said. Which is not, in the most classical definition, being an atheist "There are no gods".

 

Thats why I dropped in the spaghetti monster comment. In the book he uses the same argument against agnostics.

 

Correct, you are accepting the possibility of a god... but in the face of no evidence to suppose that there might be,

 

Flying, intelligent, Rangers supporting refrigerators on Venus are unlikely... do you therefore give credence to someone who insists there are flying, intelligent, Rangers supporting refrigerators flitting around Venus drunk off their tits and smashing Venusian cities to bits... or do you say, "The chances of that being the case are so infinitesimally small that there's no rational reason to give any credence to that claim."

 

There has to come a point where a claim is so extraordinary that you discount it as a possible reality.

 

The alternative to that is there is no cut off point, and you give credence to each and every theory ever dreamed up and postulated by anyone ever, regardless their state of mind or how outrageous the claim.

[dervish]

On the subject of Dawkins. He used the same argument in God Delusion but he has "outed himself" as agnostic. That's my point.

[Ke1t]

On the subject of Dawkins. He used the same argument in God Delusion but he has "outed himself" as agnostic. That's my point.

 

 

Well, Dawkins probably has a couple of hundred IQ points on me, so maybe his notion of agnosticism is closer to 'truth' than my idea that agnosticism is irrational pandering.

 

Then again, I'm going to assume he hasn't seen any more evidence of god or underpants gnomes than I have.

[fatjim]

Agnosticism is merely that niggling fear that what if this Bronze Age mythology is actually right and I do end up in a pit of hell fire.

 

It's safe to say you won't.

[dj_bollocks]

Well now I have faith that there's a leprechaun up Kelt's arse.... Is it Hornswaggle by any chance ?

[robbojunior]

On the subject of Dawkins. He used the same argument in God Delusion but he has "outed himself" as agnostic. That's my point.

To be an atheist is not to say I know there is no god. It is to say I believe there is no god.

 

Dawkins says the likelihood of a supernatural creator is very very small. But i'm willing to bet he doesn't believe one exists. He is just acknowledging he can't prove one doesn't exist.

 

The agnostic / atheist distinction is often (but not always) an irrelevant one due to it being used wrongly. If you don't believe in god but are open minded to being proven wrong by evidence coming forth which proves the contrary then the two terms mean exactly the same thing.

 

Agnostic really means something different to that however. It means some one who doesn't believe in the religious version of a supernatural creator, but is open to the possibility of some other undefined explanation of the universe. Some other force beyond the remit of potential scientific discovery. From what I have read, Dawkins is definitely not an agnostic if you use that interpretation. He believes that NOTHING is beyond the potential remit of scientific discovery.

[dervish]

He says in the clip of the interview he is agnostic though(and specifically not an atheist).

 

To be an atheist is not to say I know there is no god. It is to say I believe there is no god.

Dawkins says the likelihood of a supernatural creator is very very small. But i'm willing to bet he doesn't believe one exists. He is just acknowledging he can't prove one doesn't exist.

The agnostic / atheist distinction is often (but not always) an irrelevant one due to it being used wrongly. If you don't believe in god but are open minded to being proven wrong by evidence coming forth which proves the contrary then the two terms mean exactly the same thing.

Agnostic really means something different to that however. It means some one who doesn't believe in the religious version of a supernatural creator, but is open to the possibility of some other undefined explanation of the universe. Some other force beyond the remit of potential scientific discovery. From what I have read, Dawkins is definitely not an agnostic if you use that interpretation. He believes that NOTHING is beyond the potential remit of scientific discovery.

[Ke1t]

To be an atheist is not to say I know there is no god. It is to say I believe there is no god.

 

Dawkins says the likelihood of a supernatural creator is very very small. But i'm willing to bet he doesn't believe one exists. He is just acknowledging he can't prove one doesn't exist.

 

The agnostic / atheist distinction is often (but not always) an irrelevant one due to it being used wrongly. If you don't believe in god but are open minded to being proven wrong by evidence coming forth which proves the contrary then the two terms mean exactly the same thing.

 

Agnostic really means something different to that however. It means some one who doesn't believe in the religious version of a supernatural creator, but is open to the possibility of some other undefined explanation of the universe. Some other force beyond the remit of potential scientific discovery. From what I have read, Dawkins is definitely not an agnostic if you use that interpretation. He believes that NOTHING is beyond the potential remit of scientific discovery.

 

This is my opinion too.

 

Atheists generally are aware that since you can't disprove a (likely) negative, there is a possibility... however small... that a (likely) negative might possibly be a positive.

 

Case in point might be landing on Venus and finding yourself battered to fuck by pissed up, flying, Hun-supporting refrigerators.

 

However, when the likelyhood is THAT small you can more or less discount the possibility to any kind of measurable degree.

 

The simple, most basic logic regarding gods is this.

 

If they exist show us the merest scrap of evidence. That's all you have to do.

 

In several thousand years of human superstition there has never been one single instance of the verifiable manifestation of a god, equally not the merest scrap of evidence.

 

You would think that, in the entirety of human history, at least one of the countless gods would have left some evidence of its existence.

[robbojunior]

He says in the clip of the interview he is agnostic though(and specifically not an atheist).

 

 

I haven't seen it so can't really comment, but if he was asked if he was agnostic by someone defining it in the terms i described in the first instance, then he'd have to say he was an agnostic yes, because it is the same thing as being an atheist.

[dervish]

There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.