Sean Carroll has just posted an article on Cosmic Variance that everyone just has to read—especially the appeasers who think that Richard Dawkins is harming the "cause." Read Thank You, Richard Dawkins right now and enjoy your St. Valentine's Day.
14 comments
:
Anonymous
said...
In the linked article, Carroll writes:
In other words, by being arrogant and uncompromising in his atheism, Dawkins has done a tremendous amount to make the very concept of atheism a respectable part of the public debate, even if you find him personally obnoxious.
No, he hasn't. What Dawkins has done is made his brand of atheism a part of the debate in much the same way that Pat Robertson makes his brand of Christianity a part of the debate: namely, by being so persistently loud and pushy that he can't be ignored anymore. But there's a big, big difference between "too pushy to ignore" to "a respectable part of the debate." I don't know anyone who considers Dawkins's position "respectable" ... except, of course, for his fellow loud, pushy, obnoxious atheists like PZ Myers. To most observers, and most other participants, Dawkins comes across as just another loud, pushy, obnoxious, table-pounding jerk.
I don't know anyone who considers Dawkins's position "respectable" ... except, of course, for his fellow loud, pushy, obnoxious atheists like PZ Myers.
Please include me in that crowd. I think the "very concept of atheism" is a respectable part of the public debate. And I think Dawkins' atheism is respectable.
You are confusing the idea of atheism with the personality of the advocate.
Why am I not surprised that you find Dawkins threatening?
I'm sorry ... what "cause" were you talking about?
I've always thought Dawkins was doing a fine job of advancing atheism, as Carroll says.
And of course atheism is a respectable part of any intellectual debate and should be a respectable part of any public debate it touches on.
The objection from "appeasers" has been the tendency among some people to think that advancing atheism is the same thing as advancing the cause of science or science education.
I don't see where Carroll even tries to make that second case.
"The objection from "appeasers" has been the tendency among some people to think that advancing atheism is the same thing as advancing the cause of science or science education."
I don't think it is the main reason, since it seems for many open advocacy of atheism is a problem in itself. Which is a better argument in itself, since there is people in the advocacy group that doesn't do the above connection.
Conversely some appeasers do this, since a common complaint is that advancing atheism may harm advancing the cause of science.
I don't understand the comparison between Dawkins and Robertson.
One is a scientist with impeccable credentials and by all accounts a competent if not eloquent writer. The other is a charismatic televangelist with no academic credentials worth noting and no published writings of any appreciable quality.
One argues for beliefs based on facts and reason. The other argues for absolute faith and obedience to an often-incomprehensible and translated text.
One calls for a secular government regardless of society's religious beliefs; the other, for the leveling of cities and loss of life as punishments for sins of one variety or another.
One speaks in lecture halls and debates openly with those who disagree with him. The other sits in a television studio, pronouncing all manner of propaganda, illogic, and venomous sanctimony without question or challenge under the guise of "religious freedom."
Dawkins has never argued that Robertson be silenced or supressed, yet I would challenge anyone to find any example of a fundamentalist or evangelical who does not openly call for or tacitly believe in silencing atheism.
Yet, it is Dawkins who is arrogant, Dawkins who is unapologetic and pushy, Dawkins who is the table-pounding jerk.
I would submit that it is neither pushy nor rude to unapologetically and aggressively hold a position when there is evidence to support it (and none, by the way, to support the contrary positions). When confronted with the barbaric ramblings of a Pat Robertson, the only civilized response is an emphatic, unapologetic, and thorough critical examination of the claims.
Why am I not surprised that you find Dawkins threatening?
Probably because you're jumping to a conclusion. Please note that I have said nothing about my own position WRT theism or religion. And the only reason I find Dawkins "threatening" is that his loud, pushy, obnoxious, off-putting brand of atheism threatens my goal of achieving some sort of peaceful detente between the many religious sects, including the atheists, so that all are free to believe what they want and no one finds it necessary to elevate religious ideology (again, including atheism) over real-world concerns such as providing all citizens with a useful understanding of the natural Universe.
mark:
Yet, it is Dawkins who is arrogant, Dawkins who is unapologetic and pushy, Dawkins who is the table-pounding jerk.
You misunderstood, or perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I consider both Dawkins and Robertson to be loud, pushy, obnoxious, table-pounding jerks. And both men do equal damage to their causes by adopting that attitude. Preachers like Robertson long ago drove me away from organized Christianity; preachers like Dawkins more recently drove me away from seeking any association with atheism. Nowadays I view them with equal contempt.
"no one finds it necessary to elevate religious ideology (again, including atheism) over real-world concerns such as providing all citizens with a useful understanding of the natural Universe."
Most people can handle several thoughts and processes at once. One of Dawkins goals seems to be to reduce the elevation of religious ideology over real-world concerns. You two should be happy together.
"I consider both Dawkins and Robertson to be loud, pushy, obnoxious, table-pounding jerks."I pity the abject imbecility of a person who could even form that sentence in his or her mind, let alone type it.
torbjorn wrote: "One of Dawkins goals seems to be to reduce the elevation of religious ideology over real-world concerns. You two should be happy together."
Indeed. And if that was all Dawkins was trying to do, I wouldn't be nearly as bothered by his actions and attitude. Unfortunately, it's not all he's trying to do.
Since Larry calls me the "classic appeaser" and I don't consider open advocacy of atheism to be a problem in itself, somebody has a definitional problem. When you guys can figure out just what an "appeaser" is, get back to me.
Conversely, I've never lumped all atheists into a group (making up a needlessly insulting name for them) and said they all are mistakenly confusing atheism for science. I've complained about specific people doing specific things. I, for one, don't want to be like -- don't want to think like -- the worst of the religious people we oppose by turning others into mere labels.
When you guys can figure out just what an "appeaser" is, get back to me.
John, we've explained this to you about a dozen times already. Are you a slow learner? :-)
In this context, the word "appeaser" refers to an atheist who is quite happy to criticize the religious views of anti-evolutionists but grants a free pass to theistic evolutionists.
(S)he is prepared to lay off any criticism of the superstitious beliefs of theistic evolutionists on the grounds that they are allies in the fight against creationism.
14 comments :
In the linked article, Carroll writes:
In other words, by being arrogant and uncompromising in his atheism, Dawkins has done a tremendous amount to make the very concept of atheism a respectable part of the public debate, even if you find him personally obnoxious.
No, he hasn't. What Dawkins has done is made his brand of atheism a part of the debate in much the same way that Pat Robertson makes his brand of Christianity a part of the debate: namely, by being so persistently loud and pushy that he can't be ignored anymore. But there's a big, big difference between "too pushy to ignore" to "a respectable part of the debate." I don't know anyone who considers Dawkins's position "respectable" ... except, of course, for his fellow loud, pushy, obnoxious atheists like PZ Myers. To most observers, and most other participants, Dawkins comes across as just another loud, pushy, obnoxious, table-pounding jerk.
"To most observers, and most other participants..." You know what's really arrogant? Desribing your own little circle of wankers as "most observers".
wolfwalker says,
I don't know anyone who considers Dawkins's position "respectable" ... except, of course, for his fellow loud, pushy, obnoxious atheists like PZ Myers.
Please include me in that crowd. I think the "very concept of atheism" is a respectable part of the public debate. And I think Dawkins' atheism is respectable.
You are confusing the idea of atheism with the personality of the advocate.
Why am I not surprised that you find Dawkins threatening?
I'm sorry ... what "cause" were you talking about?
I've always thought Dawkins was doing a fine job of advancing atheism, as Carroll says.
And of course atheism is a respectable part of any intellectual debate and should be a respectable part of any public debate it touches on.
The objection from "appeasers" has been the tendency among some people to think that advancing atheism is the same thing as advancing the cause of science or science education.
I don't see where Carroll even tries to make that second case.
"The objection from "appeasers" has been the tendency among some people to think that advancing atheism is the same thing as advancing the cause of science or science education."
I don't think it is the main reason, since it seems for many open advocacy of atheism is a problem in itself. Which is a better argument in itself, since there is people in the advocacy group that doesn't do the above connection.
Conversely some appeasers do this, since a common complaint is that advancing atheism may harm advancing the cause of science.
I don't understand the comparison between Dawkins and Robertson.
One is a scientist with impeccable credentials and by all accounts a competent if not eloquent writer. The other is a charismatic televangelist with no academic credentials worth noting and no published writings of any appreciable quality.
One argues for beliefs based on facts and reason. The other argues for absolute faith and obedience to an often-incomprehensible and translated text.
One calls for a secular government regardless of society's religious beliefs; the other, for the leveling of cities and loss of life as punishments for sins of one variety or another.
One speaks in lecture halls and debates openly with those who disagree with him. The other sits in a television studio, pronouncing all manner of propaganda, illogic, and venomous sanctimony without question or challenge under the guise of "religious freedom."
Dawkins has never argued that Robertson be silenced or supressed, yet I would challenge anyone to find any example of a fundamentalist or evangelical who does not openly call for or tacitly believe in silencing atheism.
Yet, it is Dawkins who is arrogant, Dawkins who is unapologetic and pushy, Dawkins who is the table-pounding jerk.
I would submit that it is neither pushy nor rude to unapologetically and aggressively hold a position when there is evidence to support it (and none, by the way, to support the contrary positions). When confronted with the barbaric ramblings of a Pat Robertson, the only civilized response is an emphatic, unapologetic, and thorough critical examination of the claims.
Larry:
Why am I not surprised that you find Dawkins threatening?
Probably because you're jumping to a conclusion. Please note that I have said nothing about my own position WRT theism or religion. And the only reason I find Dawkins "threatening" is that his loud, pushy, obnoxious, off-putting brand of atheism threatens my goal of achieving some sort of peaceful detente between the many religious sects, including the atheists, so that all are free to believe what they want and no one finds it necessary to elevate religious ideology (again, including atheism) over real-world concerns such as providing all citizens with a useful understanding of the natural Universe.
mark:
Yet, it is Dawkins who is arrogant, Dawkins who is unapologetic and pushy, Dawkins who is the table-pounding jerk.
You misunderstood, or perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I consider both Dawkins and Robertson to be loud, pushy, obnoxious, table-pounding jerks. And both men do equal damage to their causes by adopting that attitude. Preachers like Robertson long ago drove me away from organized Christianity; preachers like Dawkins more recently drove me away from seeking any association with atheism. Nowadays I view them with equal contempt.
"no one finds it necessary to elevate religious ideology (again, including atheism) over real-world concerns such as providing all citizens with a useful understanding of the natural Universe."
Most people can handle several thoughts and processes at once. One of Dawkins goals seems to be to reduce the elevation of religious ideology over real-world concerns. You two should be happy together.
"I consider both Dawkins and Robertson to be loud, pushy, obnoxious, table-pounding jerks."I pity the abject imbecility of a person who could even form that sentence in his or her mind, let alone type it.
torbjorn wrote: "One of Dawkins goals seems to be to reduce the elevation of religious ideology over real-world concerns. You two should be happy together."
Indeed. And if that was all Dawkins was trying to do, I wouldn't be nearly as bothered by his actions and attitude. Unfortunately, it's not all he's trying to do.
Torbjörn:
Since Larry calls me the "classic appeaser" and I don't consider open advocacy of atheism to be a problem in itself, somebody has a definitional problem. When you guys can figure out just what an "appeaser" is, get back to me.
Conversely, I've never lumped all atheists into a group (making up a needlessly insulting name for them) and said they all are mistakenly confusing atheism for science. I've complained about specific people doing specific things. I, for one, don't want to be like -- don't want to think like -- the worst of the religious people we oppose by turning others into mere labels.
wolfwalker:
"Unfortunately, it's not all he's trying to do."
If I subtract your adjectives in describing Dawkins, I don't find any claims on what he is trying to do except the one I cited.
John:
I don't see any problem in my description of appeaser contra others. I left open for other definitions.
John Pieret asks,
When you guys can figure out just what an "appeaser" is, get back to me.
John, we've explained this to you about a dozen times already. Are you a slow learner? :-)
In this context, the word "appeaser" refers to an atheist who is quite happy to criticize the religious views of anti-evolutionists but grants a free pass to theistic evolutionists.
(S)he is prepared to lay off any criticism of the superstitious beliefs of theistic evolutionists on the grounds that they are allies in the fight against creationism.
Post a Comment