• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

I have discovered Richard Dawkins...

Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem is that atheism has reached meme-culture, and is now seen as a meme itself. A lot of these atheists on the internet have led it to such a position using Dawkins as their primary motivator.

Dawkins' message isn't bad. I respect it. The people that follow him? Mostly immature blabbermouths, to be honest.
 
At least we do have

2015 - Accused a fourteen year old who disassembled a clock for a school project of being a fraud

He was a massive douche, but was he really wrong? Dawkins will stir any shit pot if there is one fact he can hold people accountable to. But the kid did just disassemble a clock, and ignored a teacher asking him not to flash it around. Which he refused to follow.
 
I remember having a very atheist friend give that book to me talking about how amazing it was and how it changed his life. It was honestly garbage in terms of content, philosophy 101 errors all over the place. (I don't really have an informed opinion on it being a cultural taboo breaker, hard to remember in those terms). He is a very good scientist though and explains that arena extremely well his books, but philosopher he is not.

I've found that to be true of most atheist spokesman to be honest. They fail a lot of the "isms" tests and are better at undercutting than actually selling.

Philosophy 101 errors? It was a book about how religion is illogical. Maybe philosophers are more susceptible to The God Delusion.
 
He's a very good biologist, but I can do without most things he's said about... Well, everything outside of biology in the last few years. As others have pointed out, he's definitely shown his sexist, xenophobic side, and his criticism of religion can be pretty wonky and un-nuanced.

Philosophy 101 errors? It was a book about how religion is illogical. Maybe philosophers are more susceptible to The God Delusion.

I'm as nonreligious as they come, but plenty of The God Delusion reminds me of someone positing a "grand theory of everything" in a field of science they only have a basic understanding of. It's just a lot of pages that say "RELIGION IS BAD," with a strong focus on a few narrow topics.
 
He's a good scientist, and of the 'four horseman of the apocalypse' I think he's probably my favorite (Dennett is good too). I say this as a person who believes there's a God. The man does good work, but can't seem to help from putting his foot in his mouth.
 
I've found that to be true of most atheist spokesman to be honest. They fail a lot of the "isms" tests and are better at undercutting than actually selling.

There are actually a lot of philosophically substantial atheist philosophers out there, as long as you look for actual philosophy books; not just for the books of the "New Atheists" whose primary function was not to reinvent the philosophical wheel, but to start a solidarity movement through outspokenness. For instance, Betrand Russel, or John Leslie Mackie. In fact, it seems to me—and I remember a survey confirming that—that metaphysical naturalism is the most widely adopted category of world views among professional philosophers.
 
I'm not sure what's douchey about him I'm going to to read his Books that you guys recommended however I'm not sure how he's a dick? He comes to argument with logical rational thinking arguments
 
Great person. Admire him very much. I don't give a shit what the internet thinks of him.

Fantastic writer too, I really should read more books from him.
 
he's an interesting man with some good ideas but also a tremendous dick
I hear this a lot, but I've never seen any examples. What has he done to deserve this? It seems like there is a knee-jerk reaction on the internet to call him a dick, and I get the feeling that most people saying it are just regurgitating others opinions they've seen over-and-over online. Buuut I also trust you and that when you say it you have an actual reason.
 
Philosophy 101 errors? It was a book about how religion is illogical. Maybe philosophers are more susceptible to The God Delusion.

Uhh, what? I just meant he would commit known philosophical errors relating to certain arguments like first causes and stuff like that. I remember him using the "Rock too heavy for God to lift" unironically for one (that's really about limitations of our conceptions of reality/omnipotence).

Anyway, I don't tend to give much attention to spokesman like him who can't call themselves feminists.

There are actually a lot of philosophically substantial atheist philosophers out there, as long as you look for actual philosophy books; not just for the books of the "New Atheists" whose primary function was not to reinvent the philosophical wheel, but to start a solidarity movement through outspokenness. For instance, Betrand Russel, or John Leslie Mackie. In fact, it seems to me—and I remember a survey confirming that—that metaphysical naturalism is the most widely adopted category of world views among professional philosophers.

I tried to nuance that by saying spokesman as opposed to just atheist philosopher. As I said, my impression has been that Dawkins-type folks are more about the style than the substance (being an icon/popular, that kind of thing). I'm not saying that everyone is a Dawkins type, just that they tend to capture the most mindshare.
 
Richard Dawkins is a complete asshole. As I recall he said trans women couldn't really be considered female because you can't "prove" that they're women.

He's needlessly pedantic and clearly has a superiority complex. Just goes to show that being a scientist does not necessarily mean you're smart.
 
I'm as nonreligious as they come, but plenty of The God Delusion reminds me of someone positing a "grand theory of everything" in a field of science they only have a basic understanding of. It's just a lot of pages that say "RELIGION IS BAD," with a strong focus on a few narrow topics.

It was inspiring enough for me to write a research paper about it in college and come to the same conclusions. His content was sound.
 
I'm not sure what's douchey about him I'm going to to read his Books that you guys recommended however I'm not sure how he's a dick? He comes to argument with logical rational thinking arguments

I hear this a lot, but I've never seen any examples. What has he done to deserve this? It seems like there is a knee-jerk reaction on the internet to call him a dick, and I get the feeling that most people saying it are just puking up what they've seen others say. Buuut I also trust your opinion to believe you when I see you say it.

beyond some twitter ramblings, watching The Unbelievers really cemented this for me

made a thread last year

http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=953815

up there with Bill Maher in terms of "im an atheist so im just gonna mock everyone religious lololol im smarter"

im an atheist btw
 
He's like your mom's cool uncle who comes around every once in a while and you really liked him when you were younger but now he's kind of gone to seed and he always smells like cooking sherry. You like him and respect him because he bought you your first pack of cigarettes but now you just kind of tolerate him and wince at him every once in a while but it's fine he's mostly harmless. Like every time you try and have one on one time with him, you try and try but eventually you just realize the only thing you really want to talk to him about is the cool adventures the two of you *used* to have, the reminiscing is pleasant.

sounds more like christopher hitchens
 
Richard Dawkins is a complete asshole. As I recall he said trans women couldn't really be considered female because you can't "prove" that they're women.

He's needlessly pedantic and clearly has a superiority complex. Just goes to show that being a scientist does not necessarily mean you're smart.

Again how's he being an asshole? And he is very smart- much smarter than you I can assure you.
 
he's an interesting man with some good ideas but also a tremendous dick
Not really. Most of the time people really take his comments out of context & blow shit out of the water. He's pretty respectful when discussing stuff like religion with priests & such. He usually attacks the isms/ideologies and not (all the) people who fall under those isms & ideologies. He has no patience for idiocy, so he doesn't pussyfoot around people acting like dumb fucks, but if/when there are religious people who can have a discussion about religion, atheism & criticism about religion without turning all Westboro at people, then he has no problem conducting himself well.
 
About time!
sZEs6g6.gif

and the survey says...

YOU'RE DEAD
 
Again how's he being an asshole? And he is very smart- much smarter than you I can assure you.

Preach it brother. The glory of our idol Dawkins rests in our commitment to defend his superior intellect to the non-believers. When the day of intellectualism comes we will cast aside these inane and petty fools to live in our true utopia of pedantry.
 
He's very good about certain topics...less so for others. But that's true of every expert, I suppose.

I enjoyed The Greatest Show on Earth


I had no idea Dawkin's was such a great writer until I heard Ricky Gervais (probably also hated these days) read this passage on his podcast with orange-boy.

“A world without rodents would be a very different world. It is less likely to come to pass than a world dominated by rodents and free of people. If nuclear war destroys humanity and most of the rest of life, a good bet for survival in the short term, and for evolutionary ancestry in the long term, is rats. I have a post-Armageddon vision. We and all other large animals are gone. Rodents emerge as the ultimate post-human scavengers.

They gnaw their way through New York, London and Tokyo, digesting spilled larders, ghost supermarkets and human corpses and turning them into new generations of rats and mice, whose racing populations explode out of the cities and into the countryside. When all the relics of human profligacy are eaten, populations crash again, and the rodents turn on each other, and on the cockroaches scavenging with them. In a period of intense competition, short generations perhaps with radioactivity enhanced mutation-rates boost rapid evolution. With human ships and planes gone, islands become islands again, with local populations isolated save for occasional lucky raftings: ideal conditions for evolutionary divergence.

Within 5 million years, a whole range of new species replace the ones we know. Herds of giant grazing rats are stalked by sabre-toothed predatory rats. Given enough time, will a species of intelligent, cultivated rats emerge? Will rodent historians and scientists eventually organise careful archaeological digs (gnaws?) through the strata of our long-compacted cities, and reconstruct the peculiar and temporarily tragic circumstances that gave ratkind its big break?”

From The Ancestor’s Tale by Richard Dawkins


After I heard that I picked up The Greatest Show on Earth and it's great. I think he's a better writer than Stephen Jay Gould.
 
I used to play Crysis online while listening to an audiobook of "The God Delusion" and enjoying it, an even I feel that Richard Dawkins is somebody who has a lot of bad baggage along with the good.
 
Again how's he being an asshole? And he is very smart- much smarter than you I can assure you.

I literally gave an example of him being an asshole right there in my post.
Real mature of you to immediately insult me though. I'm glad you're qualified to make a judgment on my intelligence despite the fact we have never met.
 
He was a massive douche, but was he really wrong? Dawkins will stir any shit pot if there is one fact he can hold people accountable to. But the kid did just disassemble a clock, and ignored a teacher asking him not to flash it around. Which he refused to follow.

Whether he's wrong or not is really irrelevant to the fact that Dawkins was A) super petty about it, and B) coming up with ridiculous conspiracies that the kid wanted to be arrested and that the whole thing was a publicity stunt from the start.
 
It wasn't until I heard Ricky Gervais (probably also hated these days) read this passage on his podcast with orange-boy that I knew Dawkin's was such a great writer.



From The Ancestor’s Tale by Richard Dawkins


After I heard that I picked up The Greatest Show on Earth and it's great. I think he's a better writer than Stephen Jay Gould.

Unfortunately, I haven't read Ancestor's Tale, but I do like that excerpt. The Greatest Show on Earth is great, as well.

And, I mean, as much flak as some might give to The God Delusion, it did help me along my path towards atheism. I think I probably would have landed here anyway, but at the time, I was a high schooler and I didn't really know any atheists or have websites to debate the topic on, so it was the first time I actually saw someone attempt to tackle the problem of religion in that way.
 
I literally gave an example of him being an asshole right there in my post.
Real mature of you to immediately insult me though. I'm glad you're qualified to make a judgment on my intelligence despite the fact we have never met.

oh please, that's some grade school antics
 
Philosophy 101 errors? It was a book about how religion is illogical. Maybe philosophers are more susceptible to The God Delusion.

It is true that his book is not a rigorous philosophical analysis of the subject. For instance, his main argument against the existence of a creator god is not even presented in a logically sound way. His conclusions do not follow logically from the premises. The main idea of the argument is still valid, but it's not something that would be accepted in a rigorous philosophical setting. Another example is his discussion of "who created the creator", which fails to address the actual theological position, namely that gods are necessary entities who exist without the need of being created; which is still a silly position, but it's the theological position against which you would have to argue in a rigorous philosophical book.

Is that important? In my opinion, no. The main purpose of the book was to break taboos, raise consciousness, and start a solidarity movement. There have already been countless books that discuss theism and atheism philosophically. Honestly, the philosophical debate about the existence of gods is pretty much settled. It's only kept alive by smart theistic philosophers who use absurd and convoluted pseudo-philosophy to give themselves a intellectual excuse for their beliefs; like proponents of natural theology like Plantinga or Craig, or countless proponents of post-modernist constructivism in theology. Unlike other areas of scholarship, philosophy has no robust and institutionalized mechanism to measure progress. So we keep riding this dead horse.
 
oh please, that's some grade school antics

And insulting my intelligence for criticizing a noted transphobe and Islamophobe isn't?

I'm sure Dawkins knows quite a bit about evolution but there is much more to intelligence than just knowledge.

EDIT: To be clear Dawkins is absolutely a brilliant scientist. But that in itself doesn't make him smart, and his Twitter antics prove that.
 
I'm a Christian, and I thoroughly enjoyed The Selfish Gene. That's honestly one of the better non-fiction books I've read. Obviously I disagree with Dawkins that evolution somehow disproves religion, but that's not the main focus of the book, and it was a really good overview of evolutionary biology for laypeople otherwise.

I don't do Twitter. I know Dawkins is, difficult, in other contexts, but his basic science is worth reading on its own merit.
 
I like Dawkins but I preferred Hitchens, and Hitchens was considered an asshole way before Dawkins was.
In terms of the New Atheists, Hitchens was the most abrasive, but likable.

I wonder how his antics would play out today.

Dan Dennett is probably at the opposite end. He looks and has the temperament of Santa Claus.
 
Its not only the gaming side of GAF that is hyperbole central, that much is apparent. Driveby posting with extraordinary criticisms and claims but without any substancial arguments or info to back it up. At most we get some misrepresentations. I get it, by criticizing someone who is an renown scientist and writer with an amazing body of work will (hopefully) make you look smart and sophisticated, but it falls flat if you dont actually form a substantial argument.
 
I'm a Christian, and I thoroughly enjoyed The Selfish Gene. That's honestly one of the better non-fiction books I've read. Obviously I disagree with Dawkins that evolution somehow disproves religion, but that's not the main focus of the book, and it was a really good overview of evolutionary biology for laypeople otherwise.

I don't do Twitter. I know Dawkins is, difficult, in other contexts, but his basic science is worth reading on its own merit.

Unless the title of his books contains a reference about Religion, they typically stay on the subject matter pretty well.
 
And insulting my intelligence for criticizing a noted transphobe and Islamophobe isn't?

I'm sure Dawkins knows quite a bit about evolution but there is much more to intelligence than just knowledge.

EDIT: To be clear Dawkins is absolutely a brilliant scientist. But that in itself doesn't make him smart, and his Twitter antics prove that.

i've not seen any gross phobias from his books, debates, tweets

he's academic to a prickliest of points
 
Yes. You will really actually understand evolution after reading that book.
It goes over many of the concepts that make Natural Selection work.

I listened to the Audiobook version, it should be required listening or reading in High School biology class. They do such a poor job teaching it in comparison.
Is there a good place to get free or cheap audiobooks?
 
Its not only the gaming side of GAF that is hyperbole central, that much is apparent. Driveby posting with extraordinary criticisms and claims but without any substancial arguments or info to back it up. At most we get some misrepresentations. I get it, by criticizing someone who is an renown scientist and writer with an amazing body of work will (hopefully) make you look smart and sophisticated, but it falls flat if you dont actually form a substantial argument.

There's absolutely substantial info against Dawkins in this thread. Such as, for example, the times he claimed that Ahmed Mohamed was trying to get arrested and that we should defend someone claiming transgender women are actually men. And if you need some sources for those:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/...wkins-questions-ahmed-mohamed-motive-backlash
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/10/2...by-germaine-greer-to-go-home-and-hug-a-teddy/
You can defend this guy if you want, but don't try to claim the arguments against him aren't "substantive." There is plenty of reason to dislike Richard Dawkins.
 
It is true that his book is not a rigorous philosophical analysis of the subject. For instance, his main argument against the existence of a creator god is not even presented in a logically sound way. His conclusions do not follow logically from the premises. The main idea of the argument is still valid, but it's not something that would be accepted in a rigorous philosophical setting. Another example is his discussion of "who created the creator", which fails to address the actual theological position, namely that gods are necessary entities who exist without the need of being created; which is still a silly position, but it's the theological position against which you would have to argue in a rigorous philosophical book.

I'm not saying he had to do hard philosophy, but he did incorporate traditional arguments / exercises throughout the book that had omissions/errors that readers would realize were mistakes/misleading after an introductory philosophy class. It's not a theistic objection to ask that if you invoke a philosophical argument that you present it correctly. It just cut some cheap corners and was a bit scattershot. As a cultural moment in time, it is what it is, but I don't think it's aged well or robust enough to serve as a strong general recommendation.
 
Richard Dawkins is kinda what all the "anti-PC" people think they are doing when they say dickish things. Probably due to the word count on Twitter, he says lots of abrupt, harsh, poorly explained things that, once explained more thoroughly via some other medium aren't really that extreme.

Like with the clock. Any other medium, he could have said, "It's wrong to arrest anyone for a clock, but also this is clearly a disassembled store bought clock in a box, not something he built himself" but on twitter, it gets reduced to, "this kid didn't invent a clock" which is reductive and prompts the gut reaction of "well, yeah, clocks have been around for forever. Ass".

When his ideas are fully formed and explained, I find myself agreeing with him more than disagreeing, but he should really just stay off of twitter.
 
There's absolutely substantial info against Dawkins in this thread. Such as, for example, the times he claimed that Ahmed Mohamed was trying to get arrested and that we should defend someone claiming transgender women are actually men. And if you need some sources for those:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/...wkins-questions-ahmed-mohamed-motive-backlash
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/10/2...by-germaine-greer-to-go-home-and-hug-a-teddy/
You can defend this guy if you want, but don't try to claim the arguments against him aren't "substantive." There is plenty of reason to dislike Richard Dawkins.
Well....Dawkins was right about telling people to go home and hug a teddy. The Amed thing? I'm not gonna touch that with a 10-foot pole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom