Is Dawkins a coward?

[LA Ute]

Summon Seattle Ute (http://www.thejc.com/node/102653):


In a recent Al-Jazeerah interview, Richard Dawkins was asked his views on God. He argued that the god of "the Old Testament" is "hideous" and "a monster", and reiterated his claim from The God Delusion that the God of the Torah is the most unpleasant character "in fiction".

As you can see, Dawkins has no trouble attacking the Hebrew God in a most direct and uncompromising manner. No atheist wallflower he.

Asked if he thought the same of the God of the Koran, Dawkins ducked the question, saying: "Well, um, the God of the Koran I don't know so much about."

How can it be that the world's most fearless atheist, celebrated for his strident opinions on the Christian and Jewish Gods, could profess to know so little about the God of the Koran? Has he not had the time? Or is Professor Dawkins simply demonstrating that most crucial trait of his species: survival instinct.

[GarthUte]

The God of the Torah, the God of the Old Testament and the God of the Koran is the same God. Dawkins just knows that Jews and Christians won't kill him for bashing God, but he's too big of a pussy to say it to a group that will kill him.

In short, yes, Dawkins is a coward.

[480ute]

If you watch that entire Al-Jazeera interview Dawkins repeatedly pokes fun at the religion of Islam, and many of their beliefs. He has also been an out-spoken supporter of the Mohammad cartoonists that have been threatened, and even promoted a "Draw Mohammad Day" on his website a couple of years back. Any of these actions will get you killed just as quickly as speaking ill of Allah.

http://old.richarddawkins.net/videos/627568-draw-mohammad-day-2-needs-you

[LA Ute]

If you watch that entire Al-Jazeera interview Dawkins repeatedly pokes fun at the religion of Islam, and many of their beliefs. He has also been an out-spoken supporter of the Mohammad cartoonists that have been threatened, and even promoted a "Draw Mohammad Day" on his website a couple of years back. Any of these actions will get you killed just as quickly as speaking ill of Allah.

http://old.richarddawkins.net/videos/627568-draw-mohammad-day-2-needs-you

Fair enough. I am no student of Dawkins. I did think his answer about Allah was weak, but the part I saw and quoted may have been out of context as you suggest.

[Snowman]

Side note about the guy. I wish he wouldn't waste his time arguing with idiots who don't believe in evolution and do believe in invisible skymen. All he's doing is giving morons a platform. Especially with people who don't believe in evolution. Why would anyone want to have a discussion with these people?

[UtahDan]

Side note about the guy. I wish he wouldn't waste his time arguing with idiots who don't believe in evolution and do believe in invisible skymen. All he's doing is giving morons a platform. Especially with people who don't believe in evolution. Why would anyone want to have a discussion with these people?

Of course many religious folks aren't in that category. And the ones who do believe in evolution might not think you are worth talking to when you call their deity an invisible sky man. I think dialog can always be productive but you have to meet the other person enough on their ground as to not get tuned out.

[480ute]

Side note about the guy. I wish he wouldn't waste his time arguing with idiots who don't believe in evolution and do believe in invisible skymen. All he's doing is giving morons a platform. Especially with people who don't believe in evolution. Why would anyone want to have a discussion with these people?
The vast majority of Americans believe in God. They already have a huge platform, and calling them idiots or morons serves no purpose other than ensuring that they tune out from anything you have to say now, or in the future.

[SeattleUte]

Side note about the guy. I wish he wouldn't waste his time arguing with idiots who don't believe in evolution and do believe in invisible skymen. All he's doing is giving morons a platform. Especially with people who don't believe in evolution. Why would anyone want to have a discussion with these people?

This is all Dawkins really does -- he attacks the Biblical/Koranic god, which is an easy mark. I'm not a big fan of Dawkins. Like Hitchins, his best work precedes his war on religion. The quotation in my sig is there just to demonstrate he's really as agnostic as anyone else.

[UtahDan]

The vast majority of Americans believe in God. They already have a huge platform, and calling them idiots or morons serves no purpose other than ensuring that they tune out from anything you have to say now, or in the future.

Dawkins believes that if you ridicule religion enough that people will come to believe it is as silly as he does. I can't say there is nothing to the idea that if you express what is increndible about religion in a way that makes someone see it in a different light, you might persuade them. But if you do it in a way that insults them they tune out. It is a very hard line to find because in many cases an atheist's tone will be considered strident or insulting before the first syallble is uttered. Which is why I say you probably have to seek out some common ground (ethics for example) rather than going directly to saying Yahweh the most unpleasant character in fiction. The "in fiction" part is a gratuitous barb. You can make the same point without saying that much more effectively.

[UtahDan]

This is all Dawkins really does -- he attacks the Biblical/Koranic god, which is an easy mark. I'm not a big fan of Dawkins. Like Hitchins, his best work precedes his war on religion. The quotation in my sig is there just to demonstrate he's really as agnostic as anyone else.

You are up late.

[480ute]

Dawkins believes that if you ridicule religion enough that people will come to believe it is as silly as he does. I can't say there is nothing to the idea that if you express what is increndible about religion in a way that makes someone see it in a different light, you might persuade them. But if you do it in a way that insults them they tune out. It is a very hard line to find because in many cases an atheist's tone will be considered strident or insulting before the first syallble is uttered. Which is why I say you probably have to seek out some common ground (ethics for example) rather than going directly to saying Yahweh the most unpleasant character in fiction. The "in fiction" part is a gratuitous barb. You can make the same point without saying that much more effectively.
As a born again Christian I had many conversations with atheists, and the angry ones who like to throw insults (sometimes subtle sometimes not) lost me as soon as they did so. The ones who were willing to engage in a civil debate had my full undivided attention. I attribute my atheism more to my time spent reading the bible, but I wouldn't discount the words of some of those more respectful atheists who were willing to treat me as an intellectual equal.

[SeattleUte]

You are up late.

I'm in Boston.

[SeattleUte]

Dawkins believes that if you ridicule religion enough that people will come to believe it is as silly as he does. I can't say there is nothing to the idea that if you express what is increndible about religion in a way that makes someone see it in a different light, you might persuade them. But if you do it in a way that insults them they tune out. It is a very hard line to find because in many cases an atheist's tone will be considered strident or insulting before the first syallble is uttered. Which is why I say you probably have to seek out some common ground (ethics for example) rather than going directly to saying Yahweh the most unpleasant character in fiction. The "in fiction" part is a gratuitous barb. You can make the same point without saying that much more effectively.

Dawkins shows that people, including intelligent people, believe ridiculous things. That's not hard to do.

David Hume taught that if you want to get results you have to critique religion in a respectful even charming way.

[SoonerCoug]

I think it's kind of funny that Dawkins parades around as if he is a great scientist. He is not even really a scientist. He is a lecturer.

Pretty much every single BYU biology professor has published more than he has in legitimate science journals, and BYU is not a premier research institution (especially in biology).

[Snowman]

The Selfish Gene changed the way millions of people understand human behavior. On the other hand, professors at BYU have chosen to be associated with BYU.

[SoonerCoug]

The Selfish Gene changed the way millions of people understand human behavior. On the other hand, professors at BYU have chosen to be associated with BYU.

You're right, but BYU science professors are generally not only great lecturers but also legitimately trained scientists capable of making and publishing scientific discoveries. There are BYU professors that have published on evolution in Nature and Science. These are tremendous achievements. The U of Utah is full of fantastic scientists. Richard Dawkins doesn't hold a candle to any of them.

Writing a book for people's general understanding of science does mean he is a legitimate scientist. He is a lecturer. Richard Dawkins has ZERO scientific publications other than a bunch of pompous editorializing.

Not a single paper has been published by Dawkins reflecting actual scientific discoveries made by him. All he has published is 6 papers containing historical crap with a bunch of editorializing. He is not a scientist. He couldn't even earn a PhD at an American university without at least one or two original article based on data he obtained in a lab.

There are no data in these papers.

If you can't understand the difference, then you don't know anything about science.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p2/jjm47/ScreenShot2013-03-02at82318AM_zps0ddbd416.png

[SeattleUte]

I think it's kind of funny that Dawkins parades around as if he is a great scientist. He is not even really a scientist. He is a lecturer.

Pretty much every single BYU biology professor has published more than he has in legitimate science journals, and BYU is not a premier research institution (especially in biology).

Dawkins has written some good books about evolution for popular readers.

[SoonerCoug]

Dawkins has written some good books about evolution for popular readers.

I agree, but writing good books about evolution does not equal scientific discovery. You can't be a scientist without engaging in discovery.

When a historian writes a good book about history, this can be viewed as academic behavior. But it's different among scientists. His books are not viewed as productive scientific behavior by scientists. The same goes for Stephen Hawking's books, but Stephen Hawkings has also made many discoveries in theoretical physics and published those discoveries in peer-reviewed journals. Hawking's primary business is science, and books are a secondary engagement. This makes Hawking a legitimate scientist who happens to also write books. Dawkins is a book writer who doesn't even dabble in scientific discovery.

Original data published in peer-reviewed journals make a person a scientist. Laboratory technicians without bachelors degrees have made more discoveries than Dawkins.

Calling Dawkins a scientist is like calling someone a car maker who has never made a single car. Dawkins has zero data--zero. He pretends to be someone he is not.

If you wrote a book on science it would almost be the same thing. I'm sure you could write a great book because you're intelligent and a good writer, but it wouldn't make you a scientist.

[Snowman]

Do you have any links to him claiming to be anything more than a theorist?

[SoonerCoug]

I'm sure Dawkins has called himself a scientist, but even if he hasn't he still allows himself to be portrayed as a scientist instead of as a philosopher.

If he wants to educate people about science, then I'd think the first thing he should do is teach people about the difference between philosophy and science by explaining that he is a philosopher rather than a scientist.

I am not the only one who views Dawkins this way. I promise this is a standard view among scientists.

Read this interview with Harvard biologist Edward Wilson. He basically says the same thing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/aug/18/edward-wilson-harvard-biologist-interview

[UtahDan]

Troll.

[SoonerCoug]

Troll.

Yes, he is a coward--especially because he allows himself to be portrayed as a scientist when he isn't one.

[Snowman]

That's a very interesting read. I just put a couple of Wilson's books in my Amazon cart.

You make some good points about Dawkins but I'm not sure I buy into the idea that he's selling himself as something he's not. I actually think Hawking came across as more ridiculous when he was saying he has proof that there's no God. But you might be able to dig up something just as silly coming out of Dawkins.

[Snowman]

Troll.

Is that a joke?

[LA Ute]

Is that a joke?

UD is just poking Sooner.

[SoonerCoug]

Please put me in your Ute Speakeasy.

[Dawminator]

I have met two kind of atheists. The first kind are some of the most "Christian" people I have ever met. When I moved cross country they were the ones that invited me to sit at their table at lunch in high school while the protestants and others were afraid of my Mormon theology. I have friends at law school who are atheist/agnostic who are kind and charitable (which is by no means a surprise) and we have a very respectful relationship. We talk about religion and philosophy and they have expressed interest in coming to church services with me for the experience.

The second type are the kind that refer to most personal and deeply sacred belief I have as naive or "belief in sky men." I have no time and no respect for those people. They take sick pleasure in getting reactions out of those who believe and are the intellectual/emotional equals of Moose. I have met some very self righteous Mormons, Protestants, Born agains, Catholics, etc. and they all drive me crazy. But the most self righteous, arrogant, and condescending people I have ever met are these second types of atheists/agnostics.

End rant.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I have met two kind of atheists. The first kind are some of the most "Christian" people I have ever met. When I moved cross country they were the ones that invited me to sit at their table at lunch in high school while the protestants and others were afraid of my Mormon theology. I have friends at law school who are atheist/agnostic who are kind and charitable (which is by no means a surprise) and we have a very respectful relationship. We talk about religion and philosophy and they have expressed interest in coming to church services with me for the experience.

The second type are the kind that refer to most personal and deeply sacred belief I have as naive or "belief in sky men." I have no time and no respect for those people. They take sick pleasure in getting reactions out of those who believe and are the intellectual/emotional equals of Moose. I have met some very self righteous Mormons, Protestants, Born agains, Catholics, etc. and they all drive me crazy. But the most self righteous, arrogant, and condescending people I have ever met are these second types of atheists/agnostics.

End rant.

This is a fabulous rant. Bravo! :clap:

[Rocker Ute]

A good example of the problem of fringe representation in the internet age. The vocal, obnoxious minority within any group end up representing that group to the masses. The only cure is personal interaction. If I didn't personally know many atheists (or BYU fans, or Mormons, or republicans, or NRA members, or feminists, or .....), I would see them through the lens of internet comments.

One more reason to value education at a large, diverse university.

Like they say... there are no atheists at a Testament concert.

[LA Ute]

A good example of the problem of fringe representation in the internet age. The vocal, obnoxious minority within any group end up representing that group to the masses. The only cure is personal interaction. If I didn't personally know many atheists (or BYU fans, or Mormons, or republicans, or NRA members, or feminists, or .....), I would see them through the lens of internet comments.

Wait...are you suggesting that people who post on sports message boards are not...normal? 315

[SeattleUte]

Yes, self-righteous, hurtful, arrogant people of any persuasion are obnoxious and unkind.

[480ute]

The second type are the kind that refer to most personal and deeply sacred belief I have as naive or "belief in sky men." I have no time and no respect for those people. They take sick pleasure in getting reactions out of those who believe and are the intellectual/emotional equals of Moose. I have met some very self righteous Mormons, Protestants, Born agains, Catholics, etc. and they all drive me crazy. But the most self righteous, arrogant, and condescending people I have ever met are these second types of atheists/agnostics.

End rant.
Most atheists hate the second type too. They give people who simply lack faith, such as myself, a bad name by projecting an air of superiority over believers. It's impossible for me to think of religious folks as stupid when I have personally met SO many that are lightyears ahead of me in the intelligence department.

[wally]

I agree, but writing good books about evolution does not equal scientific discovery. You can't be a scientist without engaging in discovery.

When a historian writes a good book about history, this can be viewed as academic behavior. But it's different among scientists. His books are not viewed as productive scientific behavior by scientists. The same goes for Stephen Hawking's books, but Stephen Hawkings has also made many discoveries in theoretical physics and published those discoveries in peer-reviewed journals. Hawking's primary business is science, and books are a secondary engagement. This makes Hawking a legitimate scientist who happens to also write books. Dawkins is a book writer who doesn't even dabble in scientific discovery.

Original data published in peer-reviewed journals make a person a scientist. Laboratory technicians without bachelors degrees have made more discoveries than Dawkins.

Calling Dawkins a scientist is like calling someone a car maker who has never made a single car. Dawkins has zero data--zero. He pretends to be someone he is not.

If you wrote a book on science it would almost be the same thing. I'm sure you could write a great book because you're intelligent and a good writer, but it wouldn't make you a scientist.

Amen. I had an advisor on my committee that thought that I should work to publish my data in a peer-reviewed journal and then continue on the PhD track, but that shit is hard, so I bailed with an M.S. I'll bet that writing articles for adoring fans, and appearing on shows now and again is way easier than publishing.

Also, I saw a 1-hour PBS special on a sperm whale dissection (dead and beached) and Dawkins narrated some of it. Somehow I am doubtful that he is an expert sperm whale biologist, and moreso just a noteworthy narrator.

The highlight of that video was the scientist lady performing the dissection, all while trembling with anticipation and excitement, getting blasted in the face with digestive gases when she finally carved through enough blubber and sliced into stomach. Fortunately she was wearing protective glasses.

[SoonerCoug]

I also think Dawkins gets a lot of mileage out of his British accent.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I also think Dawkins gets a lot of mileage out of his British accent.

That accent instantaneously adds (the appearance of) 50 IQ points, in much the same way that a bunch of stickers and a fart-can muffler add (the appearance of) 50 horsepower to a Honda hatchback.

[woot]

A couple things on Dawkins: Yes, he is a real scientist. His idea of the "extended phenotype" was original, and is now universally accepted, as far as I am aware. It is true that he hasn't done original research in a really long time, however. He held the Oxford chair for the public understanding of science, and spent the vast majority of his time fulfilling that role. He's also been retired for a few years now, which is a decent excuse. I also think that theoretical scientists are needlessly lambasted. Just as theoretical physicists fill an important role and are not necessarily less important in the scientific ecosystem than, say, particle physicists, theoretical biologists are not necessarily less important than those doing basic research.

As much as I value original research, I think the ability to explain things to the public is a much rarer gift. Those who disrespect scientists like Gould, Sagan, Tyson, and Dawkins are missing the point, in my opinion. Even though they all made important original scientific contributions, their work with explaining it to the masses is far more valuable.

The other thing I'll say about Dawkins is that he fills an important role in the atheist movement. The words of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Bertrand Russel, PZ Meyers, and others had a big impact on me when I was in the midst of my faith crisis. Sometimes what people need is to understand just how silly some religious beliefs are. These days I find myself more often annoyed by that style of communication because I've graduated from that kind of thing, just as many believers haven't gotten to the point where that kind of dialog will be helpful or welcome. There are others to fill these other roles. I'm sure the more vociferous atheists do cause some religious folk to become more entrenched, and that's a legitimate problem, but I think as the world gets more and more secular there will continue to be Dawkins-like niches that need filling.