A lot of the feedback I’ve been getting has been on Dawkins. I’m sure the Dawkins that I know is a LOT different than the Dawkins that say - PZ knows. because i dont *know* dawkins - what I know about him is what i’ve read and what i’ve seen. So until I see differently, it is what I believe - and that is the very bottom line of everything in my life, really. So here’s the downlow.
- I didn’t like the Root of all Evil. I thought it was a fair representation of a certain percentage of christians. I could do the exact same interview with every Christian I know and get a completely different outcome than what Dawkins got with Ted. Yeah - Ted is an asshole. And yes - his push to teach kids anti-science and to push religion on everyone is absolutely what I’m against. That doesn’t make me like Dawkins anymore.
- He’s pretty smug and arrogant. Or at least he comes off that way, and I honestly don’t like listening to people who think they’re all “woo me!” … Some people are saying that’s how I come off - meh … so be it. If you met me in person or heard me talk you’d realize I’m really just an outspoken kid who happens to have a blog.
- I’ve read his books, I love The Selfish Gene, I really do. I also loved the Extended Phenotype. The Blind Watchmaker - I was a little less hot on. The God Delusion, I didn’t like what-so-ever. I 100% stand behind his criticism on creationism. I do not - however - agree that you can not be rational AND religious. He has been quoted as saying “Let’s stop being so damn respectful”… I can’t stop being respectful.
- this is the one that is going to get me beated … I think a lot of my dislike stems from his obvious complete lack of understanding of being religious. Moran has at least stated that he doesn’t have such a firm grasp on spirituality, and I strongly respect that … if you can admit that you don’t know, it’s a lot better than just pretending that it wouldn’t be helpful to know. And yes, you can say “do you have to understand fairies to know they’re crap!?” … No, but MILLIONS of people don’t find inner peace, don’t cope with death, don’t shape their lives around… etc… fairies.
now … dawkins et al have certainly put out a foundation for us to work up on. And yes, I have no problem standing on the shoulder of these giants and taking advantage of the platform they’ve created for us. I have no problem doing that, while saying that I disagree with them. The one thing I’ve always liked about being released free from religion is that now I have the freedom to disagree. I have the freedom to have an opinion that doesn’t have to follow any sort of rule. I absolutely HATE that I wrote a piece and was then ripped apart by the people who I thought were all for thinking critically and seeing the other side of things.
I sat down with my step dad this morning and he spouted a lot of stuff that I disagreed with, and we talked about it. We talked about what happens after death, the definition of god and what role faith has in someone’s life. The important thing was that we had a discussion, and at the end of it had a better understand of where the other is coming from.
Anyway. That’s my take on Dawkins slightly more explained. I know people fall to his feet and love what he does… I love what I do, and would rather have myself as an example for people than Dawkins. I’ve managed to find a balance between fighting for secular politics and life - while still maintaining respect, discussion and friendships with theists. I’ve managed to become the president of my student group, vice president of a secular canadian charity and do a TON of secular multi-media projects across Canada… all done while never letting it get to my head, never telling a theist they were stupid but still stood firm on issues like politics and religion staying separate.
You don’t have to be loud and proud to be effective.
I haven’t criticized you for having a problem with Dawkins because I think it’s unrealistic to expect everyone in the “atheist community” to agree about everything, but now that you’ve explained yourself a little more I am a bit confused. I disagree with all of your points regarding Dawkins, but the only one that I think is confusing is your second comment.
I’m seriously starting to wonder if I have some kind of brain disorder that prevents me from recognizing arrogance, like those that don’t get sarcasm. I’m not just saying this because it’s a convenient rhetorical device, but because I’ve repeatedly found myself in situations where someone that I know, even if only indirectly, has been described as arrogant, and each time I’ve been caught off guard. It makes me wonder if I’m arrogant.
Fortunately, in the case of Dawkins, I’ve found myself defending him on a number of occasions (which is odd), and I’m used to the arrogance charge, though I can’t say I understand it any better. While I don’t doubt that Dawkins is smug or arrogant on occasion (I think we’re all smug or arrogant on occasion), I don’t think you’ve characterized his overall behavior accurately. Let me explain: I think Dawkins is confident, meaning that when it comes to certain topics of discussion, he feels that he knows what he’s talking about, and when he doesn’t possess sufficient information, he becomes hesitant, such as when he discusses physics. This may not be important to you because I think you’re addressing the way he handles the topics he is familiar with (I don’t think you’re criticizing him for being arrogant about everything, in other words). This is where our disagreement may be at its strongest, and I think it ties into the notion of respect, which you’ve also mentioned.
When Dawkins is arguing with someone that he disagrees with very strongly, he’s not going to go out of his way to take care with other person’s emotions. That doesn’t mean that he’s going to attack them (and it’s rare that he does), but when he’s attacking their arguments, he’s not going to hold back because his interlocutor is having an emotional crisis. He also isn’t going to waste his time with people that would like to use their time with him to pontificate. In many ways, Dawkins practices what Sam Harris advocates: conversational intolerance. While he may or may not respect the person he’s arguing with, I don’t think he should be encouraged to respect their beliefs.
Is that arrogant? I don’t think so. I’m not even sure if that’s why you think he comes across as arrogant, but those are my thoughts.
Hi Katie,
My thoughts echo a lot of what Jonathan already said. Just to add to that, we have to recognize the difference between the right wing religious in the US and Canada. Up here it’s like right wing lite. Annoying for sure, but no real voice, no real power, although Harper and his band of wannabe neo cons scares the crap outta me, so we still have to be vigilant. Down there, it’s a full scale battle. Dawkins is at the center of the battle. In battle if you show a single vulnerability, the “enemy” will exploit it. One chink in his armor and they would pounce on him like you wouldn’t believe. So ya, if you think of it in those terms, it becomes easier to understand his perceived arrogance. It also becomes easier to see why he has to decry all religion as, well, completely delusional. I happen to agree with him on that, it’s just up here I’m afforded the luxury of being nice to those same moderately religious people. If the balance holds, I’ll continue being nice.
Truthfully what I’m hoping for is that the collateral effect of Dawkins (and others) efforts trickles into Canada, allowing more and more people to become free thinkers.
If you look at it with an unbiased eye, a lot of what we’ve accomplished in this country thru peaceful efforts and patience has been won thru the efforts of the people of the United States. There is a correlation there. The Declaration of Independance, The Civil War. Those are things we’ve been spared having to do because our neighbours to the south did them first. We’ve learned from thier efforts. And thier mistakes.
There are a lot of things I don’t like about the US. There are a lot of things I do like. For instance… I hate the idea of unrestricted Capitalism. Any system without suitable controls breeds things like materialism and avaristic nature. I mean seriously, 50 million for a sports player? 25 million for a CEO? 9 million for a radio talk show host? *poke poke*. I hate that about the US. Of course I hate that up here too. No effective universal health care is another thing they are lacking and something that they could learn from us.
One of the things I do love about the United States is thier Declaration of Independance. I still get chills when I read that document. The foresight and effort that that document required astounds me to this day. And it built on a previous document that I also hold in the highest esteem, the Magna Carta. And that was written in 1215!
Freedom is not free. Sometimes, most times, it’s been paid in blood. The current battle raging for freedom in the US (and make no mistake, it is a battle) is bloodless. I hope it remains so. I really do, for if it doesn’t, well, I think you can understand what that would mean for all of us.
To quote Patrick Henry… “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.”
Let me preface this by saying that I’m an atheist, and that my main problem with Dawkins isn’t arrogance, but cluelessness. That said, I can understand why a religious person would consider him arrogant. It has little to do with confidence; Neil DeGrasse Tyson is far more confident and outspoken, and hasn’t gotten the arrogant tag from anyone.
Instead, it’s how Dawkins talks down to religious people. He doesn’t merely say that God doesn’t exist or that science is a good way of looking at things. Instead, he calls his book The God Delusion, and says that he believes everyone should be convinced by his argument except “faithheads.” His way of looking at science is religious; he compares the usefulness of science in the world to the usefulness of playing the violin as an exercise for one’s right arm. He has an almost Randian way of looking at intellectuals, regarding them as far more than yet another elite that understands one thing (e.g. chemistry, evolutionary biology, economics), indeed as the smart people who should tell everyone what to believe.
In every discipline, some people are truly the cream of the crop. Others excel at popularizing the discipline. Yet others claim that the discipline is somehow essential to good morality or success, and flaunt their success in front of others. In business, rich investors like Warren Buffett are in the first category; successful business writers are in the second; get-rich-quick writers and Donald Trump are in the third. And indeed, people seem to loathe Donald Trump far more than Warren Buffett, to look down on get-rich-quick books more than on ordinary business books. Dawkins used to be in the second category in biology, but he’s increasingly in the third, with his ideas of how Darwinian evolution has abolished God and his magical way of looking at science.
“Neil DeGrasse Tyson is far more confident and outspoken, and hasn’t gotten the arrogant tag from anyone.”
How do you measure Tyson’s confidence, and what is he more outspoken than Dawkins about? It’s certainly not atheism.
Of course Tyson hasn’t gotten the ‘arrogant tag’ from anyone. He’s too busy trying to appease the religious.
“You don’t have to be loud and proud to be effective.”
Of course not. It’s just as effective to keep your mouth shut and go sit in the back of the bus.
How do you measure Tyson’s confidence, and what is he more outspoken than Dawkins about? It’s certainly not atheism.
Listen to him speak. He has a charismatic tone to him, especially when he talks about science. When I saw him speak at the November conference, he didn’t say anything about religion. Instead, he talked about the teaching of science, chastised teachers who think pretending TV doesn’t exist is a good teaching strategy, and talked about the relation between science and reason.
He did go off-message once, when someone blurted a question about innate differences between men and women and how it’s related to there not being so many women in science. He replied, “I’ve never been a woman, but I have been black all my life,” told a story or two about the racism he’d endured, and concluded forcefully, “so, before we talk about innate differences, let’s have equal opportunity.” That was perhaps the only time at the entire conference anyone stood up for a group that actually is oppressed.
I should be the sort of atheist that agrees with you, because while I love Dawkins, author of The Ancestor’s Tale, Dawkins the atheist has always struck me as a little bit amateur and sloppy. And I’m, for good or worse, more on the apologist for theists (though not for theism) side of things. I don’t dream of a world without religion. I dream of a world without certain sorts of bad behavior and an unhealthy disdain for reason and skepticism, as well as faith as a means to factual truth.
But none of your specific criticisms really ring all that true to me. They all seem to be pushing his views past his actual words and arguments. He hasn’t said, for instance, that religion is due no respect: but rather that it isn’t due any SPECIAL respect over the rest of us, especially on subjects like morality. Nor do I think he’s said that you can’t be rational and religious. He doesn’t think religion is rationally supported, but at least he recognizes that he has to argue the point (now, some of the smaller fish atheists out there don’t recognize this, to the detriment of their arguments).
It’s not what we believe it’s what we do. Some people forget that, and assume that somehow religious people can’t live a full and healthy human existence.
Re: Dawkins and arrogance.
e.g. of something that COULD be construed as arrogant: “The God Delusion”
I think it’s pretty obvious that titling a book “The God Delusion” isn’t going to make any theist receptive to reading the book with an open mind (and yes, theists can have open minds - I’ve met many). Which leaves only the atheists to read (and think about) the book (preaching to the choir, that). As for the fence-sitters: some will be intrigued by the title and pick up the book and be won over by his arguments. Many others will be put off by the inherent arrogance of the title. And yes, the title can be seen as arrogant because it implies that God is a delusion. I happen to believe that same myself, but I can also see how theists would find that implication extremely hurtful. The connotation of the word ‘delusion’ is inherently hurtful to those who subscribe to the beliefs so-labelled. Those who are not particularly religious but who believe that one should always be respectful of other’s religious (or non-religious) views may think that the title is arrogant because of the implied insult to someone’s beliefs. So I feel that such a title actually does a disservice to Dawkins and the book.*
The title of this book is, I think, a good analogy of the way many atheists behave with regards to theists. The message that atheists OFTEN TEND TO broadcast is: “God doesn’t exist and anyone who believes he does is an idiot”. Is it any wonder that would get people’s backs up? And what would that achieve actually? We just end up sounding as shrill and as fundie as the other group. In my experience, if you argue a balanced viewpoint with a calm voice, you tend to get more respect - and more likely to get a proper hearing - than if you hurl insults at your opponents. You are also more likely to draw your opponents into a debate if you don’t come off as someone who’s ONLY out to humiliate and insult them. People have egoes; you don’t have to appease their egoes, but you’ll never win anyone over by trashing his ego. I’m not saying Dawkins does any of these things (humiliate theists etc.) - only that he often SOUNDS as though he is. The title of that book is one example of how this impression may be formed by people who don’t know his work well.
Respect is not about appeasing your opponents, nor is it about being an apologist. Respect is not the same as grovelling. It’s actually a good strategy for getting you heard - and having your views taken seriously - by people who otherwise would not bother, people who disagree with you.
*I’m not actually sure how much say Dawkins had about the title of the book. For most writers, the publishers have the final say over the book title. But Dawkins is a publishing star so maybe he gets to choose his titles.
First time reader/poster, loving the blog.
On Dawkins, I have heard more than a few people put off by his arrogance but myself when i watch his TV appearances or read his books, he doesn’t come across as arrogant as such. His entire persona when arguing for atheism is to treat religion as just another idea, and to evaluate that idea without pre-conceptions, as one would a scientific hypothesis. Its just that as a society (like Dawkins, i’m a Brit) is so used to treating religion with an over-inflated respect and kid gloves (never talk religion or politics over dinner, etc) that it seems very harsh what he says. However, if you actually look at what he says clearly, he isn’ unfair and he demands no more respect for his ideas than he gives religion.
He believes, as do I, that ideas should stand on their merits, that they should be openly and freely discussed and that if those ideas can’t stand the scrutiny, then they are most likely wrong. I find Dawkins to be a breath of fresh air in religious debate. He clearly looks at the ridiculous parts of the bible and says “Thats ridiculous”. It immediately puts the faithful into the position of trying to defend and support their beliefs and it is telling that for the most part, they cannot.
Dawkins would be more than happy i am sure to defend any of his believes against a suitably informed opponent, he may be confrontational but he is fair.
As for his famous lack of interest in theology, the fairy analogy is accurate. He isn’t concerned with the vast hordes of believers feelings, he is debating and arguing the facts and if they choose to believe silly, indefensible things, they must expect reality to give them a rough time.
I do not dispute that his style is aggressive and that it does take into account the feelings of believers, but he isn’t trying to offer comfort, or false respect, he is trying to stop bad thinking.
I hope to be reading your blog more often, keep up the good work!