Many people think Richard Dawkins is too edgy, and maybe a bad spokesperson because of it. Lesson to learn?

Question

Should atheists, first of all, consider themselves a group with a goal, and second of all, should we worry about ourselves, individually, setting a negative example or negatively impacting the progress toward our goal?

Answer 1

If Dawkins is too abrasive, I can't wait until the theists start to moan about Christopher Hitchens' new book (out today, I believe).

Answer 2

There are more atheists than Jews in the US. When was the last time congress bowed to pressure from the atheist lobby?

I do not mean to put down Jews or the Jewish lobby. They are exercising their rights under our political system. It just serves to highlight the different mindsets.


We are not a group with a goal. If the Christians think of themselves as a flock of sheep, then Atheists are a herd of cats. We all think for ourselves and go our own ways.

This would be fine, except society today is under threat from the 'religious right' who want to take us back to a place that we never were at in the first place. They see people like Dawkins as a threat and so deliberately target him, which in turn pushes him and people like him into the position of being spokespersons for Atheists.

The rest of us need to decide something. Is this treat to our society significant? Could we end up with junk science being taught in schools and a theocratic government?

If so, then we do need to get organized as a group, pick our spokespeople, our politicians, our lobbyists and get out there and show the 'religious right' to be the 'immoral minority' that they really are.

Answer 3

First this is a very good series of questions. To the first one, I don’t think Richard Dawkins is at all too “edgy”, as you say. Yes he is an avid enthusiast when it comes to promoting evolutionary theory, and he vehemently criticizes religious irrationality, especially when this irrationality leads to religious indoctrination of the public which in turn unseats science from its respected position in society. He is never rude in his discourse nor is he vulgar. I can’t say the same thing about religious fundamentalists, many of whom are downright condescending towards people who disagree with them.

Given the fact that he is cordial, many times more so than the opposition, I don’t think he is a bad spokesman at all for the free thought movement. Both Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, in my opinion, represent the ideal manner in which the secular community should argue their point with theists.

I think atheists should be unified under a banner that seeks to promote greater public understanding of why atheists are atheists. As Sam Harris, the author of “End of Faith” so eloquently states, in a world where our scientific progress is stymied by religious beliefs, where our ethics are so disconnected from human suffering by religious teachings, and where religious ideology left free from criticism can lead to the militancy we see today, we cannot afford not to be critical of faith.

So in order to prevent the negative effects of religious belief from reaching fruition, we must not only emulate the rhetorical brilliance and restraint of Dawkins and Harris, we must also lead exemplary lives. Nothing can encourage or dissuade people from listen to you more than the example that you set.

Answer 4

I have no objection to groups of atheists with specific goals and agendas, but atheists as a whole are not such a group. That would be like saying "People who don't believe in unicorns are hypocrites, because some are pro life and some are pro choice." or "I don't trust men because Hitler was one."

Incidentally, I don't have a problem with Dawkins. Indeed I think he's quite eloquent.

Answer 5

I don't think Dawkins is edgy. He just calls a spade a spade.

As far as goals go, I think it's better to just have a secular coalition with people of all belief systems unified under the common vision of open society.

Answer 6

From the standpoint of a Christian (me) Dawkins is impossible to believe just because he's so hostile and self-righteous.

Hate comes from fear. The more hate and anger a person carries, the more fearful they are.

Any psychologist will agree with me on thatt.

So what's he afraid of?

The statements he makes are so sweeping it makes them unbelievable.

For instance, he went on this talk show. Deepak Chopra was there and they had a sort of debate.

Dawkins made a fool out of himself.

He says things like God does not exist because science will eventually be able to explain everything. Um yeah. So how come it still can't explain why water is the only liquid that freezes from the top down. Why, if it's survival of the fittest, a mother's milk contains more protein if a child is born premature. Why, if it's survival of the fittest, does a mother's body begin to produce antibiotics within 8 hours of her nursing infant being exposed to a bacteria.

Answer 7

Maybe so, each atheist is giving an impression in the world after all. I do think Dawkins is too angry and caustic. I can't argue with his points but the way he makes them, it doesn't do the 'cause' any good.

Answer 8

If Richard was writing about any other subject, he would probably be considered altogether too wet and polite.

But because it's religion the godders are apoplectic that he should dare to suggest their imaginary friend doesn't exist. Predictably, they find him rude.

CD

[Max Marie: I'm sure your little speech sounds very logical to you, but if you actually knew anything about your subject matter, you'd be a lot less satisfied with it.]

Answer 9

Militancy like his reeks of panic. Why else would he write a book on subjects he knows nothing about? He got panned in the academic press and his arguments are circular and confused. I don't mind his conceit. It just comes with no bite.

[edit] I am embarrased for you people who think he has strong arguments. He wouldn't pass intro to philosophy at any state school. Thumbing me down just makes me think less of your philosophical literacy.

Answer 10

When I was an atheist I didn't care about theists unless they were screwing with me or my government.