Why do people accuse Richard Dawkins of being a "fundamentalist atheist"?

Question

Is it because he's actually getting out there and articulating what an atheist stand point is all about?

I just can't look at what he says and call him a fundamentalist at all.

Throughout his documentary, "The root of all evil", he talks to people, listening to their viewpoint and the responding.

He espouses the virtue of accepting evidence that proves your viewpoint to be wrong.

How can that possibly be discribed as fundamentalist?

For those who haven't seen the doco, here's a link: http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-330281245697942053&q=root+of+all+evil

Answer 1

Recently, using DOJ figures and anecdotal evidence I was able to firmly establish that about 80% of people who are sent to prison are atheist, having no religious beliefs.

Once in prison these people tend to "convert" so that they receive goods and/or services from religious prison ministries. Even then about 20% of these atheist convicts refuse to even pretend that there is a God.

Interestingly enough an Atheist posted a link to a website where the DOJ data was unedited and then another link to a website which showed how an atheist organization had edited the data. Both with different spins. One attacked the data and the other just changed the data to prove their point.

I thought it both wonderful and hilarious that the data was posted in such a way

Census bureau data tells that an extremely small percentage of the population is atheist and yet this very small percentage is a very large percentage of the prison population.

You can do a search for data on prisons and atheists and find websites which do publish some of the raw data and then either "spin" or actually alter the data. A review of a couple of Atheist websites reveals the alteration of the data to suit the reviewers purposes.

Atheists of course will not do this, other more open minded people may.

These acts are exactly what Atheists accuse "Fundamentalist" Christians of, using the word "Fundamentalist" in a derogatory manner.

Since many Christians are much more educated than Atheists and much less susceptible to propaganda than the closed minded and uneducated who attach themselves to the title "atheist" some of us use the term "fundamentalist" in reference to atheists who lie, propagandize and spread hatred all while accusing religious "fundamentalists" of doing those things.

It is interesting to note that some atheists on these boards believe that "not believing" is not the same as being an atheist, indicating that some atheists believe that there is a system of beliefs required to be an atheist while other atheists believe that atheist means the more traditional, "no beliefs".

It reminds me of the argument some Christians have about Christians needing a specific system of beliefs that Atheists constantly ridicule Christians for.

Richard Dawson does not espouse any virtues, he rejects the basic and fundamental rules of evidence to concoct his own definitions, propagandize and spread hatred.

Answer 2

I think Dawkins presents his case well and then it is take it or leave it as far as i am concerned. Not "you will go to hell for not believing" I read his God Delusion book and found him to examine a lot of material and use many sources-yes of course he will use the ones that suit him-but religion does nothing of the kind! It uses one book and then says-that's that! I have also never seen him, as most atheists, duck or dive and avoid questions like I see everyday on this website from christians. He is not the reason I don't believe in religion but he certainly seems to share my views and also has a lot more eduction to back them up. Fundamentalist Atheist--interesting, I suppose the deluded religious people will do anything to cling onto that comfort blanket and when they see an intellectual scientist whose core subject matter seems to be exposing their madcap beliefs they are understandably worried. I think fundamentalist seems a bit harsh considering he only seems interested in facts unless anyone knows if he is planning to take over the world.

Answer 3

Okay, I mean no disrespect for Richard Dawkins, who is obviously very smart. But it's pretty clear that he's using correlation to represent cause and effect. Though we all fall into this mistake sometimes, Mr. Dawkins is smart enough to have known better.

I'm sure you've all been mad in the past when someone assumes a cause and effect that you know plain well isn't proven. Country music and suicide, video games and violence, etc. You all know what I'm talking about. And admit it, it makes you mad when someone "pulls a Dawkins" on something you believe in.

Does religion actually cause all the bad things he accuses them of or do they merely correlate? To answer this question, we must ask the following:

1) Do human beings do bad things less when they don't believe in God?

We know the answer to this question. Human beings are fundamentally bigoted and violent and it takes a lot of effort to over come this. There will always be people that attempt to justify their pre-existing bigotry via religion, just like there will always be atheists that do via some other way.

Atheists like Stalin (and I'd include Hitler) are examples of how those that don't believe in God are capable of much great atrocities then those that do.

Take a look at the excellent article by Orson Scott Card that I feel undermines Dawkin's points entirely. (http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2002-04-15-1.html)

Card points out that our evolutionary cousins, the primates, practice war and bigotry as well. It's in the genes, my friends. Religion is not the cause. Indeed, many people actually over come it via religion. (Though that isn't he only way to overcome it.)

Dawkins should have understood this. Indeed, it's hard to believe he doesn't. Thus it's hard to not see Dawkins as prejudice and bigoted in his attacks on people of faith.

In other words, he's a fundamentalist atheist - only he really is as bad as people claim fundamentalist Christians are. Being prejudice against other people, even in a nice way, does not make you less prejudice. The only way to be not prejudice is to admit that the correlations he finds might not be a cause and effect. But to admit this would undermine his attacks, so we'll not see him do this.

Answer 4

I'm not Christian and I understand the meaning of fundamentalism.

Quote: "strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles"

The reason, I'd put Dawkins in to this category is that he espouses the same sort of intolerance that the Christian fundamentalists espouse. He is unwilling to let people have their beliefs (or delusions if he wants to believe that). He wants to take it away from us. A society without any sort of faith of belief in the spiritual, in my opinion, is one that is empty and dead at heart.

Quote: To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both. I am often asked why I am so hostile to organized religion.
~ Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)

To Christians ... this is the start of the backlash to Christian fundamentalism, and the consequence of religious intolerance.

Answer 5

i individually don't understand why there is that one among those double time-honored and that non secular human beings might desire to commit undesirable crimes to be spoke of as militant whilst Richard Dawkins is a non violent atheist and gets a similar undesirable label. i assume it might desire to be because of the fact there are extra non secular human beings obtainable than atheists and the media desires to cater to that by portray Richard Dawkins in a foul mild. i admire Richard Dawkins, extremely his e book 'The God delusion' i examine it conceal to conceal in an afternoon and a one million/2!

Answer 6

Dawkins is a modern, as is fundamentalism, and modernity is conditioned and positioned by its rapacious need for certitude. Because of this pre-occupation with certitude in regards to their positions (both Dawkins and fundamentalists), neither are able to appreciate the inherent teleological and ontological ambiguities of their arguments, inferences or conclusions. With this being said, it is possible to be congenial and open minded and still be conditioned by narrowness and muddled thinking. The debates between ideological atheism and fundamentalism can be likened to taking two mirrors and holding them up to each other-- both are merely reflecting the other.

Answer 7

I just finished watching this video.. very powerful indeed. There is absolutely no way anyone could call him a fundamentalist after watching that.
Excellent question and video.. thank you for sharing it.

Answer 8

He is a militant atheist, but to call him fundamentalist is unacceptable. Scientific theory cannot be fundamentalist. You cannot "over assert" a fact or factual theory. There is either evidence for a belief or there is not.

Answer 9

Christians cannot respond with reason so they respond with name calling. It happens all the time.

Answer 10

Atheist.... human.... fundamentally human... humans living without god or religion... developing each unique to his or her life's experience... Humanity... many humans developing unique according to his or her own life's experience.. living without god or religion... hey I see a better world comming... Just be yourselves... I like it...