He's right and he's wrong. Like most people, I suppose.
He's right in the sense that there are undoubtedly wrong-headed religious people and probably wrong-headed religions as well. I - like he - believe that ideas should be questioned and that skepticism is a very valuable thing. Only a fool or a madman repeats the mistakes of the past, and only a person who seriously looks at what he is doing is likely to find such mistakes.
However, I think his zeal has carried him far away from science and well into the realm of prejudice. Though he may not like it, there are supernatural explanations not obviated by science for phenomenon that science cannot explain at this time. By openly labelling any god hypothesis as a DELUSION, he has already discarded that possibility for no scientific reason. Further, his efforts to boot-strap science into anti-theistic conclusions are even being disputed by other scientists... and some of them are just as atheistic as he is (link 1).
I'm sure he means well. But then so do many of the religious people he so harshly criticizes. He would make a stronger argument, I think, by seeming LESS like them instead of more.
2007-07-20 10:42:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by Doctor Why 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
I don't think he is, as some people believe, "militant." Rather, I think he approaches his subject from the position of science and reason, which deals only in cold hard, verifiable data - not religious faith, which has absolutely no claim to scientific legitimacy.
I think atheists, agnostics and skeptics get a bad name because of the harsh reality which underlies our opinions. But just for the record, I HOPE there is a god. I HOPE there is an afterlife.
But wanting to believe something is not the same as having the critical data to prove something. Dawkins is one of the great minds of our time who, as absurd as it may sound, is much more humble than the religiously devout.
And like him, I have to remain humbly skeptical - if a creator god exists, surely such a god would be an entity guided by reason not irrational dogma.
2007-07-20 11:21:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think he has some valid points. I also think that sometimes he comes across as militantly atheist as some of the ultra-religious come across as militantly (whatever their respective religions are). I am a "live and let live" kind of person - can't we all just get along? But I appreciate that he at least brings some balance to the debate.
Hope this helps.
2007-07-20 10:20:38
·
answer #3
·
answered by Poopy 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
In a nutshell:
Main Entry: brilliant
Definition: intelligent
Synonyms: accomplished, acute, astute, brainy, bright, clever, discerning, egghead, expert, genius, gifted, ingenious, intellectual, inventive, knowing, knowledgeable, masterly, penetrating, profound, quick, quick-witted, sharp, smart, talented, whiz
Can you tell I like him and his work?
Oh, and you get a STAR!
2007-07-20 11:44:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by Yinzer from Sixburgh 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Awsum person and highly intelligent works
2007-07-24 10:01:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by secret society 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Just another monkey!0!
Good luck!
2007-07-20 16:13:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by Alex 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not very much. There are so many holes in his theories that you can drive trucks through them. I would love to ask him to provide the base sequence for the "selfish gene".
Unfortunately, for atheists to remain atheists, some of us resort to foolish theories.
2007-07-20 10:45:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by guru 7
·
3⤊
5⤋
smart guy, great books!
2007-07-20 14:32:19
·
answer #8
·
answered by superwow_rl 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
HE IS A GOD! [lol]
I was a christian but then i discover him! He is so convincing...
Now i am an agnostic/ basically atheist inside the closet!
God delusion ROCKS!!!!!!
2007-07-20 10:41:05
·
answer #9
·
answered by kittana! 2
·
5⤊
3⤋
Okay, short version because I'm tired:
I'm not religious.
He's a decent guy and very intelligent.
He's wrong.
There is life after death.
2007-07-20 10:20:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
5⤋