I have great respect for the guy, and while I don't agree with all his conclusions and approaches, I think he does a lot of good. That said, a number of folks on here have commented that he is perhaps a bit harsh on the more "harmless" beliefs out there. Do you agree?
2007-08-20 03:16:09 · 19 answers · asked by dead_elves 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I personally also think he has a very calm, rational approach. I simply asked the question because of comments some other folks made that he should leave "harmless" beliefs alone.
2007-08-20 03:23:36 · update #1
Sorry about the lack of context. Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist who wrote a bunch of best-selling books about religion vs. science and hosts documentaries about similar topics. He is well known world wide, except in the US, where his somewhat hard-line approach to religion has meant that no publisher will take him on.
2007-08-20 04:33:33 · update #2
I don't believe that some beliefs are harmless, and his 'heavy-handed' tactics are no different to the tactics of some beliefs.
Like 'YOU WILL GO TO HELL IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE'.
That one always comes to mind.
2007-08-20 03:31:31 · answer #1 · answered by Vegemite Presley 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well I think his problem stems from the fact that he has absolutely no idea what religion is all about. Since he misunderstands the phenomenon he is trying to discuss (or ridicule as the case may be), he consistently gets it wrong. I suspect that he thinks that deep within the heart of every religious believer there exists the potential for one of the September 11th attackers. He himself has said that 9/11 actually changed his attitude about religion since he no longer saw it as harmless. The problem is however that not all religions are the same and his approach fails to distinguish those religious believers who want Intelligent Design taught in the schools and those who want to blow up others.
2007-08-20 03:26:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
heres a thought.
why do you have respect for him? (assuming thats not just a civil-sounding nicety)
nothing I've heard from him deserves a bit of respect, IMO, (beyond that which all humans, even the most idiotic, deserve)
the thing is he doesn't have a calm rational approach. he sounds just like the evangelicals do, really.
Billy S said it the best.
hes a small minded fool, that is no different than the people he argues against.
for those who don't know, dawkins is a big name atheist whos written a few books and all. look him up on youtube for more info.
2007-08-20 03:51:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I hate to use your question for this but, who is Richard Dawkins or anyone personally named by questioners?
I assume someone in the UK. This forum is read around the world. In the US, I have no clue who this is or what is taught. Likewise with addresses. We do not know what it is.
All I ask for is a little explanation beyond the names so those of us who read an otherwise good question can understand.
2007-08-20 03:36:01 · answer #4 · answered by grnlow 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think that his approach is "heavy" or dense enough from either a philosophical or theological perspective-- and that is his great weakness-- as well as an inability to consider carefully the weaknesses that exist in his own arguments. Intellectual inquiry into the nature of ideas is always helpful, especially those ideas that one doesn't agree with, but ideological posturing in the name of reason or science or religion is an invitation to disaster.
2007-08-20 03:33:01 · answer #5 · answered by Timaeus 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
His point in Enemies of Reason is that practitioners of alternative religions and therapies prey on the anxieties of vulnerable people, very often with the extraction of a great deal of their money. Crystal reading and mediumship may not be dominant world religions but collectively they have considerable influence. You need to consider your definition of "harmless".
2007-08-20 03:21:26 · answer #6 · answered by Bad Liberal 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I seem to find him 'heavy' on some on his approaches, nevertheless true, but a bit aggressive. I share his views and opinions found on 'The Root of all Evil', even there you can see how religious fundamentalists get on his nerve (mine too), but still admirable while debating, he still has manners and courtesy towards others.
2007-08-20 03:23:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. He stands up for reason, if only there were more like him years ago we wouldn't be carrying on with this religous farce in 2007.
2007-08-20 03:22:11 · answer #8 · answered by thethinker 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I think Dawkins is very civilized in his debates, and whether you agree with him or not, you can all learn a lesson from him on how to conduct yourselves.
2007-08-20 03:20:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
Not really I like his a approach and sometimes brutal honesty is better than sugar coating everything,.
2007-08-20 03:20:19 · answer #10 · answered by John C 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋