Is Richard Dawkins doing more harm than good for his own cause?

Question

I can't decide.

He's made an atheist out of me, but does he just polarize most people? He can be unabashedly abrasive.

Answer 1

Let's face facts, his cause is making money and he is doing an excellent job of it

Answer 2

I think he has brought the issue out into the public much more than it was and I think that was his intent. I doubt if the nonbelievers would ever have realised that they numbered more than 2 or 3 if he had not been so bold. Now the atheists are becoming aware that in many countries they are the actual majority. With at least 30% of the ones who say they are christian on American polls also saying they never ever go to Church it is likely that there is actually closer to 30% atheists in the USA than the mere 8 to 10% reporting. I think as awareness that it is an option spreads they will become more open and vocal about it.

Answer 3

This is a good question. He is a bit abrasive. I agree with squirrel that his associating atheism with science does cause polarization and could hurt the cause of solid science in the schools. I heard him on NPR the other day and was a bit put off by him.

Answer 4

"He can be unabashedly abrasive."

At the least. He is in danger of undermining his arguments with his attitude.

I've seen one discussion where another atheist scientist tried to suggest to him, gently, that a "more honey less vinegar" approach might communicate to a wider audience.

Answer 5

First of all, you have to be clear about his "cause". He is a scientist and has been writing science books for non-scientists for years. Additionally, he also an atheist, and it's really only been in recent years that he's made lectures and books about those personal beliefs of his. Since this is in the R&S section, I'll just assume the latter.

I think any time somebody has established an expertise in one field but then tries making that book or TV commercials about personal beliefs or political causes (some of those "rock the vote!" bands come to mind), it's going to have an effect on how people see the person's other products, rightly or wrongly.

Inevitably though, I think every political or religous idea is going to have somebody who isn't apologetic at all about the view. For years we've seen so many unapologetic theists on TV, and I think it's about time we've finally seen an unapologetic atheist. Some people need a wake-up call, not for conversion but just a reminder of "We're here, we do exist, and we're tired of your crap."

Personally, what I would like to see are more THEISTIC scientists like Ken Miller or the late Stephen Jay Gould to educate people on evolution. I still think Dawkins is an excellent teacher when it comes to science, but people (especially in the US) need to be reminded that you don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution.

Answer 6

I think he should stick to his specialty. Dawkins is obviously not too well read in philosophy and does not get theism at all. I think his "emotive fundamentalist" tone repells more than it attracts;he is not trying to appeal to the reasonable but to the angry antitheist

Answer 7

Well, I think he's at least hurting the cause of science education by clearly equating science with atheism. This way the Creationists can say, "look, biology really is atheist," and Christians will be more likely to want Intelligent Design in schools.

Answer 8

I believe he is doing more harm. He is fast becoming an extremist and will most likely be remembered for that instead of for his scientific work (which seems to me, is more important than his opinion about religion).

Answer 9

I'm pretty sure MY dog believes in God. I think he prays for me to drop food on the floor because I do this a lot. Or maybe I'm just clumsy.

Answer 10

I'm a bit disturbed by some so called atheists that give him God like qualities. I think they need a better spokesperson. There are better choices.Yeah, his abrasiveness is a turn off. As stated above, Dawkins attracts fundie atheists.

Answer 11

I don't agree at all; he's a great speaker.

The problem is there's such a double standard regarding what an atheist has to say to be called an extremist and what a religious person has to say to be called an extremist.