Here's a lovely fellow for you, if you've never heard of him: Richard Dawkins. He's a briliant scientist and a famous, outspoken atheist. In fact, his atheism has become something of a crusade, as he thinks that the world would be better off without religion. Hitler, for example, is something he lays at the feet of Christianity (rather than Nietzsche, say.) If Christianity did not exist then there would have been no Nazis. Lovely.
So, the man is mad and woefully unformed in matters of philosophy. I'll post on free will and genetics next week, for example, and you'll see where he falls down. Hell, we'd better discuss the whole Darwinist catastrophe (one which Darwin himself would roundly reject.)
For now, watch this and consider this a friendly introduction. And, yes, millions of people listen to this man, read his books, and agree that the world would be a better place without religion. Long live diversity!!!
Oh. Did I mention he's on record as saying he considers it child abuse to raise a child in a religious atmosphere?
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Richard Dawkins - An Introduction
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Have you ever read his book?
Not yet, Bandit, though it's on my list. But I've done enough reading about him to know that he doesn't really have any novel arguments, just old arguments (as old as the ancient Greeks, to be honest) given new glamour by his own scientific prowess (a genius I will not deny, though I maintain it is scientific and not philosophical.)
To be fair, I AM on board with the criticism he throws at Intelligent Design. I'm a Thomist in my philosophy and a Catholic, so I don't have much patience for ID (more on that in another post.)
Short answer: No. But I have a solid idea of what he says, and it doesn't surprise or impress. I'll try to show why I feel that way in my next few posts.
Atheism seems to be a bandwagon movement, much like the current global warming panic. It is now cool to be an atheist. I bet most of its followers are young people looking for a characteristic to define their individuality and generation
Whoa, global warming isn't a scare. It's a current event that isn't changing the world drastically right now, but 40 years down the road, there could be serious consequences to our pollution.
I'm not saying it's all us, it's been shown throughout history that "Global Warming" has happened before. (Ex. The Ice Age).
My only point is things like that aren't "scares". Humanity is finally paying for its selfish actions. We destroy the earth, the earth will destroy us. (If I ever get the chance, I'll fit it in there how Global Warming won't kill us all because we're due for the next plague anyways).
As John Lennon once said:
"We live in a world of instant kharma."
"Professor Dawkins himself admitted that the question was asked, just not by the person who appeared on the tape, and that the pause indeed followed. But he states that he was upset because it suddenly became obvious to him that the question was being asked by a creationist and he had been under the impression that he was being interviewed by impartial interrogators. His flustered appearance was a result of the internal conflict he felt between British hospitality and the intense desire to "throw the bums out.""
http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html
You haven't read the book, then,huh? You criticize Dawkins for a video with a pause, instead of "owning" him with arguments? I can't wait to read next weeks discours you're going to post...
William,
The reason I haven't read it is because I'm behind on my reading list, not because I avoid reading. The clutter of books in my household is sometimes a cause for concern for my wife. I'll get there.
Second, Dawkins is much more than a book. He has become something of a phenomenon and speaks publically often enough that it's easy to learn what he generally has to say.
Third, the "owned" video is just a light-hearted thing. Dawkins is rarely at a loss for words. If anything, he is often more aggressive and dismissive of people in debates than he needs to be. So, seeing him at a loss struck me.
Please note, I still respect him vastly for his work as a scientist. But he's read no philosophy on the other side of the question. To a critic who asked whether he had read certain pillar works of philosophy on the "God" side he responded that he hardly needed to study "leprechaunology" to dismiss the childish belief in leprechauns. And yet that's hardly a scientific approach, is it, William? In tackling one of the oldest and widespread "theories" in history, one ought to examine the opposing hypothesis, don't you think?
However, apologies if the "owned" video gave any offense. Your response is fair.
Post a Comment