Very funny and interesting. It says a lot about christianity, religion, science, creationism, evoltion and atheism. I suggest people watch it and not judge this atheist before watching the video.
A little bit of any philosophy can be dangerous, because you're never getting the full view. Dawkins is one of the world's leaders on "free thinking" and is widely known for being an atheist and an anti-theist.
A lot of the speech is inflammatory and lacks the proper backing both philosophically as well as scientifically. But Dawkins' books, lectures, and papers continue all of that and provide the base upon which he makes a lot of his statements.
I don't agree with everything Dawkins says. It's easy to make the case that religion has done much more harm than good, and if it's unlogical it's only reasonable to try to bring about its fall. But that's not always practical, and it also paints religion (and people) with broad brushstrokes, which I get uncomfortable around. He also goes a step further to militant materialism....one step beyond even atheism. I can't quite go that far, or at the very least discount the possibility.
....
The speech is actually amusing. I didn't mind it at all. If you are religious, Dawkins' words will probably just bounce off your ears and head back out...but the religious aren't really the target audience of that speech. Other atheists are. He has other books that attempt to "convert" (chosen purposefully) those who are religious (his recent 'The God Delusion' is an example)....but this speech isn't one of them.
So take it for what it is: One atheist talking to others about his views on how to move forward. No different than if someone posted a youtube video of a Christian preacher...it's only intended for a specific purpose, not as a cross-section and full view of that particular religion/belief.
If religion is illogical (my bad with unlogical), it's only natural to try to bring about its fall (ending it). That isn't my idea...I was basically paraphrasing his intent in the speech.
Dawkins is full of himself intellectually. His points often to not have the backing to make the claims he does. He needs to grow up. He has very little basis to make many claims that he does and uses his "position" as a scientist as a crutch for his credibility. Calling him a "leader in freethinking" is total BS. He's the Ann Coulter of Atheism.
I like Dawkins more for the work he did in biology. The selfish gene is a revolutionary way to look at evolution and honestly he makes way more sense on the subject of punctuated equilibrium than Gould ever did, imho.
But ya, as far as his views on religion, he does point out many of the age old flaws in certain beliefs but does somewhat of a disservice to his cause when he blanket critiscizes all religions and religious people as morons (his interview with Ted Haggard is wonderful though).
He pulls way more punches than Sam Harris who talks at length about the potential societal problems of religion (http://www.samharris.org/), he isn't nearly as science oriented as Victor Stenger who actually tries to determine what would scientifically be proof of God (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/), nor does he have the broad historical perspective offered by Christopher Hitchens (http://www.hitchensweb.com/) whose recent book "God is not Great" is freaking fantastic.
Dawkins is interesting, but I'd way rather he be remembered for memes and the Anscestor's Tale rather than the Brights movement
Meh, you're entitled to your opinion. He's got a lot of credible science backing up his atheism...he just goes about it in such a way that it rubs a lot of people the wrong way. I recently read his work "The Selfish Gene" about social/cultural evolution, and found it fascinating. So he's not totally full of hot air...just sometimes.
As for the distinction of "leader in freethinking", he's certainly a visible figure in the field, and has published a wide variety of analyses on paranormal phenomenon...not just to debunk them (which he often does, but not always), but to look at them with a rational, critical eye. His collection of essays "Unweaving the Rainbow" is a good example of this (a nod to Newton breaking down the colors of the rainbow into the idea of prismatic light).
So I feel that the distinction is fully justified, regardless of your opinion of him.
It was a good interview, but the Dawkins is often rabid.
So, here's an opinon you're not entitled to. God and religion are not testable subjects. SCIENCE does not take positions on such issues; it is impossible for good science to have positions on such things. Logic might support athiesm, but SCIENCE does not. Making such ignorant statements is a giant disservice to the objectivity of science, suggesting that there is a world view associated with fact.
...and, it personally offends me.
Yes, usually rabid bashing and myopic totalitarianism is not an effective way to convince people you're sane.
Ann Coulter of Athiesm. What a fabulous leader
Too bad the idiot can't see past his own blindfold and discover that light actually is prismatic and not just white.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 6th, 2007 08:32 PM
