It’s quite often noted that Dawkins and the rest of the fanatical “New Atheists” are not very highly thought of by more ‘reasonable’ atheists. Given that Dawkins has never come across to me as anything other than a complete idiot, however, I still find it fun to read what they have to say about him… if simply as evidence that my own opinion of him is not solely due to my theistic bias, but may actually be because he is – ontologically – an idiot.
As such, I offer the following article at The Guardian, by atheist philosopher of biology, Michael Ruse:
“Dawkins et al bring us into disrepute“
Enjoy!
To be honest, it is Ruse that makes me embarrassed with his accomodationalist crap. Dawkins was spot on with more than 90% of religious belief.
Ah yes, what an excellent point.
Ruse must be a complete dunce to even contemplate the suggestion that those who disagree with him (on the God issue) might not all be either thick in the head or evil bastards. How silly of him.
Good article there I thought. Alot of stuff Ruse said I would subscribe too.
Particulary his part on Dawkins arguments against the arguments for God.
Boy, that did not sound like Simon ! You drinkin’ and writin’ boy?
What makes Dawkins an “idiot”? Wow, no content, just character assassination ! Simon, really ! Did I miss something? Is this sarcasm?
“Fanatical” New Atheists???? You mean fanatics like people who shoot abortion doctors or blow up abortion clinics or kill gay people or call for holy war against Iran or blow up car bombs or themselves? You mean those kind of fanatics??
Dude, you are on a word-castration frenzy ! What happened?
OK, now I will read this Ruse chap — now that I got my initial impression on paper.
OK, I read him, but he didn’t say much except about tactic. No particulars, or precious few. Chest beating.
As you know, Simon, I probably disagree with Dawkins on his generalizations and many of his assessments. I’ve never read anything but his Biology stuff- but I have seen lots of YouTube stuff of his. And I do love lots of his stuff. Heck, I guess that is the way I view you too !
Smile,
Peace out lad,
Sabio
Sabio,
I mean “fanatical” in exactly that same way you said. Dawkins is the dialectical inverse of that kind of religious fanatacism, but it is really quite the same thing. He fails to see that if everyone “believes” in the same he “dis/believes”, the kind of fanaticism you described is where everything necessarily ends up. Which is actually the point Ruse makes at the end of his article.
I honestly do think Dawkins is an idiot. And don’t mind saying it. In fact, given several things that Dawkins has previously said, I don’t think he’d mind me thinking or saying that either, too much.
I do, though, apologise if that particularly offends you, whom I have quite a lot of respect for.
Cheers
Simon
By the way, Sabio, I’ve heard Dawkins is pretty good as a biologist, just quite awful as a pop philosopher.
@ Simon: no, it does not offend me at all. I just found it curious — such dramatic, exaggerated behavior seemed out of character for the writer I know as “Simon”. I figured someone hacked into your site.
The website “Atheist Revolution” by VJack has an “Idiot of the Week” post where they choose a theist every week and tell why they qualify. I have objected to it from the get go. I rarely read that blog now because of such rhetoric.
“Atheist Ethicist” is a philosopher’s site where he also condemns atheists who put down religion as a whole without focusing on specific arguments — I have supported his objection on many sites. “Common Sense Atheism” is another very rational site and focused in criticism unlike the New Atheists.
So I specifically object to this unfocused and false generalizations of the New Atheists though I feel much of their criticism of fundamental Christianity is spot on. Likewise, Christians should speak out against their own faiths.
To speak out against what you perceive as your own tribe is rare — but it is a measure of integrity.
So, I give you a chance to redeem yourself —
— as if you care. Name the “idiots” in your faith so we can compare apples. Wait, no, stop, that is my point, criticize the specific stances of those in your faith. I don’t want people calling each other “idiots” — isn’t there a Biblical mandate against that? I am such a boy scout — I apologize.
Smile
But here I found an apologist that quotes further verses in the OT to say it is OK if it is righteous anger ! But how am I to tell when it is righteous? The New Atheists, in calling you guys idiots, feel they are righteous too. I guess we leave it to the Lord to decide, eh?
Sabio, re. that 2nd comment, I’d rather not get into whether or not saying particular words is morally right or wrong. I would have to get into language, culture and meaning and stuff to try and articulate a proper response, but that would take way too long, so I’ll just say a few applicable lines in this instance. That is a loose-ish translation of Matt. 5:22 you used for the word “Raca”, which was used in that cultural context as a word of contempt with the root meaning “to spit”. If we’re being strict to the text, this is the word I shouldn’t use, not “idiot”. But there we begin to see how silly such an approach to the Bible can become, as the prohibition becomes irrelevant very, very quickly. (Jesus also called the Pharisees a brood of vipers, which really wasn’t very nice at all, and Paul said he wanted certain people to chop their own genitalia off. So this isn’t a question of linguistic ‘niceness’). My point is that “sin” or wrongdoing doesn’t sit on the surface level of language, but on the more complex social/relational level. The kind of conversation you describe above (“are you allowed to say ‘idiot’?”, “Yes, if it’s in righteous anger, look I have a proof text from the OT”) is where overly literal interpretations can become legalistic and pretty flipping stupid, because they end up contradicting themselves, and obscuring any actual point the text is trying to make.
But this conversation is better had with Aaron
I’ll reply to your first comment in another comment.
OK, the post is obviously rather hyperbolic, I’ll admit that. It is impossible for anyone to be an ontological idiot. I just think Dawkins views are very, very silly, and strongly suspect that if I were to hang out with him we wouldn’t get along.
Thanks for listing those other blogs. I (unsurprisingly) agree with your analysis of them.
I’m not going to give you some examples of what I deem to be bad or flawed practice by Christians (though there is one example in my comment above). I will just agree with you that self-criticism is a good and necessary thing, on the part of any social group. The greatest weakness any individual or group can have is a selective blindness regarding their own weaknesses and failings. If you were to ask my wife, or many of my friends, I (rather annoyingly, actually) critique the church and the practices/beliefs of Christians more than any other social group, because they frustrate me so. Indeed, this is a natural corollary of my close identification with the church. Augustine had it right, in my opinion, when he said, “The church is a whore, but she is my mother”. My frustration at the church (global/local whatever) comes from my affection for it, and participation in it. Maybe it is (or should be) the same with any other social group, I don’t know.
@ Simon
Glad you enjoyed. I liked the quote of Augustine. I think all members of organizations are similarly afflicted. Once committed, we are much more blind and invested.