Why I don't recommend Dawkins?????

[Guest]

DrW, you think Dawkins is better than Sam Harris?

As a "militant atheist", author and lecturer, and someone who is willing to pull no punches while pointing out specific problems with specific religions and their negative consequences, I think Sam Harris may be more effective, in the US at least, than Richard Dawkins.

Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation" should be required reading for graduation from High School. Harris also comes across very well in person. And as mentioned, as an advantage for those of the redneck persuasion, he is American

Prof. Dawkins is older and more experienced that Sam Harris and has built a very strong international reputation as a scientist, something that Harris has not done, and is unlikely to do. And Dawkins really understands the science, having done a lot of original work in his field. Although I enjoy the writing of both authors, Dawkins has the advantage of many years of teaching experience and brings more breadth and depth of relevant content to the issues than does Harris.

(For example, Richard Dawkins is the individual who first developed and defined the concept of a meme. And he has made other contributions outside the field of biology.)

I see their areas of research and writing as complimentary more than competitive. However, if I were to be banished to a deserted Island and had to choose the complete works of one or the other for company, it would have to be Richard Dawkins.

I have read pretty much everything both of them have written and feel that I am much better off for having done so.

Thanks for asking.

[_gramps]

sethpayne wrote:

Fair point. I think the difference here is that Polanyi invested the time necessary to become a philosopher of science. From what I've seen of Dawkins, I'm not convinced he has done the same.

But certainly, if Dawkins can demonstrate a strong command of both ancient and modern philosophy as it relates to science and theism -- and produce original work in the area -- I would absolutely reconsider my position.

Seth

I actually agree with you that it is not a very common occurrence for one to effectively cross over into other disciplines. I just don't think it is an absolute impossibility. In fact, I think we can learn from those who critique certain issues in one discipline from the vantage point of another. Of course, if one is predisposed to make the attempt, he had better be prepared for the assault that is surely to come.

I am guessing that this is at least part of what Mr. Stak is upset about.

Peace.

[_subgenius]

As a scientist who did his Ph.D. work in the UK, and interacted a great deal with folks with scientific and philosophical backgrounds similar to those of Richard Dawkins, I think that he is a legitimate voice of reason and reflects the scientific worldview very well.

Facts matter. And Dawkins has more relevant facts at his command than most. He is also articulate, and writes very well.

Atheists, agnostics, scientists, non-believers and yes, even the faithful, can benefit from what RIchard Dawkins has to say.

The Fact that matters is that Dawkins is a capitalizing hack. The objectivist tripe died quite some time ago.

Dawkins is about a valid contributor to philosophy/theology as is the guy who yells "faggot" to get an LGBT discussion started.

[_DrW]

subgenius,

Was there some intended significance in posting an image of the grave headstone of Ayn Rand when the subject of the thread is Richard Dawkins?

Do you think that they are somehow connected philosophically?

Do you know who Ayn Rand was?

[_Some Schmo]

As a "militant atheist", author and lecturer, and someone who is willing to pull no punches while pointing out specific problems with specific religions and their negative consequences, I think Sam Harris may be more effective, in the US at least, than Richard Dawkins.

Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation" should be required reading for graduation from High School. Harris also comes across very well in person. And as mentioned, as an advantage for those of the redneck persuasion, he is American

Prof. Dawkins is older and more experienced that Sam Harris and has built a very strong international reputation as a scientist, something that Harris has not done, and is unlikely to do. And Dawkins really understands the science, having done a lot of original work in his field. Although I enjoy the writing of both authors, Dawkins has the advantage of many years of teaching experience and brings more breadth and depth of relevant content to the issues than does Harris.

(For example, Richard Dawkins is the individual who first developed and defined the concept of a meme. And he has made other contributions outside the field of biology.)

I see their areas of research and writing as complimentary more than competitive. However, if I were to be banished to a deserted Island and had to choose the complete works of one or the other for company, it would have to be Richard Dawkins.

I have read pretty much everything both of them have written and have feel that I am much better off for having done so.

Thanks for asking.

Yeah, I guess the subtext of my question was "better how?" I think you answered that pretty well.

I, like you, enjoy both authors quite a bit. The only reason I ask is because I personally find Harris to be generally far more persuasive than Dawkins. It might be that his approach is more in line with the way I think, or that I find his linguistic syntactical choices more aesthetically appealing, or whatever, but I find myself gravitating more towards Harris' arguments than Dawkins'.

But both guys are exceptional talents, and I'll read just about anything by either of them.

[_DrW]

As a "militant atheist", author and lecturer, and someone who is willing to pull no punches while pointing out specific problems with specific religions and their negative consequences, I think Sam Harris may be more effective, in the US at least, than Richard Dawkins.

Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation" should be required reading for graduation from High School. Harris also comes across very well in person. And as mentioned, as an advantage for those of the redneck persuasion, he is American

Prof. Dawkins is older and more experienced that Sam Harris and has built a very strong international reputation as a scientist, something that Harris has not done, and is unlikely to do. And Dawkins really understands the science, having done a lot of original work in his field. Although I enjoy the writing of both authors, Dawkins has the advantage of many years of teaching experience and brings more breadth and depth of relevant content to the issues than does Harris.

(For example, Richard Dawkins is the individual who first developed and defined the concept of a meme. And he has made other contributions outside the field of biology.)

I see their areas of research and writing as complimentary more than competitive. However, if I were to be banished to a deserted Island and had to choose the complete works of one or the other for company, it would have to be Richard Dawkins.

I have read pretty much everything both of them have written and have feel that I am much better off for having done so.

Thanks for asking.

Yeah, I guess the subtext of my question was "better how?" I think you answered that pretty well.

I, like you, enjoy both authors quite a bit. The only reason I ask is because I personally find Harris to be generally far more persuasive than Dawkins. It might be that his approach is more in line with the way I think, or that I find his linguistic syntactical choices more aesthetically appealing, or whatever, but I find myself gravitating more towards Harris' arguments than Dawkins'.

But both guys are exceptional talents, and I'll read just about anything by either of them.

Speaking of which:

Richard Dawkins kicks off his US Book Tour with a talk at the University of Miami tomorrow night.
The book is titled "The Magic of Reality" .
Since I live in South Florida, I plan to attend.
Will return and report.

[_Tarski]

The Fact that matters is that Dawkins is a capitalizing hack. The objectivist tripe died quite some time ago.

Dawkins is about a valid contributor to philosophy/theology as is the guy who yells "faggot" to get an LGBT discussion started.

Possibly the stupidest post we have seen in a long while.

Mouth foaming know-nothing tries to draw a line from Rand to Dawkins while spraying spit about theology and faggots.

"subgenuis"? Apt choice of screenname.

[_Tarski]

SAUCE

Linky winky don't worky. Is that part of the joke that I am missing?

[_MrStakhanovite]

SAUCE

Linky winky don't worky. Is that part of the joke that I am missing?

No, it should work, I don't understand why... lemme try again

SAUCE

[_MrStakhanovite]

SAUCE

WTF..here is the blog's regular url: http://servileconformist.typepad.com/servile-conformist/

I don't get why I'm getting 404'd