Richard Dawkins, Witch Doctor

[_Loquacious Lurker]

[I knew of its existence, but couldn't seem to locate it on his website.

It's not easy to find. I had to do some searching. I just glanced at the different entries, and a lot of them were from people who had been fairly devout before.

[_GoodK]

Richard Dawkins may be a very talented zoologist. But as a philosopher, historian, psychologist, and political scientist, he fares very poorly.

I'm not going to defend Dawkins as someone who rejects religious nonsense but as someone who appreciates fair and honest discussion. I do not feel required to accept the "nonsense of high-profile anti-religionists like Richard Dawkins."


I feel like the original poster is grossly misrepresenting Dawkins in summarizing his career, referencing only two books (which he probably hasn't personally read, by the sound of it). Dawkins views of religion do not simply arise from his "meme theory", although it seems convenient for the purpose of the original post to make such a bold claim.

I implore those here who haven't already studied Dawkins to listen to some lectures, read some substantive books like "The Ancestors Tale" and the movie The Root of All Evil The Root of All Evil? Part 1: The God Delusion. (Richard Daw... The Root of All Evil? Part 2: The Virus of Faith. (Richard D...
instead of relying on this shoddy assemblage of unimportant quotes and editorial that appears in the brownish red text.

I'll also point out to the original poster that Dawkins is much more than a "talented zoologist" (ad hom?) but in fact he is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He was voted Britain’s leading public intellectual by readers of Prospect magazine and was named one of Time Magazine’s “100 Most Influential People” for 2007. Among his books are The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, A Devil’s Chaplain, The Ancestor’s Tale, and the New York Times best seller The God Delusion.

That is all.

[_marg]

I'm not going to defend Dawkins as someone who rejects religious nonsense but as someone who appreciates fair and honest discussion.

I like that!

Dawkins views of religion do not simply arise from his "meme theory", ...

That too.

I'll also point out to the original poster that Dawkins is much more than a "talented zoologist" (ad hom?) but in fact he is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

Excellent point.

Another good post of yours GoodK.

[_Tal Bachman]

LL - I don't have time to read the stories you linked to as I'm just getting ready to leave on a trip this afternoon. However, the story you did include is from someone who was "floored" by "The God Delusion" after doubting Christianity for years and years. That is, the person was not a "devout religious believer" at all.

I continue to think it highly doubtful that devout religious believers will be much affected by "The God Delusion", and the reason why, is also why I referred to Dawkins as a witch doctor.

I think that Richard Dawkins is, to an extent, the equivalent of a witch doctor, because he misdiagnoses the "malady" he wishes to cure, and most importantly, his ineffective cure relies on magical thinking.

Consider, friends: Richard Dawkins himself repeatedly characterizes religious believers as in thrall to deepest irrationality. So what does he present to them to help "save" them from deepest irrationality? Purely rational arguments.

Hello?

It requires not coldly rational thinking, but MAGICAL thinking to believe that human beings deeply in thrall to, now emotionally and psychologically dependent on, irrationality, are going to be cured by mere exposure to Dawkins's tidy little tidbits of rationality (remember Dawkins's quote about believers being atheists when they put the book down). That is as naïve a thought as any, and just another indication that Dawkins isn't skeptical enough.

Dawkins on this reminds me of John Maynard Keynes's wry recollection of the "irrational rationality" of Bertrand Russell. Russell, said Keynes, was always lamenting how irrational people were; and always said that the cure was just for people to become more rational. Mm hm.

True believers, where they can be reached at all, require more than clinical arguments as to why their beliefs are unjustified, to cease being true believers - but why I should be having to convince people on this board of this, when they themselves know this for absolute fact after failing to disabuse many of their Mormon friends of relatives of their unwarranted beliefs using reason and facts, is unclear to me. Maybe the desire for a new non-religious alpha has blinded them to what they already know full well. Maybe it's too terrible to contemplate that for all his other talents, in important respects Richard Dawkins is full of sh*t on a few issues (i.e., too terrible to contemplate that he's like everyone else).

Everyday, the people on here criticizing me for my criticisms of Dawkins, argue with still-believing Mormons on this board, and to no avail. (Hello again). For the likes of BCI'mInOuterSpace, for example, Smith's Breathing Permit of Hor may never as well even been discovered. We might as well not be able to read Egyptian hieratic as easily as we read Attic Greek. It might as well be 1838. When it comes to Mormonism, two plus two might as well equal four thousand. These fact mean nothing to him or others. And everyone reading already this knows this.

Richard Dawkins isn't skeptical enough. In a number of areas, he is very naïve. Reason, facts, logic from ostensibly antagonistic sources - these very rarely, if ever, break the true believer free of his trance. Judge for yourselves by the discussions on this very board with Mormons.

(You getting hot yet Moniker? :P)

Gotta run right now, bye.

T.

[Guest]

However, the story you did include is from someone who was "floored" by "The God Delusion" after doubting Christianity for years and years. That is, the person was not a "devout religious believer" at all.

SO WHAT. Do you count among all of those masses of people ("More than Dawkins! His wee-wee is smaller!") that you have brought out of the Mormon church only the ones who were the most devout? If a person somehow has doubts, I'm sorry, they don't count? Their conversion isn't "good enough?" Did you appeal to their reason, their logic, and if so, does their eventual conversion under these conditions not "count?"

In fact, even the most devout people have doubts. Recent revelations regarding the personal faith even of Mother Theresa have shown us that. So your assertion that the most "devout religious believers" will not be fazed by Dawkins is patently absurd, since total devotion and faith do not exist. We ALL have doubts, all the time, along the continuum of our beliefs. If people are caught at a low point along that continuum, I think that still counts.

I'll bet you count the doubting fence-sitters you've converted, too. You just won't let Dawkins do the same.

I continue to think it highly doubtful that devout religious believers will be much affected by "The God Delusion", and the reason why, is also why I referred to Dawkins as a witch doctor.

Dawkins' overstepping in his estimation of the power of his own line of argumentation does not invalidate that argument.

Dawkins makes a hubris-filled statement. We all do. The fact is that he has opened up a conversation about the nature and validity of belief, as many others have done, and it is ONE way of many in order to do so. Perhaps hard cases who grasp their belief as a way to bolster their emotional needs should be left entirely alone. This book, then, is not for them, just as your presentation of logical arguments here on this forum is not for everyone.

Consider, friends: Richard Dawkins himself repeatedly characterizes religious believers as in thrall to deepest irrationality. So what does he present to them to help "save" them from deepest irrationality? Purely rational arguments.

Hello?

You engage with Mormons and appeal to their reason as well. That is evident from your participation on this board. Yet when Dawkins appeals to reason, he's wrong, because he framed his declaration with an all-inclusive, over-reaching, arrogant statement? Aside from forced brainwashing, appeals to logic are in fact the only way to get someone to step outside of their mindset and regard their beliefs from an outside vantagepoint.

It requires not coldly rational thinking, but MAGICAL thinking to believe that human beings deeply in thrall to, now emotionally and psychologically dependent on, irrationality, are going to be cured by mere exposure to Dawkins's tidy little tidbits of rationality (remember Dawkins's quote about believers being atheists when they put the book down). That is as naïve a thought as any, and just another indication that Dawkins isn't skeptical enough.

How else is it to be done? In fact, that is exactly how exit counseling WORKS. They use "an information-oriented approach, which stresses the sharing of information." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_counseling Dawkins cannot kidnap and forcibly deprogram believers, a la Rick Ross. He appeals to their logic through the use of information, just like Carol Giambalvo, Janja Lalich, or David Clark.

Maybe the desire for a new non-religious alpha has blinded them to what they already know full well. Maybe it's too terrible to contemplate that for all his other talents, in important respects Richard Dawkins is full of sh*t on a few issues (I.e., too terrible to contemplate that he's like everyone else).

I hope that you give at least some people credit for being a little more complex than that. Human beings are a cocktail. I don't think you can boil them down to binary, "Alpha Male" seeking, mindless, magnetized groupies. If a person is an alpha male, I am LESS likely to give them credence. Substance is actually of some importance to me, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Alpha-male-seeking groupies might be your experience of people, and if so, I'm sorry. You're missing many of the nuances that actually make relationships worth having.

So no, I'm not following Dawkins around, panting on his every word, because I perceive him as some kind of alpha male. I admire the fact that he has opened up a conversation. End of story.

Richard Dawkins isn't skeptical enough. In a number of areas, he is very naïve. Reason, facts, logic from ostensibly antagonistic sources - these very rarely, if ever, break the true believer free of his trance. Judge for yourselves by the discussions on this very board with Mormons.

Then a different approach is needed for these types of people, or they ought to be left alone entirely. Dawkins is not for them.

(You getting hot yet Moniker? :P)

Speaking of over-reaching arrogance....

What the “F” does that have to do with anything? Maybe you need to register for the Playboy chat forum.

[_marg]

Then a different approach is needed for these types of people, or they ought to be left alone entirely. Dawkins is not for them.

Exactly, and I agreed with everything else you said.

[_GoodK]

However, the story you did include is from someone who was "floored" by "The God Delusion" after doubting Christianity for years and years. That is, the person was not a "devout religious believer" at all.

I guess Mother Theresa was not a “devout religious believer” either.

I continue to think it highly doubtful that devout religious believers will be much affected by "The God Delusion", and the reason why, is also why I referred to Dawkins as a witch doctor.

I continue to think you are wrong about this, but why are you acting like “The God Delusion” is Dawkins only anti-religion effort? I found “The Ancestors Tale” far more compelling.

I think that Richard Dawkins is, to an extent, the equivalent of a witch doctor, because he misdiagnoses the "malady" he wishes to cure, and most importantly, his ineffective cure relies on magical thinking.

How is it misdiagnosed? You have repeatedly misdiagnosed Dawkins on this thread, so I don't see how you can assert such a claim.

Dawkins also said that he does not wish to live in a world that has no religion or churches.
Was that not convenient enough of a statement to include in your post?

Consider, friends: Richard Dawkins himself repeatedly characterizes religious believers as in thrall to deepest irrationality.

I don’t think he repeatedly does this, and it is clear to me that you are not very familiar with Dawkins work. Have you actually read anything he wrote, or are you relying on the "Dawkins Delusion"?

So what does he present to them to help "save" them from deepest irrationality? Purely rational arguments.

He presents scientific evidence along with rational arguments. See my sig line.

It requires not coldly rational thinking, but MAGICAL thinking to believe that human beings deeply in thrall to, now emotionally and psychologically dependent on, irrationality , are going to be cured by mere exposure to Dawkins's tidy little tidbits of rationality (remember Dawkins's quote about believers being atheists when they put the book down). That is as naïve a thought as any, and just another indication that Dawkins isn't skeptical enough

.

Maybe you are a little naïve in regards to the effects of a well assembled written argument?

Dawkins on this reminds me of John Maynard Keynes's wry recollection of the "irrational rationality" of Bertrand Russell. Russell, said Keynes, was always lamenting how irrational people were; and always said that the cure was just for people to become more rational. Mm hm.

Something about this paragraph smells like plagiarism.

True believers, where they can be reached at all, require more than clinical arguments as to why their beliefs are unjustified, to cease being true believers –

Says who? You?

Maybe the desire for a new non-religious alpha has blinded them to what they already know full well.

Ahhh… there you go again. That straw man and unoriginal, Atheism is a religion argument. Had to sneak it in again, didn’t ya? *yawn*

Maybe it's too terrible to contemplate that for all his other talents, in important respects Richard Dawkins is full of sh*t on a few issues (I.e., too terrible to contemplate that he's like everyone else).

You still haven’t quantified what issues YOU take issue with.

Everyday, the people on here criticizing me for my criticisms of Dawkins, argue with still-believing Mormons on this board, and to no avail. (Hello again)...These fact mean nothing to him or others. And everyone reading already this knows this.

You are right, but I don’t see how a Mormon’s (or any other religionist) refusal to acknowledge facts has anything to do with the person who points these facts out. Shall we stop teaching evolutionary biology because some people don’t believe it?

Richard Dawkins isn't skeptical enough.

Baseless ad hominem.

In a number of areas, he is very naïve.

Baseless ad hominem.

Reason, facts, logic from ostensibly antagonistic sources - these very rarely, if ever, break the true believer free of his trance. Judge for yourselves by the discussions on this very board with Mormons.

The End of Faith is what gave me that initial shove towards atheism. I was a true believer. For what it’s worth.

(You getting hot yet Moniker? :P)

This is just creepy.

[_Sethbag]

Consider, friends: Richard Dawkins himself repeatedly characterizes religious believers as in thrall to deepest irrationality. So what does he present to them to help "save" them from deepest irrationality? Purely rational arguments.

And the alternative to rational arguments is what? Using irrational arguments on people? How does that help anything?

It requires not coldly rational thinking, but MAGICAL thinking to believe that human beings deeply in thrall to, now emotionally and psychologically dependent on, irrationality, are going to be cured by mere exposure to Dawkins's tidy little tidbits of rationality (remember Dawkins's quote about believers being atheists when they put the book down). That is as naïve a thought as any, and just another indication that Dawkins isn't skeptical enough.

I disagree. Dawkins is putting the information out there, and those who are ready and willing to delve into it may be helped. Those who aren't, won't be.

Dawkins knows full well that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. He knows very well that most faithheads will never seriously consider his arguments. That doesn't mean he shouldn't put them out there.

Dawkins on this reminds me of John Maynard Keynes's wry recollection of the "irrational rationality" of Bertrand Russell. Russell, said Keynes, was always lamenting how irrational people were; and always said that the cure was just for people to become more rational. Mm hm.

I agree with Russell. That would be a good part of the cure. But you can't make people accept that. But what is the alternative. What would you propose that people like Russell and Dawkins ought to do to convince people who won't listen to a rational argument? Is there even something which can be done to convince such people, at least in a free society?

True believers, where they can be reached at all, require more than clinical arguments as to why their beliefs are unjustified, to cease being true believers - but why I should be having to convince people on this board of this, when they themselves know this for absolute fact after failing to disabuse many of their Mormon friends of relatives of their unwarranted beliefs using reason and facts, is unclear to me. Maybe the desire for a new non-religious alpha has blinded them to what they already know full well. Maybe it's too terrible to contemplate that for all his other talents, in important respects Richard Dawkins is full of sh*t on a few issues (I.e., too terrible to contemplate that he's like everyone else).

So, do you propose we begin to torture religious believers? Maybe use waterboarding or something? Seriously though, if a given believer will not give in to rational argument, which is left to be done? At some point people are free to both choose their poison, and take it.

Everyday, the people on here criticizing me for my criticisms of Dawkins, argue with still-believing Mormons on this board, and to no avail. (Hello again). For the likes of BCI'mInOuterSpace, for example, Smith's Breathing Permit of Hor may never as well even been discovered. We might as well not be able to read Egyptian hieratic as easily as we read Attic Greek. It might as well be 1838. When it comes to Mormonism, two plus two might as well equal four thousand. These fact mean nothing to him or others. And everyone reading already this knows this.

And so what should we do? What do you propose we do to help clue in BCSpace?

Richard Dawkins isn't skeptical enough. In a number of areas, he is very naïve. Reason, facts, logic from ostensibly antagonistic sources - these very rarely, if ever, break the true believer free of his trance. Judge for yourselves by the discussions on this very board with Mormons.

Of course they rarely break the true believer of his trance. What would? Waterboarding? Pulling toenails? Pungy stakes through the feet? Dawkins offers reason, facts, rational arguments, etc. If these aren't successfull in helping a given believer back to a mroe realistic view of the world, what exactly do you propose, that would be more successful, and fully compatible with the values of a free society?

Sure, Dawkins' words won't help everybody. They might not even help very many at all of the truly "gone" believers. So what? Is this Dawkins' fault? He's speaking truth. That's all he can do. He can't force anyone to listen to it, or to understand it.

[_marg]

Moniker, this isn't that interesting to me to go on and on about it.