Following the last post (about The God Delusion), I had a look on Technorati to see what others were saying.
This URL is interesting: http://adricv.vox.com/library/post/3-reasons-why-richard-dawkins-is-an-arrogant-prick-despite-having-some-good-ideas.html. Mainly because it is apparent that the author of the blogpost has not read the book.
It is a short blog entry – only having three real points:
- God ‘Delusion’? Is he a psychologist?
- God ‘Delusion’? Who gave him the authority to conclusively say there is no form of deity?
- God ‘Delusion’? I beleive in God in my way – not as a force concerned with terrenal matters, but as something unnamable and higher, a form which could explain the Big Bang – something which Dawkins can’t do
In the book, Dawkins addresses the title in the first few page and explains why the term “delusion” is used and sets the context for it’s use. This largely renders the first point above meaningless.
The second one, is equally irrelevant and meaningless. What authority can be granted to say there is or isn’t a form of deity? Who gave the author of the blog post the authority to challenge Dawkins’ imaginary authority?
The third point hammers home the playground level of the blog post. Dawkins is a Biologist, who expects him to explain the Big Bang. What “explanation” is actually provided by the cop-out “God did it” that does anything but end further learning?
All in all, and this goes for most English language blogs which rail against The God Delusion, most of the critique comes from people who have not read the book and have couched their “complaints” in the terms of a nine year old.
Hey there,
I’m the guy who wrote the three points railing against Dawkins.
Above all, what I detest of Dawkins is his arrogant style which only preaches to the converted – alienating people who might identify with what he’s saying but don’t like calling religious people straight out stupid.
The single best quote which to me should be the banner of modern atheism is: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” It’s smart, it’s devastatingly clear and disarmingly true because it circumvents the problem of making conclusive and finalising statements.
The fact is that although Dawkins is in fact a biologist, you cannot expect to try to tackle the question of the existance of god on this level alone – the Big Bang is not evidence of there being a god. The Big Bang is evidence of our incapability to explain events – for that matter, to date nobody can conclusively explain gravity. To make a conclusive statement requires an astounding amount of evidence and self-confidence in the veridity of the statement. Saying that God does not exist period is as fallacious as saying he does. Dawkins certainly can’t explain the Big Bang – neither can I. This ambiguity levels the playing field and opens the floor for debate and discussion. The absence of conclusive evidence denies the possibility of a statement which is the end-all.
Bottom line: You left out the last paragraph I wrote which does explain my attitude very effectively. Reading your post alone I would have thought I was some hillbilly Christian fundamentalist.
“I’m not a religious man in the least. I back away from religions which try to channel your spirituality through others – Catholicism, Islam, etc. (Buddhism is blisfully safe). I beleive in reason, rationale and science above all else. Yet despite his enlightened ideals, I find Mr. Dawkins to be unnecessarily acidic, rude and dogmatically final – a discredit to the profession of science.”
Dawkins has many enlightened ideas about biology. Reading his comments about creationism is a delight, especially because in Europe we (thankfully) don’t have the problem of ‘Intelligent’ Design.
But when someone crosses the line into arrogance and starts making authoritative statements – may it be Dawkins or Newton or anyone, I just get ticked off.
Thank you for replying here.
I agree Dawkins is acidic at best, I have never particularly warmed to him in the past, although after reading the volumes of “hate blogs” which seem to exist my opinion is changing slightly.
Please note: I do not mean to imply you blog is one of them and I whole heartedly apologise for creating a false image.
I agree with your banner of Atheism quote whole heartedly.
I don’t agree with the requirement to create a level playing field though, however I suspect this would be better served in a brand new blog post.
Once again, thank you for getting back to me and clarifying the issue. Sorry for misrepresenting your perspective.
As a final note, Europe is (sadly) not as free or immune from the madness of Intelligent Design as it used to be. Here in the UK, schools are being sent ID teaching materials and city academies are allowed to teach it if they see fit. (Thin end of the wedge?)
Pingback: Why Dont You…Blog? » Blog Archive » Update on Atheist Resurgence
Pingback: Why Dont You…Blog? » Blog Archive » The Spread of Madness