I didn’t look it up… I tend away from “he said/she said blah blah blah” and from another’s perspective? Hahahaha ask my ex about me! Lol
Nah, I make up my own mind about those two, not them about each other and shit. Dawkins has some very strong, admirable qualities that I do enjoy. I have enjoyed listening to him read his hate mail by the fire. And he has areas that I don’t appreciate as much. Same with Harris. BUT I find Harris more dishonest (IMO) in his thinking than Dawkins.
It is awesome when you condemn atheists are emotionally immature, ignorant children and they go out of their way to prove you right.
More than happy too!!!
I tend to like RD as long as he is talking about Evolution. When he starts going off into theology, he just makes too many inane assertions. (I think he responds emotionally to challenges rather than intellectually. He does not think well on his feet so he does not do well when challenged.)
Me too, to a point. Eg I liked watching him demolish some dick about irreducible complexity, using the human eye as an example. However, his idea of "the selfish gene " is not highly thought of in his discipline. He is considered competent but hardly a leader in his field .
Nor is “The God delusion” highly regarded by philosophers. I suspect in part because he is unable to meet the burden of proof which accompanies hard atheism.
I have never liked him as a personality. Plus imo , the phrase "new atheist’ is a meaningless sound bite. Dawkins is not an atheist spokesperson and it irritates me that he allows others to describe him as such without correcting them.
I have always considered both Chris Hitchens and Richard Dawkins to be polemicists rather than philosophers, and consider Hitchens the brighter of the two.
Couldn’t resit this clip of a very young Richard Dawkins explaining the evolution of the eye.
I agree, though I’d always thought this was a label assigned them, rather than one of their own choosing.
I think his primary motive has always been to promote scientific rigour over superstition and religion. I doubt he sees himself as a spokesperson for all atheists, at least that’s not the impression I’ve had anyway.
Yes I agree, I know the Hitch always described himself using that word, author reporter and polemicist. I don’t think Dawkins would consider himself a philosopher either tbh.
Difficult to measure really, in purely academic terms Dawkins was by far the more successful, though that of course doesn’t mean he was more intelligent.
I think the best compliment you could give Dawkins is that he’s been a life long champion of science, and through his books he has made the subject of evolution accessible to those outside of the field in an engaging and informative way.
I also marvel at his patience when people are snide and attack him personally, or worse make ludicrously inaccurate claims about science and evolution.
I’m not in a position to judge his scientific work, though he has for a while now been promoting science rather than practicing it. I think that’s an important role given the woefully inaccurate misconceptions so many people have about science.
The hostility religion has towards science hasn’t really diminished IMHO, and with good reason. The fact that the mystery and majesty of the universe and natural world, can be better explained by studying it rather than your navel, while contemplating the numinous, and without any need to add woo woo involving any deity, is understandably something religions are still keen to stop the masses understanding.
Agreed. I like Hitchens as well. While he is in the same boat as Dawkins, Hitches knowledge of social trends is extreme. He will mow the opposition down with wars, political movements, actual letters or documents Theists have supported, facts, evidence, more facts, and just bury them in historical social knowledge.
@Cognostic I wholeheartedly agree with your statement about Richard Dawkins.