Tinker observes that Dawkins has all the hallmarks of fundamentalist religion:
  • Vehemence
  • Narrow-mindedness
  • Intolerance
Is he basically just being a .. well a" fundamentalist scientist"?

I was just interested in people views... 

=]



x

Tags: atheist, dawkins, fundamentalist

Views: 37

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Vehemence is a strange choice. He's very mildly spoken, even if impassioned. I'm generally the same. Perhaps slightly louder.

He's not at all narrow-minded.

And he's certainly not intolerant.

Narrow-mindedness won't work in science. Basically you have to follow the evidence. Since there is no evidence for a magical sky man, it's pointless and naive to consider the existence of one. You may as well believe in a whole host of deities or mythical creatures.

I'm not sure about what he is intolerant. Unfortunately religion permeates itself in such a vile way throughout society that much of the dogma should not be tolerated. There's certainly never any cries to be tolerant to other sorts of dangerous beliefs.
"Dawkins is a fundie" roflmfho!!! That's the funniest thing I have EVER heard!
Sadly, you will hear that a lot from religionists and accommodationists.
roflmfho...

It took me a minute, but I figured this one out. Randy Osterberg Flies Lamely Making Feeble Hooting Orations. Got it. Glad I'm not so old that I can't understand the plethora of acronyms that exist on the internet.
Very well put!

I think the issue of intolerance here is really an issue of "well founded intolerance". If someone told me my skin was black I'd intolerant because I can see it's not!
Well said, Adriana. Thanks for saving me the time of responding!
Wait! But you just responded to say thanks for saving you the time of responding... which took the same amount of time......?
No, no. It was much easier, I assure you! ;)
Tolerance must not be confused with acceptance of falsehoods. If somebody tells me the Earth is 6000 years old, I'm not being "intolerant" by expressing an absolute refusal to believe that crap, I'm not being narrow-minded either.

Very well said, Adriana. How can refusal to accept a proven falsehood be considered "intolerant?" It just doesn't make any sense. Or, at the very least, it completely perverts any meaning of the word "intolerant."
I honestly can't think of a post by Adriana for which I disagree. Is that a double negative? Who cares.

Anyway, I completely agree (see above).

Richard Dawkins is definitely forward and open about his knowledge of the world. In a way, I find his open attitude towards religion far more tolerant than those who question religion but sit on their hands when it comes time to ask questions because they feel they need to "respect" those viewpoints. As Adriana stated, Dawkins maintains a respectful and polite demeanor when he debates religion.

Intolerance would be sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la la" while someone with an opposing viewpoint tried to tell you what they thought, which is exactly what religious fundamentalists do when it comes to philosophy and science.
I honestly can't think of a post by Adriana for which I disagree.

I know, me too. We must be drinking the Adriana Kool-Aid.
But it's ok because it's smart Kool-Aid. Speaking of which, pass the pitcher!

RSS

  

Blog Posts

People

Posted by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp on July 28, 2014 at 10:27pm 4 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service