What dawkins has done "as an atheist" is over-blown by the media, and by a lot of atheist. His book 'the god delusion' might have been an "eye opener" for a lot of non-believers, but so can reading the bible from cover to cover, or a lot of other things that will open you to the truth.
The media gives most of the credit to the rise of atheism to dawkins. But they also give out credit to others like hitchens and harris, but mostly its dawkins. To say dawkins is the "number 1" like the media seems to imply, is a vast overstatement. There are others that have said basically the same things as dawkins, in the past and in the present. I guess dawkins is just in the right time and knows the right way to market himself to the media.
Well, I guess that makes sense. But what doesn't the media overhype? If they are mentioning it, then they are hyping it. I guess if you use the media to gauge things, then Dawkins is over rated. But from the metrics I use, he seems rated perfectly fine. He has done a lot to popularize the scientific and atheistic position, as have others. I don't think he is over rated (or under rated), but I don't pay much attention to the media, I guess.
I wondered if that was it, but I wanted him to tell me instead of jumping to conclusions.
I once worked with a guy long ago that listened to all these obscure bands. As soon as one of his favorite bands got airplay for a song on the radio, he considered them mainstream and would stop listening to them altogether.
My guess, since we are slow in getting a response, is that Forrest does not have anything specific to point to and simply feels that Dawkins is "overrated" because of his fame. But, it is exactly the things that Dawkins has done that has led to his fame, so I don't really understand how he is overrated.
It's not as if anyone is saying that without Dawkins, the route to atheism would not be open. But that is what Forrest seems to imply when he states "his book 'the god delusion' might have been an "eye opener" for a lot of non-believers, but so can reading the bible from cover to cover, or a lot of other things that will open you to the truth".
Unless Forrest can elaborate, I'm left to assume that he is like my coworker from years ago and simply doesn't like to run with the crowd. I can respect that somewhat, but many times there is a good reason for the crowd to be running.
I never questioned his credibility, i just said he was over-rated for what he has done for atheism. Dawkins is a very intelligent person, i was never said we should give him less credit for his scientific work. But what he has done for atheism is not anything special compared to his own scientific work, and other very well known "freethinkers" in the past and the present.
But what he has done for atheism is not anything special compared to his own scientific work, and other very well known "freethinkers" in the past and the present.
I don't necessarily disagree with that. I think Dawkins himself has said that he is not offering any novel arguments against theism. But your statements imply that people are suggesting that or something along those lines. If the media is the main culprit, well, we can add that to the long list of complaints about the media.
I think that the main reason Dawkins is considered so influential is because he combines the no-nonsense approach to religion of Hitchens with Sagans knack for making science interesting and inspirational.
I went to one of his debates, i agree he is enormously talented, however he accused the opposite of not being able to listen to critiques of religion, but when his beliefs were criticized he also refused to listen. I just thought.. well you know, bit harsh. If you are going to accuse someone of doing something wrong you would make sure you didn't do the same? Or is that how debating works? Everytime I read something he has read or said it always seems so arrogant... ?
perhaps I just thought he was arrogant because of the nature of the debate, I confess I'm not very very well educated but I have read the God delusion etc and I confess I found it a bit strong for me. Maybe it's because of media spin I don't know. Being a bit "fence" like I prefer a debate with agreeing to disagree. I don't think I don't understand him, I just don't quite agree with the culture of putting down other people for their beliefs as much as I have heard him do.
Agreeing to disagree can be useful at times for polite discussion of opinions, but never is it useful in science.
Knowing well the theory of evolution, it is hard to entertain IDiots and other evolution deniers in ways that make them feel respected. I empathize with his "no-win" situation of being a scientist and dealing with a science illiterate public.