On Dawkins...

Comment by Jay Catt on December 2, 2009 at 5:59pm

I like Dawkins quite a lot. It may be that soothing, ridiculously articulate speech. I'm a fan of Hitchens as well. Sam Harris too. I'd like to add Bill Maher to the mix. His "Religulous" is a riot at the same time making razor sharp points.
Dawkins isn't a robot to me. I love his smile. (oops..did I spell that out loud?)
I do need to get to the bookstore more often..I haven't read books from these guys yet.. I keep meaning to. BTW Peter.. love your avatar.

Comment by Lyonel Nichols on December 2, 2009 at 6:49pm

I rather appreciate Dr. Dawkins. I'm a fan of all of "The Four Horsemen," if you will. Why do you think that Dawkins, alone, is on the forefront anyway? I'll concede that he is possibly the most famous atheist in the world but anyone following the "New" atheism, as it were, knows that he is merely playing his part among the masses. Have you not seen the glimmer in Dawkins' eye when he speaks of evolution? You should check out his series "Growing Up in the Universe" from back in 1991. Also, though I couldn't locate the article, you should see him talking about his iPhone and how giddy he gets when discussing how amazed he is at how far technology has come. I'm under the impression that you have some sort of biased nature against Dawkins. Granted, perhaps I am biased for him (Jay's comments of his smile made me laugh), but I've read almost all of his work. From the Brilliance of "Unweaving the Rainbow" to "The Selfish Gene" and "The God Delusion" up to his newest, "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution." Now, if you ever read TGSOE, you'll be able to feel the excitement in his words that he feels when he discusses how amazing life is, the awe inspiring nature of how he found his love for biology. Also, when he spoke of the boy who died and how moved he was that the boy wanted the intro to "Unweaving the Rainbow" read at his funeral, that it literally brought him to weep.... I guess I'm just confused why you'd call him a 'ROBOT' and, by the way, if you read Dawkins' excerpt in "The Atheist's Guide to Christmas" and tell me you don't find that funny. "By jove, there is a god!" Perhaps you just don't know enough about the man?

Comment by Eric Strus on December 2, 2009 at 7:14pm

I know that if you don't like him, that is a matter of preference, but I don't know how you get off calling him a 'robot'.
he seems to me as a very emotional person, and the biggest aesthete in the scientific world since Carl Sagan.

Comment by Jay Catt on December 2, 2009 at 7:45pm

That's ok Peter, I never got what the big fuss was over Elvis.

Comment by a7 on December 2, 2009 at 7:48pm

It's all about opinions man, i agree with the one that said there all great, I see his aggresive nature as a positive. We need more of this attitude.

Comment by Reggie on December 2, 2009 at 9:36pm

I love Dawkins and his style. Arrogance is the last thing I think of when I listen to him or read his many wonderfully educating books. Flat and humanless? Interesting perspective. Despite not having a flamboyant style (which I appreciate), I think his passion and wonderment of science comes through rather clear.

I really don't know what you mean by his "arrogant and aggressive nature". Are we even talking about the same Richard Dawkins? Perhaps you can elaborate on some examples of this aggressiveness and arrogance? I have never seen either from the man.

Comment by Matthew on December 2, 2009 at 9:46pm

I guess if your not a fan of Brit Humor than you might not get some of his jokes and the inflections that he uses from time to time. I think not only is he brilliant (to say the least about him), but I think he would be a great person to hang out with. While I find Hitchens also brilliant, I find him to be more ascerbic and more aggressive of the "4 Horseman". But I also think that Hitchens is the best debater of them.

Comment by Dave G on December 2, 2009 at 10:48pm

I certainly wouldn't call Dawkins flat or humorless (humourless, since he's British?). He has a dry sense of humor, yes. But since I'm a long-time fan of dry British humor, perhaps I'm more attuned to it.

And he certainly does not seem robotic to me. Anyone who has seen his eyes light up and his enthusiasm when talking about evolution or biology in general can see the joy he takes in such things.

Actually, of the four, I have the hardest time relating to Sam Harris. Hitchens has that sardonic wit about him, and I find Dennett to be fascinating, both in his talks and his writing. Dawkins' writing, particularly TGSOE and some of his earlier scientific works, can easily draw someone in, and his fascination and awe with the working of living things can be seen in his words.

Comment by Doug Reardon on December 2, 2009 at 11:39pm

Yeah, you're missing the point.

Comment by Peter Mart on December 3, 2009 at 1:35am

I appreciate the responses. Looks like I'm in the minority, so let me explain further.

First, I suppose "Robot" was an incorrect word to use. It's actually his inability to control his emotions (hatred?) that is bothersome. Robot was used more as "insensitive" but sure, definitely bad choice of words.

So my perspective is coming from the fact that these "horsemen" are here in the first place to try to make a difference and really change how people view religion and try to change the way we have conversation on religion. Now, I feel someone like Sam Harris really gets this. Maybe one obvious example is how Sam Harris prefaces nearly all of his debates: "My goal is not to offend you, but many of you will be offended" - or something of that nature. It appears to me that Dawkins tends to provoke more than he probably should. If you're already an atheist, you're gonna love Dawkins. However, I tend to believe that he doesn't have that same persuasive power that say Harris or Hitchens does, therefore he ends up just pissing people off.

Maybe to add a little more perspective is the fact that I've had better luck showing Harris to my friends - religious and not religious - with them truly considering what the guy was talking about. It may be specific to my own crowd, maybe you all have different experiences with this?

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page