I don't really understand the Richard Dawkins "lack of respect".
To be fair, I don't find him particularly likeable, and occasionally brash when a softer approach would be more suitable.
However, we know fine well that various arguments for an against a deity can consist of an entire novel themselves. The God Delusion is not in some indisputable refutation of God but serves very well as an introduction to atheism.
It seems people expect it to be the ultimate refutation, a kind of anti-theist bible, and no reasonable person would expect it to.
The book itself, as a concept would have no point, if Dawkins stays limited to his own realm of expertise, the whole book would be dismissed if he does not address even one theistic argument. Dawkins was almost certainly aware of this, and the reason it caused such a fuss is that it did a damn good job of covering almost every angle.
Did it do so with perfect accuracy and detail? No, but it pointed you in the direction of further detail should you wish to read more.
The God Delusion is an antidote to your garden variety theist, and an introduction to the broad range of atheistic views. That is all, each argument has been written about elsewhere and in more detail, and the choice is yours to look into the parts that interest you the most.
Most of all, its a single book. A summary, and the real respect you should have for Dawkins is based upon his previous publications.
In regards to the forum shutdown, it was a mess. Absolutely. But, he realised it was wrong, handled badly, he reacted poorly and he said so explicitly, and apologised publically. It seems people expect him to be an unimpeachable messiah free from criticism.. and we're supposed to be helping people remove themselves of delusions like that.
I actually respect him more for just being human about it, as sometimes the most dangerous route for empiricists is to appear robotic.
Rebecca Watson, thats an interesting one. The whole thing was clearly blown out of proportion but it occurs to me that if she clearly felt uncomfortable in that situation, and did overreact. That does not excuse the fact she was uncomfortable. Its the same common sense that stops you from walking behind a woman alone in a dark street, you stop because its easy to imagine harmful intent. Especially when the same chap had just left a lecture where Rebecca Watson had just talked about that exact situation.
However, she did overreact, and guess what, she shows herself as human too.
Personally, you take what is useful from people who have something useful to say. People really need to stop idolising individuals, that is all imo.
To be fair, I don't find him particularly likeable, and occasionally brash when a softer approach would be more suitable.
However, we know fine well that various arguments for an against a deity can consist of an entire novel themselves. The God Delusion is not in some indisputable refutation of God but serves very well as an introduction to atheism.
It seems people expect it to be the ultimate refutation, a kind of anti-theist bible, and no reasonable person would expect it to.
The book itself, as a concept would have no point, if Dawkins stays limited to his own realm of expertise, the whole book would be dismissed if he does not address even one theistic argument. Dawkins was almost certainly aware of this, and the reason it caused such a fuss is that it did a damn good job of covering almost every angle.
Did it do so with perfect accuracy and detail? No, but it pointed you in the direction of further detail should you wish to read more.
The God Delusion is an antidote to your garden variety theist, and an introduction to the broad range of atheistic views. That is all, each argument has been written about elsewhere and in more detail, and the choice is yours to look into the parts that interest you the most.
Most of all, its a single book. A summary, and the real respect you should have for Dawkins is based upon his previous publications.
In regards to the forum shutdown, it was a mess. Absolutely. But, he realised it was wrong, handled badly, he reacted poorly and he said so explicitly, and apologised publically. It seems people expect him to be an unimpeachable messiah free from criticism.. and we're supposed to be helping people remove themselves of delusions like that.
I actually respect him more for just being human about it, as sometimes the most dangerous route for empiricists is to appear robotic.
Rebecca Watson, thats an interesting one. The whole thing was clearly blown out of proportion but it occurs to me that if she clearly felt uncomfortable in that situation, and did overreact. That does not excuse the fact she was uncomfortable. Its the same common sense that stops you from walking behind a woman alone in a dark street, you stop because its easy to imagine harmful intent. Especially when the same chap had just left a lecture where Rebecca Watson had just talked about that exact situation.
However, she did overreact, and guess what, she shows herself as human too.
Personally, you take what is useful from people who have something useful to say. People really need to stop idolising individuals, that is all imo.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
