Dawkins and Determinism

[naimless]

If he was motivated by truth he would focus on his work as a scientist, not as an atheist. He explained the theory of evolution led to his conclusion of atheism, so why try and spread atheism at all? Just spread the theory of evolution.

Because it doesn't matter if non-scientists are never exposed to the truth? Because you're basically criticizing him for writing books about what he thinks is true, and for some reason you think he should keep that to himself. Why do you think he should not share whatever truths he thinks he has discovered? He's primarily an educator, not a field scientist.

Many scientists are agnostic or theistic in some manner. I haven't once criticised his books. I am referring to Dawkins as a public speaker on atheism whilst within an environment of theists. Not on him as an educator as an author, which is what I believe he should stick to in order to provide the right context for his views each time.

That being said, a scientist could also write a book on agnosticism without atheism which I think a theist audience may be more receptive to in order to release them from organised religion.

Spreading the theory of evolution as Dawkins wants people to appreciate it would be much the same thing as spreading atheism as what you have there is an explanation for life minus a creator or intelligent designing God. There would still be some room of a deist God who created the universe then left but would be about it. People like tomock of the 40-50% of Americans who reject evolution but they at least appreciate that the theory of evolution as it is wouldn't allow for a God, Christians elsewhere tend to miss this. Though what you can't do if you have any education is claim that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, you may as well claim the Earth to be flat.

Yep, but I feel his public fight with theism actually makes some people less accepting or open-minded about approaching evolution.

You seem to be claiming that ridicule of slavery led to the civil war. Presumably your contention is that the proximate cause of the war (South Carolina's secession) was caused by ridicule of slavery. Can you support that contention with facts? The USA was the only country that had a war over slavery, but it was also the only country that was divided into slave and non-slave regions that had additional conflicting interests.

No, justin raised slavery and my point was that you didn't need the war to end slavery. And you don't need ridicule to end organised religion.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mohandas K. Gandhi.

We can ignore and laugh at the notion of theism all we want, but the opposing party can just walk away with a stronger conviction until empathy with whatever determines the brain to need a god of some form is properly understood.

People discover things in their own time if you enable them to. When providing learning resources we could try and approach them with empathy and positive reinforcement. Young children know this and the big adults miss it.

I've seen Dawkins a few times say he wants to see the churches emptied and that people who follow religions are idiotic, and to treat them as misguided is being patronising.

Whilst that could all be true, I still feel it is dangerous.

If him voicing these opinions is dangerous, then I think there might be some bias against him from that perspective. Having an opinion, and having the authority to make something like that happen are two different things.

The Pope said he'd like to see contraception no longer used. Him saying that as a person is innocuous. Him saying that as a decree is dangerous.

I think, when in a position of power and representing any label, saying that as a person is still dangerous.

Muslims can have an opinion about Sharia Law. Supremacists can have an opinion on racism.

If this is an atheistic opinion about theism then it can be re-used to make the opponent of atheism seem wiser and more in touch with the popular morality of humanity.

There is a lot of eye for an eye shit going around between theists and atheists alike and it really makes one question the objectivity of atheism. There is clearly a part of the brain that people access a feeling of god with and some need to feel it more than others.

Neither atheism nor theism are doctrines that tell you how to act or think, they are merely differing conclusions about the reality of the existence of a God or gods. It makes no more sense to talk about how 'atheists' should act than it does to talk about how 'theists' should act. How a theist should act depends on their religion, if any. How an atheist should act depends on their moral philosophy, if any. How an atheist or theist actually DOES act is based almost entirely on their personality, no matter what they espouse. There's research indicating a big difference in personality type distributions between atheists and theists, which probably has a lot to do with willingness to hold an unpopular position. Most atheists (in the USA) are introverts for example--more focused on their internal processing-while most theists are extroverts-more focused on their interactions with others.

Dawkins is outspoken because he is an outspoken man. It's not really very mysterious at all.

Fine, then I think Dawkins' moral philosophy and his personality effects the conclusions of many people, and it ought to be considered the negative effects this can have.

It is a bit strange to have an outspoken introvert. It can give extroverts an incredibly flawed perception.