What are your thoughts on Richard Dawkins?

[NuclearEnergy]

I for one think that he is quite an intelligent guy. I think he has written some great books. I have only read one of them and that was called The God Delusional. But to be quite honest, whenever I hear him speak I have found that he comes off as quite smug and seems to talk down to those with other opinions. I'm an agnostic not I am not atheist nor Christian, so maybe I am a little biased.

[Rev. Rye]

He's certainly one of the best evolutionary biologists out there. Then again, as for his more famous works, well, while God Delusion was certainly a good consciousness-raiser 10 years ago in the days of Dubya using Christ as his excuse to fuck with America and every other country by extension, and his prose is witty, its arguments haven't all held up very well. His ever-increasing tendency to put his foot in his mouth hasn't helped matters.

[Aroura]

I think he used to be a lot more patient with people he had discussion with, but has lost it a bit after years of beating his head against walls of "lalala I'm not listening" like this:





Also, what do you mean by being an agnostic?  Most atheists are agnostics.  
Theism and atheism are positions of belief or disbelief.  Gnosticism or agnosticism are positions of certainty.

So there exist people who believe in God, and are certain of his existence, but also those who believe but do not claim certainty.  The latter are much rarer.
There exist atheists who do not believe in any Gods, but are not certain that there aren't any out there somewhere, but also those who are certain there are none.  The latter are, again, much rarer.

So, it isn't one question; Do you believe in God?), it's two questions.  The second question being; Do you know there is a God?

[Minimalist]

I see no reason for a smart man like Dawkins to be tolerant of jesus freak assholes.

[Jesster]

I think he needs to speak up more. He's far too timid for my tastes.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I suspect (but cannot prove) that's he's kind to dogs.

Boru

[Whateverist]

I'm an agnostic not I am not atheist nor Christian, so maybe I am a little biased.

When you say you're an agnostic, do you have in mind that it is not possible to ever know for sure gods do or don't exist conclusively? -Or- Do you mean that while there is no reason of which you are aware why one should not be able to decide whether gods exist, you nonetheless find yourself unable to do so. In short, do you claim agnosticism is structurally unavoidable for creatures such as ourselves, or is just a personal quirk?

I don't understand how being agnostic differentiates you from being a believer or an atheist, unless you are a strong agnostic. If you truly have good reasons for holding that no god belief statement is defensible given our epistemic position, then that really is an alternative to being an atheist or theist. But while most of us admit to agnosticism (weak form), we nonetheless find ourselves entirely capable of forming, holding and acting on beliefs .. even those we recognize to be unresolvable on principle.

[masterofpuppets]

To identify one's position all it takes are two very simple yes/no questions.

1. Do you believe in the claim "at least one god exists"?

No: atheist
Yes: deist/theist

2. Do you know, with absolute certainty, that at least one god exists/does not exist?

No: agnostic
Yes: gnostic

That would be weak agnosticism. The position of strong agnosticism (that it is impossible for anyone to know) is nonsense because the premise that it is impossible to know has not been demonstrated to be true.

In regard to the topic of the thread, Richard Dawkins is an excellent evolutionary biologist, but not a really good atheist debater. He understands logical fallacies and does a reasonable job of trashing theistic arguments, but his presentation sometimes leaves much to be desired. A good atheist debater would be someone like Matt Dillahunty, who gets straight to the point every time.

[Alex K]

To quote PZ Myers, he writes like an angel. I agree that debate is not his strength, but that's ok, debate is often an idiotic format for making subtle and honest arguments. Most criticisms of his tone etc. are imho just mindlessly repeated or come from people who don't really know his work or are butthurt and need something to reject his arguments. Those who criticise him for being philosophically unsophisticated haven't convinced me that they have anything of actual substance to offer, and in my opinion miss the point. As is often the case with public science communicators, the public perception of his scientific importance is a bit distorted, he is certainly a very competent biologist, but not among the leading figures, and of course has not been at the forefront of actual research for a long time. But that's absolutely ok, you can't do everything. He has a big big ego and a tendency to make an ass of himself online, but he did improve his act. Now with the stroke he'sobviously taking it slower.

[Thumpalumpacus]

He was a great scientist, mediocre as a spokesman.