Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive1
[edit] On the telly
Just finished watching the second part of Enemies of Reason on Channel 4. Another good bashing of the mumbo-jumbo of "alternative" medicine. Genghis Khant 15:07, 20 August 2007 (CDT)
- I am eagerly awaiting its releas on the inter
tubespipes. tmtoulouse plague 15:09, 20 August 2007 (CDT)
[edit] doc should see it
Yeah, watched it on repeat. He puts a whole lot on "trials?" & placebo. He's got a lot more patience with these nutters than I would have; I don't know how he managed to keep his cool. (good editing?). If it ever gets over the pond it should be compulsory watching for woo mongers. Keep Your hands to yourself 19:57, 20 August 2007 (CDT)
- Yeah, i missed the whole Enemies thing...is it online? User:PalMD
[edit] Richard the Philosopher
Now, it may just be me, but under normal circumstances, I would expect calling someone a philosopher would require that person to actually display some skill at and knowledge of philosophy. As far as I can tell, Dawkins has never received any training in philosophy, has never published anything substantial on philosophy, and, to take an example of his ability to present a philosophical argument, his "discussion" of Aquinas in chapter 3 of The God Delusion would make even a first-year philosophy student weep like a little child.
For a fun exercise, try comparing Dawkins with one of the real eminent atheist philosophers, such as Bertrand Russell, J. L. Mackie or Jean-Paul Sartre. Or don't, because there's really no comparison between them. Dawkins is good at shouting at things, but that falls under polemics, not philosophy. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:37, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
Dawkins does have his troubles (he's not really a people person) but that dosen't stop him being a philosopher. At least under this definition:
philosopher - a specialist in philosophy
philosophy - the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.)
I don't think that anyone could deny his rational investigation. I think his main trouble is that he regards those who don't see his pov as rather stupid but he's still a philosopher regardless ofyour interpretation of the word. SJGsjg 14:58, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
- I can't say I was impressed with the God Delusion. The reasoning was often poor. I remain a non-believer despite his poor analysis. Still, he does get the word out.--PalMD-Oy, mein tukhas! 15:20, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
I would certainly deny his "investigation", since according to the same dictionary, that means "To observe or inquire into in detail; examine systematically." Staying with God Delusion, Dawkins does no such thing regarding philosophy - he gives no detailed presentations of the subject matter, he presents no structured arguments, he does not engage with any of the major Christian philosophers (Kierkegaard, Tillich, Schweitzer, Ricoeur, Berdayev, and so on and so forth), and overall, his reasoning completely fails to live up to what one would expect from a work of philosophy. Again, this is not philosophy, it is polemics. Good polemics, in a certain way, but still polemics. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:23, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
Agggh! you introduced a word that affects me much as liberal affects A Schlafley viz. 'Christian'. When faced with a philosophy founded on irrational faith there can be no rational answer. That's probably why he pays them the zero respect. However you're bloody good yourself @ proving your point & I haven't the education/knowledge in what is (to me) an esoteric field so I yield the point. SJGsjg 15:35, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
- Hmmmm... interesting. But I think there are two obvious defences of Dawkins and his book The God Delusion here. One is in the definition of philosophy - as a scientist he is, of course, a natural philosopher - and he does use rationalism, pragmatism and empiricism in his work. So, while he might not be a philosopher in the vein of Christian philosophers listed above (how could he?), he certainly is a philosopher in the more robust earlier use of the word. Second, the book is not intended to be a philosophical discussion. While it does go into some detail about the likelihood of the existence of God, (a philosophical question if ever there was one), he doesn't use philosophy to attack the damage he claims religion does to human society. Which is, it seems to me, the primary purpose of the book. Ajkgordon 03:18, 7 January 2008 (EST)
[edit] Qualifications
I've put so much in qualifications because of the debate at CP. If it's overkill then we can take it out.--Bob's your uncle 15:49, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- No, it's quite lovely. I'll send a link over to the Dawkins Forum162.82.215.199 15:59, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- Actually, be nice if the RD crowd wanted to contribute.--Bob's your uncle 17:30, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
[edit] God Delusion
I added a subsection. Perhaps someone like The Great Dane could flush it out.162.82.215.199 16:16, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- Typos rule!!! haha human
17:54, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- What's so bad about typos? If I stopped to think, Id never get anything done, and you would lose an opportunity to copy-edit. Yeah, I'll sign in, dammit.162.82.215.199 18:17, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- Nothing bad about them, as I said, they rule. Especially the one I was commenting on. human
19:04, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- Nothing bad about them, as I said, they rule. Especially the one I was commenting on. human
- What's so bad about typos? If I stopped to think, Id never get anything done, and you would lose an opportunity to copy-edit. Yeah, I'll sign in, dammit.162.82.215.199 18:17, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- Glad to, but I see you already made a good start. I'll see what I can add once I find some free time. Mmmm... free time... --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 11:13, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
- User your free time wisely.75.62.26.188 11:16, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
[edit] Image
I know it's shopped and all, but is that image of RD "strangling" a creationist the kind of thing that we want on this page?--Bayesupdate 02:02, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- No, at least, not at the top. A better caption and putting it lower might help. Like "What creationists make us feel like doing"? human
14:22, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- That's a lot better. I like the caption very much. Can we get a real pic of him for up top? Steal it from WP maybe? human
21:50, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- That's a lot better. I like the caption very much. Can we get a real pic of him for up top? Steal it from WP maybe? human
[edit] Professorship
[Moved from WIGO talk page] Well TK has forced me to finally drop this particular bit, but I think I'm done anyway - I'm tired of pestering Oxford (who by now must think I'm a stalker), and like someone said above, it's obvious that Andy isn't going to change his mind. Not even if the Vice Chancellor of Oxford University himself confirmed the facts over a private lunch with the Chief Justice. Though I hope someone will call out Andy on his contradiction in quoting authoritatively the first part of that FOI response from Oxford (about the Simonyi professorship not being filled) whilst he wilfully ignores the second part (about a professorship being conferred on Dawkins in 1996). Calling him out won't change anything of course, it would just make things, you know, *neater*. Weirdly, and in spite of himself, Andy has actually forced us to unearth some interesting errors in Dawkins' CV, and some of my early assertions were indeed wrong. Clearly Dawkins doesn't hold the statutory Charles Simonyi Professorship - instead he holds the Readership, and a Professorial title with almost exactly the same name. My own theory - and this is purely conjecture based on my own experience of academic politics - is that the vagaries around Dawkins' title are simply a prime example of a university fudge. My guess is that Simonyi endowed the chair on condition that Dawkins received it first. But Oxford couldn't guarantee 100% that a formal election would grant the chair to Dawkins and not some other academic. So instead they created the chair, gifted Dawkins the Readership to ensure the money went where it was intended, and then he went through a more straightforward (though peer reviewed) process of gaining a professorial title via the Distinctions Committee - just like the majority of professors at Oxford. The Distinctions Committee could then name that professorship in such a way that way everyone was happy: Dawkins gets his professorship; Simonyi gets to fund his man and see Dawkins carry out the responsibilities of the role; and Oxford gets the endowment. I'd also guess that even though the formal title is 'Simonyi Reader and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science', Oxford were happy for Dawkins and the Simonyi Institute to refer to him as the Simonyi Professor. But perhaps that's just my atheist liberal deceit coming through.
- It's been emotional. OurMike 18:19, 20 November 2007 (EST)
- Actually, I put this on CP's talk page for Dawkins - it seems to me that Dawkins started the 'job' before he was officially conferred the title of 'Professor', and his CV refers to when he started the 'job' rather than when he got the title. Of course, I could be wrong about that. Zmidponk 15:20, 29 January 2008 (EST)
- You people disgust me! Leave the poor man alone, all he has left is his wiki and his lifetime supply of olanzapine! SSchultz 18:53, 20 November 2007 (EST)
He doesn't look fat enough to be on olanzapine, sarge.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 07:03, 21 November 2007 (EST)
- Curiously, what medications do you think Andy should be on for his mental illnesses? --Edgerunner76 09:36, 21 November 2007 (EST)
He's like the small child who's madde a statement and won't back down - he's stamping his feet & holding his breath with his eyes closed & fingers in ears - unfortunately there's no-one to send him to his room. Susan... miaow ... 13:01, 21 November 2007 (EST)
- Well, he does seem to think that he has unearthed some serious overlooked dirt on RD, and like any conspiracy nut he won't let go of his bone now. He's got his two "quotes" (RD's resume and Oxford's statement), that aren't worded exactly the same, ergo LIBERAL DECEIT!!!1111!!1oneone! He's the boy who cried "goat" while putting his finger in the dike... human
14:09, 21 November 2007 (EST)
- Andy put his finger in a dyke? --Edgerunner76 14:13, 21 November 2007 (EST)
- He thought it was a goat. human
15:12, 21 November 2007 (EST)
- He thought it was a goat. human
- Andy put his finger in a dyke? --Edgerunner76 14:13, 21 November 2007 (EST)
The whole sordid talk page on CP is quite bizarre. Talk about belief without evidence - Aschlafly simply has faith that Dawkins in not a real professor therefore he mustn't be. Any tiny nugget of data that apparently reinforces his faith - such as the minor discrepancy on Dawkins' CV, I imagine more to do with practicality rather than deception - and that is proof-positive that Dawkins is a fraud. Like sedimentary rock proving that Noah's flood is real. I've largely given up because it's quite obvious that Aschlafly won't back down. Even if, as demanded, Dawkins does send him a copy of his appointment letter from OU, (yeah right), it will be a copy and not the original, which of course is more than likely to be a fraud because Dawkins is a liberal atheist. Stands to reason, dunnit? Ajkgordon 10:38, 23 November 2007 (EST)
- I, for one, cannot believe that Assfly won't recognize Dawkins as a professorship without producing his letter of appointment to the post. Does he hold those does he hold anyone else to such high standards? Ridiculous. He's painted himself into a corner by making this "exposé" of Dawkins his latest cause. Having put so much into it he can't back down now, so he just has to keep the idea going, despite proof that he's wrong. Sad, really. DickTurpis 11:21, 23 November 2007 (EST)
- Even if he were sent a copy of his letter of appointment - do you think that he would accept it? I rather think not. He'd simply claim that it was a forgery. (While on the subject, he could use the same reasoning to claim that any other professor at Oxford is not a professor on the basis that nobody has presented him personally with a certified copy of their letter of their various appointments.) But the Dawkins letter of appointment thing is just a smokescreen - he asks for something that he knows it is not in the power of his critics to obtain, claims that it is the one vital piece of evidence that would convince him, and then says that he must be right because it has not been provided. The man is quite sly almost deceitful.--Bobbing up 11:50, 23 November 2007 (EST)
- I've asked him on a couple of occasions if other sources have "exposed" this non-professorship. To which he replies that I'm over-reliant on hearsay. Pffft. Ajkgordon 11:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)
- Yes, I still can't work out if Andy believes what he's saying. Or indeed whether he believes *anyone* believes what he's saying. It's endlessly fascinating though - seeing what mental knots he can tie himself into in order to once again deny the desperately obvious fact of Dawkins' professorship. Andy's world takes the negative of something as the default, so an Oxford University document that uses the word "professor" is assumed to mean "honorary, non-peer reviewed, non-stipended, facultyless professor, and probable museum curator: expired" - unless you can find proof against every one of those negatives. If Dawkins produced his letter of appointment Aschlafly would first ignore it, then deny it, and finally argue that it supported his case, on the grounds that it was addressed to 'Dr'. OurMike 12:41, 23 November 2007 (EST)
- I keep wondering this. Is it really some great joke on his part to refuse to accept something so obvious? Is he just playing people along? It's hard to believe that anyone could be so seriously closed-minded. But each time I think that, I wonder if he would really publicly damage his credibility just to make a joke.--Bobbing up 12:54, 23 November 2007 (EST)
- Um, I don't think he has any credibility! Ajkgordon 16:21, 23 November 2007 (EST)
- I keep wondering this. Is it really some great joke on his part to refuse to accept something so obvious? Is he just playing people along? It's hard to believe that anyone could be so seriously closed-minded. But each time I think that, I wonder if he would really publicly damage his credibility just to make a joke.--Bobbing up 12:54, 23 November 2007 (EST)
- Yes, I still can't work out if Andy believes what he's saying. Or indeed whether he believes *anyone* believes what he's saying. It's endlessly fascinating though - seeing what mental knots he can tie himself into in order to once again deny the desperately obvious fact of Dawkins' professorship. Andy's world takes the negative of something as the default, so an Oxford University document that uses the word "professor" is assumed to mean "honorary, non-peer reviewed, non-stipended, facultyless professor, and probable museum curator: expired" - unless you can find proof against every one of those negatives. If Dawkins produced his letter of appointment Aschlafly would first ignore it, then deny it, and finally argue that it supported his case, on the grounds that it was addressed to 'Dr'. OurMike 12:41, 23 November 2007 (EST)
- I've asked him on a couple of occasions if other sources have "exposed" this non-professorship. To which he replies that I'm over-reliant on hearsay. Pffft. Ajkgordon 11:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)
- Even if he were sent a copy of his letter of appointment - do you think that he would accept it? I rather think not. He'd simply claim that it was a forgery. (While on the subject, he could use the same reasoning to claim that any other professor at Oxford is not a professor on the basis that nobody has presented him personally with a certified copy of their letter of their various appointments.) But the Dawkins letter of appointment thing is just a smokescreen - he asks for something that he knows it is not in the power of his critics to obtain, claims that it is the one vital piece of evidence that would convince him, and then says that he must be right because it has not been provided. The man is quite sly almost deceitful.--Bobbing up 11:50, 23 November 2007 (EST)
Just had to try one more time. Countdown to revert and ban:10...9...8... Zmidponk 15:13, 29 January 2008 (EST)
- That edit comment's gotta be saved for posteriority : zmidponk to AS: (You are in contravention of Conservapedia Commandments 1, 2 and 5. You are the owner of the site. Abide by the Commandments or change them.) SusanPurrrrrrr 16:01, 29 January 2008 (EST)
- Wow, that was a comment! A perfect combination of common sense and irony. I bow to Zmidponk. Editor at CPBring TK back 16:06, 29 January 2008 (EST)
- Thank you. I try. ;) Zmidponk 20:46, 29 January 2008 (EST)
- I have an image of AS going slowly red -> purple at the sheer cheek of someone daring to impugn his rectumitude. As he stares at the screen before him. (no response yet!) SusanPurrrrrrr 16:08, 29 January 2008 (EST)
- Good old arse kisser Mexmax.!!! SusanPurrrrrrr 17:15, 29 January 2008 (EST)
- Good old Mexmax (again) (you can just see his feet sticking out of Andy's rectum now, he's kissed so much. SusanPurrrrrrr 18:23, 29 January 2008 (EST)
- Oh, come on, you know better than that. Andy doesn't have a rectum, as crap is a purely liberal thing. Zmidponk 20:50, 29 January 2008 (EST)
- Wow, that was a comment! A perfect combination of common sense and irony. I bow to Zmidponk. Editor at CPBring TK back 16:06, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Well, not banned yet (much to my surprise), though the page is reverted 'pending outcome of discussion'. Of course, this is really just a continuation of the one that really started in October or thereabouts, and Assfly has basically pretended isn't happening, or accused the people arguing against him of lying. Maybe he thinks if he does this long enough, it'll go away? Zmidponk 20:44, 29 January 2008 (EST)
YAY!!! I finally got banned, despite not editing the article before giving them a full week to actually present something, anything, to back the claim of Professor Dawkins not being a 'real professor', and them presenting absolutely nothing, except a comment by Assfly asking me to get Professor Dawkins to 'correct his CV'. Zmidponk 17:22, 7 February 2008 (EST)
[edit] Dawkins's
Bob - hate to nitpick, but according to the Chicago Manual of Style, it should be Dawkins's:
7.18Proper nouns, letters, and numbers
The general rule covers most proper nouns, including names ending in s, x, or z, in both their singular and plural forms, as well as letters and numbers.
- Kansas’s legislature
- Chicago’s lakefront
- Burns’s poems
- Marx’s theories
- Berlioz’s works
- Strauss’s Vienna
- Dickens’s novels
PFoster 14:04, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
- Been there, done that, got the T shirt. Bob & I had a looooong discussion many moons ago & agreed (I think) to differ. SusanG 14:06, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
[edit] "Ad homs."
What, ad homs are undesired now? This could have serious consequences for several of our articles. :uh-oh: --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 13:00, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
[edit] A bit of a prick
Anyone have any graceful suggestions on how to incorporate my subjective belief that both Dawkins and Hitchens are really kind of dicks into their articles? Or should I leave it be?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 07:29, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- How about changing the quotes section to "Quotes by Dawkins" and "Quotes about Dawkins". Then you could file your feelings under the latter, for example:
- "Dawkins is a bit of a dick" Tom Moore, 2008
- Bondurant 07:42, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- That may be difficult. No doubt some users would agree with you. Others, such as I, would not. Still ... perhaps a section "mixed responses" or something of that nature would allow a diversity of opinion? Or you could start a debate page?--Bobbing up 07:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- I'll just leave it as is, I suppose. I'm not sure if it would make an interesting debate... the single sentence "It seems like Dawkins is a bit of a prick sometimes" isn't really the most intriguing of topics.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 07:51, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- We are so prone to criticize people for talking/preaching about things outside of their field of expertise (from omniscient Andy to creationist astronomers lecturing about biology). Should the same be applied to famed theologist Dawkins? ;-) Editor at CPLiar at RP! 07:55, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- No, because, as Dawkins himself has been kind enough to inform us, theology is not even a real academic field. So obviously anyone can speak with authority on it. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 08:06, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- Well, there is that book parody thing someone wrote in there. ħuman
21:53, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- Haha, and I finally caught one of the subtly funny things about that part... ħuman
21:54, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- While I agree with Tom Moore's sentiments, I'm not sure a section devoted to that kind of thing would fit very well in the article. Ideally (hah!) we should reach a consensus on the veracity and/or prickliness of Dawkins' views, and write the article consistently from that point of view.
Pink(Astronomy Domine) 22:11, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- Oh. Well, maybe we can do that. Is there anyone who doesn't think Dawkins is a bit of a prick? I'm an atheist and a rationalist, and I love science, but I'll be damned if the man just doesn't act like a douche sometimes. It's not about his views, really, it's about his attitude. People's beliefs in religion are the same as their beliefs about anything; we shouldn't respect the truth of those beliefs, but we should respect their right to have those beliefs without being dildos about it.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 22:39, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- I'd hate to put words in their mouths, but at a guess, I'd say that Susan and Bob would be likely to disagree with that characterisation. A few others might as well, like Proxima Centauri and Eira. Shall we invite them over here and have a full-scale
battledebate about it, maybe?
Pink(Astronomy Domine) 22:43, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- Sounds like a plan, and seems to have begun already below.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 23:00, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- I'd hate to put words in their mouths, but at a guess, I'd say that Susan and Bob would be likely to disagree with that characterisation. A few others might as well, like Proxima Centauri and Eira. Shall we invite them over here and have a full-scale
- Oh. Well, maybe we can do that. Is there anyone who doesn't think Dawkins is a bit of a prick? I'm an atheist and a rationalist, and I love science, but I'll be damned if the man just doesn't act like a douche sometimes. It's not about his views, really, it's about his attitude. People's beliefs in religion are the same as their beliefs about anything; we shouldn't respect the truth of those beliefs, but we should respect their right to have those beliefs without being dildos about it.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 22:39, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- While I agree with Tom Moore's sentiments, I'm not sure a section devoted to that kind of thing would fit very well in the article. Ideally (hah!) we should reach a consensus on the veracity and/or prickliness of Dawkins' views, and write the article consistently from that point of view.
- Haha, and I finally caught one of the subtly funny things about that part... ħuman
- Well, there is that book parody thing someone wrote in there. ħuman
- No, because, as Dawkins himself has been kind enough to inform us, theology is not even a real academic field. So obviously anyone can speak with authority on it. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 08:06, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- We are so prone to criticize people for talking/preaching about things outside of their field of expertise (from omniscient Andy to creationist astronomers lecturing about biology). Should the same be applied to famed theologist Dawkins? ;-) Editor at CPLiar at RP! 07:55, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- I'll just leave it as is, I suppose. I'm not sure if it would make an interesting debate... the single sentence "It seems like Dawkins is a bit of a prick sometimes" isn't really the most intriguing of topics.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 07:51, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- That may be difficult. No doubt some users would agree with you. Others, such as I, would not. Still ... perhaps a section "mixed responses" or something of that nature would allow a diversity of opinion? Or you could start a debate page?--Bobbing up 07:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
Contrary to above supposition (Chaos!), I regard Dawkins as quite a lot of a prick.
ContribsTalk 23:21, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- That's why I hate putting words in peoples' mouths :(
Pink(Astronomy Domine) 23:29, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- (Hope that's not a fellatio reference,Chaos!)
- While it's ok for me, a person of no influence, to antagonise people with my anti-religion rants, Dawkins should realise that tirades of invective are not doing anything but preach to the choir. If he wishes to persuade anyone of the rightness of his views, he should demonstrate a little empathy.
ContribsTalk 00:02, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
- (EC) (Yes, please assume that is the case until otherwise informed :P)
- But actually, I'm not sure I'd go that far myself. Dawkins' tirades are usually (up until God Delusion, to the best of my knowledge) made in the context of the conflict between creationism and evolutionism -- where a bit of antagonising and/or invective is sorely deserved. PZ Myers, on the other hand, seems to have no sense of scale. But let's not get started on that again... :)
Pink(Astronomy Domine) 00:16, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
- I don't know if I agree with you there SusanG on two counts. Firstly I don't really think Dawkins does engage in "tirades of invective" against people who are religious. He does talk about the inconsistencies and some of the negative consequences associated with religion, but I just don't see this insulting that you and Tom et al seems to see. Some of what he does is preach to the choir, but this is fine too. In my opinion we need atheists to become more aware of their thoughts and to become more active and open about their beliefs. I think its all good.
- (Hope that's not a fellatio reference,Chaos!)
- Secondly, even were I to grant that he is a bit rude; so what. It's about time we had a prominent speaker who doesn't mince words. In fact I would say that Christopher Hitchens does an even better job of this. Atheists need some spokespeople who are prepared to respond to theists the way that theists respond to us. There is a place for the calm, rational, "soft" analysis of people like Dennett but there is also a place for someone to tell it like it is.--DamoHi 00:14, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
- It's probably mostly personal, I've seen him many times on television & he just annoys me - he's so charisma lacking. I agree with every word he says, it's just ...
ContribsTalk 01:15, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
- I agree with Damo on this. Anyway, Dawkins himself acknowledges that he's not a very good politician. I was listening to a podcast the other day and he told a story about him talking to one of people on the pro-evolution side of the Dover trail. Apparently after talking to the man for a while he told Dawkins, "It's a good job you weren't a witness at Dover - we'd have lost." Dawkins replied saying that he was fully aware of that - and for that reason he would have refused to testify at the trial if asked. (Basically they would have asked him, "Is the theory of evolution synonymous with athiesm?", and he would have said "yes".)--Bobbing up 11:01, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
- It's probably mostly personal, I've seen him many times on television & he just annoys me - he's so charisma lacking. I agree with every word he says, it's just ...
- Secondly, even were I to grant that he is a bit rude; so what. It's about time we had a prominent speaker who doesn't mince words. In fact I would say that Christopher Hitchens does an even better job of this. Atheists need some spokespeople who are prepared to respond to theists the way that theists respond to us. There is a place for the calm, rational, "soft" analysis of people like Dennett but there is also a place for someone to tell it like it is.--DamoHi 00:14, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
[edit] Not a prick
For the record, not that I am a big contributor here anymore, but I like Dawkins and I wouldn't use the word prick to describe him at all. He does sometimes go on and on about the same point (ie parents indoctrinating their children as child abuse) but in general I like his attempt at consciousness raising about religion's exalted status within society.DamoHi 22:52, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- I like his attempt too, and his intentions are good. I approve all his motives. I just think he doesn't have to be such a dick about it. I don't know if you've read The God Delusion, but amidst many excellent points (and some rather lousy ones) he constantly throws in entirely unnecessary and cruel insults.
- I think a good comparison is Sagan. Sagan, running ahead of the modern atheist movement, nonetheless did a huge amount to enlighten the world with his The Demon-Haunted World (among others). It addressed numerous of the same point, although it was not exactly on the same topic (absolute atheism vs. superstition) but Sagan declined to attack the individual holders of beliefs or mock them as stupid. To mock a belief as stupid is tantamount to mocking the holder of the belief as stupid, which is a dick move. Religion has numerous inconsistencies no matter where you go, and little logical basis: there's no need to be a prick about it.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 22:59, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- Interesting, I have read the God Delusion and I don't remember thinking he was insulting people, just pointing out the inconsistencies in religious arguments. I also think that it is about time the gloves came off when talking about some religious tendencies, so even if he does insult a few people this is not necessarily a bad thing. I mean for example I fail to see a good way to say that televangelists are crooks, or that people threatening to bomb abortion clinics are good citizens.
- Do you have the same opinion of Sam Harris? I have just finished The end of faith and it seems he pulls even fewer punches than Dawkins.--DamoHi 23:17, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- Unfortunately, my copy of Delusion is on another continent, so I can't pull examples. Which kind of sucks to support my assertion.
- I don't think Harris is as bad; I enjoyed Letter to a Christian Nation and The End of Faith. He seems not to attack, but rather to persuade.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 23:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- As I mentioned above, I have no problem with Dawkins. I understand that some people do. I doubt that I will be able to persuade them otherwise.--Bobbing up 04:19, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
- And, like a hundred years ago or so, was Bertie Russell. Very nice. Very into the whole debunking of teh silly, he was. But he did it nicely (IMHO). ħuman
04:24, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
- And, like a hundred years ago or so, was Bertie Russell. Very nice. Very into the whole debunking of teh silly, he was. But he did it nicely (IMHO). ħuman
- As I mentioned above, I have no problem with Dawkins. I understand that some people do. I doubt that I will be able to persuade them otherwise.--Bobbing up 04:19, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Since when it is a RW mission to decide who is or isn't a prick? Maybe this article needs a criticism section to highlight some of the problems with his arguments or methods & especially what criticisms have been made of his work, but as for whether he is considered a prick, that really doesn't belong in the article so trying to find a consensus on it is a bit of a waste of time. weaseLOId
~ 09:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
- It wouldn't be rational wiki without a good, honest criticism section. Not a wikipedia style "everything bad anyone has ever said" kind of criticism, but there are certainly some accusations made against Dawkins that could be worth mentioning. The article could do with a bit of a tidy up too; the Conservapedia on Dawkins bit could be set out better and the part about Turkey could be merged with the rest of the article for example. This is the kind of page that could do with being done properly. Armondikov 11:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
[edit] Theist's first impression
"Blah, blah, blah, all religious people are morons. Blah, blah" . . . Do we really need this in the article? I think we can do better. weaseLOId
~ 10:27, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
- Yeah, I'm not as impressed with that bit although it's nice in a lighthearted kind of way. Armondikov 15:10, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
- I've deleted it at least once, but one of our more theistic brethren put it back in. I couldn't be bothered getting into an argument over it, but I don't think it ads very much.--Bobbing up 15:14, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
- Gone. If we want to add snarky versions of people who dismiss Dawkins, we can add it in either a fun-space article or under the newer criticism section. Armondikov 15:18, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
- While I'm certainly not one to object if the material can be improved, is there perhaps a little bit of a double standard here? Whereas our article on, say Andrew Schlafly, virtually overflows with snarky material of highly varying quality, even small, unassuming bits of snark seem strangely unwanted on this article. Perhaps I missed a memo that this article is exempt from Snarky Point of View? --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 15:27, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
- I liked that part: it was funnier than most of our snark. Nonetheless (as I said before, somewhere...) I think we should come up with a more consistent POV for this article.
Pink(Astronomy Domine) 15:30, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
- I liked that part too. It wasn't derisive as many many our articles. Now, I really don't want to pass for AKjeldsen's fanboy, but he is right once again (this doesn't apply to the song contest). Editor at CPSig(h)! 15:39, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
- I don't think either snark or criticism is necessarily inappropriate in this article; I just think that that section was particularly stupid, & doesn't fit in well with the rest of the article which talks about Dawkins' accomplishments, controversy, etc. I don't think we're going to agree on a single POV re Dawkins, but the article should include some criticism, as it already does, as well as support. Some humour may be appropriate, but reducing Dawkins' arguments to "blah, blah, blah, all religious people are morons" is inane & asinine in the extreme, & kindof debases the article. As I said above, I think we can do better. weaseLOId
~ 15:43, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
- Well, if the mob would like to speak otherwise, there's nothing stopping a rollback :P. I just thought it wasn't the best way of doing that kind of thing and kind of agree with Weaseloid on it. Armondikov 15:44, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
- I don't think either snark or criticism is necessarily inappropriate in this article; I just think that that section was particularly stupid, & doesn't fit in well with the rest of the article which talks about Dawkins' accomplishments, controversy, etc. I don't think we're going to agree on a single POV re Dawkins, but the article should include some criticism, as it already does, as well as support. Some humour may be appropriate, but reducing Dawkins' arguments to "blah, blah, blah, all religious people are morons" is inane & asinine in the extreme, & kindof debases the article. As I said above, I think we can do better. weaseLOId
- I liked that part too. It wasn't derisive as many many our articles. Now, I really don't want to pass for AKjeldsen's fanboy, but he is right once again (this doesn't apply to the song contest). Editor at CPSig(h)! 15:39, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
- I liked that part: it was funnier than most of our snark. Nonetheless (as I said before, somewhere...) I think we should come up with a more consistent POV for this article.
- While I'm certainly not one to object if the material can be improved, is there perhaps a little bit of a double standard here? Whereas our article on, say Andrew Schlafly, virtually overflows with snarky material of highly varying quality, even small, unassuming bits of snark seem strangely unwanted on this article. Perhaps I missed a memo that this article is exempt from Snarky Point of View? --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 15:27, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
- Gone. If we want to add snarky versions of people who dismiss Dawkins, we can add it in either a fun-space article or under the newer criticism section. Armondikov 15:18, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
- I've deleted it at least once, but one of our more theistic brethren put it back in. I couldn't be bothered getting into an argument over it, but I don't think it ads very much.--Bobbing up 15:14, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
- SPOV works best in the absence of internal controversy. If an article or opinion is likely to induce debate within the site I don't think a reliance on snark should be used. Nothing wrong with a few snarky statements here or there, but it should not be the "point." Andrew Schlafly is an interesting example, we had to spin off a whole new article to address the issue of actually presenting something worth reading to the more "general" population. Our Schlafly article is a pressure release valve for the internal community of RW->CP. In the face of community division, careful construction of phrasing and the use of sources and an attempt to arrive at consensus are all things wikipedia has taught us that are worth looking into. tmtoulouse 15:45, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
- A valid point about the importance of internal controversy. However, the problem is that on Wikipedia, consensus usually centers around things like NPOV, No Original Research and Reliable Sources Only. Here, on the other hand, these policies are not really appropriate because of our more "ideological" or "activist" stand, if one can call it that. As such, it might be worthwhile to consider what to do when there is no consensus, because unfortunately, I highly doubt that a consensus will be possible. In this case, the result seems to be that one particular interpretation is establishing itself as dominant. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 15:56, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
- I strongly support its inclusion, on the basis of the hidden funny in "stares in disbelief" line, please do not make it be gone. ħuman
19:27, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
- I strongly support its inclusion, on the basis of the hidden funny in "stares in disbelief" line, please do not make it be gone. ħuman
- A valid point about the importance of internal controversy. However, the problem is that on Wikipedia, consensus usually centers around things like NPOV, No Original Research and Reliable Sources Only. Here, on the other hand, these policies are not really appropriate because of our more "ideological" or "activist" stand, if one can call it that. As such, it might be worthwhile to consider what to do when there is no consensus, because unfortunately, I highly doubt that a consensus will be possible. In this case, the result seems to be that one particular interpretation is establishing itself as dominant. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 15:56, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
- SPOV works best in the absence of internal controversy. If an article or opinion is likely to induce debate within the site I don't think a reliance on snark should be used. Nothing wrong with a few snarky statements here or there, but it should not be the "point." Andrew Schlafly is an interesting example, we had to spin off a whole new article to address the issue of actually presenting something worth reading to the more "general" population. Our Schlafly article is a pressure release valve for the internal community of RW->CP. In the face of community division, careful construction of phrasing and the use of sources and an attempt to arrive at consensus are all things wikipedia has taught us that are worth looking into. tmtoulouse 15:45, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Unindent We're leaving it in, but I linked the Courtier's Reply part of it and Genghis added a disclaimer. I think in general if there is an argument, leave it in but put a disclaimer. Is there a suitable template for such situations? Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 10:40, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
[edit] Disclaimer
There is now a disclaimer at a certain section of this article that states "This in no way reflects the views of all RationalWikians". Is there any part of this article that does reflect the views of all "RationalWikians"? Dark Matter Glaucopis 12:13, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- There is probably no part of the wiki that reflects the view of all RationalWikians, so perhaps that disclaimer belongs everywhere. However, that section has been the target for discussion (see above), serial deletion & reversion. weaseLOId
~ 12:29, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
[edit] Therefore there is no God
We say under criticism: "Theists also criticise Dawkins' lack of logic in some of his arguments, with several of his simplified point-by-point arguments ending with "therefore there is no God" without sufficient supporting premises." I certainly can never remember reading these words in The God Delusion. I doubt he ever explicitly says this. He says god is wildly, incredibly improbable - but I never recall the words "therefore there is no God". But I could be wrong so I've left it in for now.--Bobbing up 15:32, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
- Agreed.— Unsigned, by: Ajkgordon / talk / contribs
- I think it was in his "key points" section with bullet points. Though I can't remember specifically from the book what they were, all I remember is an internet based refutal and I can't quite trust that they quoted it properly, it at least stripped away the text around it. ArmondikoVpathetic 10:51, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- I added "allegedly" to the sentence, pending confirmation of his having ever actually said that in a logical argument. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 11:55, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- I haven't re-read it all, but Chapter 4 of The God Delusion is titled 'Why there almost certainly is no God'. In fact on the scale of 1-7 from complete belief to utter disbelief in God, Dawkins puts himself at 6 leaning towards 7. He never actually says there is no God, just as Bob says above that God is wildly improbable.
Генгисunbelieving 12:52, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- I haven't re-read it all, but Chapter 4 of The God Delusion is titled 'Why there almost certainly is no God'. In fact on the scale of 1-7 from complete belief to utter disbelief in God, Dawkins puts himself at 6 leaning towards 7. He never actually says there is no God, just as Bob says above that God is wildly improbable.
- I added "allegedly" to the sentence, pending confirmation of his having ever actually said that in a logical argument. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 11:55, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- I think it was in his "key points" section with bullet points. Though I can't remember specifically from the book what they were, all I remember is an internet based refutal and I can't quite trust that they quoted it properly, it at least stripped away the text around it. ArmondikoVpathetic 10:51, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
[edit] Link description
PC added an EL with this description: "According to Dawkins he stopped to confront the interviewers." Can this be clarified as to what it is talking about? ħuman
17:01, 8 December 2008 (EST)
- Please? ħuman
19:04, 9 December 2008 (EST)
[edit] Warning: Default sort key "Dawkins, Richard" overrides earlier default sort key "Richard Dawkins".
There's a defaultsort in Template:Evolution and it conflicts with the one here. -- Nx / talk 00:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- I it because it is "includeonly"ed? Surely it should be "noincluded"? What purpose does it even serve? ħuman
01:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Normally, Pages are categorized including their namespace name, so for example a page in CP space would be categorized as "Conservapedia:Something stupid they say about evolution". Defaultsort:Pagename in Template evolution removes the namespace name from this. The defaultsort definition should be removed from the template and put into individual articles where needed. -- Nx / talk 07:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, ok, that's why it was in the template, yeah, bad idea. ħuman
18:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, ok, that's why it was in the template, yeah, bad idea. ħuman
- Normally, Pages are categorized including their namespace name, so for example a page in CP space would be categorized as "Conservapedia:Something stupid they say about evolution". Defaultsort:Pagename in Template evolution removes the namespace name from this. The defaultsort definition should be removed from the template and put into individual articles where needed. -- Nx / talk 07:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Conservapedia's bizarre attack on Dawkins
Is it time to remove this section now?--Bobbing up 18:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)--Bobbing up 18:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- How about downgrading it, like putting it in the criticism of dawkins section? Maybe with a === header, maybe not even with one? ħuman
20:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I've cut the whole thing to the section below. Their article no longer has this as it's main point so I'm not sure it should be in the article at all. Secondly who cares about CP's opinion?--Bobbing up 20:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think it matters enough in this case, in that Dawkins actually wrote about it on his blog? ħuman
22:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Conservapedia's bizarre attack
Conservapedia's article on Richard Dawkins contains a bizarre unsupported ad hominem attack suggesting that he is not a "real" professor (see here). His comprehensive response can be found here.
Essentially they make two claims:
1. that Dawkins says that he is a Professor but that the university describes his position is a "post"
and
2. that Dawkins' job does not fit the definition given by the online version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
In the spirit of investigation, RW editors have contacted both Oxford University and Merriam-Webster in an effort to find the truth. Oxford University has replied saying "Dr. Dawkins, as he was then, was appointed to the Charles Simonyi Readership and subsequently had the title of Professor conferred in July 1996." Merriam-Webster has replied saying "Since Dr. Dawkins holds two PhDs (in addition to numerous honorary degrees) and teaches at Oxford University, it is appropriate to use the title "Professor" for him."
This RW article was copied to the CP article debate. Subsequently "The Powers that Be" first attempted to dismiss the abovementioned emails as fake and then claimed that the people who wrote them must have lacked the authority to write them.[citation needed]
[edit] Atheist Saint
I'm an atheist, but I always find it fascinating how so many atheists find it necessary to immortalise their own champions in this vulgar manner. How bloody boring. Not an ounce of critical reason in this article. MarcusCicero 19:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)