ksagnostic

Wellll, I'm not sure that he has (although Dawkins writes an awful lot, much of it appearing in relatively informal columns that favor editorializing), but he certainly has been outspoken in his atheism and his promotion of evolution within the same writing. Actually, I should note that in most of what I have read, to his credit, Dawkins almost always labels his opinions and his speculations as, respectively, his opinions and speculations (as a good scientist or science writer should). I have often suspected that both Dawkins' fans and his critics frequently take what he says and writes more seriously than Dawkins himself does.

The above being said, I stand by my argument that Dawkins, by being a prominent explanatory (and very lucid) voice in evolutionary science while also being routinely outspoken on the subject of his atheism, can potentially be a liability to those who are trying to improve science standards in a politically and somewhat (although not necessarily as much as outsiders routinely assume)theologically conservative state like Kansas. Fortunately, we won the last battle. Unfortunately, there will be more.

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>

tronvillain

Perhaps he could potentially be a liability, but that doesn't mean he should stop being an outspoken atheist.

Devilnaut

First, in reference to Liquidrage's post regarding 'weak-mindedness':

Why can't strong and weak mindedness be a product of determinism? Why must it be some special "in born" trait of one's brain?

If you kidnapped Dawkins when he was a week old, and raised him to be a credulous fundamentalist theist, why would (as you seem to think based on your analogy) we not be justified in calling him weak minded?

It may not have been better before the two had any visible differences, but why is this relevant? Does the fact that you threw it against the wall make the fact that it's a splattered mess any less meaningful?

Like any human trait, in a deterministic universe weak mindedness would also be a by-product of imput (experience) and genetics. I don't see how this invalidates the criticism.

As to the topic of the thread, I think atheists are in a tough spot being such a radical minority. Yes, it's good to stand up for the truth. And I, as an atheist and one who believes in evolution (are there atheists who don't? interesting question..) am also of the opinion that these beliefs go hand in hand. But, in a world where the majority of people believes in nonsense of some sort, it is hard to make your case without breaking a few eggs (so to speak ). I think that some sort of balance must be struck between truth and tolerance. You want to speak the truth, but you want to convince people as well, and you're not going to do that by calling them idiots.


devilnaut

edited to correct my craptastic ubb code

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

cricket

He doesn't call people idiots; he calls some people ignorant. Big difference.

ksagnostic

Agreed with your last sentence in the quoted paragraph. However, while evolution and natural science are certainly compatable with most forms of atheism, I do not see that natural science and evolution are necessarily incompatable with theistic beliefs.

Spoken as one who is not a theist himself.

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

Dawkins’s articles <a href="http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/emptiness_of_theology.htm" target="_blank">The Emptiness of Theology</a> and <a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_18_2.html" target="_blank">When Religion Steps on Science’s Turf</a> make interesting reading in light of this thread.

He concludes the latter with:

I stand with him on that. Theism that isn’t of the fundamentalist variety has had layer upon layer of excuse, ad hoc argument and half-arsed rationalisation plastered on it to cover the gaping holes in the original ideas. At least the standard-issue fundy is true to the source material: wrong, but honest. And, as Dawkins says, it is a cowardly flabbiness of the intellect to let theists get away with their nonsense or to try to accommodate it.

TTFN, Oolon

Liquidrage

posted by Devilnaut

Why can't strong and weak mindedness be a product of determinism? Why must it be some special "in born" trait of one's brain?
If you kidnapped Dawkins when he was a week old, and raised him to be a credulous fundamentalist theist, why would (as you seem to think based on your analogy) we not be justified in calling him weak minded?

I agree with that. It can be.
The *strong minded* that I responded to had it a birth right. While clearly defined the term is ambiguous. Some could argue that some people are born with a brain that is less prone to outside influences thus leading to strong mindedness and some could argue that it is a learned trait. Most likely both views, or at least a combination of the two, are correct.

You want to speak the truth, but you want to convince people as well, and you're not going to do that by calling them idiots.

I agree with this too. And hence why I chimed in on this discussion. To call anyone weak minded is wrong IMO because it is an insult no matter how one attempts to *spin* it.