So what do all of you think of Dawkins?

[Goblinmonger]

Many believers and faitheists want to make Dawkins our pope and seem to expend a lot of effort trying to find something to make Dawkins--who they believe is our pope--look bad.

So how do you view Dawkins? Do you know any atheist that sees him as our "leader"? I would like to discuss it here where the usual suspects can't just dump their snark on this thread.

For me, I think he was a great visible voice for atheists. I don't think he is my leader. I think he has a lot of problems in a lot of areas. That's about it. I'm glad he's written the books about atheism he has. He has helped push along a dialogue.

[trotsky]

1. That's exactly the point of the Dawkins posts.

To neutralize criticism of the pope and religious leaders.

It doesn't matter that the analogy fails completely - Dawkins doesn't "lead" anything, no atheist recognizes him as the "head atheist" or anything like that.

It's purely so that when we say, "Hey, while your pope says this cool thing about taking care of the poor, he and his church actively work against equal rights for women and homosexuals." they can respond with "But... but... Dawkins!"

Dawkins, like every human being, has his flaws. The man is a brilliant biologist with many insightful ideas about religion and religious belief. And you are right - he has pushed along a LOT of dialog. But he's an older, white male with a privileged Western background. He doesn't "get" some things. His most recent comment is just the latest proof of that.

Rape is rape, period. And it's always a crime. Clearly he understands that, but one thing he DOESN'T understand is that Twitter is NOT the place for nuanced thoughts!

[progressoid]

3. Yup. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

2. Give him room to work, and whatever content he generates is usually worthwhile.

Shorten his elbow room to a tweet and aw fuck... What the hell man...

He then says things guaranteed to be twisted way out of context. I get the conversation he wanted to provoke on moral philosophy, and free inquiry, but he didn't have to start it through twitter.

[Rainforestgoddess]

4. I feel the same

He's a brilliant scientist. He brought much needed exposure to atheism in recent years.

He's also as human as the rest of us, and has flaws, and says stupid things sometimes. I don't think (though I don't know the man so I could be wrong) that he means for things to come across how they do. And he gets defensive rather than just apologising for choosing a bad analogy or turn of phrase.

He's trying somewhat unsuccessfully to adapt to a twitter world, with a typewriter upbringing.

[mr blur]

5. Yeah.... but he's married to one of the Doctor's companions!

His books have given non-science types, like me, an understanding of biology ideas and basic genetics that I would probably never have gained otherwise. He was Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science and in that he succeeds admirably. And I know a number of people who were struggling to articulate their feelings about religion/gods and for whom reading The God Delusion was an enabling experience.

Any prominent critic of humanity's favourite crutches is bound to become a target for the masses who resent having their comforting fantasies challenged. He does say some unfortunate things, but who doesn't? He never set himself up to be the Expert on Atheism. I don't know anyone who sees him as a leader and I would imagine he hates to be seen that way.

The very holy ones who hate Dawkins with a passion for speaking his mind would call us Militant Atheist Bigots and hide our posts for daring to criticise Pope Awesome 1st for doing the same thing.

[PassingFair]

6. I'd hit it.

I think he's adorable.

[onager]

7. Like the rest of us, just a basic human with flaws

I've read a lot about his current "problems" and they mostly seem to boil down to:

(1) Trying to do nuanced thought experiments on Twitter. You cannot do nuance in 140 characters, Doc. Or thought experiments in logic, as opposed to emotion. Save that for your blog.

(2) Making comments that are being taken in the worst possible light. Dawkins made it very clear that he wasn't saying one kind of rape (or murder) was in any way "less bad" than any other.

He's said it over and over the past few days: "Saying X is worse than Y is NOT an endorsement of Y. If you don't understand that, go away and learn to think."

[Rainforestgoddess]

8. His logic wasn't incorrect

His choice of analogy was poor, because it was bound to cause a shitstorm.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. He's human, he errs on occasion, but he was and is brave

to be so public about religious beliefs, especially in the toxic environment we face today, where tea baggers try to out-christian each other, and who claim that you must be religious to be murrican, ethical, and patriotic.

[Lordquinton]

10. He's the father of the modern internet

And a brilliant biologist.

Oh, and he does some atheist activism which just brings down slander and death threats upon him, he is brave, most big scientists go the "I'm agnostic" route specifically to avoid the inevitable.

[Iggo]

11. I like him.

[Curmudgeoness]

12. Before I joined this group, I had never heard of Dawkins,

but I had been an atheist for several years. I was an atheist without a leader. I didn't know there WERE leaders. The only atheist I had ever heard of was Madeline O'Hare, and what happened to her was not encouraging.

So, all I can say is that I have never had a leader, or even a mentor who lead me down this road. But it was the only road I could take after realizing what religion was all about.

[skepticscott]

13. He's not my leader, my idol or my deity

I feel neither compelled nor obligated to defend him, apologize for him, or explain any flaws he might have, despite the efforts of the shit-stirrers in Religion to link the correctness of atheism or the worthiness of atheists to one person. I feel no need to feed the obsession of those same shit-stirrers here and elsewhere on the internet with trying to tout their own superiority as "good" atheists by following every word he says looking for something to criticize, and then lying about what he's said when they can't make an actual argument. Heck, I'm sure if Dawkins had posted that same-sex marriage was the same as marrying a hamster or a bicycle, the shit-flingers would have been all over him for that, too. But in Religion, some folks think that's perfectly fine (yes, you…you know who I mean).

[Manifestor_of_Light]

14. He's a brilliant biologist.

He's not my leader or idol. And some things he says are wrong or badly phrased.

I read The God Delusion recently and thought it was a very good piece of writing. Before that I had only read Bertrand Russell and Hitchens on atheism. Good writing, but all three different styles.

[LostOne4Ever]

15. I have never read any of his stuff but I have seen him on TV on occasion

I know he is a big advocate for evolution and popularizing biology so my opinion of him is favorable, but I am in no way a follower. I see myself more influenced by philosophers like Epicurus in my nonbelief. If I were to read a book of his it would probably be the "selfish gene" as I do have a biology background.

I know that some people are doing the best they can to make him out to be both a religious bigot and the "atheist pope." From what I have seen, they love to quote him out of context to make him look bad. If you believed what you read about him in the other room hes a loud angry anti-religious bigot, but every time I have seen him on TV he has been very soft spoken and thoughtful.

That said, I am aware that he is older and probably has some sexist views. That is about it.

[trotsky]

17. Ha - quote him out of context, or just MAKE A QUOTE UP.

Meh, that's what he MEANT, I just know it!

[mr blur]

18. Watch this "Dawkins reads some of his hate mail" clip,

Last edited Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:58 AM - Edit history (1)

Love his wife (I guess) sniggering in the b/g

[Warren Stupidity]

16. I read the context of the stupid latest attack on him and the attack is crap.

Dawkins has a sexism problem that he stubbornly refuses to comprehend. Oh well. He isn't a saint. Last time I looked he doesn't run an institution that has a history of misogyny homophobia and pedophilia, so if he is going to be considered our pope then at least he is doing far better than their pope.

[onager]

19. Funny kind of sexist, though.

The Richard Dawkins Foundation was one of the first organizations to pay for child care at secular conventions.

That problem had been discussed for years. Parents, and especially single Moms, wanted to attend the conventions but couldn't leave their kids, or afford child care if they brought the kid with them.

Dawkins stopped talking and just did it.

So wherever Dawkins' mouth might land him on any particular day, he sure put his money in the right place. And AFAIK, continues to do so.

(Boring TL;DR personal anecdote)

When I was in high school, back in East Jesus-stan, my Biology teacher flatly refused to teach us anything about evolution.

She told us Darwin's theories violated her religious beliefs and she absolutely would not teach it. This was a small, rural school and AFAIK the school board backed her up on that.

Naturally, I immediately got some Darwin, figuring this must be Really Good Stuff. But it was a hard slog for somebody my age.

What I needed was somebody who could explain Evolution For Dummies. One of the people who did that for me was Richard Dawkins.

So while I certainly don't consider him infallible or my Personal Pope (or Personal Jesus, even), I do owe him a debt. I think many of us do.

I don't consider myself part of any "atheist movement." I'm just one dumbass who happens to be an atheist. But I'm seeing a lot of people claim it's time to "replace" Dawkins with some other person at the head of this so-called movement.

To which I guess I would just say: OK, great, replace the old guy in your movement. But to be taken seriously, you need to find somebody with roughly the same qualifications as Dawkins. I don't believe that person is going to be a rage-blogger operating out of Mom's basement. Or even a large floating version of Mom's basement...

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Part of his sexism problem is that he is trolled for things he says

that can be interpreted as sexist and he seem to delight in producing them. The other part is his refusal to acknowledge that there is a bit of a problem within the skeptics community, see the huge mess surrounding the Rebecca Watson affair. He is not the only guy who thinks his shit doesn't stink.

[rexcat]

21. I respect Richard Dawkins...

I have read many of his books, both on biology and religion, and have enjoyed the reads. He is thoughtful and provocative. His provocativeness gets him into trouble at times. There are more than a few thin-skinned individuals in the world and more than a few seem to visit the other forum and often.

Where I do disagree with him is when he talks about Stephen Jay Gould. I think Gould's theory on punctuated equilibrium was brilliant. That aside I agree wholeheartedly with Dawkins.

Dawkins is one of many atheists who are outspoken advocates and all of the voices are important. No one individual speaks for the "group" but the collective voice is important.

[AlbertCat]

22. Out of the 14 books Dawkins has written...

.... only 2 of them are about atheism. The rest are science books.

So why would anyone think of Dawkins as anything but a scientist who is also an atheist? His big "sin" seems to be he just simply will not let religion exercise its "privilege" of instant respect and freedom from criticism.