Meh, I’ll pay attention to EO Wilson in regards to evolutionary biology. Even Dawkin’s vision of evolution is dickish (how odd!)
How dare you. THE HUMAN DICK IS THE PINNACLE OF BILLIONS OF YEARS OF EVOLUTION AND THOSE WHINY FEMINISTS JUST CAN’T HANDLE THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH.
5 Likes
Ding Motherfuckin’ Ding Ding!
You forgot to mention he gives license to maniacs (with easily bruised egos, though I suppose the two conditions go hand-in-hand) like S(h)am Harris to spout off genocidal “thought experiments” like they’re unlocking some next-level in human potential. Fuck those guys, all of 'em.
3 Likes
It’s funny 'cause it’s true.
Except Dawkins is 100% anti-Protestant as well, which doesn’t really fit with your glib characterization of what “groups you would assume an older British man dislikes”. I strongly suspect most of this “Dawkins is a bigot” nonsense is really coming from Christians who know that not many people on the Left are going to be sympathetic to their hurt feelings. But because a lot of people confuse criticism of the tenets of Islam with criticism of the ethnicity of groups that historically tend to be Muslim, they can try to attack Dawkins (and atheism in general) by claiming that bigotry rather than all the actual social problems caused by religion and the utter lack of evidence of the existence of the “supreme beings” of religions is the motivating factor of “new atheists”.
3 Likes
Or it might be coming from progressives in the skeptic and atheist community who are cheesed off at his opinions and the hugely negative behavior as evidenced by that whole “Dear Muslima thing”.
Dawkins does not so much criticize the tennents of Islam as he obsesses over narrow generalizations about Islam drawn from very particular places and points in time. And very recent/modern ones at that. Often using those carefully chosen examples to smear vast groups of people who do not hold those beliefs. And he does so in a way. Using terms, arguments and ideas that are damn near identical to those uses by the alt-right, white nationalists. And those self same Christian groups your trying to lay the controversy on.
That’s bigotry homes.
“no dude he’s biased against all religions” and shadowy Christian smear campaigns also do little to address the shitty way he goes about interacting with women. His rote and often times outright antagonistic dismissal of feminism and any claims of bias against women. Except when it fits his current attack narrative.
Meanwhile I have seen curiously little push back on Dawkins over these issues from the religious right. Likely because they buy into his arguments vis a vis Muslim’s, women etc. And use the same claims and approach themselves. Their nut with him is almost always in regards to creationism, science, does god exist, and other classic “let’s debate god on tv” stuff.
Besides people have been complaining about this shit with Dawkins for years (I know I have). I remember seeing plenty of push back over his opinions on Islam like 20 years ago.
Eta:
Dawkins is above all else anti religion. More so than he is an atheist he is an anti-religionist. And whatever movement he has built it is chiefly built around attacking religion. But there is a difference between attacking Christianity in general. Or even stereotyping evangelicals and fundamentalists. And attacking Catholics using hoary old arguments with roots in ethnically driven, anti-catholic or anti-immigrant movements over the past century or so.
2 Likes
You haven’t been listening to the religious right then. Dawkins is Public Enemy Number One to Creationists. As a biologist myself, I unfortunately have had to deal with their ilk.
4 Likes
Sure I have. And sure he is. But like I said I have seen nowhere near the level of criticism of his bigotry (or even awareness of it) as I have seen coming out of skeptical, science, and atheist communities. And from the left in general.
Fact of the matter is. Having spent a lot, like a lot, of time reading up on the subjects. Creationism is shot right through with very old racialist ideas. Evangelical/fundementalist Christianity is deeply mysoginistic. And the religious right is one of the prime drivers of the clash of civilizations/religious war narrative when it comes to Islam. (Curiously the same argument the Islamic fundamentalists are making).
I stopped reading Dawkins years ago. Because I saw him making the same arguments, behaving the same way. As those folks when it came to these subjects. I suspect there is less noise about Dawkin’s views on those subjects from the religious right because on those subjects Dawkins and the church nuts are at least loosely on the same page.
Whatever I have seen seems to be shallow, hypocritical aping of criticism and controversy started elsewhere.
3 Likes
That’s the sort of argument that the Old Left had against Orwell and Koestler – that because the right also argued against the Soviet Union, that Orwell and Koestler must be closet rightists despite their leftist backgrounds. The point is you have to consider the content of the criticisms. The right hated the Soviet Union because it wasn’t capitalist. Orwell and Koestler had a far more legitimate critique – namely all the awful things Stalin’s Soviet Union was doing to its citizens.
2 Likes
"Well, if your version has no problem with me sleeping in on the weekends, then you and I are on the same page."
Just keep the rules vague and leave some wiggle room, and everything will work out nicely.
“I don’t object to the concept of a deity, but I’m baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance.” – Dr Amy Farrah Fowler
3 Likes
?
Whatever his stated political affiliation Dawkins is far from a driving figure of the left. He isn’t out there fighting for progressive causes, involved with progressive and left wing groups or advancing left wing issues. He has his particular group of movement atheists. Many of the leading figures in that particular group are libertarians or are closely associated with the American right wing Libertarian movment. And the current controversy over him is almost entirely driven by his habit of attacking left wing causes and the left in general. And his habit of attacking very particular people associated with left wing causes, especially women.
Fact of the matter is that Dawkins sits in an old guard within the free thought movements. Along with Shermer and others. That is deeply antagonistic to a newer, younger, and often female lead block that sees progressive politics as the natural extension of this whole rational thinking thing.
I have. They’re valid. I have no interest in supporting some one who makes those claims and takes those positions. More over having examined them. He appears to be making the same arguments for substantially the same reason. Though he has the added goal of smearing religion in general.
2 Likes
Fry: Coed steam rooms? I love the future!
Leela: Fry, you’re in the women’s steam room.
Fry: Futuristic.
Amy (aside to Leela): Psst! Look what life was like before genetic engineering.
Leela: Those poor 20th-century women.
(Fry swings his legs closed)
2 Likes
This is a new perspective, to me. Would you mind elaborating? Just curious.
Probably at the far left, middle height. But really, it’s like most other continuums where it doesn’t matter if you don’t care. I don’t care if I’m extroverted or introverted, but it doesn’t change what I am.
If you’re just saying you don’t care about what I posted, you don’t need to do that. It’s assumed by not responding.
Religion is harmful, and he believes he’s making the world a better place. Should we have wars based on Gods that there’s no evidence of? Should we teach misinformation in our schools because one of our religions believes it? I want my kids to learn evolution and not creationism.
It’s slowing/reversing progress in science, and human rights. I’m asking this in earnest; can you direct me to somewhere he has attacked a left wing cause?
1 Like
Religion like anything else in human culture is responsible for both good and bad. Boiling it down to “religion is harmful” is both inaccurate, unhelpful, and a vast misunderstanding of an entire category of human endeavor. Its like saying “politics is harmful” or “literature is harmful”.
FUNNY STORY. I was taught about evolution in church a full 5 years before the subject was brought up comprehensibly in public school. I was likewise taught that creationism didn’t hang together. How to spot the holes in it. And how to counter it with both scientific and theological explanations. In church. By my priest. My Sunday school class was taught by a multi-PhD holding biologist who was quietly Atheist.
I’m an atheist, I did not and do not put much stock in churches or religions themselves. And do not particularly like them As interesting as I find the subject of religion. But labeling all of religion as a general concept, even all religions in particular with the negatives espoused and caused by certain religions or sects. Lacks utility. Its also apt to alienate people who fundamentally have the same goals as you do. There are religious groups out there fighting to maintain separation of church and state, to bolster science, to improve human rights, inclusion, acceptance, to counter creationism.
I’ve worked with some of them.
Read up on the current kerfuffle over inclusion, treatment of women, and progressive political goals in the athiesm/skeptic movement. And Dawkins’ involvement. It also be useful to look into the much longer standing criticisms on his opinions of Islam. Its all in there and pretty easy to see.
Dawkins is tricky. He often openly espouses support for feminism, liberalism, certain progressive ideals. But he’s spent a lot of time hostilely dismissing progressives, women, and rounding these claim positions round back to fundamentally bigoted ones. Its very manipulative, its very smug. And its quite dishonest.
2 Likes
That doesn’t really answer my question.
I once saw Joanna Angel (a porn star/director) asked if she thought porn was misogynist. She said that porn, like everything else, is a product of the culture it comes from, and since we live in a misogynist culture, porn is largely misogynist, but that doesn’t mean you can’t consciously choose to make porn a different way.
When people say religion is harmful I think of that response.
6 Likes
I did answer your question: Probably at the far left, middle height.
Centuries of bigotry, holy wars, anti-science, promotion of slavery, anti-progress, anti-LGBTQ sentiments, racism, oppression of women, oppression in general… etc. If saying it’s been harmful is inaccurate, it’s because it’s an understatement.
You ask me not to say religion is harmful, while suggesting Richard Dawkins is harmful. You can’t even compare the two.
Can you please direct me to a specific article or direct quote where Richard Dawkins is attacking left wing causes?
1 Like
