Richard Dawkins good guy or bad guy?

[Peguy]

Originally Posted by Antisocial one

.
Should religion be removed from society?

No, but in any case that's almost impossible. Even without direct religious overtones, there's still the element of "civil religion" is which binds people together within society. Ironically, the secular a society, the more it relies on the "civil religion" to maintain its grip - which has often to some great disasters.

There's so many elements to this equation, quite honestly I don't even know where to start.

[Carebear]

I've read the God Delusion and agree with him in many respects and got a few eye openers, but agree with Night in that "brilliant, but misguided" is a good description. I love the way he shows the improbability of God etc, but his attacks on religion are too one dimensional. He doesn't question the why of religion and doesn't differentiate between faith and cultus.

His book and views seem to me to primarily be a reaction to the hardcore creationists and the like. They came to his area of expertize and started limiting research and misinforming the public about biology and evolution, so he's gone on the offense to defend his field. His book works great in that respect and is a good argument for the seperation of religion and state, but is lacking and at times totally misguided as a serious attack on religion itself.

[toonia]

Originally Posted by Night

I'm not sure that he is "good" or "bad" on the basis of his anti-theism.

His ideas are interesting. He has creative anectdotes and offers some unusual clarity into the improbability of a creator-deity. The Ultimate Boeing 747 is a good summary of his stance.

That said, I always cringe when people try to logically arm-wrestle personal beliefs. The quintessential element of religion - faith - exists outside of traditional logical framework, as it fundamentally deals with unempirical psychological modes. These stations are intimate to the believer (or non-believer) and have no legitimate basis within the context of the scientific method of analysis.

Religion is unavoidably alogical.

Brilliant, but misguided is probably a better estimation of Dawkins.

I would agree with this. The top-down approach with people is something that troubles me. I see worth in approaching religion in a less judgmental way that examines more fully why it exists and attempting to gain as much knowledge about humanity from that examination, rather than imposing an idea on others without fully understanding those "others" first.

It can be effective to approach another person first with respect as an equal. "This person has reached different conclusions than i have for a reason. There is a compelling cause and effect at work. I will not judge them as less than myself without examining those cause and effect processes, acknowledging that i could well have reached similar conclusions having faced the same environmental factors."

edit: I suppose i'm wondering what happened to the anthropologist mindset?

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Originally Posted by Carebear

I've read the God Delusion and agree with him in many respects and got a few eye openers, but agree with Night in that "brilliant, but misguided" is a good description. I love the way he shows the improbability of God etc, but his attacks on religion are too one dimensional. He doesn't question the why of religion and doesn't differentiate between faith and cultus.

His book and views seem to me to primarily be a reaction to the hardcore creationists and the like. They came to his area of expertize and started limiting research and misinforming the public about biology and evolution, so he's gone on the offense to defend his field. His book works great in that respect and is a good argument for the seperation of religion and state, but is lacking and at times totally misguided as a serious attack on religion itself.

Agreed. He makes a mistake by throwing all religions and religious people in the same big pot, from the Evangelicals to the Raelians to the Quakers. I think he's driven too much by outrage and too little by critical thinking, which is ironically what he accuses his targets of. He, like many atheists, makes the mistake of assuming that if everyone were sufficiently educated and mentally healthy (with all the attendant haughtiness that implies) that religion would melt away. Religion, like Night said, is alogical, and answers "why?" in a way that science necessarily cannot, which is why people gravitate to it.

[Orangey]

Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou

Agreed. He makes a mistake by throwing all religions and religious people in the same big pot, from the Evangelicals to the Raelians to the Quakers. I think he's driven too much by outrage and too little by critical thinking, which is ironically what he accuses his targets of. He, like many atheists, makes the mistake of assuming that if everyone were sufficiently educated and mentally healthy (with all the attendant haughtiness that implies) that religion would melt away. Religion, like Night said, is alogical, and answers "why?" in a way that science necessarily cannot, which is why people gravitate to it.

This is exactly my problem with him. He seems to think that if only everyone were better educated and more in command of their logical faculties, then no one would need religion anymore.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Overall I think he is an example of someone who has become like the thing that he hates.

Creationists assume that religion can dictate science.

Dawkins (and other anti-religion scientists) assume that science can dictate religion.

Neither is a particularly reasonable stance.

[Carebear]

Originally Posted by Orangey

This is exactly my problem with him. He seems to think that if only everyone were better educated and more in command of their logical faculties, then no one would need religion anymore.

He might even be correct in thinking that for all I know. It's just a moot point because the majority of humanity isn't and will never be so educated and logical.

Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser

Overall I think he is an example of someone who has become like the thing that he hates.

Creationists assume that religion can dictate science.

Dawkins (and other anti-religion scientists) assume that science can dictate religion.

Neither is a particularly reasonable stance.

Agreed.

[Otsoga]

He's the man!

[booyalab]

His critique of religion is about on par with the Da Vinci Code, perhaps marginally less laughable. He is regularly refuted by experts of religious history, many of whom aren't even Christian. The guy is just well outside his field of knowledge and too arrogant to know or care.

[Peguy]

Originally Posted by booyalab

His critique of religion is about on par with the Da Vinci Code, perhaps marginally less laughable. He is regularly refuted by experts of religious history, many of whom aren't even Christian. The guy is just well outside his field of knowledge and too arrogant to know or care.

Bingo!