Allen wrote: > Mike: Referring to someone whose views on a specific subject you strongly > disagree with as a "clown" is not conducive to rational discussion. I happen > to disagree with some aspects of Dawkins' views on religious belief (though > not his atheism), and when he steps outside his specialty I think his > views/arguments occasionally verge on the simplistic, but he is a highly > intelligent man whose arguments and attitudes deserve to be treated in > dispassionate terms without resorting to name-calling.
Well, I think his "arguments" about religion and the causes of sufferring in the world do not deserve serious attention as arguments. He may be "highly intelligent" I wouldn't know, although I wouldn't have guessed it based on his anti-religious rants. But I would certainly disagree that his attitudes should be treated in dispassionate terms or that they should be respected. Dawkins himself likes to call people (actually just religious people) names and disparage them at almost every opportunity. If this is the attitude of such a "highly intelligent man" it makes one wonder about the usefulness of intelligence and of the "science" that informs his views. He may be highly intelligent, but his attitudes need not be nor need they be rational. I think Dawkins has shown his anti-religious attitudes are fueled more by hate and intolerance than by rationality or compassion; exactly what he accuses the religious of the world. Nevertheless, he is put on some kind of pedestal by many so I thought "clown" might help to remind people that his views really ought not be respected if he is not talking about Zoology. His anti-religious views and his "arguments" about God and religion are not scientific; he is not engaged in science while he is "informing" and "educating" the public; and he is unethical in the use of his position at Oxford to foist his religious views on the public using "science" and "rationality" as a front. And perhaps that is part of the danger of a scientist getting invloved in "changing the world". Too often perhaps, like Dawkins, they start to see themselves as Theologians, Psychologists, Sociologists, Anthropologists, Historians, Philosophers, and more "enlightened" than the masses---rather than just a Zoologist---a little scientific success goes a long way! --Mike --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
