>So associated is he with debunking the mysteries that lie beyond human reach, it is almost surprising to find that he supports the work of scientists to divert the course of asteroids orbiting the Earth and prevent the kind of blast that took out the dinosaurs.
Surprising why?
This is such a strangely-written article. I'm not going to finish reading it.
I didn't enjoy reading this. If I had the pleasure of meeting such a brilliant person I would try to listen and communicate their message. This reads like a hit piece about a senile old man and I'm only reminded a few times in the reading that he was even there. Christopher Hitchens shared Dawkins' contempt for Islam and rightly so. It's disrespectful to attribute that belief to ignorance when it is borne from education.
What? I'm not sure how it could be 'borne of education.' I'm an atheist and no fan of organized religion but Dawkins is simply a zealot himself. Also regardless of what you think of him being correct or not saying things like "Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today" is insanely out of touch with reality.
> Also regardless of what you think of him being correct or not saying things like "Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today" is insanely out of touch with reality
So even if it is true, it is out of touch with reality to state it? Is this really what you meant to say?
I am not sure I would subscribe to that either, there are ton of ideas and forces. How about some elements of Islam are in the upper permiles of the forces of evil in the current world?
Islam's whole jihad shtick causes both wars and independent acts of violence. The religion itself is a violent culture.
Literally ranking things on "the most violent" or "greatest evil" is silly and shouldn't be taken literally. The point is just Islam causes a lot of violence and oppression. It's a cultural system that reproduces a lot of horrifying evil and it's very successful worldwide.
I read a couple of his books. I always thought of Dawkins as someone who would have been far more effective had he been a better communicator. In some of his books he can get very repetitive and takes way too long to cover subjects that could be explained far more clearly and with a lot less words. I think the same is true of his presentations.
One aspect of this is that he sometimes takes complex and contorted paths to explain a concept. This is fine if the person reading or listening has scientific training. If the audience is the general public --or believers who he would like to have consider his perspective-- using this approach is a formula for failure. It's like trying to explain statistics to most people, you lost them before you even started.
If you compare someone like Jordan Peterson to Richard Dawkins, the difference in the ability to communicate should be obvious.
I enjoy what the has to say and have learned a lot from him. I just wish he was a better communicator.
In fact, The Selfish Gene was the first of his books I read. I remember coming to a point where I found myself thinking “C’mon, get to the point!” and “How many more times are you going to repeat this?”. Still, I finished the book. Also read the Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion. We have some of his DVD’s and watched many of his lectures and debates online. Similar thoughts. It’s just his style.
Believe it or not, this is constructive criticism. Of course, he isn’t reading this and nothing whatsoever will change at 80 years of age.
He comes off as abrasive, which does not lend to someone not interested in listening to his message listening to him. If my family and I, struggled to stay with him I can’t imagine a religious person giving him even five minutes.
That’s the whole point of this. Isn’t it? To have someone in the grips of religion consider an alternative model of reality. Nobody is going to be effective (at scale) using such a style.
That’s my point. These books and presentations should not be made for those of us who left religious beliefs behind. What’s the point of that? The objective should be to bring a new message to those who may not have considered it yet.
The fundamental issue seems to be that he sees XX chromosome carrier as synonym for women and thereby confuses a biological description with a social role.
Surprising why?
This is such a strangely-written article. I'm not going to finish reading it.