

Richard Dawkins, what on earth happened to you? - rhythmvs
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/30/richard-dawkins-what-on-earth-happened-to-you

======
richmarr

        "Dawkins’ narrowmindedness, his unshakeable belief that the entire history of 
        human intellectual achievement was just a prelude to the codification of 
        scientific inquiry, leads him to dismiss the insights offered not only by 
        theology, but philosophy, history and art as well."
    

I suppose vaguely arguable to classify Theology as "human intellectual
achievement". Bundling it up with philosophy, history and art and trying to
paint Dawkins as being against those other things is just childish.

------
l33tbro
I measure people by their conviction, intellect, and humanity. I cannot fault
him in either.

Really then - this is tall poppy syndrome at its best (or is that worst?).

What's wrong with someone who actually BACKS their own ideas? Dawkins is not a
fool. He knows what he is saying is polarizing.

Why not give the guy a break for not bothering to care about being "well
liked" \- which sadly seems to have become the currency of social media. The
man's a public intellectual for God's sake.

------
richmarr

        "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the 
        subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what 
        it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."
    

Err... no. Imagine someone holding forth on biology when they have a rational
argument that biology is fundamentally incorrect.

------
onion2k
Dawkins problem is that people stopped asking him for his _expertise_ and
started asking for his _opinion_. He is the victim of society's willingness to
appeal to authority[1]. While he's a fantastic scientist and thinker on the
topic evolutionary biology, he isn't a particularly great communicator when it
comes to _everything else_. Outside of his subject he doesn't explain his
ideas well enough. He should be communicating at the sort of level a layman
would need in order to understand what he's talking about, but instead he
leaves giant gaping holes in his arguments because he doesn't feel he needs to
explain himself in. Consequently he's often misunderstood.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Appeal_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Appeal_to_non-
authorities)

~~~
revdinosaur
I would argue that his ideas, outside his domain, are not communicated well
because they are not well-formed. Criticizing him for being boorish and ill-
informed about social issues does not take away from him being an accomplished
biologist. Assuming that he's just botching the expression of an otherwise
worthwhile thought is furthering that appeal to his inappropriate authority.

------
claudius

      “To him, the humanities are expendable window-dressing, and the consciousness
       and emotions of his fellow human beings are byproducts of natural selection
       that frequently hobble his pursuit and dissemination of cold, hard facts.“
    

Wait, that’s wrong? How exactly are consciousness and emotions _not_
byproducts of natural selection?

------
scholia
Pathetic, lame-brained attempt at character-assassination... but this is in
the "Comment is free" section.

------
rhythmvs
Dawkins is of a different caliber than someone of the likes of Jacob
Bronowski. The latter mathematician-poet, evangelist of science while Blake
expert; the first, well, maybe a fanatic, but surely profane. O tempora, o
mores.

