
Dawkins' Stupid People - jgrahamc
http://blog.jgc.org/2011/09/dawkins-stupid-people.html
======
demallien
You're setting up a strawman there jgrahamc. Dawkins does not equate religious
to stupid. Anyone that has listened to him much at all is fully aware that
what he was getting at here is those people that continue to indoctrinate
children with rubbish like Intelligent Design/Creationism when they have been
presented, repeatedly, with hard evidence for the reality of evolution and the
fact that it does not require a guiding force.

That willful ignorance is what he is appalled at, and quite frankly I don't
know what else you can call someone that is willfully ignorant, if not stupid.

~~~
earnubs
It may be that I haven't kept up, but doesn't evolution require a guiding
force of some kind? Speaking purely scientifically, of course.

~~~
cousin_it
Evolution is guided by the environment. For example, if customers always
choose the best-looking pumpkins to take home and eat, and the ugliest ones
end up being used for seed, the genes of ugly pumpkins will have more
successors in each generation, and pretty soon your crops will consist of ugly
pumpkins only. That's the complete mechanism of evolution right there. Would
you say the customers unwittingly acted as a guiding force in evolving your
population of pumpkins toward ugliness?

~~~
Tichy
I think your example is unfortunate because it involves intelligent decision
makers, which could indeed be interpreted as a guiding force.

There are of course forces in nature, namely the laws of physics.

------
0x12
I think Dawkins was hoping for a different world during his lifetime and is
losing patience with those that oppose the change.

He's an extremely smart man, compared to him most of us really are stupid but
that's not a reason to be judgmental about it, if anything that will just make
things worse, for everybody.

For people to lose their religion is a very difficult mental process it ties
in with the ego at a very basic level (it has to, that's exactly how it has
been set up).

I know some pretty smart people that are deeply religious too and I've always
found enough common ground in the 'smart' bits to to overlook the bits in the
religion department.

I'm pretty sure they think the same way of me (well, maybe except for the
smarts ;) )...

~~~
robhu
Yes, Professor Alister McGrath (Oxford) has come to similar conclusions.
Dawkins et al had an expectation that religion would be swept away within
their lifetime, and as this has not been achieved he has moved on to be much
more direct and blunt as if to try to force it to happen.

McGrath writes about this in his book 'Why God Won't Go Away: Is the New
Atheism Running on Empty?' <http://www.amazon.com/Why-God-Wont-Go-
Away/dp/084994645X>

Here is a review of the book to give you a flavour of what conclusions he
reaches [http://mcdanell99reviews.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-god-
wont-g...](http://mcdanell99reviews.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-god-wont-go-away-
by-alister-mcgrath.html)

~~~
0x12
That review completely weirds me out. Atheism does not have it's roots in the
9/11 attacks, nor is it 'new' by any definition. Sure, Dawkins wrote 'The God
Delusion' chronologically after 9/11. But that doesn't mean his views were
much different before then, he's been an outspoken atheist pretty much all his
life.

As for the blatant attempt to tie all atheists to Nazism that's a first-order
Godwinning right there.

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515>

Ahteists are no more violent than religious people, I think they're people
just like all the others, you can expect something of everything.

I hope the book is better than that that review lets on.

~~~
robhu
I don't see any claim that _atheism_ has it's roots in the 9/11 attacks. The
reviewer states "[The rise of the New Atheists] to fame, McGrath suggests,
begins with the attacks on 9/11 where radical Muslims turned commercial
airplanes into missiles and managed to kill almost 3,000 people." He is
referring to the 'rise to fame' of New Atheism. New Atheism and atheism are
not synonyms of one another, the former is a member of the set of the latter.

McGrath doesn't tie all atheists to Nazism (as the review might himself be
implying), but deals with how the basic arguments of the form "Religion is
bad, look at all these religious leaders who have killed people" doesn't work
very well for quite a lot of reasons including how it could easily be turned
around.

In any case - I McGrath is a well respected intellectual in the UK (Oxford,
along with Cambridge is our most prestigious university), and his writing is
well worth considering.

~~~
0x12
Regarding 'new atheism' as a movement, this is a pretty good read:

[http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&...](http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=flynn_30_3)

I think that reviewer used the book to push his own viewpoints at the expense
of the author, and does him a dis-service.

------
Tyrannosaurs
I share most of Dawkin's beliefs on religion but abhor the way he chooses to
communicate them.

I'm not sure if it's hit the US but in the UK we have a thing called the Alpha
Course. It's a Christian run 10 week course that discussed the "meaning of
life" with a slightly (but only very slightly) covert agenda of converting the
attendees to Christianity.

My experience (anecdotal) of Alpha is that it does a good job of bringing
lapsed Christian's back into the fold - that is people who basically accepted
it but weren't practising. For anyone else - those of other faiths, atheists
and so on, it doesn't seem to do much. There will be exceptions but that seems
to be the general pattern.

I see Dawkins as generally the same for atheists. I doubt very much he has any
sort of major influence on Christians (other than to annoy them), he just
gives atheists and agnostics a cheer leader and helps them confirm what
they're thinking.

Nothing wrong with that of course but he's not engaging in any way that's
going to bring about the death of religion which is what he'd seem to like.

~~~
loumf
This is absolutely right. For any movement, there are those that take an
uncompromising extreme view. This is not to appeal to the other side, but to
move the goal posts as far in their direction as possible. Think Stallman,
Nader, Ron Paul.

They serve a purpose to the movement -- providing arguments that can be
crafted by those that seek to convert and making others seem less extreme by
comparison. One attribute that they must have to perform this effectively is
to never compromise, and instead to keep pushing the envelope.

------
billybob
This may be a bit of a tangent, but personally, I can't understand Dawkins'
crusading attitude about religion.

If I believed, as he does, that there is no God, that all wonder and amazement
and desire and love are merely chemical reactions, and that all consciousness
will die with the universe, I wouldn't bother trying to convince others of it.

"You should believe this because it eliminates all meaning and purpose in
life." Hey, great sell! I think I'd just eat, drink, and be merry before I
died. Who cares what others believe?

If you're a Christian (as I am), you believe you've got good news to tell
others. If you're an atheist, what's good about your news, and what difference
does it make to tell anyone?

~~~
mattgreenrocks
Atheism doesn't necessarily remove all meaning and purpose in life. It just
removes any divine purpose(s) in the process of removing God.

That said, I've never been impressed by reductionism. It seems presumptuous to
assume you can use one form of intelligence (logic) to understand absolutely
everything else about the world. You can describe the aesthetic sense via
chemical reactions that take place in the brain, but that doesn't take you any
closer in understanding it. In other words, we don't expect experts in
processor microcode to tell us anything novel about functional programming, do
we? Of course not: FP's concepts are implemented via the microcode, enabling
FP to concern itself with much higher-level abstractions. And the things that
FP 'thinks' about are quite different than that of a processor.

The other thing that bugs me is often the new atheists are so angry on the
Internet. Angry about how everyone won't change. Angry about how much religion
has done. And it is justified anger, sometimes. But if we use their line of
thinking, there's only one life to live -- why waste it in anger? Why try to
convince everyone? You've already admitted they're all stupid, right? It seems
like there's this reluctance to just let go of that which cannot be changed.

I've been angry for a good deal of my life, and I'm just writing this as a
cautionary note. Be very careful. Humans don't seem to tolerate anger for very
long without side effects.

~~~
jorangreef
Re: "It just removes any divine purpose(s) in the process of removing God."

And it removes any right on the part of the divine to reveal itself.

~~~
mattgreenrocks
Good insight.

I've run afoul of this myself, and the only thing I have to blame is my own
pride.

------
tspiteri
Dawkins' treatment of religion seems to me to a bit shallow. He seems to argue
far too much about how true religious dogma is or isn't, but that can only
give a superficial treatment of religion.

It might seem, especially to a scientist, that a religion is based on its core
beliefs. But it is easy, especially for trained theologians, to get to
whatever conclusion they want from some dogmatic starting point. Religion is
not mathematics, where starting from an axiom will inevitably lead to a
particular conclusion. So arguing about the untruth of the religious axioms is
missing the point.

~~~
hobbes
His treatment is indeed shallow, and he knows it. This is demonstrated by his
unreasonable reasons for not debating William Lane Craig on this very issue:

William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins and the Empty Chair:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1ldYmg0lpE>

Edit: Digestible summary of the issue:
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-
Daw...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-
accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html)

~~~
hobbes
I'm being downvoted but Dawkin's fellow atheists have also criticised him on
this matter:

QUOTE "Some of Prof Dawkins’s contemporaries are not impressed. Dr Daniel
Came, a philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist, from Worcester College,
Oxford, wrote to him urging him to reconsider his refusal to debate the
existence of God with Prof Craig.

In a letter to Prof Dawkins, Dr Came said: 'The absence of a debate with the
foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and
is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.

I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with
television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like
Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor
Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House'" /QUOTE

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-
Daw...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-
accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html)

~~~
Tichy
Why not believe his statement that he has no desire to support Mr Craigs self
promotion?

It just goes to show that the issue won't be resolved by logic (arguing
logically about religion, which is the epitome of irrationality, seems doomed
from the start anyway).

My main gripe with Dawkins has actually always been that he spends too much
time arguing with senseless counterarguments. I wish the evolutionary
biologists would rather invest more energy into developing more insights,
rather than arguing the same old tired arguments of their enemies again and
again.

Edit: for what it's worth, I would actually be interested in what arguments Mr
Craig would like to present. I checked his web site, but an article about "The
God Delusion" that I found was behind a paywall (or at least "become a member
wall").

~~~
hobbes
1\. It's ironic that you are asking us to invoke belief in a statement that is
merely asserted and not demonstrated.

2\. I agree that the issue won't be resolved by logic alone. However, based on
Craig's previous debates, he will clearly define his terms and premises, and
name the principles of logic used to reach a conclusion. To assert that such
debate is "the epitome of irrationality" is itself irrational. You may
disagree with his premises and definitions, but that is not the same as
irrationality.

3\. Dawkins has been asked again and again to debate Craig, and has refused
again and again. As I've said before, other prominent atheists have criticised
Dawkins on this matter.

4\. You can download a number of Craig's debates here:
<http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=2703927>

~~~
Tichy
1.) The whole thing is rather stupid, because it shouldn't be about belief.
You can get Dawkins book and make up your own mind. Likewise (allegedly) for
Craig's writing.

In that sense, what is a public celebrity match supposed to achieve? Will
people decide according to the merit of the arguments (then why not just
read), or according to the better haircut?

As for 4), I tried to follow a link to one of the transcripts, but it only
lead to the "restricted to members" page again. Can't be bothered with Audio
or Video.

So if 2.) is true, at least Craig should present an easily digestable resource
with his arguments.

As for 3) as I said, I think Dawkings is wasting too much time with futile
discussions already. I don't think refusing to discuss with anybody is an
indicator for the merit of his arguments.

Edit: also, since I suppose Craig has published books, name one good reason
why I should expect any interesting points in them?

~~~
hobbes
I'll let you have the last word, but regarding the expectation of interesting
points, I would ask that you peruse Craig's publications. Not all of the
journals would impress you, but some will:

[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=publ...](http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=publications_main)

Craig is a serious philosopher with credible philosophical publications to his
name. That is why he is worth reading (perhaps more his journal articles than
his "popular" books, indicated by "P" in the above list). That is also the
reason why Dawkins should take him on in debate.

------
scotty79
In this quote I don't see anything about religion. He was just asked if he's
bothered by stupid people and he stated that he's bothered by how stupid
people influence children.

And even if the religion was implied by the original context then sure,
Michael Faraday maybe was not stupid but his father might have been to some
point and due this stupidity wasting his sons time.

~~~
0x12
I've got a problem with that viewpoint. I'm not sure if I'm able to articulate
it properly but consider that without Michael Faraday's fathers religion his
son might not have been born at all, and if he was he might have followed a
different path in life, becoming a carpenter or some other mundane profession.

You don't get to play the same universe twice over with different pieces with
a claim to knowing how that universe would unfold. All this stuff is inter-
related and if you change one thing you may change more than you think you do.

Science and religion are to some extent in competition, both strive to explain
things, the one through the supernatural, the other through reasoning and
rigorous experiments.

I know which side my bread is buttered on but I'd never stake a claim on
editing the past and saying that 'x or y not being religious' would have been
good for science or the opposite. That's something that would be very hard to
prove.

~~~
scotty79
I have not stated that if Faradays father was not religious it would improve
science, only that it could.

His father could be killed or ostracized for being atheist and that would
definitely harm science.

------
hbrouwer
I still find it intriguing that Francis Collins, who in 1993 replaced James D.
Watson as head of the National Center for Human Genome Research at the
National Institutes of Health, is a religious person
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)#Re...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_\(geneticist\)#Religious_views)]

I'm not judging anyone here, I'm just saying I find it striking, and slightly
unimaginable.

~~~
billybob
Collins has written a book called "The Language of God" (referring to DNA) in
which he explains how he reconciles his beliefs with his scientific
understanding.

In it, he tells his own story and explains why he thinks Christians should
accept evolution and why scientists should not be hostile to faith.

------
princeverma
what else would you call them? them : "who doesn't see presented/available
evidence and just think that no matter what, their beliefs are true."

edit: Forgot to mention that, sometime these are the people who govern us,
make law, treat us and in process of doing these things they try to enforce
their belief OR have strong opposition towards anything which contradicts
their belief.

~~~
brlewis
How about unscientific?

You're still going to run into problems applying and adjective to people,
since they can think scientifically in one area and unscientifically in
another.

For example, Dawkins, presumably thinks scientifically in genetics. However,
when it comes to religion being a _cause_ of wars and other violence versus a
_pretense for_ wars and violence, Dawkins hangs onto the "cause" hypothesis
despite data pointing to the "pretense" hypothesis.

The difference is important. If you get rid of a cause, you solve the problem.
If you get rid of a pretense, people find another pretense. Robert Pape's data
is consistent with the pretense hypothesis. Nonetheless, Dawkins devotes
himself wholeheartedly to propagating the cause hypothesis. If he took a
scientific approach, he would devote himself wholeheartedly to testing his
hypothesis instead.

It's Dawkins "who doesn't see presented/available evidence and just think that
no matter what, their beliefs are true."

~~~
Tichy
So you think religion does no harm at all?

~~~
loumf
Religions are complex systems that can be used for good or evil -- it's the
people that choose which. You can find justification for nearly every action
in the bible -- but, to do that, I think, is a gross perversion of the overall
spirit of Christianity.

~~~
Tichy
Sure, the fundamental issue then maybe is, should humans be made to function
according to some system? I seem to have some fundamental aversion against
that, which makes me reject religion as much as communism.

I mean at least if said humans don't reflect on what they are doing. If they
have come rationally to the conclusion that some action is the best, sure, go
for it. But religion puts some authorities in charge of programming other
people.

For instance, why not just drug everyone and make them docile slaves? I am
sure such a society would function very well, so why not do it?

Nature of course doesn't care - a society running on religion is just another
ant colony (mindless agents acting out a system). Maybe the system prevails,
maybe it doesn't.

The harm I see is that religion prevents adaption and evaluation of new
strategies, which might lead to peril in a lot of circumstances.

------
tikums
Even being really good at [insert profession], doesn't make you non-stupid in
areas outside of your expertise. It's not mutually exclusive. E.g., one can be
a brilliant orthopedist, but can still be considered really stupid when it
comes to forming a coherent general world-view.

------
michael_dorfman
I'd add Knuth to the list of "very smart, and yet religious" people.

~~~
hobbes
Add also Larry Wall.

"Perl [is] a biblical reference to the "pearl of great price" (Matthew
13:46)."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Wall#Accomplishments>

~~~
jorangreef
And also Thomas Bayes.

"an English mathematician and Presbyterian minister, known for having
formulated a specific case of the theorem that bears his name: Bayes'
theorem."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bayes>

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
Bayes lived in the 18th Century - pretty much everyone believed back then and
it wasn't such an irrational view as the likes of DNA, cosmology, geology
weren't as advanced.

------
cycojesus
Weither the people in question truly are stupid or misguided wasn't the point
of the question. I like how he answers about why he cares instead of mincing
words.

------
mckoss
What do you call someone who continues to believe a falsehood in the face of
all evidence, reason and logic? "Stupid" seems pretty spot on to me.

~~~
halostatue
Willfully ignorant.

I understand both points here: JGC is correct that stupid is the wrong word
for what Dawkins is talking about. Dawkins believes that there are a class of
people who have shown themselves to be incorrigibly ignorant.

Someone who is _stupid_ would be _incapable_ of learning the facts involved.
They should not be treated with disdain; it's not their fault.

Someone who is _ignorant_ , doesn't _know_ the facts involved. They should
also not be treated with disdain; they don't know any better.

Someone who, despite repeated exposure to factual, repeatable knowledge
chooses to remain ignorant… that's who Dawkins is disdainful of, and I don't
blame him. And while I happen to agree with his view on the willful ignorance
of Creationists, it is important to note that those selfsame folks would
consider him willfully ignorant of the glorious truth of their god.

Ideally, Dawkins would leave out the name-calling altogether, but it's an
awfully convenient shorthand to say that someone who is willfully and
incorrigibly ignorant is, in fact, _stupid_. It just happens to be
unnecessarily inflammatory and _too_ much of a shortcut.

------
brlewis
Meta comment: This post must be getting flagged a lot.

    
    
      114. Dawkins' Stupid People (jgc.org)
           34 points by jgrahamc 3 hours ago | flag | 76 comments
    

I also note that the comments are full of civil and intelligent discussion. I
wonder to what extent the flagging helped it stay that way by keeping it off
the front page.

------
MrScruff
Ignoring Dawkins for a moment, I think those here naming Christian scientists
as examples of how science and religion are compatible are missing the point.
Science isn't about the people who practice it and it's not about beliefs.
It's about the scientific method - theory tested by and derived from
repeatable experimentation. And there are no Christian scientists who apply
the scientific method to their own religious beliefs, for obvious reasons.

~~~
robhu
True, but surely the reason is not that there are no religious believers who
have applied rational processes to the question of whether there is a God (or
gods) and have concluded that there is - but rather that the scientific method
is a method that is only suitable in certain domains.

It's easy to equate 'the scientific method' with any sort of 'rational'
evidence based approach, but the term has a specific meaning.

We don't apply the scientific method to solve murder investigations for
instance, or to solve math equations. Similarly historians don't use the
scientific method to determine what happened in history.

It's not that the choices are the scientific method or ignorance -- it's that
the scientific method is not applicable in many of the domains that
intellectual religious people have mined to conclude that theism is more
likely than atheism. Many Christians point to the historical evidence for
Jesus for instance, see (former Prof) Richard Bauchman's 'Jesus and the
eyewitnesses' [http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-
Eyewitness-...](http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-
Testimony/dp/0802831621) or Prof Licona's [http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-
Jesus-New-Historiographic...](http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-New-
Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196) 'The resurrection of Jesus - a new
historiographical approach' or they have considered philosophical arguments
(see what Alvin Plantinga has written for example).

This is not to argue that science and religion are Non-Overlapping MagesteriA
(NOMA) as Gould argued, clearly there are overlaps (whether the first humans
came in to existence along with the universe 6,000 years ago is a pretty clear
example of overlap), but many of the arguments intellectual theists give for
thinking theism is more likely are rational, just not scientific.

------
jorangreef
There's something rational about looking at historical events and asking if
it's unlikely, likely, or strongly likely that they happened at all.

For example, I have heard of a handful of Germans today who for one reason or
another say the Holocaust never happened. In light of the thousands of eye
witness accounts, is it sensible to say that?

Another example, there are atheists today who for one reason or another say
the Resurrection never happened, and not necessarily because they have ever
looked into the historical primary and secondary sources.

In light of the hundreds of people who died at Roman hands in the 1st century,
refusing to recant that they had seen the risen Lord, is it sensible to label
their testimony a delusion, or inherited from their parents, without any
thorough investigation at all?

As for those who had seen Christ themselves:

"I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on
to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried,
and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said.
He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more
than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though
some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. Last
of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him. For I am
the least of all the apostles. In fact, I'm not even worthy to be called an
apostle after the way I persecuted God's church."

"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your
faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for
we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead."

"But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first-fruits of those
who have fallen asleep."

Are the New Testament sources primary, accurate, unbiased, trustworthy? When
were they written? Have they been corrupted or do we read them as they wrote
them? How many sources are there inside and outside of the New Testament? Are
they independent? Are they coherent?

Here are some people who have tried to address these questions:

Paul Barnett, "Is the New Testament history?" ([http://www.amazon.com/New-
Testament-History-Paul-Barnett/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-
History-Paul-Barnett/dp/0892833815))

FF Bruce, "New Testament Documents" ([http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-
Documents-They-Reliable/...](http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Documents-
They-Reliable/dp/0802822193/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316091359&sr=1-1))

~~~
coward_anon
"In light of the thousands of eye witness accounts, is it sensible to say
that?"

Well, this is funny, because here's the issue on which Dawkins fails
completely to apply the principles he advocates we all should.

Incidentally, so do you. You claim thousands of eye witness accounts. Well,
how many of those have been independently verified? Furthermore, even the
highly know and regarded ones are ridden with inconsistencies and outright
lies (I'm thinking Elie Wiesel here).

And even if they were there remains the point that no hard proof whatsoever
has been produced to support the claim that the Holocaust as is told today
ever happened. No documents exist that don't require a double interpretation
to support such claim. No gas chambers that differ any bit from standard
delousing chambers used at the time, even in the US, have ever been uncovered.
This could go on.

I'm not trying to advocate for one version or the other. That's not the point.
The point is, that this issue is NEVER applied the same principles that are
applied to a rational inquiry or scientific endeavour or even a case being
judged in a court of law. If you don't believe me, well, go and check by
yourself. But don't just limit yourself to the Yad Vashem because that's the
same as reading the Bible and saying it proves itself (although there are
plenty of inconsistencies in the Yad Vashem data curiously).

I admire Dawkins and his work, but the truth is, in the issue of the Holocaust
he's as stupid as the people he accuses of being stupid. Even worse, I bet he
would viciously defend his stupidity against anyone who would challenge him
otherwise.

~~~
jorangreef
I'm sure you are more painfully familiar with the matter than I am.

I have an adopted Jewish aunt. Her mother and father put her on one of the
last trains to leave Germany for England. At the last second her mother pushed
her baby sister through the window to her. She never saw her parents again.

I have a Jewish friend who's grandfather was one of the last survivors of a
concentration camp, and who walked to Israel and started repairing shoes on
the streets of Tel Aviv.

I live across the road from the South African Jewish Museum, and I have seen
the photographs. I am not a historian and I do not claim to be one, but I
think it's sensible to say that something happened, and that hundreds of
thousands of people died and were affected. Furthermore, anyone who would
suggest these things never happened would have some "explaining away" to do.

------
Tichy
I'd argue that religious people chose to not think things through but simply
rely on other authorities, and that is stupid behavior.

Also, does stupid mean "genetically hardwired to low intelligence", or can
stupid people be made more intelligent somehow?

------
etherael
The part this article is criticising him for is a little out of context;

I care that people are being misled by those stupid people, because I think
children deserve to know what is true and wonderful about the world into which
they have been born, and it really is a shame that they are denied that; by
ignorant and stupid adults, as you've described them.

The last part does hedge a little on if he would originally have actually
chosen that definition. And still, it is certainly not an indefensible
position to say that religious beliefs are quite stupid.

------
sigzero
There is a huge preponderance of "religious" people that have made great
scientific discoveries. Dawkins' argument is the same as everyone else who
doesn't believe in "God". So what? Dawkins is free to believe in what he wants
as is everyone else.

------
getonit
Having never questioned an indoctrination, religious or otherwise, is naive at
best - stupid is a perfectly reasonable description, IMHO.

------
shpoonj
This is just further proof that any know it all can set up a blog, throw out
logic, state a poorly formed opinion, and someone will jump on their band
wagon.

