Richard Dawkins quits atheism foundation for backing transgender ‘religion’
Richard Dawkins quits atheism foundation for backing transgender ‘religion’
Scientist accuses US group of caving in to ‘hysterical squeals’ of cancel culture
I hate that I get to use this so often 😒
Did people still like Dawkins before this? I'm not an atheist or super interested in his particular field of biology, but every time I heard him get mentioned after his initial New Atheism stuff it was him being islamophobic/racist against Arabs, Iraq war apologia, being an apologist for sexual harassment, etc. He seemed pretty bad for a while.
I was peripherally aware of his biology work. He was asked to do some narration work on Nightwish's 2015 album which brought him top of mind for awhile, but I wasn't following closely. This is the first I'm hearing of anything like that. Disappointing, but not surprising.
the only thing i knew about him was that he was in a Nightwish song (The Greatest Show On Earth), so i kinda liked him before (didn't hear of the islamophobia or anything else), but uhh... not anymore.
thank god that never applies to david tennant <3
That <3 better be the knocking on wood emoji.
Yikes. Disappointing. "The reality that I recognise as true is the only reality that can exist and everything that doesn't fit is religious dogma" sounds awfully familiar.
Realism is a poison and underlies all oppressive ideologies - monotheism, capitalism, monarchism, race supremacy, gender essentialism. All progressive ideology is so because on some level it rejects belief in objective reality.
First of all, I can't remember the last time Dawkins was even relevant or newsworthy. As a kid growing out of religion, he was a source of support and inspiration for me. But after growing up, even still being a complete atheist, I can't remember the last time I even thought about the guy. He lives in a constant battle against theism, and frankly, I have better things to worry about.
Second, let's remember that even people that we truly respect and value for their contributions to a given field does not mean that that translates to other fields. Even absolute genius in one area doesn't translate to other areas. Newton created his 3 laws of motion, first described gravity, and developed Calculus, but he was also an advocate and practitioner of alchemy. Einstein was an amazing physicist who gave us relativity, the energy of mass, etc, but he believed quantum physics was hokum.
Sometimes that even goes beyond simple incompetence outside of their area of expertise and into outright bigotry. H.P. Lovecraft was an amazing horror author that essentially created the genre of cosmic horror and whose influence continues to this day, and yet he was WILDLY racist against literally anyone not white. Henry Ford dramatically increased the efficiency of modern manufacturing, made automobiles affordable for the average American, implemented the 40 hour 5 day work week, and paid his workers double the standard of the time, and he was also a huge anti-semite that put out a newsletter filled with anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and Hitler even wrote of him favorably in Mein Kampf.
Plus Hawkins is 83 years old. He's been spending the majority of those 83 years thinking about, arguing about, honing his views about, and publically speaking about atheism. It's little wonder he is considered an authority in that subject. Undoubtedly, though, he's given nowhere near that much thought (or any at all) to trans politics, so it is no wonder that he does not have a well formed and nuanced view there. He's more likely to fall in line, then, with the societal view of his generation's time. So of course he's an idiot about it.
It's little wonder he is considered an authority in that subject. Undoubtedly, though, he's given nowhere near that much thought (or any at all) to trans politics...He's more likely to fall in line, then, with the societal view of his generation's time.
He's also more likely to be full of himself.
i think richard dawson is more relevant than him at this point.
Dawson does show up first in the search suggestions when I type "Richard D" into Google.
Old man yells at cloud.
The concept of a dogmatic athiest is just so hilarious to me. Dawkins practically believes in all the Christian hate, without any of the iconography or idolatry.
He's litererally called himself a "cultural christian".
I'm hitting a paywall, so...
He's been slowly veering towards becoming a fundamentalist Christian. Waiting for him to announce he believes any day now.
"after recieving a large cash payment from the pope i am proud to announce i've seen the light of god's magnificent beard"
Dawkins' problem always has been that he can't stop at a mere lack of belief (and in fact argues that a lack of belief is impossible, and that agnostics are therefore either confused or dishonest).
So effectively, his atheism has always been an act of faith. Rather than simply withholding belief in the unproven assertion that God exists, he actively believes (or more precisely invests faith in) the unproven assertion that God does not exist.
So it stands to reason that just as with any other person with an active and self-defining faith in an unproven position, the dogma of the congregation of fellow believers of which he considers himself a part must match his personal dogma - otherwise, he's effectively betraying his faith by accepting a belief he considers heretical.
I disagree with a couple of points.
There's a difference between something being unproven and it being reasonably impossible. Assertive atheists simply look at the state of research and conclude there's nothing to hold one's breath for and call it early with good reason since theology is not a science and no scientist worth their weight is actively looking for gods. One can be agnostic in formal debate but fully militant in practice (because, let's be honest, finding God is realistically not happening) and there's no conflict there.
Also, since faith is the belief without evidence, it can't possibly encompass disbelief without evidence as well. Disbelief without evidence is simply a reasonable and valid assumption that's formally called the null hypothesis. Disbelief leaves no room for faith.
There's a difference between something being unproven and it being reasonably impossible.
Certainly. The two don't even refer to the same thing - "unproven" is a measure of the extent of evidence for a proposition, while "reasonably impossible" is a specific position taken.
And I'd also note that "reasonably impossible" is arguably incoherent. "Impossible" is a nominal fact, so can only be supported with a deductive argument, while "reasonably" can only be relevant as part of an inductive argument. A proposition can be reasonably improbable or even reasonably likely to be impossible, but it can only be impossible in fact.
Assertive atheists simply look at the state of research and conclude there's nothing to hold one's breath for and call it early...
Right. They hold a belief in an unproven position.
Their position might well, and IMO almost certainly would, turn out to be correct, but that makes it no less unproven, nor their position any less a belief in which they've chosen to invest faith.
Also, since faith is the belief without evidence, it can't possibly encompass disbelief without evidence as well.
Right, but I pointedly wasn't talking about mere disbelief.
This is exactly, and not coincidentally, what I said:
Rather than simply withholding belief in the unproven assertion that God exists, he actively believes (or more precisely invests faith in) the unproven assertion that God does not exist.
Those are two very different positions. The first is indeed free of faith, simply because it doesn't assert a specific position, but merely withholds belief from a position advanced by others. The second though - the position that Dawkins not only takes but insists that all who do not actively believe in God must take - does assert a specific position, and a position for which there is insufficient evidence to actually prove it to be true.
And any gap between what can be proven to be true and what is nonetheless asserted to be true is and can only be filled by faith.
This is like r/atheism's kryptonite right here.
to be fair, richard dawkins is an idiot.
Don’t let the door hit you in the ass, asshole.
Get fucked, Dick. No one has liked you in 20 years.
Dude is religiously atheist, fails to see the irony in that, and really needs to get over himself. The best way to be an atheist is by not making your life revolve around something you DON'T believe in.
Paywalled :(