Recovering from Religion

Comment

Comment by kara on December 15, 2012 at 10:02am

@Kara ward :P

well isn't this odd I can't remember ever having me another kara spelt with a K we're quite rare :) athough I've never been wiccan, things could get confusing!

Comment by Richard Goscicki on December 15, 2012 at 9:38am

I am so grateful to have you, each one, as a friend.

I can only say, Joan, I hope you include me on your list.  I haven’t been very active lately as I’m back on pain killers.  The Paget’s is coming out of remission and it seriously curtails my activity.

About the subject at hand, to pitch in my two cents, I feel that any criticism of Dr. Dawkins is conspicuously undeserved.  He does get surly now and them but rightly so.  He’s done more for the atheist movement than anybody.  Consider how he filled the void when Carl Sagan passed away—and now Hitchens.  If there’s ever a new religion based on the revelations of science (as Sagan repeatedly advocated) Dawkins will go down as an early saint. 

 

I remember Dawkins getting testy with a Notre Dame fuddy-duddy during a debate.  The foppish dandy from the philosophy department with the thick Irish brogue ended his long-winded monologue with the line, “it all ends with Christ.”  (Something like that.) 

Needless to say, Dawkins put him in his place.  After all the celestial high jinks, he simply said, “how local.” (That’s class.)

In my opinion any criticism of the great professor and author is an example of attacking the messenger. 

Comment by Mary O'Grady on December 15, 2012 at 9:22am

I don't want to develop a thick skin. I want to be myself, and to be treated as I treat others, with a reasonable degree of sensitivity. I won't voluntarily deal with unkind, abrasive people, no matter how clever they are believed to be.

Comment by Joan Denoo on December 15, 2012 at 8:45am

James, Alice, and Kara, you convince me rationality negates empathy and empathy negates rationality. It is a matter of balancing the two. One person cannot be all things to all people; finding strength and developing understanding presents the tasks at hand. I can also benefit by understanding weaknesses and learning from them.
Alice, you prove, once again, you have wisdom beyond your years.
Kara, you correctly observe, "What was he supposed to do, encourage the man in his delusion? That would have been far more cruel in the long run."
James, your keen observations help keep me grounded.
I am so grateful to have you, each one, as a friend.

Comment by James M. Martin on December 15, 2012 at 8:13am

@ Alice, I sure do agree with the statement that rationality negates empathy and vice-versa.  I have to work on balancing those two.

Comment by Alice on December 15, 2012 at 3:49am

Dawkins has lead a privileged life.  He is a matter of fact man, not well versed in emotional response.  He has also achieved a lot in his own field of evolutionary biology and in addition to this in his educational role at Oxford to promote science to the public.  He has gone above and beyond to educate the world about the facts of reality - and to my mind he has done this to the best of his ability - achieving a lot in more than his birth country.  Again his ability is hampered by his limited life experience, as being very privileged and lacking skills to respond empathically to others.  I saw somewhere that rationally negates empathy and vice versa.  So when someone is particularly rational they find it more difficult to be empathic, and conversely when someone is empathic they find if more difficult to be rational.  We all have our gifts, strengths and weaknesses.

Comment by Joan Denoo on December 15, 2012 at 1:56am

Kara and Alice, I understand your position on Dawkins; he could have said something to acknowledge the man's pain and cognitive dissonance he experienced and then make his honest statement. Dawkins didn't acknowledge the man's pain nor Rebecca's. I  experienced those episodes as being harsh. Brief enough? 

Comment by Kara Ward on December 15, 2012 at 1:07am

I agree with Alice, I've seen that clip but there's really nothing abrasive about it. If he had called the man a name I could understand that being abrasive, but he was completely factual and honest. What was he supposed to do, encourage the man in his delusion? That would have been far more cruel in the long run.

Here's the loaded question: What SHOULD he have said? And please keep it brief. :-P

Comment by Alice on December 15, 2012 at 12:39am

I don't see Dawkins as being none compassionate here - he is simply stating the facts as he sees them.  I find his answer clear, honest and factual.  I think he deals with this situation excellently given his position and the setting.  He remains calm and respectful.  If what he says is cutting or hurtful for others then that is the cold hard facts of life - and Dawkins aims to provide some comfort when he says that he doesn't doubt that the man is sincere in his beliefs.

Comment by Joan Denoo on December 15, 2012 at 12:12am

Kara, Dawkins can be pretty rough on believers, and rightly so. There was one tape, months ago, that was so wrenching; I wanted to see more compassion. Dawkins could have been more compassionate, even as he was correct in what he said. Dawkins sincerely responded honestly, and the poor old man withered at Dawkins words. I desire to be as clear as Dawkins and I suspect there is no way to do this kind of encounter any more gently.

What do you others think?

Richard Dawkins cruelly answers audience question

When it comes to being rude, abrasive, short, blunt, and intimidating, Religious seem to have these characteristics down pretty pat. So, I guess we just have to toughen up. 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• …
• 43
• Next ›
• Page