tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post5842260408209290796..comments2024-03-18T17:28:44.693-07:00Comments on Rondam Ramblings: Soft-selling atheismRonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-49206773450553339972010-01-27T10:10:13.691-08:002010-01-27T10:10:13.691-08:00> So why would we care the the fundamentalists ...> So why would we care the the fundamentalists find Dawkins more or less offensive, when they will not change their views regardless?<br /><br />Because "will not yield to reason" is not synonymous with "will not change their views regardless." Just because something won't yield to <i>reason</i> doesn't mean it won't yield to <i>anything</i>. Reason is <i>not<Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-61848972571600408782010-01-27T01:19:37.094-08:002010-01-27T01:19:37.094-08:00Ron, we seem to be in agreement about what we'...Ron, we seem to be in agreement about what we're worrying about, and diametrically opposed when it comes to promoting it.<br /><br />I agree with you that the most worrisome ones are the strong fundamentalists such as your Christian expat example above, and that fundamentalism is not likely to yield to reason. So why would we care the the fundamentalists find Dawkins more or less offensive, Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-29050256658054561072010-01-17T11:37:23.678-08:002010-01-17T11:37:23.678-08:00> If you ask purely about his scientific career...> If you ask purely about his scientific career, evaluated by his peer group, it isn't clear to me that he stands out.<br /><br />What difference does it make whether he's distinguished or merely credible? The people for whom this matters don't draw such fine distinctions. It's enough for them to see one prominent scientist spouting what is to them self-evident and offensive Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-72097750208119772482010-01-17T11:07:37.276-08:002010-01-17T11:07:37.276-08:00Sure, sure, not just an atheist. And lots of his ...Sure, sure, not <i>just</i> an atheist. And lots of his atheist writings are based on evolution, which is his area of expertise.<br /><br />But my understanding is that he's mostly a <i>popularizer</i> of science, which isn't quite the same thing as being a leading scientist.<br /><br />I do think he gets credit for "meme". But "The Selfish Gene" was not a scientificDon Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14921093108555061757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-39220002933709899702010-01-17T10:34:54.810-08:002010-01-17T10:34:54.810-08:00> Or am I not giving Dawkins his scientific due...> Or am I not giving Dawkins his scientific due?<br /><br />No, I don't think you are. Dawkins first came to prominence with his 1976 book, "The Selfish Gene." In that book he introduced two revolutionary ideas: that it is genes that natural selection operates on (rather than individuals or species), and the idea of a "meme" as a non-DNA based entity that also Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-10163811848513391652010-01-17T09:11:42.624-08:002010-01-17T09:11:42.624-08:00To be fair, Dawkins is famous because of his anti-...To be fair, Dawkins is famous <i>because</i> of his anti-religious ranting. It's not like he was, first, a world-famous evolutionary scientist (was he?), and then later added these wacko (?) beliefs, which harmed his scientific contributions.<br /><br />I feel differently about Dawkins, than I do about Watson (DNA, racism) or Shockley (transistors, eugenics). With Dawkins, the atheism is Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14921093108555061757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-6814455810086761812010-01-17T08:13:21.541-08:002010-01-17T08:13:21.541-08:00> Ok, I'll buy (for a dollar) your argument...> Ok, I'll buy (for a dollar) your argument that soft-selling atheism is more effective for getting the fence-sitters on board. But I must ask, is that what we need most right now? Or do we need more to get those who are already on board out of the closet, as it were, and in to the battle to say "I'm an atheist" rather than saying nothing at all?<br /><br />Actually, what Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-22892029088324052352010-01-17T04:38:49.174-08:002010-01-17T04:38:49.174-08:00Ok, I'll buy (for a dollar) your argument that...Ok, I'll buy (for a dollar) your argument that soft-selling atheism is more effective for getting the fence-sitters on board. But I must ask, is that what we need most right now? Or do we need more to get those who are already on board out of the closet, as it were, and in to the battle to say "I'm an atheist" rather than saying nothing at all?<br /><br />As for Minchin, sure, Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-75235244144590480852009-12-27T23:16:47.745-08:002009-12-27T23:16:47.745-08:00> More effective for what purpose?
For convinc...> More effective for what purpose?<br /><br />For convincing people who are on the fence about believing in god to "put on the no-god glasses" (as Sweeny so brilliantly puts it) and keep them on.<br /><br />> What would you say if you were talking to an otherwise nice, likeable acquaintance who insisted that it was wrong to publish the cartoons because they were quite obviously Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-65865663374784935632009-12-27T22:01:00.506-08:002009-12-27T22:01:00.506-08:00Well, I must admit, I don't know right now wha...Well, I must admit, I don't know right now what the best way to reach "those folks" is. There are probably many, depending on which segment of "those folks" you're talking about.<br /><br />Show me market research on that, and I'll buy what you're selling. Tell me that the aggressive approach doesn't work because you just don't personally feel Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-58403365440786497672009-12-27T21:36:17.021-08:002009-12-27T21:36:17.021-08:00Someone who's already an atheist (albeit a &qu...Someone who's already an atheist (albeit a "mild" one) is basically already on the same team. The task then is merely "preaching to the converted", or perhaps "riling up the base". Indeed, more direct approaches may have a stronger impact on you, getting you to hate the "enemy" and affiliate more strongly with "your team".<br /><br />(I had Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14921093108555061757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-924321817730298992009-12-27T21:24:10.939-08:002009-12-27T21:24:10.939-08:00Well, I decided to take an extra ten minutes at lu...Well, I decided to take an extra ten minutes at lunch and watch "Storm." I found it quite amusing, but I'm surprised that you guys did.<br /><br />I can't quite see how ranting at and slapping down a believer-in-nonsense at a dinner party is so different from the "agressive athiest" rant linked in the main post. Is the guest in question (and all of those like her in Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-54491145008400836652009-12-27T21:00:37.537-08:002009-12-27T21:00:37.537-08:00More effective for what purpose? As previously a r...More effective for what purpose? As previously a rather mild atheist, one who would even describe himself as an "agnostic," the second was far more effective at showing me that I should have a lot less tolerance for violations of human rights when they are done for religious reasons.<br /><br />I would no longer even contemplate the idea that the Jyllands-Posten should perhaps not have Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-28883759020173371442009-12-27T10:35:15.114-08:002009-12-27T10:35:15.114-08:00> You're a heterosexual male, so you prefer...> You're a heterosexual male, so you prefer the video with the girl?<br /><br />So *that's* why I voted for Sarah Palin!<br /><br />> Tim Minchin's "Storm"<br /><br />Yes, "Storm" is absolutely brilliant. That's exactly the sort of thing we need more of.Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-3350880677286810902009-12-27T09:50:03.442-08:002009-12-27T09:50:03.442-08:00You're a heterosexual male, so you prefer the ...You're a heterosexual male, so you prefer the video with the girl?<br /><br />:-)<br /><br />Recently saw a similar video: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WidsgIt3lfw" rel="nofollow">Tim Minchin's "Storm"</a>. A humorous, artistic defense of science and skepticism, against quackery. In the form of a nine-minute beat poem.Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14921093108555061757noreply@blogger.com