Page 1 of 3

Richard Dawkins: Person of the Year 2006 - as per BBC

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:40 am
by Chris OConnor
Richard Dawkins: Person of the Year 2006Here is an interesting article about how the BBC awarded Dawkins with the title of "Person of the Year" for 2006. It is amazing how much publicity he has achieved lately. Run a search for his name and "Person of the Year" to see how many Bloggers are posting about him.

--

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:18 am
by Niall001
Not to take anything away from Richard but the BBC didn't give him any award. William Cawley, a presenter on BBC Northen Ireland's Will and Testament radio show voted him Person of the Year.Certainly no slight, but if the BBC had an award for Person of the year, it'd certainly be a little more high profile than getting an award from a Sunday Morning Religion & Ethics show on BBC Northern Ireland.

Re: --

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:04 am
by FiskeMiles
Here's the conclusion of Terry Eagleton's review of The God Delusion, described by William Crawley as the most negative review ever written.Quote:Apart from the occasional perfunctory gesture to 'sophisticated' religious believers, Dawkins tends to see religion and fundamentalist religion as one and the same. This is not only grotesquely false; it is also a device to outflank any more reflective kind of faith by implying that it belongs to the coterie and not to the mass. The huge numbers of believers who hold something like the theology I outlined above can thus be conveniently lumped with rednecks who murder abortionists and malign homosexuals. As far as such outrages go, however, The God Delusion does a very fine job indeed. The two most deadly texts on the planet, apart perhaps from Donald Rumsfeld's emails, are the Bible and the Koran; and Dawkins, as one the best of liberals as well as one of the worst, has done a magnificent job over the years of speaking out against that particular strain of psychopathology known as fundamentalism, whether Texan or Taliban. He is right to repudiate the brand of mealy-mouthed liberalism which believes that one has to respect other people's silly or obnoxious ideas just because they are other people's. In its admirably angry way, The God Delusion argues that the status of atheists in the US is nowadays about the same as that of gays fifty years ago. The book is full of vivid vignettes of the sheer horrors of religion, fundamentalist or otherwise. Nearly 50 per cent of Americans believe that a glorious Second Coming is imminent, and some of them are doing their damnedest to bring it about. But Dawkins could have told us all this without being so appallingly bitchy about those of his scientific colleagues who disagree with him, and without being so theologically illiterate. He might also have avoided being the second most frequently mentioned individual in his book

Re: --

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:41 am
by FiskeMiles
Here are a couple of quotes from Prospect magazine, which apparently voted GD the most overrated book of 2006:Quote:David Cox (broadcaster):Dreary rant by anti-religious fanatic lacking any grasp of all but a minor aspect of the subject he purports to address.Quote:Alan Wolfe (academic):Written with so little tolerance and so much fervour that fundamentalists will recognise Dawkins as one of their own.All too accurate, I'm afraid... And here is another quote, this one from the William Crawley diary entry naming Dawkins person of the year:Quote:For defending the delusion that science and religious faith are incompatible.I wonder who said THAT?Fiske

--

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:53 pm
by Niall001
I don't know Fiske. I've talked about what I think the books problems are at great length, but I wouldn't really call the book 'dreary'. Sometimes, it's actually accurate and entertaining.And yes, it has certainly been over-rated by the mainstream press, but it has been totally panned by the more sophisticated reviewers. While I probably agree with most of what Eaglton says, I think he, like many of the more professional reviewers, exaggerates a little as well. To be honest, I could forgive Dawkins for some of the mistakes he made in the book, but I can't forgive him for not making the book what it could have been.

Re: --

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:27 pm
by Saint Gasoline
Terry Eagleton's review is a joke, and I think his arguments are silly. Here's what Steven Weinburg has to say about it:Quote:I find it disturbing that Thomas Nagel in the New Republic dismisses Dawkins as an "amateur philosopher", while Terry Eagleton in the London Review of Books sneers at Dawkins for his lack of theological training. Are we to conclude that opinions on matters of philosophy or religion are only to be expressed by experts, not mere scientists or other common folk? It is like saying that only political scientists are justified in expressing views on politics. Eagleton's judgement is particularly inappropriate; it is like saying that no one is entitled to judge the validity of astrology who cannot cast a horoscope.And he hits the nail on the head. To say that Dawkins needs more theological knowledge is like arguing that we can't critique creationists if we don't have enough Biblical-science knowledge. Visit my website at http://www.saintgasoline.com if you like fart jokes, poop jokes, or jokes about other hilarious substances.

Re: --

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:34 pm
by FiskeMiles
Dear Gas:Quote: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. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don't believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. (The intro to Terry Eagleton's review.)Has your card been issued yet? FiskePS: I take it you haven't pre-ordered Eagleton's forthcoming book (April 2007) The Meaning of Life ... Edited by: FiskeMiles at: 1/18/07 1:43 pm

Re: --

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:54 pm
by Mr. P
Quote:since they don't believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding.Uh...DUH! This is why when we are accused of being insenstitive, it does not really carry much weight. We are being accused of being insensitive to something we feel is made up crap! Think of how ludicrous that seems to people like Dawkins and myself. We are expected to go out of our way not only to not offend, but to show respect for an idea that is JUST that...an idea, not real.When I say the god of the OT is a mysogenistic, genocidal maniac, it is the same thing in my mind as saying that the tooth fairy is a pervert and feeling up kids while they sleep. I just wish that people of faith could make the stretch and see it THAT way for just once.Mr. P. Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!Mr. P's Bookshelf.I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - AsanaThe one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy PiperEdited by: misterpessimistic  at: 1/18/07 2:56 pm

Re: --

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:26 pm
by Saint Gasoline
Quote:This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince.Or maybe it's because Dawkins is writing a book for the mass market and is also primarily attacking "mass-religion", which looks nothing at all like theology or even the God of the theologians, which is often little more than "pure being" or just "necessity".Perhaps that explains why Dawkins does not delve into the inconsistencies of philosophers and theologians like Plantinga or Tillich? Possibly it is because those two are the only ones who hold their views, and they have little influence on popular religion? And possibly it is because Dawkins is addressing this type of religion for a lay audience that probably doesn't want to hear all this theological tripe about religious foundationalism that make beliefs in God basic (along with beliefs about pretty much anything else) or about how God is actually not a being, but being itself.I'm actually quite relieved that Dawkins' book didn't get bogged down in that sort of thing! That sort of stuff can be saved for professional philosophers and those who are interested in squibbling over the details. Visit my website at http://www.saintgasoline.com if you like fart jokes, poop jokes, or jokes about other hilarious substances.

Re: --

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:53 pm
by FiskeMiles
Dear Gas:Oh, I agree absolutely. There's nothing more tedious than getting bogged down with careful research, well-conceived arguments, and balanced treatment of alternative points of view. Thank goodness RD didn't bother with any of that!Fiske