I have read a number of Dawkins' books, and follow his anti-religion crusade with interest. I like his approach, as he has determined that shock value will help many uninformed people to realise that the creeping ignorance of fundamentalism needs to be directly confronted. His media stunts are designed to show the gulf of understanding that prevents dialogue between rational thought and some of the ignorant sects which have large followings. However, in The God Delusion, Dawkins fails to engage with serious theology. His aim seems quite ad hominem - by showing that many Christians are stupid, he invalidly infers that all Christians are stupid.

The syllogism

1. Believing in God is stupid
2. Christians believe in God
3. Therefore Christians are stupid

cannot be proved by showing that only some beliefs in God are stupid. It would need to demonstrate that all belief in God is stupid, but Dawkins has really only scratched the surface on this.

The flaw in Dawkins' logic, conflating the part with the whole, results from his position as an evangelical atheist. His proslytising is not swayed by nuance and refinement. A scattergun approach may seem sufficient to serve as a 'canary in the coalmine' regarding the dangers of uninformed faith, but Dawkins should be more open to dialogue with theists who are capable of it.

I kinda felt like Haggard overreacted! I didn't think that Dawkins said anything that was arrogant. He stood his ground. I am kinda biased though. Dawkins is a hero of mine too!

Standing his ground implies, to me, a defensive action. Dawkins came into Haggards home and within a couple seconds compared him to Nazis...

Stand his ground? lol - He left "his ground" to verbally attack this nut ball.

Why get into an argument with a deranged individual? I don't go to the nut house and find people I disagree with and attack them. Trying to change their opinions is one thing. Verbally abusing them is entirely different.

I understand he's hacking at what he perceives to be the root but the video just makes him look undignified and slightly foolish.

Why get into an argument with a deranged individual?

Because this deranged individual is spreading his deranged message to the public. I am a member of the public. He is causing damage to society by teaching people dangerous and foolish ideas.

I am shocked that you feel Dawkins was out of line in this video. I've not watched it several times and think Dawkins didn't do or say anything inappropriate.

I'm not back peddling. I want to make my point absolutely clear.

1. Dawkins is trying to achieve his long term goal the wrong way.

and

2. Emotional and melodramatic attacks aren't in keeping with intellectualism, logic, or science.

Honestly, it is not people like us that I'm concerned about. I'm most concerned with those already brainwashed and those who are likely to be. This type of behavior might make me smile inside (short term) but hurts me (long term) because it strengthens the (false?) image these people have of intellectuals/scientists.

I'm sure you can step back and agree that the path Dawkins takes in this video isn't the one that is going to win these people over. That's why Dawkins was out of line.

Not because he is wrong but because he is wrong to think he will bring about any kind of change with this behavior. If all he wants is cheerleaders inside the scientific community - he's got one right here. But if he wants to actually educate these as*holes and bring them into the light, his strategy SUCKS.

Dawkins' target audience is not the fundamentalists, who are irrevocably damned and beyond salvation. Rather it is the general public who are open to persuasion both by science and by 'intelligent design'. By showing that science stands in utter conflict with delusional religion, Dawkins is doing us all a great service, even if the detail of his own position and approach is debatable.

I agree completely with Robert.

I think the major difference between us (Rob, Chris, T) is that you guys have read Dawkins and have already formed an idea of the man. You guys are cheering this man on without really looking at what he is doing.

This video shaped my first impression of him. I share his views but I would never act the way that he did and expect others to respect me for it. That's just me, though. If someone told me that this person wrote books, what would you want me to think after seeing this behavior? That here is a book with level headed, unemotional, scientific views of what religion is doing to us...? Probably not, right? I would expect to read something emotional, dramatic, and one sided as anything I'd hear in a church. Keep that garbage (it's what everyone should be trying to stay away from!) - I need facts, not emotional rally calls to arms. Wars start that way.

That kind of emotional argument has its place in the church, not the scientific community.

If he's leading by example then I see war between those who believe in god and those who don't. Come to where I work and call me names? What do u expect? For me to slap myself on my forehead and say, "Wow, you're right....thanks!" Gimme a break.

The video isn't witty like something Stephen Colbert would do, it wasn't moving like something a great orator might do, and it wasn't educational like something an intelligent person might accomplish through documentary. It was luke warm sensationalism without value. Bland and pointless comes to mind. A huge, nasty mark on Dawkins career if you ask me. Totally embarrassing.

How you guys can't see that the behavior in the video is childish, is beyond me. Reaching out to a target audience??? Like this? How about some ethics. Lead by example! If you are trying to reach an audience open to persuasion then you need to educate them that THEY ARE OPEN TO PERSUASION, not to persuade them with the same puppet strings that the church uses. Come on, give me a break!

Chris, Rob - you guys are losing me on this issue. I really can't see where you guys are coming from. Put down the pom-poms and look at what he is actually doing in this video.

I don't understand you guys. My essay is more logical, rational, scientific, and compassionate in dealing with the issue of belief being elevated to a fact in religion and science than either Dawkins or Sam Harris. I believe you all read or read at my essay.

What is it you didn't understand I was trying to say?

Camacho, I don't think you understand why Dawkins is angry about Haggard's comments. Haggard makes demonstrably false claims - eg that the Bible does not contradict itself and that science lacks consensus on evolution - and then has the hide to call Dawkins arrogant for pointing out that Haggard is wrong. In fact, Haggard is the one making baseless insults. There are two standards of debate - a civilised discussion with a single standard of truth, and a religious discussion in which people are allowed to peddle lies with impunity. Dawkins promotes the former, fundamentalists the latter. It makes me angry too. Lies are very dangerous for the health of the social fabric. Common lies such as creationism should be exposed and people should stop promoting them. Dawkins is very helpful in exposing this large cultural phenomenon of people believing falsehoods despite having good access to accurate scientific information. However, Haggard made one good point when he said Dawkins has difficulty communicating with people of faith. This is where I think the scientific community needs to lift its game, recognising that what Dawkins calls 'childish certainties' provide meaning for people's lives, and cannot be simply replaced by science. Here I am thinking more of ideas like love, grace and forgiveness, which science has trouble even engaging with.