The Arrogance of Dawkins
While reading Dawkins’ The God Delusion, I became more and more offended by the sheer arrogance and belligerence of Richard Dawkins. At first, I was all too willing to excuse it as a cultural thing. Maybe on that side of the pond, they just tend to sound arrogant.
But no, that couldn’t be it. This month alone, I’ve read several other books by Brits. Bertrand Russell’s Why I Am Not A Christian, for example. Russell displays none of the arrogance that Dawkins so flagrantly waves about. Confidence, yes. But not arrogance.
So I decided to Google the idea - The Arrogance of Dawkins. The result was 200,000+ results!!! Evidently I was not alone in feeling that he was putting on airs.
Interestingly enough, many of the columns that dealt with the arrogance of Dawkins were by fellow scientists who felt that Dawkins was threatening the rationality and credibility of science by subverting it to serve Dawkins anti-theist crusade.
I’ll be doing a more in-depth write-up on Dawkins in the near future, but I just felt that I should mention that his name-calling, ridicule and arrogance are ugly, and neither serve his purpose, nor do they serve the purpose of society insofar as he sets himself up as a leader and role model, and we all know that intolerance is not a trait a role model should have.
*Off to delete all my arrogant statements from various forums*
November 27th, 2007 at 3:32 am
Christianity is arrogance. How can a religion be more arrogant? Claiming to be god and demanding that nonbelievers be massacred is less arrogant than Dawkins? HA!
November 27th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I wasn’t making a comparative statement. If arrogance is defined as “overestimating one’s self worth” then indeed, if God exists, then I doubt that it would be possible to overestimate His worth.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:48 am
What on earth are you going on about? The “arrogance” of Richard Dawkins? Buddy, get a clue.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:23 am
Hi Baraeris, and thanks for the comment
I don’t know about clues, but I do have a few of his books. If you’re sincerely interested and do not understand why so many people cite his arrogance, let me know and I’ll post the argument.
December 20th, 2007 at 7:44 am
So Dawkins is proclaiming his own worth? Try reading the books again without your blinkers on - there is rational argument contained therein - a breath of reason and fresh air in a world saturated with falsehood and bigotry
December 20th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Trevor, hi and thanks for taking the time to leave a comment.
Proclaiming one’s own self worth is a healthy exercise in my opinion. Low self esteem is probably one of the most crippling disorders a human could have.
The problem is not in proclaiming one’s own self esteem, it’s in dishonestly and intolerantly characterizing those with different viewpoints as idiots. It’s exactly that ridicule that is a disservice to intellectual discourse, and a catalyst of intolerance.
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:58 am
Take a closer look. Many of the results are atheists responding to the charge that they are arrogant. So while it isn’t just you, I do think the objections would make you rethink your knee jerk position.
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:18 am
Samuel, do you seriously want to deny that Dawkins is arrogant? Seriously. I dare you to deny it. Because when others point it out to him that he presents himself with an air of superiority, he doesn’t deny it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik
Atheism has nothing to do with arrogance. Bertrand Russell was a fine atheist and he was nothing close to arrogant. If an atheist is arrogant, it is a personality disorder that has nothing to do with atheism.
So far on this blog, your arguments have not been logical. In fact most of them employ transparent logical fallacies. That, coupled with your insults, is textbook definition of knee jerk.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Reason is superior to superstition. It’s therefore difficult to argue from the standpoint of science and reason without sounding arrogant. The answer is to forget the percieved arrogance and engage with the real, important issues.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Reason does not necessitate arrogance. In fact, reason would appear to stand in opposition to arrogance.
And Dawkins is not even vaguely associated with reason, except in a hostile relationship. His demonizing of the opposition, for example, is offensive to reason, i.e., logic. So much so that it is categorized as a formal fallacy by the name of ad hominem abusive.
Analytical thinkers are offended by ad hominem abusive arguments because they attempt to bypass logical debate and simply discredit the source. Reason dictates that 2+2 will equal four no matter how greedy or pernicious the proponent is.
And to decisively disprove your proposition that arrogance is an intrinsic part of atheism, I would offer you Bertrand Russell. He’s 100 times more articulate than Dawkins, a thousands times more intelligent, and a much more powerful proponent of atheism. And he accomplishes it without even a hint of arrogance.
Reason, owned and operated by Agnosticism, is also superior to atheistic emotive reasoning.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:37 am
Richard Dawkins is covering sensitive ground by challenging the deeply held beliefs of often deeply indoctrinated and thought proof individuals. He’s sure to
appear arrogant and upset somebody along the way. Having the best arguments
doesn’t help really. That just makes him seem more arrogant.
December 29th, 2007 at 4:20 am
As do many other atheists like Bertrand Russell, without appearing arrogant.
Logic, please? Seriously, your logic is horrible. Offensive, even. Sensitive ground, therefore arrogant? Is that a joke?
Dawkins is arrogant. He refers to himself as elite, and he calls names left and right, and his ad hominem abusive fallacious arguments can hardly be characterized as “the best”. His logic is extremely poor due to his taking for granted points that have not been granted, and which are strenuously debated.
December 29th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Criticising Richard Dawkins’ alleged arrogance is like watching a big nuclear bomb falling from the sky and sulkily complaining about the Dodgy paintjob. Does it really matter? What about the substance of the argument? Does God exist? If so, why isn’t he doing the chatshow rounds like other celeb’s to promote
his latest book, Bible 2 in which he seeks to attract a new audience by cutting out all the vindictive megalomaniacal crap and telling us something actually
worth hearing? I’d especialy like to know about the future of the expanding universe - will it go on forever till all the lights go out or will it all end in a big
crunch? Do intelligent beings exist elsewhere in our Galaxy and if so, do they
resemble the kind of bipedal humanoid fellows you see on Star Trek with subtly
differentiated head makeup just to indicate that that they aren’t quite like us?
If God did appear on a UK chatshow, say the Johnathan Ross show, he might possibly be subjected to some irreverent teasing about the size of his manhood
[or should that be Godhood?] and he could demonstrate to his many Middle
Eastern fans that unlike many of their teddy bear name obsessed rabble, he can
in fact take a joke. Either that or we could be the witnesses to some truly impressive televised Wrath Of God. Perhaps even, a head to head debate
between God and Richard Dawkins could be arranged so that we could accurately
guage who is the most arrogant.
December 29th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
By denying his arrogance - which even he doesn’t deny - you reveal yourself to be of the “idol” mentality. Instead of defending your opinions on your own, you feel the need to deny the obvious flaws of your idol. It would serve your arguments well to fairly grant the flaws of your idol, and defend your position on the merits alone.
The fallacies, the logically fallacious ad hominem abusive arguments? I don’t call that substance.
To quote Dawkins, God is not disprovable. One thing we agree on.
Dawkins states that they do most likely exist, and they are much more intelligent than us. He says this without an ounce of empirical evidence.
Whaaa? I thought size didn’t matter.