Dawkins vs. Haggard

[Dave1001]

Again, I find it amazing that you can watch the same video I did and you get that out of it. You imply that Dawkins uses Haggard as a foil to make himself appear dominant. That's ridiculous. Dawkins needs no foil. Besides, that is not Dawkins' point in attacking Haggard. Dawkins isn't dragging Haggard down to make himself appear taller.

Dawkins is appalled --and rightly so-- by the followings that vapid charismatics like Haggard gather with their feel good non-thinking nonsense. Dawkins' enemy is faith, not popularity. He isn't interested in being an alpha male and being worshipped by a flock of followers. Dawkins genuinely cares about the lack of intellectually rigorous public discourse in our society today, and particularly in the U.S., where he notes that fully 45% of Americans claim to believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Dawkins' enemy is faith, and in particular the Bible. I'm with him.

If you think that's intellectual arrogance, or if you think Haggard made any sense at all or scored any rhetorical points, then you missed the entire point of Dawkins' program.

AS

I think you seek out foils AS. In most discussions it seems to me you look for there to be a good guy and a bad guy, with you one of the good guys. I see a lot more nuance in the world than I think is reflected at least in many of your posts. In the case of Dawkins and Haggard, I think Haggard sees a market opportunity and goes for it with the line about scientific arrogance. He's basically saying "if you want to see folks like Dawkins checked, if you think they're acting like they're smarter than you and know something more than you and you want to put them in their place, support me". And based on the people that support guys like Haggard, the message has a certain salience to a large segment of the American population.


Sure Dawkins seeks out foils too, but I don't think it's to fill psychological need -like Randi he's in part an entertainer (as is every effective entertainer) and knows that us human primates have an aesthetic that's entertained among other things by two males battling over alpha male status of the social grouping.

So, I'm thankful Dawkins does it how he does -it makes for interesting viewing.

Incidentally, in that sense like in most "debates" Dawkins and Haggard are partners: by getting in an attention-fight with each other, they privilege their mutual voices over the voices of other people: for example the folks for and against funding research into near earth objects.

 

[Dave1001]

Whatever floats your backpedaling boat.

So you claiming to be joking is not backpedaling but my claiming to be joking is backpedaling? Funny stuff!

 

[Quinn]

Dawkins genuinely cares about the lack of intellectually rigorous public discourse in our society today, and particularly in the U.S., where he notes that fully 45% of Americans claim to believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old.

[tangent]
That figure isn't actually correct, is it? It's an exaggeration to make a point of some sort, right? Right???
[/tangent]

 

[andyandy]

[tangent]
That figure isn't actually correct, is it? It's an exaggeration to make a point of some sort, right? Right???
[/tangent]

Most recently, in Gallup’s February 19-21 [2001] poll, 45% of respondents chose "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so," the statement that most closely describes biblical creationism. A slightly larger percentage, almost half, chose one of the two evolution-oriented statements: 37% selected "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" and 12% chose "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."

The public has not notably changed its opinion on this question since Gallup started asking it in 1982.

http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm

but on this side of the Atlantic, creationism/ID is also depressingly popular.....

Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.
Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.

The survey was conducted by Ipsos MORI for the BBC's Horizon series.

Its latest programme, A War on Science, looks into the attempt to introduce ID into science classes in the US.

Over 2,000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:

22% chose creationism
17% opted for intelligent design
48% selected evolution theory
and the rest did not know.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm

 

[AmateurScientist]

I think you seek out foils AS. In most discussions it seems to me you look for there to be a good guy and a bad guy, with you one of the good guys. I see a lot more nuance in the world than I think is reflected at least in many of your posts. In the case of Dawkins and Haggard, I think Haggard sees a market opportunity and goes for it with the line about scientific arrogance. He's basically saying "if you want to see folks like Dawkins checked, if you think they're acting like they're smarter than you and know something more than you and you want to put them in their place, support me". And based on the people that support guys like Haggard, the message has a certain salience to a large segment of the American population.

That's rich. In one of our first exchanges, the one in which I mentioned my friend's sister who is a graduate of Harvard Law School, you essentially called me a liar. Now you are calling me simple. I will now wear my Dave insults as badges of honor.

Here's a difference between us, Dave. Unlike you, I'm not going to run to the teacher and tattle on you for insulting me.

Anyway, to the extent that you sound like Haggard chastising Dawkins for being intellectually arrogant, I'll take your admonition as a back-handed compliment. Thanks.

I'll refrain from being any more frank with you than that, however, as I fear it would result in your reporting me once again for being uncivil. With each post, you resemble Win more and more, except that Win was no tattler, and Win actually knew how to use 50 cent words.

AS

 

[Ian Osborne]

lol, talk about a backhanded compliment....

I'm surprised you appreciate what was a very rude guilt-by-association fallacy. If Randi was 'very effective' in front of an audience at TAM, would you compare him to Goebels? Of course not, and you'd be all over anyone that did. So should Dawkins really get a free pass on this one because we're in general agreement with him? I hope not.

 

[andyandy]

I'm surprised you appreciate what was a very rude guilt-by-association fallacy. If Randi was 'very effective' in front of an audience at TAM, would you compare him to Goebels? Of course not, and you'd be all over anyone that did. So should Dawkins really get a free pass on this one because we're in general agreement with him? I hope not.

lol - i wouldn't say i appreciated it i was amused at the back-handedness of the comment.....i agree with you - i don't think that emotive nazi-comparisons do Dawkins any favours in such exchanges. I think that the atheist "cause" that Dawkins represents can be undermined by unnecessarily polemic arguments- and that Dawkins could be more effective if he toned down the rhetoric.....

i seem to have posted on dawkins (and fascism) rather a lot - so i thought people would already be aware of my opinions on those subjects....
However, upon drawing a line between the two, i'd be a heck of a lot closer to Dawkins than to Haggard....and so i didn't think it was necessary to bring up such criticisms yet again (and inspire a 60 post-or-so derail ) for the purposes of this thread .....

 

[RandFan]

I'm surprised you appreciate what was a very rude guilt-by-association fallacy. If Randi was 'very effective' in front of an audience at TAM, would you compare him to Goebels? Of course not, and you'd be all over anyone that did. So should Dawkins really get a free pass on this one because we're in general agreement with him? I hope not.

Your post has merit. However I do think there is some significant differences to your hypothetical of Randi and Haggard. BTW, the entire program can be found in two parts here.

The difference, IMO is the over reliance on emotive language, imagery, propaganda and fever. I want to make this point simply because it is something I have thought a lot about. I have been to many such religious meetings. I was usually caught up in the meeting and didn't think much about it but sometimes I felt apart from the meeting and I saw it through a different light. At those times I felt I was simply in a pep rally. The purpose of the meeting wasn't to inform so much as it was to raise emotions.

I didn't get that from TAM. Don't get me wrong, it was thrilling to be there but there wasn't so much of the theatrics and I really felt that the speakers were there to inform more than to pump up the crowd.

I could be wrong but I would not equate the two. This is of course purely my anecdotal impressions.

 

[RandFan]

BTW, this clip is from Dawkin's Root of all Evil

The Root Of All Evil part 1 (Richard Dawkins) (50 minutes aprox)
The Root Of All Evil part 2 (Richard Dawkins) (47 minutes)

ETA: Looks like the links are bad. I'll try to find more.

Root Of All Evil

Damn, these are only short clips. I'm trying.

 

[hammegk]

Dawkins' attitude, words, and demeanor will chase more USAians into religion rather than away from it. Got many more pushy, supercilious Brits (or does Kenya claim him?) to offer?

Just my 2 cts.

 

[RandFan]

Dawkins' attitude, words, and demeanor will chase more USAians into religion rather than away from it. Got many more pushy, supercilious Brits (or does Kenya claim him?) to offer?

Just my 2 cts.

I have made this argument and there is some merit to it. However, sometimes social institutions and conventions need to be shook up. I think of the social upheaval of the 50's and 60's. Who would have dreamed back then that black leaders would have become prominent politicians and leaders in less than two decades. Many thought that such confrontation would only worsen the situation and not make it better. I thought that when I was a teenager in the 70's. Now I don't agree.

I think Dawkins will cause a backlash just as the activists of the 50's and 60's caused a backlash in the 70's but the long term will result in less fundamentalism and not more.

Had I not lived through that time I likely would not be saying this now. This is needed.

 

[latent aaaack]

I just watched this clip of him for the first time and was laughing through it, why did it come as a suprise to everyone that he's gay? If Haggard's replacement is South Park's 'Big Gay Al' and he comes out wearing leather and chains they still wouldn't have a clue.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Wrong thread, man. There's another one discussing Haggard's hypocrisy with respect to preaching for family values and against gay marriage. This one is about Richard Dawkins confronting him for a bit on Dawkins' Channel 4 special "The Root of All Evil?"

AS

 

[oncedead]

[tangent]
That figure isn't actually correct, is it? It's an exaggeration to make a point of some sort, right? Right???
[/tangent]

pollingreport.com/science.htm
The gallup poll has been getting that number for a long time. The results are also supported by other polls on the site so it probably isn't a problem with the methodology of the poll.

 

[Dave1001]

Dawkins' attitude, words, and demeanor will chase more USAians into religion rather than away from it. Got many more pushy, supercilious Brits (or does Kenya claim him?) to offer?

Just my 2 cts.

Right. But keep in mind I think this was for a British audience, not for a middle america audience. To sell to an American audience, we need a George W. Bush cowboy type to confront a french man about his religion.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

1:10 into this, notice how he ....interacts...with some fiiiiine lookin' young men.

At the :36 mark, my gaydar was pegged.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Dawkins' attitude, words, and demeanor will chase more USAians into religion rather than away from it. Got many more pushy, supercilious Brits (or does Kenya claim him?) to offer?

Just my 2 cts.

Have you ever read any of his books? He's got quite a few out there ...

Charlie (my 2 farthings) Monoxide

 

[Soapy Sam]

Dawkins is an excellent writer, but not IMO a very good public speaker. His cool, English, intellectual academic style is not to everyone's taste.
This would be true whatever his style.

As for intellectual arrogance- this I think reflects a matter of difference between American populism and British academic aloofness .
One problem of academics is this. Fully understanding their complex topic, they tend to take it for granted that you do too, and because you do not, they talk straight past you. This is actually the polar opposite of arrogance. It's humility gone critical. Dawkins does strike me as intellectual. He does not seem like an arrogant man ,but I can see how he might seem that way to anyone not used to Oxford dons.

Anyway, until America fields an equivalent ( Carl, you are sorely missed), RD will have to do.

As for Haggard's current problems- what a pity that a man allows his own lies to trap him into denying his own nature.

 

[qayak]

Dawkins is an excellent writer, but not IMO a very good public speaker. His cool, English, intellectual academic style is not to everyone's taste.
This would be true whatever his style.

As for intellectual arrogance- this I think reflects a matter of difference between American populism and British academic aloofness .
One problem of academics is this. Fully understanding their complex topic, they tend to take it for granted that you do too, and because you do not, they talk straight past you. This is actually the polar opposite of arrogance. It's humility gone critical. Dawkins does strike me as intellectual. He does not seem like an arrogant man ,but I can see how he might seem that way to anyone not used to Oxford dons.

Anyway, until America fields an equivalent ( Carl, you are sorely missed), RD will have to do.

As for Haggard's current problems- what a pity that a man allows his own lies to trap him into denying his own nature.

Dawkins is an excellent public speaker. The trouble for him, in this interview, is that he allows his opponent to say their piece before he rebutts them but Haggard doesn't give the same courtesy. Haggard knows his money machine is on the line.

I guess that's the difference between good debate and discussion skills as opposed to the "talking over the congregation" style of fundies.

I don't think it will matter what nationality the scientist is, they will all most likely have the same problem when confronting people like Haggard. You need someone like Penn, or better yet, George Carlin!

 

[Dave1001]

Sure Dawkins seeks out foils too, but I don't think it's to fill psychological need -like Randi he's in part an entertainer (as is every effective entertainer)

I meant (as is every effective educator)