I really liked that exchange too - and Tyson makes a very very good point, which Dawkins and other new angry atheists would do well to heed. I think the angry tone of the new atheists is essentially a defensive, rational one. It isn't necessarily very persuasive though.
Dawkins has commented on his angry (activist) atheism. He admits he is angry and feels prosecuted. Tyson makes a GREAT point. The scientist in me agrees with Dawkins (you don't want to take the time to understand it? Fuck off and be ignorant) but the logic side of me is with Tyson. Tyson is about bringing science to the average Joe where as Dawkins is going after a different audience (IMHO). Tyson is also a lot more jovial than Dawkins. They both have their strengths. :)
On another note: Christopher Hitchings is just as bad, if not worse. Not to mention he comes off as a pompous ass. ;)
Yeah, he does. But he's a fun pompous ass. There are two other things though. First, Tyson has extraordinary charisma. Charm is second nature to him. More importantly though, Tyson's subject area is non-controversial. These things tend to feedback on themselves. Tyson will tend to get cheered, Dawkins will tend to get attacked. Their response approach reflects their reality.
Comments 4
Reply
On another note: Christopher Hitchings is just as bad, if not worse. Not to mention he comes off as a pompous ass. ;)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment