Richard Dawkins was being a total arrogant dick in that segment. He could have said, "This is a misconception, that evolution is the same as randomness. Quite common, but untrue, &c." but instead he chose to call out Haggard on his ignorance.
Not that Haggard isn't ignorant, but it's rather ungracious to act like Dawkins did.
Dawkins is a bit uppity, and I do get the impression that he was trying to get thrown out. He's generally a bit smirky and smug and the rest. But I sure as fuck know which of the two men I'm more afraid of. I don't really understand how liberals can hate Dawkins more than an evangelist - I get the feeling that it's widely regarded as a greater sin to be rude and abrasive than it is to actively fight to bring back the bronze age. Of course evangelists are cuddlier characters - it's their job to be warm and inviting.
I simply think that the average evangelist deserves at least as much contempt as Dawkins.
I think Haggard's philosophy is more dangerous than Dawkins', but what I'm talking about isn't their philosophies. I think it's entirely possible to be a firm, eloquent atheist who wins the debate without being an asshole. The dichotomy of "nice versus right" is entirely false.
While you're right that it's the evangelist's job to be warm and inviting, it's not true that Dawkins' job is to be a flaming asshat.
The evangelists say, "by your fruit you will know them"--that is, believers are better people in every way than nonbelievers. What better way to prove that wrong than to be an ethical, friendly, gracious nonbeliever?
Sure, it's a false dichotomy, but when you chimed in, the pressing business was condemning Dawkins, while "...but Haggard kind of sucks, too" was just an aside.
And my point stands even though it's not a dichotomy - "false and nice is better than right and abrasive" was what was chosen. You don't have to equate false with nice or right with abrasive to get there.
And an Haggard's accusation of arrogance? That's the queen mother of pot-kettle-blackisms.
I'm not going to lose any sleep over Dawkins being mildly uncivil.
Comments 8
Not that Haggard isn't ignorant, but it's rather ungracious to act like Dawkins did.
Reply
I simply think that the average evangelist deserves at least as much contempt as Dawkins.
Reply
While you're right that it's the evangelist's job to be warm and inviting, it's not true that Dawkins' job is to be a flaming asshat.
The evangelists say, "by your fruit you will know them"--that is, believers are better people in every way than nonbelievers. What better way to prove that wrong than to be an ethical, friendly, gracious nonbeliever?
Reply
And my point stands even though it's not a dichotomy - "false and nice is better than right and abrasive" was what was chosen. You don't have to equate false with nice or right with abrasive to get there.
And an Haggard's accusation of arrogance? That's the queen mother of pot-kettle-blackisms.
I'm not going to lose any sleep over Dawkins being mildly uncivil.
Reply
Leave a comment