The Hard Sell

[tongodeon]

I've heard - often, from lots of different people - that atheists like Dawkins or Hitchens or the other atheist horsemen are rude, shrill, belittling, dickish, abrasive, and generally offensive. Fine, they're awful. Who's good? If they're negative examples, who in present or past history can serve as a positive example of what to do

Comments

[tongodeon]

I think part of the issue is that there's generally no reason, other than being rude, to offer a direct unsolicited criticism of people's beliefs.

This is why I wrote "I think that it's beneficial to discuss this with people who have invited the discussion." When Dawkins, Hitchens, or Dennett show up at a speaking event they've been invited to speak there. Their criticism has been solicited. They write books, which religious people only read if they "solicit" their opinion by purchasing it or picking it up

[ext_216948]

"The Selfish Gene" is one of the best books I've ever read, and changed the way I look at the world. Dawkins' recent work, though, has turned me off completely, even though I totally and entirely agree with him. He often seems to be preaching to the choir, seeming to be more interested in tossing read meat to his smug, self-righteous audience than in having an honest discussion with intelligent people who disagree with him. (In that way, I'd compare him to ideologue bloggers like, say, DailyKos or LGF.) Even the subtitle of his website: "A Clear-Thinking Oasis" turns my stomach, as he's implying from the get-go that he's the only person thinks clearly. Again, I agree with him and love his work as a scientist, but what's happened to him in the last 10 years has made me lose a lot of respect for him.

[tongodeon]

Even the subtitle of his website: "A Clear-Thinking Oasis" turns my stomach, as he's implying from the get-go that he's the only person thinks clearly.

I don't think it does, any more than an Arabian oasis implies that Arabia is the only place in the world where you can find fresh water. It's /one/ place, but you can obviously find equally fresh water in other places.

Your comment is representative of my reaction whenever someone tells me they've read something offensive from Dawkins. "Yeah, I saw that, but I guess I didn't read it the way you did."

[ext_216948]

Your comment is representative of my reaction whenever someone tells me they've read something offensive from Dawkins. "Yeah, I saw that, but I guess I didn't read it the way you did."

That doesn't make my reading it the way I did. In comedy we have a rule: The audience's reaction wins. If half of your audience is alienated (rather than entertained) by a racy joke, that means there's a problem with your joke, regardless of your intention. The fact that I'm on Dawkins' side (I'm an atheist), yet am alienated by his approach and tone -- along with plenty of others, judging by the existence of this thread -- means that, to some objective degree, he is failing as a communicator, because he's pissing off his audience. Of course, he can make the argument that pissing people off furthers his goals, and maybe that's true -- I have no idea. But that doesn't mean that it's impossible to discuss these issues in a way that treats people and ideas honestly and respectfully.

[ext_216948]

Sorry, that first sentence should be "That doesn't make my reading any less impactful."

[ext_216948]

(Though look, I'll also grant in all honesty that it's been awhile since I've read Dawkins seriously -- I've avoided him for the reasons I've listed above, but that has allowed my opinion about him to harden and calcify -- I may be overstating my case, and he may in fact be more honest and respectful than I can remember. I'm just reporting my reaction to his career as a polemicist, which has let me down after forming such a high opinion of him as a scientist.)

[tongodeon]

Dawkins wrote "I'm an atheist, BUT ..." for precisely this occasion. Specifically the last paragraph. "I'm an atheist, but I wish to dissociate myself from your intemperately strong language." If his answer doesn't satisfy you then at least your dissatisfaction with Dawkins is up to date.

You might not have a copy of his book handy, so I've copied his Douglas Adams quote here. (I find that people misunderstand and misquote him enough that it's helpful to keep PDFs on my hard drive.)

"Religion ... has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a

[tongodeon]

The fact that I'm on Dawkins' side (I'm an atheist), yet am alienated by his approach and tone -- along with plenty of others, judging by the existence of this thread -- means that, to some objective degree, he is failing as a communicatorI get that. On the other hand you're also failing as a communicator because I still don't have any idea what you're talking about. I understand that he alienates you, but how? What exactly has he done that's so objectionable that he's become not just a bad atheist communicator, but the very icon of bad atheist communication

[ext_216948]

I admit that I am certainly not communicating that well here -- however, I'm a blog commenter with little free time. I don't have time to find quotes, though I can bear witness to having been alienated by blog posts and video pieces he's produced in the past. (I checked some old IM conversations and emails in which I had sent links of such pieces to friends, but that was a few years ago and the links are dead now.) However, I can point to the most basic ways he comports himself -- calling a book "The God Delusion", subtitling your website "A Clear Thinking Oasis", calling a documentary about religion "The Root of All Evil" -- all of these are moves that are designed to shock and provoke, but which simultaneously put anyone disagreeing on the defensive before the discussion even begins. It's a small thing, but it's also dickish -- not quite as bad as "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)", but part of the same family. Like I said, I've observed the same tendency writ larger in Dawkins' blog posts, articles, and videos, but don't have

[tongodeon]

However, I can point to the most basic ways he comports himself -- calling a book "The God Delusion", subtitling your website "A Clear Thinking Oasis", calling a documentary about religion "The Root of All Evil"

Dawkins actually agrees with you about "The Root Of All Evil". It was produced by Channel Four, which has a reputation for being sensational, and its producers insisted on giving the show that name, against Dawkins' protests. (See the sourced note on Wikipedia.) Dawkins himself has said publicly, numerous times, including in his own books, that he thought at the time and continues to think now that the title was a mistake. Not a big enough mistake to walk away from the project, which was still a very good project if you've had a chance to see it, but if he'd had his druthers it wouldn't have had that name. In the forward of "God Delusion" he says:

"In January 2006 I presented a two-part television documentary on British television (Channel Four) called Root of All Evil? From the start, I didn't like the title. Religion is

[mmcirvin]

A long time ago I read his book "The Extended Phenotype", the sequel to "The Selfish Gene" in which he starts by responding to ill-founded characterizations of the earlier book. He seems to have regretted giving "The Selfish Gene" a title which, while a terrific hook, could have been misleading in various ways, and overcompensated by giving the second book a title so dry and esoteric that it fell down the memory hole. But it was a good book.

[scrambledeggs]

I think part of the problem is that the debate has been poisoned already -- most people on both sides are expecting to be disrespected and are therefore going to look for signs of it in anything you say. I think that your being accused of being a dick indeed says more about the accusers than about you

[tongodeon]

Actually, it surprised me to learn that the person in question *didn't* care whether what he believed was actually true. He said that his religion was true "the way that poetry is true", and that he cared as much about whether its claims were factually correct as whether Robert Frost really actually did stop by the woods on a snowy evening.