Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,969
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 100:
Line 100: − + Line 119:
Line 119: − + + + +
→Abrasiveness and arrogance of Richard Dawkins
==Abrasiveness and arrogance of Richard Dawkins==
==Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins==
''See also:'' [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]] and [[Atheism and arrogance]]
''See also:'' [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]] and [[Atheism and arrogance]]
In addition, Richard Dawkins appears to have had struggles maintaining marital harmony in his life and as noted earlier two of his marriages ended in divorce (see also: [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]]).
In addition, Richard Dawkins appears to have had struggles maintaining marital harmony in his life and as noted earlier two of his marriages ended in divorce (see also: [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]]).
=== Arrogance of Richard Dawkins ===
== Dogmatic arrogance of Richard Dawkins ==
Using special text analysis software, the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt found that [[New Atheism|New Atheists]], such as Richard Dawkins, very often wrote in dogmatic terms in their major works using words such as “always,” “never,” “certainly,” “every,” and “undeniable.”<ref>[http://www.thisviewoflife.com/index.php/magazine/articles/why-sam-harris-is-unlikely-to-change-his-mind10 Why Sam Harris is Unlikely to Change his Mind] by JONATHAN HAIDT, February 3, 2014 8:36 pm</ref>
Using special text analysis software, the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt found that [[New Atheism|New Atheists]], such as Richard Dawkins, very often wrote in dogmatic terms in their major works using words such as “always,” “never,” “certainly,” “every,” and “undeniable.”<ref>[http://www.thisviewoflife.com/index.php/magazine/articles/why-sam-harris-is-unlikely-to-change-his-mind10 Why Sam Harris is Unlikely to Change his Mind] by JONATHAN HAIDT, February 3, 2014 8:36 pm</ref>
Yet, the works of New Atheists, including Richard Dawkins, often betray an amateurish knowledge of philosophy, religion and science. For example, [[Vox Day]]'s book ''[http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational atheist]'' found multiple errors in reasoning and factual errors when it came to the works of New Atheist authors.<ref>[http://creation.com/review-irrational-atheist-by-vox-day Excellent refutation of ‘new atheists’ flawed by heterodox open theism], A review of The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens by Vox Day, Benbella Books, Dallas, TX, 2008, reviewed by Lita Cosner</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]]
Yet, the works of New Atheists, including Richard Dawkins, often betray an amateurish knowledge of philosophy, religion and science. For example, [[Vox Day]]'s book ''[http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational atheist]'' found multiple errors in reasoning and factual errors when it came to the works of New Atheist authors.<ref>[http://creation.com/review-irrational-atheist-by-vox-day Excellent refutation of ‘new atheists’ flawed by heterodox open theism], A review of The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens by Vox Day, Benbella Books, Dallas, TX, 2008, reviewed by Lita Cosner</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]]
In a 2014 New Republic article entitled ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins: His atheism is its own kind of narrow religion'', the atheist philosopher [[John Gray]] wrote:
{{cquote|One might wager a decent sum of money that it has never occurred to Dawkins that to many people he appears as a comic figure. His default mode is one of rational indignation—a stance of withering patrician disdain for the untutored mind of a kind one might expect in a schoolmaster in a minor public school sometime in the 1930s. He seems to have no suspicion that any of those he despises could find his stilted pose of indignant rationality merely laughable. “I am not a good observer,” he writes modestly. He is referring to his observations of animals and plants, but his weakness applies more obviously in the case of humans. Transfixed in wonderment at the workings of his own mind, Dawkins misses much that is of importance in human beings—himself and others.<ref>[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins''], New Republic by John Gray</ref>}}
== Richard Dawkins, pseudoscience, and other errors ==
== Richard Dawkins, pseudoscience, and other errors ==