Dawkins on NPR Today

[CaptJodan]

In about 3 minutes, for those who can get it. If not, here's a link to the report on Fresh Air. First Dawkins, then they Francis Collins as counterpoint.

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/r ... p?prgId=13

[Max]

I found an interesting comment regarding him from a "fan"

I wonder, is it just me or is Dawkins setting himself up as the kind of messianic figure that he abhors himself?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people having their eyes opened to the process of indoctrination, but it seems to me, having read a few of his works, that he is just as indoctrinated himself. He even uses religious jargon to further his attempts to 'enlighten' through science (although I'm sure this is ironic and very clever).
The process of scientific endeavour should surely be to strive for understanding of the universe. I find that Dawkins too often sweeps valid avenues of enquiry conveniently under the carpet.
Would it not be a greater achievement to investigate the various claims of religion than to mock them and dismiss them out of hand. If Dawkins truly wants to know if religion is without foundation then I suggest he spends several years studying with a yogi in India.

I haven't read all of his books, but what I have read has just seemed rational. Isn't the point of being indoctrinated that you're blindingly following something?

[Surlethe]

*snip*

I haven't read all of his books, but what I have read has just seemed rational. Isn't the point of being indoctrinated that you're blindingly following something?

If you haven't read his books, then how do you have the ability to judge what those claims? Indoctrination does lead to blind following, yes, but how many people who read Dawkins' books end up blindly following them? And, more to the point, is Dawkins intentionally trying to get people to blindly follow him?

[Max]

I haven't read ALL his books, is what I said. However, I don't get the feeling as though he is or is trying to indoctrinate people.

[Drooling Iguana]

No, but he's trying very hard to educate people, and some can't tell the difference.

[Alyrium Denryle]

*snip*

I haven't read all of his books, but what I have read has just seemed rational. Isn't the point of being indoctrinated that you're blindingly following something?

If you haven't read his books, then how do you have the ability to judge what those claims? Indoctrination does lead to blind following, yes, but how many people who read Dawkins' books end up blindly following them? And, more to the point, is Dawkins intentionally trying to get people to blindly follow him?

No he is not. Though I confess that when he was on campus this past week I engaged in nerdy hero worship...

[Rye]

I found an interesting comment regarding him from a "fan"

I haven't read all of his books, but what I have read has just seemed rational. Isn't the point of being indoctrinated that you're blindingly following something?

Yeah, but Dawkins doesn't indoctrinate, he argues. Have you been indoctrinated if you agree with this post after I've written it? Are you blindly following me? Of course not.

Now, as for the quote itself:

I wonder, is it just me or is Dawkins setting himself up as the kind of messianic figure that he abhors himself?

This is just an incredibly asinine and lame claim. This is saying that to become a public figure that speaks out against cults, you become a cult leader because you become well known and agreed with. You can call any disagreement and desire to set something right "messianism", and any propagation of those ideas "evangelism" if you want. These things are not "bad things" in and of themselves, they are merely methods involved in all cultural progression.

This whole thing is frankly just the usual "Dawkins is just as bad, wagh!" golden mean bullshit.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people having their eyes opened to the process of indoctrination, but it seems to me, having read a few of his works, that he is just as indoctrinated himself. He even uses religious jargon to further his attempts to 'enlighten' through science (although I'm sure this is ironic and very clever).

So did Einstein and Stephen Hawking. It is not a new thing. Religious people do not have control of language.

The process of scientific endeavour should surely be to strive for understanding of the universe. I find that Dawkins too often sweeps valid avenues of enquiry conveniently under the carpet.

Bollocks.

Would it not be a greater achievement to investigate the various claims of religion than to mock them and dismiss them out of hand. If Dawkins truly wants to know if religion is without foundation then I suggest he spends several years studying with a yogi in India.

They aren't dismissed out of hand. They're dismissed because they're illogical. Yogis still believe in bullshit without foundation beyond tradition, the fact they are "eastern" and thus attractive and mystical to western eyes changes absolutely nothing. You do not need to waste years of your life sitting on a mountain somewhere learning to ignore your rational mind to know that the yogis do not have a great handle on reality. They, like all religious hermits, just spend a load of time with their own imagination, to the point of solipsism. Their bovine utterings when questioned on the nature of reality are taken as deep by generally ignorant westerners because they want to consume some mysticism. If the yogis had all the answers, their countries ought to be on a par with western ones.