Yes, my only point was to give credit where credit is due.

I am by no means a Dawkins supporter, I am a large proponent of his philosophical ideals (a fair majority that is), but I believe his methods for translating them into the public eye are ineffective in many ways (and polarizing in others).

“Clearly and completely ignorant” was too rash of a statement. But I do believe to truly criticize Dawkins, much like any philosopher (and he is a philosopher over a scientist in many regards), one has to take into account his underlying ideas over his theories.

But I do agree that his use of publicity isn’t ideal. I don’t have enough knowledge of his public interactions to judge if they are hypocritical or not, but I will say that they are overly harsh towards organized religion.

So much so, that it brings both theists and atheists in bad light.

Elton

I’d like to think I’m not “clearly…completely ignorant” of Dawkins positions. I’m not necessarily bashing atheism in general (to say nothing of my own beliefs), just the contradictions/inconsistencies in Dawkins’ own position. From your comment, I think we can actually agree that he isn’t the ideal atheist spokesperson and that there are flaws in the message he delivers.

I’ll admit that I’m not familiar with the entire Dawkins corpus, and perhaps my comment that he “loves to take a complex, multifaceted phenomenon like religion and reduce it to a single dimension” was a bit strong. He certainly isn’t stupid, and I should give credit where credit is due (i.e., re: his research and line of argumentation). He does make some good points.

However, as far as his media image goes, I wouldn’t totally ignore his agency in that arena. He writes what he publishes, he’s involved in marketing it, and he did choose to publish this particular article in the Washington Post. No doubt he cultivates a certain image and isn’t simply the victim of some kind of malicious media distortion.

Aaron

Dawkins is not the ideal atheist by any means. As a matter of fact, I believe that his methods for delivering the message of atheism is extremely counterproductive in many respects.

However, he is not a “guy who claims to be extremely concerned about the ideological evils of religion”. If you had taken the time to read any of his books, you would realize that his true opinions are not reflected in his media coverage (in the slightest).

Given, his mannerisms are extraordinarily unpleasant to the faithful, but they are justified by his reasoning (reasoning that I don’t personally agree with). He is a relatively conservative Atheist and he has ZERO patience with religion (once again, an opinion that I do not share).

However, he does not “[love] to take a complex, multifaceted phenomenon like religion and reduce it to a single dimension.” He analyzes it deeply, does a lot of research and thinking, and formulated a strong opinion with reasons to back it up. Even if you do not believe in what he says, please respect his willingness to do research on a topic (that he is not fond of) by doing some research of your own.

Elton