Is Richard Dawkins Closed-Minded?

November 9, 2014 Philip MoriartyDawkins, peer review, public engagement, religion, scientific methodLeave a comment

Owen Letts

Dawkins has been called “Darwin’s Rottweiler” for his aggressive form of arguing in debate and his avid determination to spread evolution as the only theory, of the creation of life, which anyone should believe in. In a recent review of the first of a two part autobiography of Dawkins’ life, John Gray has taken this view to the extreme; and is more of a slander of Richard Dawkins in general than a book review. A rebuttal article was made and can be seen here, but what I am more interested in is what led to such an article in the first place and also whether Dawkins really is as close-minded as is portrayed.

If you were to read the Wikipedia page of Richard Dawkins you would find some quotes of his that seem intolerable such as “faith is one of the world’s great evils” and if you were to visit the r/atheism subreddit you wouldn’t be wrong for assuming Richard Dawkins is the leader of a cult instead of a scientific writer. An opinion piece that Dawkins wrote for the Guardian gives great insight into how he views religion; particularly when religion conflicts with the current theories of scientific research. He is clearly someone who believes that religion should not exist within education and that science should answer the questions that religion says it does.

Much of the above would definitely appear to make a case that Dawkins is close-minded. Having read slightly deeper into the situation I have found myself doubting that stance. The first piece of evidence I found was that in Dawkins autobiography he was in fact raised Christian and only over the years of his childhood did he decide to turn his back on religion. Also in his book, “The God Delusion”, he formulates his own spectrum of theistic probability. This alone isn’t an argument to say he is open-minded however he has said in interviews and debates that on this spectrum he would consider himself a 6.9 on the scale as he is willing to change his views if evidence of a God(/s) was to arise he would have to accept it as the scientific method dictates.

Even in light of this it is hard to go as far as to say that Richard Dawkins is open-minded. He appears to have grown up with changing his views and believing that objective evidence is the only thing that can confirm his beliefs and that therefore he does not have a “faith” by definition. However because of his disbelief in religions subjective nature he appears unable to see the benefits of religion and can only see the disadvantages. There are many debates involving Richard Dawkins that are freely available however this one made by Al Jazeera English seems to show how Dawkins is a great thinker but has closed his mind to the idea of positive religious benefits for society.

Is Richard Dawkins closed-minded?

November 9, 2014 Philip MoriartyDawkins, public engagement, religion, scientific methodLeave a comment

Benedict Adrian Vincent Poole

Probably the most outspoken atheist in the world Richard Dawkins does appear to enjoy causing controversy but does he actually address people’s responses or is he just closed minded?

After recently releasing his autobiography Dawkins has, as always, not held back his views on religion. Dawkins discusses his life and there are certainly moments where he appears to be very one-sided. At one point he refers to Elvis as obviously being religious because “He came from an uneducated working-class family in the American South”. It is this kind of statement that Dawkins haters latch onto.

He has also published books such as the God Delusion which became a #1 bestseller. It caused huge amounts of controversy but it is this that engages the public. The controversy is there to sell the books; he is just doing his job.

One of his beliefs seems to be that people who don’t have the access to higher education believe in a God to fill gaps in their knowledge. In interviews with Dawkins he spends a lot of time just insulting religion rather than actually dealing with the reasoning behind his views. Statements such as “Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness” are commonplace.

But if he truly wants to convince the public that there isn’t a God he’s not just got to be able to understand the science he needs to understand religion so he can address the arguments properly. Dawkins couldn’t have a proper debate over the ins and outs of whether there is a God without knowing a great deal about religion. He claims his aim is to educate people about his field and this, for him, means explaining why the ideas about evolution completely disagree with the concept of God. Interestingly Dawkins also wants the Bible to be taught in schools saying “It needs to be taught because it underlies so much of our literature and culture”. If he was closed minded he wouldn’t encourage the education of the Bible.

Dawkins has spent his whole life devoted to the research and development of the theory of evolution; it is fair that he has such strong views related to it. Dawkins sees evolution as the complete facts because it has been proven; there is evidence for it.

However he still has put his faith in science. The theory of evolution is not an unalterable truth but rather the best account we have so far of how life has developed. This is no different from religious people with religious beliefs putting all their faith in God. It appears that he rejects the whole of religion because it is wrong in some particular cases. Science is wrong a lot of the time, does he reject science?

He is passionate, opinionated and most certainly very one-sided when he puts his opinion across. Does this make him closed minded?

Is Richard Dawkins closed-minded?

November 9, 2014 Philip MoriartyDawkins, public engagement, religion, scientific methodLeave a comment

Rebecca Louise Andrews

The phrase “closed-minded” is defined variously as
“Having or showing rigid opinions or a narrow outlook” (oxforddictionaries.com), “Having a mind firmly unreceptive to new ideas or arguments” (dictionary.reference.com) and “One who thinks that just because he hates it means everyone else should.” (urbandictionary.com)

Without the benefit of an entry in any legitimate dictionary, I shall have to define Richard Dawkins as “that pompous, condescending, militantly atheist guy who’s always doing interviews and debates”.

It’s important to distinguish though between Richard Dawkins and Richard Dawkins – one is a 73 year old man who has a wife and daughter and lives in Oxford; while the other is a public figurehead who is held up by some and ridiculed by others, who debates the big questions on a world stage, and has written 13 more or less extremely controversial books. Without having a close personal relationship to the man, I can’t comment on his closed-mindedness on religion (or choice of biscuit, for that matter) but I can look at the apparent views of Richard Dawkins which are all too easy to find.

In interviews, Dawkins focuses a lot on if ‘religion is true’, more than if it’s useful in any way – something that most people would argue is more important. And some would say he is very closed-minded because of his insistence on relying on evidence, as is evident in his infamous debate on Creationism with Wendy Wright (here).

But isn’t that the point of science? To rely purely on the evidence at hand? Just as the fundamental Christians he seems to constantly bump into insist on relying on faith alone, it doesn’t seem fair to deny him a similarly stubborn approach.

Also, isn’t that the point of televised debates? The participants don’t turn up with an open mind, ready to accept the other person’s point of view – that’s what the audience is there for. They are about watching two opposing opinions collide, and any weaknesses like being ‘open-minded’ will be brutally exploited. Dawkins wouldn’t be invited back if he switched sides halfway through.

But he is also a scientist, and any scientist has to be open-minded in order to critically evaluate their own, and others, work. Drawing scientific conclusions from data and letting go of any personal bias requires a mind so open it could be said to be empty.

So I think a more important question is whether it matters. After all, there are plenty of people who are very vocal on the subjects that Dawkins regularly speaks on – namely religious vs scientific explanations for nature and the universe, and whether religion is a force for good. And it’s easy to see that (as in many things) there is a spectrum of religiosity, and Dawkins is definitely at one extreme.

But someone’s got to be there, and if Dawkins doesn’t represent the staunchly atheistic, closed-minded end of the spectrum, someone else will take his place as the perfect straw man for the religious extreme.

Is Richard Dawkins closed-minded?

November 9, 2014 Philip MoriartyDawkins, impact, public engagement, religion, scientific methodLeave a comment

Luke Richard Sibbett

Richard Dawkins, biologist, author and self-confessed “militant atheist” is so fervent in his condemnation of religion that he has been branded in New Republic as an “evangelical” advocate of “his own kind of narrow religion”; and this by a fellow atheist. Is there really any difference between Dawkins’ persistent and repeated insistence that there is no god and the theologians arguments that there is one?

Dawkins claims there is. In his eyes there is a crucial difference; he explains “My Passion is based on evidence” in his introduction to The God Delusion. In the book, Dawkins argues that the theory of evolution provides a falsifiable alternative to the Intelligent Design Argument of creationists: “if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory [of evolution] would be blown out of the water”. The origin of life was, chemically, a highly unlikely event, however the huge number of planets in the universe where life could have arisen makes it likely to have occurred: he says “the origin of life gap is… easily filled by statistically informed science”.

Essentially his point is that scientific theories suggest that the rise of complex life is probable, whereas “a God capable designing a universe, or anything else, would have to be complex and statistically improbable”: the religious explanation is more complicated than the problem it was trying to solve.

As a fellow scientist (in training at least) this approach seems perfectly reasonable. If it is therefore impossible to directly disprove God’s existence then the only way to judge his existence is to resort to judging the relative probability of the two alternative explanations for our existence: the one scientific, the other religious.

So far, so rational.

Historically Dawkins has often said that he “would, like any other scientist, willingly change [his] mind if the evidence led me to do so”. However, in a recent interview with Peter Boghossian he said that he “couldn’t think what that evidence could be”. He suggests that hearing the booming voice of God or seeing the stars spell out ‘Believe in Me’ would not persuade him. This seems to destroy his entire evidence based approach, making him a closed-minded hypocrite. However, he continued to say “the more probable explanation is a hallucination or a conjuring trick…”, which brings everything back to the balance of probability again. Underlying this seemingly hardline and intractable statement is another statistical calculation along the same lines as before, considering all other possible reasons for some apparently supernatural phenomenon. After all, the unreliability of human senses is the reason we do our best to make objective measurements in science, which also prevents anecdotal accounts of miracles from being credible.

Even though Dawkins’ mind can appear to be closed to any philosophy but his own, the crucial difference is that his stance is based upon the best possible evidence available.

Is Richard Dawkins narrow-minded?

November 9, 2014 Philip MoriartyDawkins, impact, public engagement, religion, scientific methodLeave a comment

Annie Bruce

As both an atheist and someone with a science education, I often find myself agreeing with many of the points Richard Dawkins makes on the subject of religion. However, what I find extremely unpalatable is his condescension and dismissal of all religion despite there being no definitive evidence either way.

Richard Dawkins believes that there is a contradiction between science and religion, and that science, due to its experimentation rigour must be correct. However, he never actually deigns to explain precisely how science falsifies religion. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence for theories of evolution, the big bang and the age of the universe and such things. However, even if we accept all of these theories, not a single one of them eliminates the possibility of a creator. The theory of evolution only dispels views that God created animals and humans from scratch. This is certainly not a view that is upheld by all religions and all individuals within the religious community. In fact, a great deal of the world’s most celebrated scientists were religious. Newton, Dirac, Einstein and even Dawkin’s idol Charles Darwin are just a few who did not seem to find science and religion to be irreconcilable. In his documentary ‘The Root of all Evil’, Dawkins describes religious faith as non-thinking. It certainly takes an incredible amount of arrogance to describe the aforementioned scientists – some of the brightest minds that modern science has known – and many more as non-thinking.

Whilst science can provide evidence against some specific details in some religious books, I don’t think that anyone could claim that there is a scientific way to either prove or disprove the existence of God. However, Dawkins addresses this point by referring to Bertrand Russell’s teapot analogy. The point is made that if he were to claim that a teapot were in orbit around the sun, it would be ridiculous for people to believe his claim simply on the basis that they could not disprove it. Whilst it might be rather eccentric to believe in an orbiting teapot, there is a great deal more evidence of the existence of a God. Scientific evidence, this most certainly is not, but countless individuals have claimed experiences of God. Whilst some find it easy to dismiss these cases as lies, a vivid imagination or even as a result of mental disorders, can we really claim that every single one is unequivocally false? Perhaps is it rather convenient that by their nature, they cannot be tested. But isn’t faith at the heart of religion? It couldn’t really be considered faith if God did a universal tannoy announcement proclaiming that the game was up and he was real after all. And doesn’t science also require a certain amount of faith? If Dawkins had to personally verify every single piece of scientific evidence he used to back up his arguments, I can’t imagine he would get very far.

Whilst his own personal belief that God does not exist in not closed minded in itself, his complete unwillingness to entertain the possibility that he could be wrong is incredibly arrogant. Given his belittlement of religious ideas as childish and irrational when his arguments cannot eliminate the possibility of the existence of God, I can only conclude that he is, indeed, very narrow-minded.

Richard Dawkins – The Root of all Evil Documentary http://godevidence.com/2010/08/quotes-about-god/

A Closed Mind? A Viewpoint on Richard Dawkins

November 9, 2014 Philip MoriartyDawkins, impact, public engagement, religion, scientific methodLeave a comment

Samuel Morris

I loved Richard Dawkins. I would sit at my computer, whooping like a cheerleader at his atheistic speeches. Science for the win! Now, however, I wonder if Mr Dawkins is actually a robot. I say this because recently his internal processor seems to have malfunctioned and categorized twitter as a personal thoughts notepad, not a trafficked social media site. I talk of his tweetings on the aborting of Down’s syndrome babies: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice” ^[1].

Now, that’s treading the line. Whether you believe there’s a point in there or not, it’s lost in an ignorance of wider public reception and a genuine bewilderment of the notion of emotion (a trait commonly linked with robots). At the very least it must be acknowledged that 140 characters is not the restriction in which to bring up such a sensitive issue. Cracks were showing in my opinions on this ‘figure head’ of atheism.

It’s difficult because I very much agree with a lot that he says, in particular the process of scientific thinking. Science is great! It’s humanity’s greatest collective attempt to understanding the universe. I marvel at its ability to predict, to baffle whilst inspire and the benefits it has bought to the world. But it’s not a constant set of beliefs, it’s a malleable system, and I think Richard Dawkins may have forgotten this.

Watching his speeches and interviews, he talks with such certainty it appears arrogant. He may say “It would be irrational to say that I’m absolutely positive there’s no God”, but it’s delivered in such a dismissive tone and when preceded by: “I’m a kind of 99% against [there being a God]” it hardly comes across as open minded ^[2]. Dawkins’ assuredness often sounds arrogant. This certainly jars with some of the public, and may be why to some he comes across as a closed-minded arse.

He also ‘hearts’ Charles Darwin ^[3]. When Dawkins speaks of the theory of evolution he treats it as the reality of the universe, bestowed on Darwin in a moment of God-like enlightenment ^[4] ^[5]^*. But it’s just a theory: the best explanation for evolution we have. Theories constantly change and there are so many questions still to be answered. Science has not cracked the code of life!

If Richard Dawkins knows this, then he needs to show it: his views are not the be all and end all. If he demonstrated science’s fallibility, he could be a great spokesperson for it. Why not inspire with the wonder of science instead of putting it on a pedestal. Show the world it’s a human process, not a mechanical, dispassionate way of thinking. If he did this (and stopped tweeting) people who think Richard Dawkins is closed minded would see that he is actually open, even if they still think he’s a robot.

*1^st minute of link [5]

Richard Dawkins: Brave Man or Childish Bully?

November 9, 2014November 9, 2014 Philip MoriartyDawkins, religion, scientific process. scientific methodLeave a comment

Dipen Patel

Is he the hero the world deserves, but not the one it needs right now? Or is he just a stereotypical senile old man with a platform to rant on? With tensions over religion increasing, once-curious minds could be forgiven for staying away from theistic discussion. Or should they? Bring in Richard Dawkins, an ethologist (studying animal behaviour), evolutionary biologist and writer who, to regular people, is ‘that hardcore atheist’.

While freedom to criticise religion should be embraced, social pressure to condone it seems to have caused some to question whether the public are becoming too politically correct., This leads to disregarding those seeking to remove the human rights of others as ‘they are just a minority’. Some even label those who don’t hold this naive view as bigoted, discriminatory and racist. Dawkins mentions in his book, The God Delusion, how wider society generally frowns upon criticising religion and how easily religion can be used as an excuse to commit atrocities.

He breaks this taboo of criticising, and hence advocates critical expression. Whilst there is a spectrum of good to bad individuals, this naivety assumes the bad ones are always the minority. People seem unaware of other factors that come into play, such as a country’s politics, social views, and history.

His character, undeterred by this pseudo-obligation to never question, does have downsides however. In his previous book, The Selfish Gene, Dawkins makes evolution into an infallible truth rather than a fallible theory, when supposed visiting aliens would ask whether humans had discovered evolution yet. Charles Darwin was referenced as the first who finally had the truth dawn upon him, going as far as implying a certain likeness to Dawkins himself. However, Darwin would have seen this from an entirely different perspective, understanding science as an empirical investigation, a method of enquiry, where theories are provisional, and the truth is never self-evident. This presents a stark contrast to Dawkins, who views the matter as unquestionable.

While penetrating the fog surrounding religion the negative traits of his character begin to surface. In his memoir, An Appetite for Wonder, Dawkins tells the story of his life, and his transition to atheism. He shares his teenage passion for listening to Elvis, and his past confusion over the singer’s religious stance.

“He came from an uneducated working-class family in the American South. How could he not have been religious?”

His memoir paints a picture of someone with a privileged upbringing, disconnected from those of diverse and differing financial backgrounds. This facet may shine light on why he looks down on those opposed to him.

Despite the potential good his character brings to the public, it seems that today’s Dawkins is passing his prime. With Twitter giving anyone access to a platform, Dawkins’ controversial rape, and Down’s syndrome tweets are an unfortunate poor PR exacerbated by the viral phenomenon. Any public impact this man once had slowly dwindles away as Dawkins gradually becomes considered that ‘senile old man’.