Matthew Nisbet Weighs The Pros and Cons of Richard Dawkins

Matthew Nisbet walks a fine line in the age-old debate between religion and science.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• bigthink

[DaDoctaBoom]

This man just compared Dawkins to Billo Reilly.

That's below the belt, man. Below the belt.

[Provoker7]

Richard Dawkins didn't start the conflict between science and religion, but he certainly made it more respectable to be an outspoken atheist. When he says that studying evolution tends to lead to a more critical approach to religious belief, he's not being disingenuous, he's simply being honest about a well-documented trend. If that's enough to send a religious mob into a frenzy, then I can't imagine how anyone can think the problem is Dawkins and not a widespread, grotesque lack of education.

[exitsattherear]

i wonder if people will still be listening to this joker in 45 years...

[Indydds]

Wow, why so harse? He spoke the truth about our society and how the religious wrongly turn away from Dawkins. Without a tactful approach we (atheists) will not get anyone to listen. Yes I agree the truth should prevail. However childhood indoctrination and constant ritual reinforcement is hard to pull people away from. Religions are cults and are prevalent in nearly all human societies. How do you wake these people from their delusion? Not by yelling.

[StunnedByStupidity]

Ignorant middle class fool spouts his ignorant 'fluffy bunnies' view of the world... He knows NOTHING of the fascist bullies that science is up against. Treat decent people with respect - treat right wing scum with the same contempt they project on others... WAKE UP YOU LOON... Where the FUCK has 'appeasement' gotten on global warming, challenging free markets, species destruction, resource exploitation, peak oil, evolution, gay rights you name it. YOU ARE UP AGAINST ANTIREALITY SCUM...

[GodTheHypothesis]

A fairly accurate analysis of the Dawkins effect I'd say although I think he missed a crucial result of the "new atheism"; the fact that there have been these few "strident" intellectuals being so vocal in their opposition has made it far more socially acceptable to criticise religion in a more gentle way. They've pushed back the barriers a bit- and it's a very valuable thing.

[TheBoredProle]

I am also an appeaser of religion. However, if I get into talking with a fundie or someone that attacks my atheism, I find it to be my moral obligation to drive their hubris into the dirt.

[cycophile]

you cant just teach pure science its way too complex, there has to be interpretation by scientists (like Dawkins) at some point.

i think people jumped the -1 gun. atheism is only the first step, you gotta pay attention to make it work

[insomniacbob381]

Give this guy a break with the harsh ratings and actually watch his whole video.. He's not arguing against Dawkins, he's explaining why some people view him as such a polarizing figure. He also makes suggestions on how to explain science without giving the other side unwarranted ammunition. He's speaking from a communications standpoint not arguing against evolution.

[IsolationInstigation]

I think the best way to disprove religion is to build a perfectly workable time machine, then systematically allow humans to go back in time to the key points in the formation of each of them. Then we can find out the truth once an for all.

[bjarczyk]

Below the belt indeed.