[abless]

If you're describing Dawkins as fundamentalist, then you either a) don't know much about him, and what he stands for, or b) have a grave understanding of what fundamentalism means.

It bothers me that Dawkins gets that accusation that often, when it's clearly false.

[xavoy]

According to Wikipedia, Fundamentalism is the "strict adherence to specific theological doctrines". According to my dictionary, the definition of theological is "Of or relating to or concerning theology". Atheism, according to Wikipedia again, is "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." It seems to me then that I could argue that one could be an "Atheist Fundamentalist" although that wasn't my point. I was using the term liberally, and by way of analogy.

My point was that it is this stubborn adherence to a particular point of view that got Dawkins so fired up in the first place. And, although _I agree_ with Dawkins point of view, traveling the world telling people they are "idiots" for not thinking in a particular way is just as bad, or worse. Even if it is a view backed up by science.

This video posted by Hacker News member 'robertk' gives you a good idea of Dawkins general attitude: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

[lyudmil]

It is not just as bad. It is not worse.

As you concede, Professor Dawkins' views are backed (and, in fact, a product of) science. This means that to the extent that anyone can be right or wrong about anything, Richard Dawkins is correct in his arguments. Maybe he isn't civil in the way he confronts people who disagree. Maybe he's ineffective in convincing them. Those are things that are important to you personally, but you're letting that distract you from the fact that what he's saying is true, which ought to be the only thing that matters.

In a way, I think this is a major way you and people who share your attitude towards Richard Dawkins miss what is perhaps the most poignant part of his message. His crassness is actually a rebellion against the passivity and political correctness that he feels constrains non-believers socially and politically. The crux of his message is a call to arms to those people, encouraging them to deny religion the automatic respect it has enjoyed for centuries. To say that he isn't meek enough in delivering this message is undercutting it's core.

[xavoy]

He is _right_ about evolution, there are no two ways about it and I never said otherwise. If someone tries to tell him that he is wrong about that, he has every right to put them straight. He is, after all, an evolutionary biologist.

My problem isn't this. My problem is his you're wrong, I'm right attitude. There is a place for that, and it is indeed Science. When you're dealing with people though, you should have some respect. If his message is to automatically _deny_ respect to others simply because of a belief they hold, then he's more like a religious fundamentalist than I thought.

[lyudmil]

Yes, I understood your position to be that from your previous comment. I'll repeat that I think you're missing the point.

The offensive part about religious fundamentalism isn't stubbornness or denial of respect. These are corollaries to dogmatic thinking, but not its defining features. Positions rooted in science are by definition not dogmatic and therefore cannot be fundamentalist. Lack of respect for differences of opinion is indeed a shared trait between Richard Dawkins' views and those of fundamentalists, but that's a rather trivial similarity. At their core, they are philosophical and moral opposites.

Consider as an analogy what would happen if I had a difference of opinion with my doctor about what my illness is that was completely counter to the best information available through examinations and tests. My doctor wouldn't be stubborn or dogmatic for considering me an idiot in that instance. My opinion has no value and therefore is owed no respect.

[xavoy]

The specifics of their views are irrelevant, at their core they are identical. They both believe they know best, and they both believe that it is in everyones best interest that they push their view onto others. The fact that Dawkins is 'right' or that a religious fundamentalist's view is dogmatic is irrelevant to my point. (and to clarify again, Dawkins is in my mind, absolutely right)

The doctor analogy is interesting, because my health has been _seriously_ compromised by western medicine. They gave me advice that was based on 'the best information available through examinations and tests' and I'll forever pay the consequences. If they had respected others opinions then I would have never suffered the way I have.

I'm not saying science will tomorrow find evidence of a creator god that made the world in six days, not at all. I'm just saying that we don't always know what is best for others, and should never presume to do so. For some people, living a religious life is the best possible outcome. They have a moral and ethical system they can look towards when they aren't sure how to proceed. They have hope when everything else is falling apart, etc etc.

To you and I, and indeed to Dawkins the idea that some bearded guy in the clouds created the world and the universe, will help you through life and grant you seven virgins when you die is delusional and utterly disproved by science. But if this world view is helping someone respect others and live a happy and fulfilled life, then why does it matter what he or she believes? And more to the point, who does Dawkins think he is going around telling people like this that they are idiots?

Make the information available. Tell people about it, grant interviews, attend conferences and seminars and host talks about your ideas. Just don't be a dick about it.

[PakG1]

> Positions rooted in science are by definition not dogmatic and therefore cannot be fundamentalist.

Alas, when humans enter the picture, it can get difficult. Human nature can be inherently very dogmatic, just due to political reasons alone.

> My doctor wouldn't be stubborn or dogmatic for considering me an idiot in that instance. My opinion has no value and therefore is owed no respect.

Have you had no experience or seen no experience of your friends where the doctor was wrong? Humans make mistakes, but they should be aware of that possibility. Doctors who consider their patients idiots are not sympathetic to listen to their patients' claims.

My dad's friend once went skiing and broke a leg. The doctor said there was nothing wrong because the x-ray showed no fractures. The guy was in pain. My dad convinced the doctor and technician to do more x-rays at different angles. They found the fracture. Had the doctor simply thought my dad's friend was playing games because the data said everything was OK, he would have been venturing on malpractice. There are many stories like this where malpractice actually was the result. People who think that understanding the data better gives them the right to consider others idiots run the risk of being the biggest idiots of all.

On the topic of medicine, perhaps the best known story of scientific dogma was the medical community's understanding of ulcers and how to treat them. Science can be dogmatic too, but it's not the fault of science, it's the fault of people who can be dogmatic by nature.

[abless]

"I respect you as a person too much to respect your ridiculous beliefs."

(I originally thought Dawkins once said that; if he did, he seemed to have quoted Johann Hari [1])

[1] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/334644