Dawkins and civil discourse

[pancreasman]

I hesitate to put this thread in the Apologetics section but I can't think where it would be any more appropriate. In a sense this is anti apologetics. Not, I hasten to add, anti-Christian apologetics, but anti that style of apologetics that comes from all corners where 'winning' the argument is the goal and if you can make your opponents look stupid in the process so much the better. This is my hobby horse: civil discourse. I suspect a lot of what style of communication we prefer comes from our personalities. For myself, I find that 'boots and all', 'take no prisoners', 'you're an idiot' style of 'debate' repellant. It's even repellant when I do it and I regret it for days afterward.

Now, we all know how many feel about Richard Dawkins on this predominately conservative Christian site. I'd like to offer up this conversation conducted by letter in 'The Guardian' newspaper between Richard Dawkins and Will Hutton who happens to be a practicing (and believing) Anglican. Rather than go into the specifics of what points of difference there may be between each man, if we focus on the tone of the letters and points of agreement and mutual respect I think there is much to admire here from both sides. It's possible there is a time and place for all kinds of communication but I wonder if there is surplus of 'debates' and a real shortage of civil discourse in the world?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...hutton-dawkins

[shunyadragon]

I hesitate to put this thread in the Apologetics section but I can't think where it would be any more appropriate. In a sense this is anti apologetics. Not, I hasten to add, anti-Christian apologetics, but anti that style of apologetics that comes from all corners where 'winning' the argument is the goal and if you can make your opponents look stupid in the process so much the better. This is my hobby horse: civil discourse. I suspect a lot of what style of communication we prefer comes from our personalities. For myself, I find that 'boots and all', 'take no prisoners', 'you're an idiot' style of 'debate' repellant. It's even repellant when I do it and I regret it for days afterward.

Now, we all know how many feel about Richard Dawkins on this predominately conservative Christian site. I'd like to offer up this conversation conducted by letter in 'The Guardian' newspaper between Richard Dawkins and Will Hutton who happens to be a practicing (and believing) Anglican. Rather than go into the specifics of what points of difference there may be between each man, if we focus on the tone of the letters and points of agreement and mutual respect I think there is much to admire here from both sides. It's possible there is a time and place for all kinds of communication but I wonder if there is surplus of 'debates' and a real shortage of civil discourse in the world?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...hutton-dawkins

I agree!!!!! nice reference.

[Kane]

Dawkins says some deliberately provocative things, but that's par for the course, really: if you want to stir a debate about things that people feel passionate about, say something that provokes them. At the same time, provoke reasonably, not brutishly (as is so often demonstrated at TWeb by both Christians and atheists alike).

On the other hand, Dawkins did start out his career in religious debate with a bit of a brutish showing, and has since refined his approach. These past few years, especially, have seen Dawkins quite the gentleman in his communications with believers.

[Whag]

To be fair, Dawkins is equally brutish and combative with Jews, Muslims, liberal Christians, and new agers. And to his credit he's gentlemanly with those who are open to dialogue. This is a great example.

[Whag]

One must also consider the hideous behavior he's sometimes subjected to. He gets some pretty outrageous hate mail from people who he can only assume genuinely love god (why would he assume otherwise?)

If anyone knows the skeptical equivalent of this Christian "protest" of a dialogue between Dawkins and PZ Myers, I would like to see it. It's another example of Dawkins keeping his cool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EddO...e_gdata_player

[Soyeong]

I wonder if he'll ever getting around to debating WL Craig.

[Whag]

I wonder if he'll ever getting around to debating WL Craig.

I wonder if Craig will pull back on concocting "triumphs." If I were Dawkins, I wouldn't feel compelled to debate to Craig based on what he's said about evolution alone. He's Hovind with a haircut, a fellow of ID.

ETA: a fellow of DI.

[Chrawnus]

To be fair, Dawkins is equally brutish and combative with Jews, Muslims, liberal Christians, and new agers. And to his credit he's gentlemanly with those who are open to dialogue. This is a great example.

It seemed to me the only reason he was "gentlemanly" with Will Hutton was because they never had any real/substantive disagreements. I his style would have been considerably different if he would have had a dialogue with someone with more conservative stances on Christianity (i.e someone who thinks practised homosexuality is a sin, for example).

[lilpixieofterror]

Considering how much they seem to agree with one another, why would Dawkins find a need to be nasty when they agree so much (IE, I do think it is quite funny how the Tea Party movement is compared to Islamic fundamentalism, funny... I don't recall any Tea Parters stealing jets full of people and ramming them into buildings full of people)? What would be better is if we have letters between Dawkins and a person that is more dogmatically opposed to him?

[Whag]

It seemed to me the only reason he was "gentlemanly" with Will Hutton was because they never had any real/substantive disagreements. I his style would have been considerably different if he would have had a dialogue with someone with more conservative stances on Christianity (i.e someone who thinks practised homosexuality is a sin, for example).

Watch the God Delusion. He does have such conversations with more conservative Christians. Interestingly, he was at his most combative with a fundamentalist Muslim and Ted Haggard. I would say he was at his most rude and arrogant with Ted Haggard, but he also pulled no punches with the fundamentalist Muslim.

See his interview with conservative Christian Wendy Wright. He's very patient with her:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoE...e_gdata_player

[Whag]

Considering how much they seem to agree with one another, why would Dawkins find a need to be nasty when they agree so much (IE, I do think it is quite funny how the Tea Party movement is compared to Islamic fundamentalism, funny... I don't recall any Tea Parters stealing jets full of people and ramming them into buildings full of people)? What would be better is if we have letters between Dawkins and a person that is more dogmatically opposed to him?

True, but there's an undeniably racist element in the tea party. Not all tea partiers are racists, but not all fundamentalist Muslims participate in terrorist plots. Conservative religious wings inevitably court these types of folk, so it's a valid comparison.

[Soyeong]

Conservative religious wings inevitably court these types of folk, so it's a valid comparison.

It help if you didn't listen to the left wing propaganda. While there certainly are racists that belong to the Tea Party, there is nothing in particular about their policies that attracts them more than other parties.

[Whag]

It help if you didn't listen to the left wing propaganda. While there certainly are racists that belong to the Tea Party, there is nothing in particular about their policies that attracts them more than other parties.

Again, there are many examples of fundamentalist Muslims fomenting terrorism, though not all fundamentalist Muslims are terrorists. There are also many examples of tea partiers being racist, though not all of them are racist. Again, there is something about fundamentalist Christian and Islam (fundamentalist anything) that courts these attitudes, so it is a legitimate comparison.

The point being that liberal Islamists don't foment terrorism. Neither do liberal Christians print bumper stickers that say "Don't Renigg in 2012." These behaviors find their home in extreme right factions and groups which are usually linked by religious ideologies.

[Carrikature]

True, but there's an undeniably racist element in the tea party. Not all tea partiers are racists, but not all fundamentalist Muslims participate in terrorist plots. Conservative religious wings inevitably court these types of folk, so it's a valid comparison.

It help if you didn't listen to the left wing propaganda. While there certainly are racists that belong to the Tea Party, there is nothing in particular about their policies that attracts them more than other parties.

Again, there are many examples of fundamentalist Muslims fomenting terrorism, though not all fundamentalist Muslims are terrorists. There are also many examples of tea partiers being racist, though not all of them are racist. Again, there is something about fundamentalist Christian and Islam (fundamentalist anything) that courts these attitudes, so it is a legitimate comparison.

The point being that liberal Islamists don't foment terrorism. Neither do liberal Christians print bumper stickers that say "Don't Renigg in 2012." These behaviors find their home in extreme right factions and groups which are usually linked by religious ideologies.

Phew. I had to double-check that I wasn't in the Civics forum...

[lilpixieofterror]

True, but there's an undeniably racist element in the tea party.

Your evidence for this assertion is what?

Not all tea partiers are racists, but not all fundamentalist Muslims participate in terrorist plots. Conservative religious wings inevitably court these types of folk, so it's a valid comparison.

Really? What is your evidence for such a statement? Can you name any specific terrorist plots that Tea Partiers have engaged in or do you just not like them so you group them in a group that you also dislike? That isn't very honest, if you ask me.