# Dawkins: Is he dangerous? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2010, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-is-he-dangerous/531953 "2010-03-10T06:35:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-is-he-dangerous/531953/21 "2010-03-10T11:04:03Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > I agree most violence in the world is not caused by religion anyway. No, it’s just given free license by it. Religion leads to Organised Religion, Organised Religion leads to Separatism and Extremism. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-is-he-dangerous/531953/22 "2010-03-10T11:46:54Z")
Saw a video on the net once where Richard Dawkins had a very respectful and productive discussion with an anglican bishop, I’ll try and dig it out. ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-is-he-dangerous/531953/23 "2010-03-10T11:53:51Z")
I don’t buy it because all you guys have been doing is saying… it’s okay to hate religion as long as you don’t hate a specific religion. I already have made my case that I think there are negatives, I am just trying to say that Dawkins is pretty much a hypocrite. I know he has a lot of fanboys here, but lets face it he’s preaching the same thing Christians and Muslims are. If you want enlightenment come with me, or otherwise… it’s a ‘slippery slope’ to violent extremism. Because Dawkins equates religion and violence, and a SANE person knows there is more to it than that. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-is-he-dangerous/531953/24 "2010-03-10T11:59:21Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > I already have made my case that I think there are negatives, I am just trying to say that Dawkins is pretty much a hypocrite. I know he has a lot of fanboys here, but lets face it he’s preaching the same thing Christians and Muslims are. > > If you want enlightenment come with me, or otherwise… it’s a ‘slippery slope’ to violent extremism. Because Dawkins equates religion and violence, and a SANE person knows there is more to it than that. I think that’s a parody of Dawkin’s position. The relation is between religious extremism and violence, and there is a ton of evidence to back that up. That’s not saying that all religion leads to violence, or that all violence is caused by religion. I’m going by memory here, but isn’t there a bit in the God Delusion where Dawkins talks about Jesus as a ‘moral innovator’? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-is-he-dangerous/531953/25 "2010-03-10T12:10:39Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > I don’t buy it because all you guys have been doing is saying… it’s okay to hate religion as long as you don’t hate a specific religion. Both are OK, as long as you have a good reason for doing so. Are the people who hate Scientology for scamming and threatening people immoral for hating it? There’s nothing wrong in hating something for justified reasons. > [@nilum](#): > > I already have made my case that I think there are negatives, I am just trying to say that Dawkins is pretty much a hypocrite. I know he has a lot of fanboys here, but lets face it he’s preaching the same thing Christians and Muslims are. He’s preaching that we should all follow an imaginary being and that anything is justified in the cause of following that being? > [@nilum](#): > > If you want enlightenment come with me, or otherwise… it’s a ‘slippery slope’ to violent extremism. Because Dawkins equates religion and violence, and a SANE person knows there is more to it than that. Yes; there’s also all sorts of non-violent religious stupidity and evil. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-is-he-dangerous/531953/26 "2010-03-10T12:27:35Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > What I don’t agree with is the somewhat combative and arrogant way he deals with people who are religious; and how xenophobic he is of everything outside atheism. If anything its that sort of behavior which is dangerous. I don’t think that tone is _helpful_, but calling it dangerous is a bit hysterical. > [@](#): > > Mr. Dawkins might argue that atheists are more rational and wouldn’t go as far as war, but I think if Mr. Dawkins had a device that would rid religious people from the planet we’d have a much smaller population. I’m only passingly familiar with Dawkins, but I’ve never heard him say anything that justifies this comment. I’ve never heard any atheist say anything like it. A button that would rid the planet of religious belief? Maybe. Of _religious believers?_ No. And before we bring up the USSR or China, I’ll point out that Communist governments see religious groups as a threat to their power. It’s not just an ideological dispute between religious and irreligious people. > [@](#): > > So is Richard Dawkins dangerous? No. > [@nilum](#): > > I know he has a lot of fanboys here, but lets face it he’s preaching the same thing Christians and Muslims are. This is just false. He may speak ill of religion, but on the reverse side you can find religious extremists killing people for being nonbelievers. There is no rational comparison there unless you can find Dawkins goading people to do the same. > [@](#): > > If you want enlightenment come with me, or otherwise… it’s a ‘slippery slope’ to violent extremism. No, it really isn’t. > [@](#): > > Because Dawkins equates religion and violence, and a SANE person knows there is more to it than that. There’s a very long history of religious violence. I think atheists who attribute most of the world’s wars to religion are missing the point - in most of those examples I think religion was used as a means to manipulate people but it wasn’t the cause of the war; greedy kings were - but his view is not insane. And since you’re calling him insane I’m tempted to argue that you are descending down a slippery slope and are now as bad as Dawkins and religious fanatics. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![rhubarbarin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eb9ed0/32.png) [@rhubarbarin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rhubarbarin)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-is-he-dangerous/531953/27 "2010-03-10T14:10:45Z")
Of course he is not dangerous, and I appreciate his openly negative attitude towards religion. IMO most non-believers are entirely too soft and afraid to give offense. I don’t think other people’s spiritual beliefs deserve special, gentle treatment (I try to be courteous and just avoid talking about religion with people, but if someone wants to push the issue and ask me questions I will be free with my true feelings). ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-is-he-dangerous/531953/28 "2010-03-10T14:15:07Z")
Couldn’t find the vid, but here is an article where Dawkins describes himself as a ‘cultural christian’: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk\_politics/7136682.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm) That’s not a xenophobic position, as advanced in the OP. I’ve read The God Delusion, and I don’t remember anything I’d consider to be ‘preaching hate and fear’. Does anyone have a concrete example? Going back to the original question, the real answer is NOT AS DANGEROUS AS DAWKINS WITH A CHAINSAW. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-is-he-dangerous/531953/29 "2010-03-10T14:24:41Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > …I think if Mr. Dawkins had a device that would rid religious people from the planet we’d have a much smaller population. > > \ > > So is Richard Dawkins dangerous? Why do you think Dawkins would murder religious people? Unless you can answer that, I’d say no, he isn’t dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-is-he-dangerous/531953/30 "2010-03-10T14:29:39Z")
I may be mistaken, but I’ve always considered Dawkins to be a skeptic, who “specializes” in religion. My understanding (as I said - perhaps mistaken) is that he disfavors and would criticize all irrational behavior - not only religion, but palm reading, faith healing, etc. ad infinitum. For various reasons, including the breadth of acceptance, state sponsoship, and historical violence, he feels religion has unique dangers compared to other irrational thinking. And he certainly does not equate godlessness with goodness. Nor would he accuse every believer of evil. Dawkins would most definitely agree that a particular individual could be an atheist AND a no-good, rotten scoundrel. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-is-he-dangerous/531953/31 "2010-03-10T14:34:03Z")
On a related note, if I wanted to start reading Dawkins’ works, which book of his would be a good place to start? ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-is-he-dangerous/531953/32 "2010-03-10T14:48:42Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > My understanding (as I said - perhaps mistaken) is that he disfavors and would criticize all irrational behavior - not only religion, but palm reading, faith healing, etc. ad infinitum. That is correct. An example he’s used is Ronald Reagan makign appointments based on the advice of Nancy’s astronomer. While this may be pretty harmless in the scheme of things, he finds it staggering (as do I) that a world leader would make any decision on such an irrational basis. It’s symptomatic of seriously wooley thinking. **AClockWorkMelon** - I’d recommend **The Blind Watchmaker** if you are interested in evolution, it’s very readable and covers the subject in more depth than the average popular science book. I haven’t read **The Selfish Gene** but it’s well thought of. **The God Delusion** is sort of an atheist treatise, most of the materiel isn’t original but it collects the arguments together in a readable and coherent manner. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-is-he-dangerous/531953/33 "2010-03-10T14:50:00Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > On a related note, if I wanted to start reading Dawkins’ works, which book of his would be a good place to start? Depends on what you’re interested in. His work on evolution is very interesting and I personally liked “The Greatest Show on Earth” a lot. There’s also a series of videos from [Royal Institution Christmas Lectures for Children](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHoxZF3ZgTo) - very interesting and enjoyable. If you’re interested in his view on religion, the God Delusion is a straight on attack on the undeserved respect for religion. As for the OP: **no**. Dawkins is very clear about what he thinks are the dangers of religion, but he’s also very clear that he doesn’t hate the average religious person or their beliefs. He’s just convinced they’re wrong and he takes the time to explain why. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-is-he-dangerous/531953/34 "2010-03-10T15:00:07Z")
Thanks Alka and Super, I think I’ll check out The God Delusion. A quick search of the recommended books showed that not only is it one of his most recent and widely acclaimed works but it’s also the cheapest! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-is-he-dangerous/531953/35 "2010-03-10T15:13:47Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > I don’t buy it because all you guys have been doing is saying… it’s okay to hate religion as long as you don’t hate a specific religion. That’s ridiculous. Religions are not equivalent and there are religions that are noticeably more dangerous than others, which is partly a function of the belief “text” and also influenced by how politics and economics influence what parts of the text gets emphasized. But the point is, it’s VERY easy to find justification for pretty much every vile act you can think of by opening the popular religious texts. On the other hand, many believers are of the opinion that faith is a good thing all by itself - “well he’s a Catholic but at least he _believes_”, that sort of thing. The believers are not the people to look for at the moment if you want a critical evaluation of religion. > [@](#): > > I already have made my case that I think there are negatives, I am just trying to say that Dawkins is pretty much a hypocrite. I know he has a lot of fanboys here, but lets face it he’s preaching the same thing Christians and Muslims are. Dawkins isn’t attacking religions because they don’t like atheism, he’s attacking it for a whole bunch of well-stated reasons that you can easily find if you wanted to know. It’s not hypocritical to say that the Christian and Muslim religions are currently a danger to scientific understanding and the safety of all kinds of minorities, or that putting faith and other woolly thinking above medicine is dangerous to children and the population at large. > [@](#): > > If you want enlightenment come with me, or otherwise… it’s a ‘slippery slope’ to violent extremism. Because Dawkins equates religion and violence, and a SANE person knows there is more to it than that. It’s obviously true that religion can lead to intolerance and violence, but a religion is not a belief; it’s a whole structure of beliefs and social and political powers. But teach a man that he’s less than dirt yet the universe was created for him and that his life on earth is just rehearsal and you’re already half way ready for war. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-is-he-dangerous/531953/36 "2010-03-10T15:48:44Z")
Dawkins says that all religions are wrong, a religious person says all religions but his are wrong. Assuming that there are about 4,000 religions in the world, Dawkins is about 1/4000 more dangerous than a religious person. I think I’m gonna get me a gun just to feel safe. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-is-he-dangerous/531953/37 "2010-03-10T15:53:30Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Dawkins says that all religions are wrong, a religious person says all religions but his are wrong. Assuming that there are about 4,000 religions in the world, Dawkins is about 1/4000 more dangerous than a religious person. I think I’m gonna get me a gun just to feel safe. What’s worse: A delusional person who thinks that 3,999 of the religions in the world are wrong. A person who thinks that all of the religions of the world are wrong. It is not a religious man’s belief that other religions but his are wrong that makes him dangerous. It’s the deluded reality in which he lives that makes him dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-is-he-dangerous/531953/38 "2010-03-10T16:33:18Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > Mr. Dawkins might argue that atheists are more rational and wouldn’t go as far as war, but I think if Mr. Dawkins had **a device that would rid religious people from the planet** we’d have a much smaller population. Something about the idea of such a metaphysical device existing, and of Richard Dawkins using it strikes me as, I dunno, postmodern. ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-is-he-dangerous/531953/39 "2010-03-10T17:03:51Z")
He has explained why his approach may be percieved as militant or arrogant or whatever. Religion has had an umbrella of sacred respect for a long time. It is the one thing that is expected to be ‘respected’ no matter what it is. He feels that we must remove that umbrella if we are going to challenge it in the same manner we would challenge any other idea. So he attacks it strongly. I am a straight up groupie for him. His style is unapologetic to a group of people that have such a sacred protection around them, that to even debate them vigorously about their ideas is percieved as just horribaly barbaric and disrespectful. ETA: I see that rhubarbarin has made the same point, but I want to point out that Dawkins has specifically stated that as the reason why he goes hard. ---
**Author:** ![enomaj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/59ef9b/32.png) [@enomaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enomaj)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-is-he-dangerous/531953/40 "2010-03-10T17:06:49Z")
Not since the NBA moved to the breakaway rim. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-is-he-dangerous/531953.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-is-he-dangerous/531953.md?page=3)