No, it’s just given free license by it. Religion leads to Organised Religion, Organised Religion leads to Separatism and Extremism.
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.
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.
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’?
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.
He’s preaching that we should all follow an imaginary being and that anything is justified in the cause of following that being?
Yes; there’s also all sorts of non-violent religious stupidity and evil.
I don’t think that tone is helpful, but calling it dangerous is a bit hysterical.
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.
No.
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.
No, it really isn’t.
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. 
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).
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
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.
Why do you think Dawkins would murder religious people? Unless you can answer that, I’d say no, he isn’t dangerous.
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.
On a related note, if I wanted to start reading Dawkins’ works, which book of his would be a good place to start?
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 readThe 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.
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 - 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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Something about the idea of such a metaphysical device existing, and of Richard Dawkins using it strikes me as, I dunno, postmodern.
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.
Not since the NBA moved to the breakaway rim.