Since then, I have been viewing videos related to Richard Dawkins, and I have to say, I have completely misjudged the man (due in no small part to the misleading claims by "I'm an agnostic, but" A Asohan).
Almost a year after I was influenced into believing Dawkins was actually a militant faction of Atheism bent on destroying everything related to religion, I decided to do something I could only do when I entered university (and subsequently, watch videos on YouTube without needing to wait 5 hours for the video to finish loading), type "Richard Dawkins" into Google.
And lo and behole, for Wikipedia hath spake!
Apparently, the man isn't so pretentious as to promote his book with a "Dr" Richard Dawkins, "Professor" Richard Dawkins, or any other titles any other man would prominently display on their books to gain credibility.
Yeah, originally, I dismissed him as one of those raging lunatic anti-religious militants who think a more proactive stance against the religious should be taken.
How simple it is to change ones view to know than man was an Oxford graduate, and was also the Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. Having been suitably impressed, and chagrin by my previous unsubstantiated view that the man was going too far in criticising religion, I began watching a few videos starring the man.
It began with this lecture on the queerness of the universe, which surprised me a lot because I was half expecting the guy to be some unpolished riff-raff (thank you A. Asohan) but he turned out to be... British.
If anyone out there has ever had the opportunity, please watch some British shows for a change, because they have the admirable quality for being wittier than any other nation on Earth (no, this is not a scientifically substantiated statement).
Then, with the brilliant encounter known as Dawkins vs. Tyson, Professor Dawkins has made a lifelong fan out of me.
And there was more to come.
Next, I discovered a video of Dawkins apparently stumped by a Creationist question. My heart audibly sank into my intestine when I viewed the description for that video - for a full 5 seconds.
Then the related video titled "Richard Dawkins 'stumped' hoax video exposed" caught my eye. I skipped that video and headed straight for the article written by the man - the answer to the challenge "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." where a lucid explanation of how the question phrased was a typical indication of Creationism and how Dawkins was suddenly faced with the unpleasant fact that the creationists interviewing him had lied their way into him giving an interview by claiming to be a film crew from Australia.
Okay, I admit, before I had noticed the "Dawkins stumped" video, I still had some reservations about the man's aggressive stance against religion.
That changed pretty quickly after the entire "Information Challenge" shenanigan. Now I have zero respect for Creationists.
It seems these people are hell bent on discrediting people instead of ideas. Come on, do a search on YouTube. While videos by Dawkins will mostly quote evidence, videos by creationists seems to focus on misquotes.
Actually, don't bother, watching Creationist videos is rather depressing compared to the always entertaining Dawkins.
In fact, the Bishop of Oxford makes more sense then them:
Wow, a man of the Church who actually supports science and believes in evolution! I am telling you, those Brits are genetically different from the rest of us (technically true).
But prior to that, I downloaded a few videos off http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/, my first being The Four Horsemen videos, which you can download for free from the stated site.
The talk was fascinating to say the least, particularly the one that centred around the argument that atheist arguments were insulting religion, and how that was used as an argument against atheism.
In response, the men pointed out that if taking things personally as a defence can be used, the argument on the religious end that atheist are without moral scruples could also be used as an argument for theists not to attack atheism.
All in all, I have been forced to swallow a wonderful pill of wit, humour, and science after being trapped in the illusion cooked up by A. Asohan.
I use the term forced because my hand seems preoccupied with clicking on video links to Richard Dawkins.
Take this "What if you're wrong" video as an example:
The "Intelligent Design? Watch it get schooled" video:
And probably a few hundred other videos starring the Oxford professor.
And all in all, I have not seen one video that openly insults religion (using the definition that trying to disprove religious beliefs with evidence is an insult to religion) without the backing of facts, logic, and/or evidence (or wit).
And with this post, I now offer my utmost apologies to Professor Dawkins for once counting myself amongst the "I am an atheist, but" crowd.
Oh yeah, there are no such things as raging, militaristic, lunatic, atheists - only atheists who happen to be raving, raging, militaristic lunatics.
There is a distinction, and if you are to argue otherwise, please remember the Bishop of Oxford.
2 comments:
Congratulations on doing your research - it just goes to show that rumours and hearsay aren't as good as actually reading/watching something.
Oh and I'm rather pleased that you consider Britishness an asset :-)
Tufty
(see my blog against atheophobia)
Yes, I am rather pleased with the outcome of disproving my assumptions which were based upon the (on hindsight) obviously biased views of a newspaper columnist.
And it is hard not to admire the British after one watches Black Adder, Extras, Wire in the Blood and Derren Brown.
However, the fact that Celebrity Big Brother was shown after The Root of all Evil? may, I fear, erode whatever cultural progress the British have made.
Post a Comment