Is Richard Dawkins helping science through his attacks on religion?

I would wish for Dawkins to use more emotional sensitivity and compassion when dealing with religious people, because his hostile tone gets in the way of his invaluable message. His condescending attitude toward believers, epitomized by calling atheists “brights,” is seriously counterproductive. I’m concerned that he’s unnecessarily confrontational and inflammatory in his TV appearances, op-eds and so on. He’d benefit from taking a page from Jesus and turning the other cheek when religious people attack or misrepresent him.

Mostly Richard Dawkins has helped science by being an excellent
scientist, and by writing the best and clearest popular accounts of how
evolution works. Dawkins’ books are crystal clear and frequently beautiful. Climbing Mount Improbable and The Ancestors’ Tale are two of the most aesthetically inspiring texts I’ve read about anything, not just science. Dawkins does best by building up the case for evolution, rather than just tearing down religion. His awe and reverence for nature in its actual physical workings are ultimately the most persuasive tools he has.

I have a family member who was a devout Christian for many years, and Dawkins’ books sowed doubts in his mind for the first time about the validity of the Bible as an explanation of where we come from. That came about not through Dawkins’ attacks on his faith, but by Dawkins’ laying out the evidence for evolution and appealing to reason. That method is slower and probably less emotionally satisfying than calling religious people stupid, but it works.

Original question on Quora

3 thoughts on “Is Richard Dawkins helping science through his attacks on religion?

  1. Einstein didn’t need to attack Newton, his theory was enough good science to revels itself, Dawkins seems to have more fear than good science.

    • I think you’ve got it backwards on Dawkins. People who I talk to tend to be afraid of him, not the other way around. A friend of mine couldn’t even finish The Selfish Gene, not because she didn’t get it, but because she completely understood it and realized that it undermined her entire belief in free will and a purpose for existence. Modern evolutionary theory challenges a lot of our basic cultural assumptions about the meaning of life. It’s no wonder Dawkins is met with so much hostility. I just wish he didn’t respond in kind. Make no mistake, Dawkins is a remarkable and important scientific thinker. He just isn’t a very nice guy.

  2. Certainly agree that the message could stand to be delivered in a much more diplomatic way. I suspect a lot of his attitude comes from frustration, and another large part of it is a “rally the troops” approach rather than a serious attempt converting the other side. I feel the same way about a lot of Ani DiFranco’s music–great message, but often delivered in such a way that it’s hopeless for starting a dialog with anyone who doesn’t already agree. It does, however, get the “base” all fired up. Not sure that’s the most productive approach to take, but I can see why some people might take it. 

Comments are closed.