That is one of the saddest things that I've seen in a while.
My feelings towards Richard Dawkins are complicated, to say the least. As a Christian and as a conservative, I naturally have many points of contention with Dr. Dawkins. I was an atheist for the breadth of my twenties, and I read several of his books. While I disagree with several of his conclusions, particularly regarding God, I have a certain respect for his intellectual integrity. Reading Unweaving the Rainbow makes it abundantly clear that the man truly loves science and the pursuit of truth, even if he has intellectual blindspots that have caused him to miss large parts of it. I also applauded Dawkins' courage in standing against Islam at a time when it was not culturally popular to do so, especially on the Left. Similarly, he spoke out against the insanity of "elevatorgate" and the Atheist+ movement.
So, to see him so cowed is really disconcerting. Some of this is probably threats against his life by Muslim terrorists, but I doubt that this is the first time in his long career. I think Covid did something to him, as it did to many of us. I think that Covid forced him to really consider his own mortality as a physical certainty, rather than as a theoretical truth. Without the belief in something bigger than mere, animal humanity, his resolve crumbled. That intellectual fire and courage, just gone.
Yes. You're almost directly claiming he has issues with his mortality due to his atheism; had you watched the whole interview, you'd know that to be nonsense.
I feel like a lot of people who were vaguely left wing 10-15 years ago have gone full woke. Maybe this is another case of that. Like how Jon Stewart and Howard Stern used to cut both ways and now they wouldn't dare step out of line.
Jon Stewart was always slimy, but was at least more willing to discuss some things back then. [Current Year] Stewart is incredibly pathetic, sad to behold.
A lot of people on the left decided that it was preferable to not be associated with icky "racists" than maintain whatever principles they claimed to hold once their enemies decided to adopt some of them.
I'm thinking specifically of that one Linus Torvalds letter where he says that while he had never liked "political correctness" that trait is now coded "Nazi" and he wants nothing to do with them. Or earlier when Dave Chapelle retired at the peak of his popularity because he discovered that "racists" liked his comedy.
But I think there were some who similarly went hard right. I was a "New Atheist" back when Dawkins was at the peak of his popularity. I'm surely not the only one.
As people age, they become less willing to fight for their beliefs. It's safer and easier to simply become pathologically agreeable. The left is willing to destroy cities and murder people for the crime of heresy. The right isn't. Therefore, cowards gravitate left. Simple as.
What we're seeing is formerly strong, proud men becoming old and scared and aligning themselves with pedophiles and murderers for protection. It's morally reprehensible and I have absolutely no respect for anyone who does it.
Some older guys like Pat Condell (English New Atheist youtuber less popular but of a similar age as Dawkins) do still criticize Islam as being incompatible with English culture. He seemed to "get it" wrt Brexit and Trump in a way pretty much every other online Atheist didn't.
I do agree with you that some people just get tired of fighting when they get older (one sympathizes), but "high agreeableness" is not a trait I associate with old people. If anything they become stuck in their ways.
There's something more to it, and I think you get hints of it in reverse when you read people like Dawkins defend Aldous Huxley for his "racist" views, saying "well he was 'progressive' for his time, so no doubt if he were alive today he wouldn't be 'racist'". The man is a "progressive" (friend) in his day, therefore he would have "progressive" (friend) views today.
The corollary is that if he didn't hold modern "progressive" views today he wouldn't be "progressive" and therefore enemy. And again we see this today as people who as recent as 5 years ago would have been far left are cast off as "Nazi" for very minor disagreements with the "progressive" mainstream.
Seriously, I have complicated feelings about Dawkins, his science, and his atheism. But I can understand someone saying they don’t want to lose an eye to an Islamic fanatic.
Its pretty bold of him to put himself on the level of Rushdie, a guy with an open Fatwa for decades and many attempts on his life prior, to himself. But it wouldn't be Dawkins without a massive self important ego that assumes he is the center of all massive social changes.
I get the fear, because Muslims will absolutely fucking kill you. But this isn't just self preservation born of logic, its cowardice born of narcissism.
The uncomfortable position a lot of atheists on the right (myself included, though I no longer call myself an "atheist") find themselves is that they are freeloaders within a culturally religious society that is tolerant enough to put up with them.
When they are in a society that does not put up with them...well we see the consequences in this interview. It's easy to defend Galileo when you aren't the one standing before the Inquisitor.
So maybe if atheists want to continue not believing in God they could at least defend their fellow Christians' tribe and its culture, which is apparently the only religion willing to entertain its subversions.
It is not the Muslims he is afraid of. They can only kill him.
He knows. I have seen that look before. I have HAD that look before on my face. I know the group of whom we may not speak. They hold enormous power. It would be foolish today to speak any forbidden words.
It has radically changed the cultures in Western nations. Of course, left-progressives will lie through their teeth denying this, but it's obvious for all to see.
That is one of the saddest things that I've seen in a while.
My feelings towards Richard Dawkins are complicated, to say the least. As a Christian and as a conservative, I naturally have many points of contention with Dr. Dawkins. I was an atheist for the breadth of my twenties, and I read several of his books. While I disagree with several of his conclusions, particularly regarding God, I have a certain respect for his intellectual integrity. Reading Unweaving the Rainbow makes it abundantly clear that the man truly loves science and the pursuit of truth, even if he has intellectual blindspots that have caused him to miss large parts of it. I also applauded Dawkins' courage in standing against Islam at a time when it was not culturally popular to do so, especially on the Left. Similarly, he spoke out against the insanity of "elevatorgate" and the Atheist+ movement.
So, to see him so cowed is really disconcerting. Some of this is probably threats against his life by Muslim terrorists, but I doubt that this is the first time in his long career. I think Covid did something to him, as it did to many of us. I think that Covid forced him to really consider his own mortality as a physical certainty, rather than as a theoretical truth. Without the belief in something bigger than mere, animal humanity, his resolve crumbled. That intellectual fire and courage, just gone.
Did you watch the entire interview?
I did not. Was there another part of particular note?
Yes. You're almost directly claiming he has issues with his mortality due to his atheism; had you watched the whole interview, you'd know that to be nonsense.
He's never been afraid before to criticize Islam, so I wonder what's up here.
I feel like a lot of people who were vaguely left wing 10-15 years ago have gone full woke. Maybe this is another case of that. Like how Jon Stewart and Howard Stern used to cut both ways and now they wouldn't dare step out of line.
Jon Stewart was always slimy, but was at least more willing to discuss some things back then. [Current Year] Stewart is incredibly pathetic, sad to behold.
IMO, TDS. Many cases.
A lot of people on the left decided that it was preferable to not be associated with icky "racists" than maintain whatever principles they claimed to hold once their enemies decided to adopt some of them.
I'm thinking specifically of that one Linus Torvalds letter where he says that while he had never liked "political correctness" that trait is now coded "Nazi" and he wants nothing to do with them. Or earlier when Dave Chapelle retired at the peak of his popularity because he discovered that "racists" liked his comedy.
But I think there were some who similarly went hard right. I was a "New Atheist" back when Dawkins was at the peak of his popularity. I'm surely not the only one.
As people age, they become less willing to fight for their beliefs. It's safer and easier to simply become pathologically agreeable. The left is willing to destroy cities and murder people for the crime of heresy. The right isn't. Therefore, cowards gravitate left. Simple as.
What we're seeing is formerly strong, proud men becoming old and scared and aligning themselves with pedophiles and murderers for protection. It's morally reprehensible and I have absolutely no respect for anyone who does it.
Some older guys like Pat Condell (English New Atheist youtuber less popular but of a similar age as Dawkins) do still criticize Islam as being incompatible with English culture. He seemed to "get it" wrt Brexit and Trump in a way pretty much every other online Atheist didn't.
I do agree with you that some people just get tired of fighting when they get older (one sympathizes), but "high agreeableness" is not a trait I associate with old people. If anything they become stuck in their ways.
There's something more to it, and I think you get hints of it in reverse when you read people like Dawkins defend Aldous Huxley for his "racist" views, saying "well he was 'progressive' for his time, so no doubt if he were alive today he wouldn't be 'racist'". The man is a "progressive" (friend) in his day, therefore he would have "progressive" (friend) views today.
The corollary is that if he didn't hold modern "progressive" views today he wouldn't be "progressive" and therefore enemy. And again we see this today as people who as recent as 5 years ago would have been far left are cast off as "Nazi" for very minor disagreements with the "progressive" mainstream.
My guess is that he saw what happened to Rushdie.
Seriously, I have complicated feelings about Dawkins, his science, and his atheism. But I can understand someone saying they don’t want to lose an eye to an Islamic fanatic.
I think is him basically deciding that showing fear and capitulation is a more effective way to raise the alarm than standing defiant.
Let's face it, if he had gone on there and said what everyone expected him to say, it wouldn't be news. But this? This is news.
He's done. He has money and wants to live in peace.
If he wants to live in peace perhaps he shouldn't do TV interviews.
It's a little more difficult to confidently speak out loud against Islam after so many countries have imported refugees en masse over the last decade.
There's not nearly as much of a safety buffer when hotheaded zealots could be living just a few blocks away in any direction.
Looks like fear works, maybe Christians could learn something from this?
The meek can have it when I’m done with it.
Its pretty bold of him to put himself on the level of Rushdie, a guy with an open Fatwa for decades and many attempts on his life prior, to himself. But it wouldn't be Dawkins without a massive self important ego that assumes he is the center of all massive social changes.
I get the fear, because Muslims will absolutely fucking kill you. But this isn't just self preservation born of logic, its cowardice born of narcissism.
The uncomfortable position a lot of atheists on the right (myself included, though I no longer call myself an "atheist") find themselves is that they are freeloaders within a culturally religious society that is tolerant enough to put up with them.
When they are in a society that does not put up with them...well we see the consequences in this interview. It's easy to defend Galileo when you aren't the one standing before the Inquisitor.
So maybe if atheists want to continue not believing in God they could at least defend their fellow Christians' tribe and its culture, which is apparently the only religion willing to entertain its subversions.
An atheist is a coward, news at 11.
This is the end result that the libs want.
It is not the Muslims he is afraid of. They can only kill him.
He knows. I have seen that look before. I have HAD that look before on my face. I know the group of whom we may not speak. They hold enormous power. It would be foolish today to speak any forbidden words.
"Uncensored." Yeah, the authorities don't have to censor a person when they censor themselves.
It has radically changed the cultures in Western nations. Of course, left-progressives will lie through their teeth denying this, but it's obvious for all to see.