Arrogant?

[OzAtheist]

During QandA last night I was following responses on twitter and someone stated that Richard Dawkins was arrogant. I, flippantly, replied "so being correct is arrogant", at which stage I got shot down by theist and atheist alike.

Both sides of the fence thought that Dawkins comes across as arrogant, I didn't think so, do you?

For those that missed last nights episode you can watch it on line here: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/

If one were to reply to the people who think Dawkins is arrogant, what would you say to counter that argument?

[NakedApe]

To theists I would respond that it is they who are being arrogant by believing that they, their religion and their beliefs should be so priveleged that anyone who criticises them is guilty of some moral failing.

To atheists I would respond that we're talking about religion here, in case you hadn't noticed, and it really doesn't get any more arrogant than organised religion. I don't think it's possible to be too aggressive when it comes to criticising religion, especially now that atheism is not so much a matter of opting out, but of actively fending off the advances of aggressive theism. Call that arrogance if you will, but I don't see how it fits the definition.

[Seamus]

Both sides of the fence thought that Dawkins comes across as arrogant, I didn't think so, do you? The accusation is an ad homimen and irrelevant. True or false it says nothing about the veracity of his arguments.

Professor Dawkins comes across as a not untypical academic. I find him a rather unpleasant and arrogant personality.So fucking what?

I have not and will not criticise Professor Dawkins because of the way he expresses his ideas.My criticism of him is that he has nothing new to say,and that some of his opinions are simplistic and rather shallow. It bothers me that so many people seem to accept what he says so uncritically.

On Q&A he came across as a quick witted and experienced debater. I think he was also the smartest and best educated panel member. He made the Liberal politicians especially look quite stupid.He scored points by preaching to the choir.


The above is simply my opinion, answering the question of the OP. I will not argue the point..

PS: am I right in thinking some one who uses twitter is a twit?

[davo]

I don't think he is arrogant, it's simply that he is talking the same way about religion as for example the others were talking about politics.

Fielding was more arrogant in his talking about himself compared to a specific person, Rudd. That is arrogance, overbearing pride in oneself.

Dawkins has strong opinions and puts them forward. I do not see how he was arrogant in doing so, I simply think it was confronting for others on the panel.

[Loki]

I would consider arrogant the notion that certain ideas are above question and simply should not be discussed. A "militant" atheist seems to be anyone who dares question religion at anything above a whisper in a quiet corner. It's a rather thin-skinned attitude.

I'm sure that believers identify with their beliefs rather strongly, else they wouldn't be in the position they are. Yet to deny the right of others to question and think for themselves seems rather silly, and ultimately a poor strategy. Methinks it would be better to develop some better arguments, and they are trying, just not getting anywhere. The currently popular "philosophy postulates that there may well be things outside of human experience or understanding, therefore god" springs to mind.

[nari]

Just watched it now - I wouldn't have called RD arrogant at all, it seems that his attempts to speak honestly wrt a scientific aspect were interpreted as a real soul-wrenching threat. To a strident theist, it could make them feel wobbly in the brain.
Burke was more arrogant in telling RD to listen to himself. That is just plain silly, and an ad hominem.

Dawkins certainly had support in the audience; (the rabbi also impressed me with her calm and quite logical approach) and almost anything Dawkins could have said in any way would have singed someone.

Too many of the audience and panel members were more interested in challenging Dawkins rather than his thoughts. Silly way to go.

nari

[Loki]

Thats where people like Tim Minchen come in. They do an invaluable service by pointing out the ridiculous position of people who refuse to communicate. People underestimate the value of comedians, and ours are better than theirs, much better material to work with.

[SchizoDeluxe]

To me he does come across as slightly arrogant but to be honest, I really have no problem with that in this situation as I think the people he is arguing against bring it on themselves. They have not listened to atheists for a long time and quite frankly, people are fed up with this nonsense already.

[Fearless]

I have watched many you tube clips of dawkins and hitchens in debate mode, both often get accused of arrogance but more often than not it is they who are being belittled, laughed at and disrespected.

If anything they are most likely frustrated with the insular thinking that they come up against time and time again.

If I were either of them I would probably avoid debating half the people they do, utter waste of time and energy. Maybe that is an arrogant view but we all know there is little point debating these people.

[Dane]

If anything they are most likely frustrated with the insular thinking that they come up against time and time again.
Frustrated would be an excellent description. His look of comical exasperation when Fielding was yammering was priceless.

[Durro]

Arrogant ?

Perhaps.

Or perhaps it's the supreme self confidence of a person entirely convinced in the validity and importance of their position, and of having the weight of all credible evidence going in their favour. It's hard not to be arrogant when you're holding 4 aces in your poker hand - there exists the possibility that someone might have a better hand, but it's very unlikely.

Durro

[Jaar-Gilon]

How to be a good politician?
Be evasive in all your answers!

How to be a great politician?
Adhere to the first principle whilst all the while talking about yourself and how good you are and the good things you've done and how important you are (whether it's true or not).

I give you Steve Fielding the greatest politician on earth! Arrogant pratt!

[Lord Blackadder]

Many mistake self confidence, logic and articulate thought for arrogance. It is often the accusers who are arrogant as they refuse to allow logical, critical analysis aimed at their belief system. That, my friends, is sheer arrogance.

[Fearless]

Notice how Fielding was big-noting himself when he was saying he backed decisions made by government about asylum seekers and that his backing was crucial with clear emphasis on the self... things like

My vote was crucial
I did this, I did that, I said, I, I, I
I voted against
I backed those changes

Quite self absorbed in his own importance.

Made my skin crawl, especially when trying to put Rudd down with his bible flash story.

Edit: oops, this was in the wrong thread... meant to be in Q&A thread sorry

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

If one were to reply to the people who think Dawkins is arrogant, what would you say to counter that argument?

I would say „do not change the subject” and “I do not care if he is the most arrogant mass murdering smelly rapist on the face of the planet… what he has said is either incorrect… or correct… so let us discuss which it is”.

Comments like “Arrogant” and other insults are just made by people who are thinking to themselves “I have heard what the man said, and I am not capable of saying anything to add to or detract from it, so I will comment on the man instead because I am one of those people who think saying something is better than saying nothing at all”.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

My criticism of him is that he has nothing new to say,and that some of his opinions are simplistic and rather shallow.

I would somewhat agree with you in a lot of the things he has to say. If I want to hear interesting things that are new to me on the subject of religion then Dawkins is not the one I would first go looking for. Harris or Hitchens would be higher on the list.

The power of Dawkins is not what he says however, but THAT he is saying it. He has become a successful media presence.

The large statistical rise in Atheism is not just because people have had their minds changed by the “four horsemen”. There is too many for that and though some of them must have had their minds changed, I doubt Dawkins is the most effective of the four speakers.

No, in an environment where people have felt they couldn’t out themselves as being atheist, Dawkins effect comes into it’s own. He has successfully shown in the media that it is ok to be Atheist, it is ok to say these things. Many people have followed suit.

Atheism is not just one voice, nor should it be. We need people with new ideas and new ways of putting old ideas. We have that. We need people who are calm, collected and moderate. We have that too. We need PZ Myers types who are loud and angry too. We have that.

And we need people who just go out there and speak and show people it is ok to spread these ideas, and for that we have to thank Dawkins.

[wolty]

The way I look at it is this.
RD is great at putting out concepts that are understandable to people (whether agree or disagree) Harris is great at putting out emotional concepts that get people thinking as well.

So in summary:

Harris makes me think about self and concepts involved with that.

RD makes me thing about the world at large And concepts of others.

Pz gets me thinking about science and rationality. Especially rationality and the stupidness of others.

Note to self. Must read some Hitch. :D

[Godless Ray]

Very good question. I didn't think he was arrogant at all but my wife did. Its this strident atheist thing again, I think we got so use to the religious being strident and loud that when Dawkins does it.. it sounds louder than it is. Personally I think he is doing it at just the right level.

[Brad]

Note to self. Must read some Hitch

Then you'll get some arrogance. And he's every right to be so - he's one of the sharpest tools in the box. I don't necessarily agree with a lot of what he says, but damn, he's always worth listening to.

And RD? Christ, he'd sound the same around the dinner table or propping the bar. That's his way, no less, no more.

[eclectic]

And RD? Christ, he'd sound the same around the dinner table or propping the bar. That's his way, no less, no more.

Absolutely. He's a child of the British Empire, and an Oxbridge-educated toff for goodness sake! He's got the double-whammy of confidence - his brilliantly informed mind and opinions, plus the demeanour granted him at his privileged birth. Does it for me, but not everyone's cup of tea. :)

[Sanity personified]

During QandA last night I was following responses on twitter and someone stated that Richard Dawkins was arrogant. I, flippantly, replied "so being correct is arrogant", at which stage I got shot down by theist and atheist alike.

Both sides of the fence thought that Dawkins comes across as arrogant, I didn't think so, do you?


Yes, he can be arrogant, but... but... well, yeah, if I were half as bright as he, I would be twice as arrogant.

[Brad]

Reminds me of the opposite.

Winston Churchill: 'Mr Atlee is a very modest man. Indeed, he has a lot to be modest about'.

[Loki]

Originally Posted by Seamus http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=60207#post60207)
My criticism of him is that he has nothing new to say,and that some of his opinions are simplistic and rather shallow.
He might have nothing new to say, but there still seem to be a lot of people who haven't heard it. He puts things in a way that most people should be able to understand if they try a little. No matter how many times these things are said, we seem to need people to keep saying them.

[davros]

Both sides of the fence thought that Dawkins comes across as arrogant, I didn't think so, do you?

I think Dawkins came across as thoughtful and clear, with one exception. The studio audience was really 'with' Dawkins for the majority of the show, but there was one point where he 'lost' them. This was when he described the core story of the new testament in a way that made it sound as ridiculous as it is. I think this is the point that people are thinking about when they say he was arrogant.

Most people here in Australia don't actually think the new testament is literally true, they view it as a good story. To the Australian audience criticism of this story is then a bit like pointing out magic doesn't exist as a criticism of Harry Potter. It sounds excessively-logical and is labelled 'arrogance'.

I think liking the 'Jesus story' is just as valid as liking the Harry Potter story. Neither story makes sense as literal truth; both have elements we can be inspired by; both can be criticised on ethical grounds. Dawkins looked arrogant because he was showing the new testament doesn't make sense when he should have been explaining that it is just a story.

[Seamus]

He might have nothing new to say, but there still seem to be a lot of people who haven't heard it. He puts things in a way that most people should be able to understand if they try a little. No matter how many times these things are said, we seem to need people to keep saying them.

I'm not sure of your point. I was expressing a personal opinion. I'm not one of the 'we' who need to be constantly reminded of ideas I came across and absorbed 40 odd years ago.

I did not say nor mean to imply what others should do.

@Davros;good post,thank you. I couldn't quite put my finger on why I don't like Dawkins much.. (although I like him a lot more than Hitchens;again just a personal opinion)

[atheist echo]

During QandA last night I was following responses on twitter and someone stated that Richard Dawkins was arrogant. I, flippantly, replied "so being correct is arrogant", at which stage I got shot down by theist and atheist alike.

Both sides of the fence thought that Dawkins comes across as arrogant, I didn't think so, do you?

For those that missed last nights episode you can watch it on line here: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/

If one were to reply to the people who think Dawkins is arrogant, what would you say to counter that argument?

Absolutely not!:mad:
Theists obviously expect atheists and freethinkers to be meek and mild and not upset the apple cart...

[Goldenmane]

During QandA last night I was following responses on twitter and someone stated that Richard Dawkins was arrogant. I, flippantly, replied "so being correct is arrogant", at which stage I got shot down by theist and atheist alike.

Both sides of the fence thought that Dawkins comes across as arrogant, I didn't think so, do you?

For those that missed last nights episode you can watch it on line here: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/

If one were to reply to the people who think Dawkins is arrogant, what would you say to counter that argument?

"So fucking what? His points are either valid or they aren't. Ignore the tone you perceive and address the goddamn arguments. And if you have a problem thinking Dawkins is arrogant, try Hitch. And then try me. I'm so arrogant I probably won't give enough of a shit to answer you. And remember Rule #3. Good luck"

[riddlemethis]

I think Dawkins came across as thoughtful and clear, with one exception. The studio audience was really 'with' Dawkins for the majority of the show, but there was one point where he 'lost' them. This was when he described the core story of the new testament in a way that made it sound as ridiculous as it is. I think this is the point that people are thinking about when they say he was arrogant.

Most people here in Australia don't actually think the new testament is literally true, they view it as a good story. To the Australian audience criticism of this story is then a bit like pointing out magic doesn't exist as a criticism of Harry Potter. It sounds excessively-logical and is labelled 'arrogance'.

I think liking the 'Jesus story' is just as valid as liking the Harry Potter story. Neither story makes sense as literal truth; both have elements we can be inspired by; both can be criticised on ethical grounds. Dawkins looked arrogant because he was showing the new testament doesn't make sense when he should have been explaining that it is just a story.

Davros, they only want to claim 'just a story' when the ridiculousness of it is pointed out to them. "oh it's not literal" they say, "don't be silly" & then they try to use it as evidence for their certitude that there is a god & the justification to interfere in the lives of others by influencing the political landscape. If they really did think it was only a neat story, they wouldn't be offended when its absurdity is pointed out & they wouldn't call anybody arrogant for pointing it out. The Lord of the Rings is just a story too, but there aren't millions of people out looking for the one fucking ring.

[davros]

Davros, they only want to claim 'just a story' when the ridiculousness of it is pointed out to them. "oh it's not literal" they say, "don't be silly" & then they try to use it as evidence for their certitude that there is a god & the justification to interfere in the lives of others by influencing the political landscape. If they really did think it was only a neat story, they wouldn't be offended when its absurdity is pointed out & they wouldn't call anybody arrogant for pointing it out. The Lord of the Rings is just a story too, but there aren't millions of people out looking for the one fucking ring.

I agree that the 'just a story' point can put one on a slippery rhetorical slope. However, used with care I think it can be a very powerful argument.

But if I say the new testament is 'just a story' I am not giving any ground to literalists. In fact if I can get them to say 'oh its not literal' then I've won the argument because I can refer to that when they then try to take the bible literally.

My main point was about communicating to people who don't take the bible literally, but haven't thought that through to the logical conclusion. One doesn't have to convince them the Jesus story is wrong or stupid, just that it is just a story and no more important a story than many others such as LOTR. Dawkins powerful and persuasive reasoning on Q&A was just slightly weakened by ridiculing the story as a story rather than sticking to the core argument about whether it is literally true.

[atheist echo]

"So fucking what? His points are either valid or they aren't. Ignore the tone you perceive and address the goddamn arguments. And if you have a problem thinking Dawkins is arrogant, try Hitch. And then try me. I'm so arrogant I probably won't give enough of a shit to answer you. And remember Rule #3. Good luck"
Well said!

[davros]

At atheists in the pub today, PZ Meyers answered a question about atheists being perceived as arrogant. His point (I wish I could quote it accurately) was basically that intellectual is equated to arrogant. So atheists such as RD who are logical and intellectual get called arrogant and smug.

PZ is spot on as usual.

[atheist echo]

What you said about Intellectual being associated with arrogance is similar to the way intellectual is used pejoratively along with other cliched smears such as "elites" (only sporting elitism seems to be worshipped), "chattering classes" etc. Why has intellectual become such a dirty word?

[Seamus]

What you said about Intellectual being associated with arrogance is similar to the way intellectual is used pejoratively along with other cliched smears such as "elites" (only sporting elitism seems to be worshipped), "chattering classes" etc. Why has intellectual become such a dirty word?

Just so;the terms;' academic' and intellectual' seem to be interchangeable as derogatory terms in Australia; RD is both.

A crude measurement; In my state overall, 3% of the population have attended university,in my suburb it's 2%.

Australia; the only country in the world where the word 'academic' is used frequently as a term of abuse" (Dame Leonie Kramer)

I still find RD rather obnoxious at times. As I've said before,as have others "So fucking what?" It's what he has to say which is important [or not] not his personality.The whole 'he's arrogant' bullshit is a typical apologist ad hominem straw man.:mad:

[atheist echo]

Just so;the terms;' academic' and intellectual' seem to be interchangeable as derogatory terms in Australia; RD is both.

A crude measurement; In my state overall, 3% of the population have attended university,in my suburb it's 2%.



I still find RD rather obnoxious at times. As I've said before,as have others "So fucking what?" It's what he has to say which is important [or not] not his personality.The whole 'he's arrogant' bullshit is a typical apologist ad hominem straw man.:mad:

And he is nowhere near as arrogant as public figures within the Religious Right. The Atheist?Freethought movmenet needs figures with a bit of arrogance and fire. To use a cliche...Fight Fire With Fire!:cool:

[Seamus]

And he is nowhere near as arrogant as public figures within the Religious Right. The Atheist?Freethought movmenet needs figures with a bit of arrogance and fire. To use a cliche...Fight Fire With Fire!:cool:

Tu quoque AND a straw man; the issue of arrogance is irrelevant.

RD is a brilliant academic and scientist whose arguments are [mostly] based on evidence and reason.

Members of the lunar religious right can rarely claim the above.. The wrongness of most of their arguments be discovered by any open minded person who is capable of independent thinking.The arrogance and willful ignorance often associated with dogmatic fundamentalists is a correlation,not a demonstrable causal factor.

Fire with fire? You mean an eye for an eye? That's a good way to end up with a lot of people minus at least one eye.:p

[Caio]

Arrogant to theists simply means anybody who isn't prepared to say "both sides of the argument are equally valid, now lets stick our heads in the sand and pretend that everything jolly good". Unless you concede to their childish notion of reason and logic, your also closed minded, militant and "religious".

[NakedApe]

I agree with Seamus; whether Richard Dawkins is arrogant or not is irrelevant.
What bothers me is the hypocrisy of theists who make accusations of this sort.

[atheist echo]

Tu quoque AND a straw man; the issue of arrogance is irrelevant.

RD is a brilliant academic and scientist whose arguments are [mostly] based on evidence and reason.

Members of the lunar religious right can rarely claim the above.. The wrongness of most of their arguments be discovered by any open minded person who is capable of independent thinking.The arrogance and willful ignorance often associated with dogmatic fundamentalists is a correlation,not a demonstrable causal factor.

Fire with fire? You mean an eye for an eye? That's a good way to end up with a lot of people minus at least one eye.:p

And what you said regarding the Religious Right can be demonstrated by the occasions when their well known figures have had to participate in a proper debate under debate conditions. I heard the D'Souza came off second best against Shermer and Hitchens usually wipes the floor with them as well.;)
This is because their usual forum of smearing and "straw men" won't work in a proper debate.