I like Dawkins in his books, but I find that in person he can get overly aggressive with his points when he becomes frustrated. Understandable, but it doesn't help his cause.
I remember once seeing a brilliant debate between a high profile creationist and David Attenborough(one of my heroes).. I've tried to find it ever since
I first encountered Dawkins, like most people did I think, when he published his book The Selfish Gene which was a brilliant piece of work if only in lateral thinking but I have always admired his pragmatic attitude toward the world of science's big questions ... he shirks from little.
I read his God Delusion book some years ago and I enjoyed it so much because it tackled religion head on and not only that, he also tackled any notion of a caring God head on which if you believe him, leaves us quite alone in the universe, a stark thought indeed.
I quite like his 'aggression' but I tend to think it's probably better understood as his passion for truth and sometimes that passion can become frustrated when talking with people who clearly have an agenda to follow, and that agenda subsequently being a sacrificial altar for rational thought.
I can't abide these religious ignoramuses who try to debate with scientists because it is embarrassingly clear they jettison any such notion the bible is wrong even though there maybe a whole slew of evidence telling them they are wrong, wrong, wrong !!!!!
You must remember here, this type of thinking is anathema to Dawkins; Dawkins is a scientist, borne of a discipline that leaves beliefs at the back door until proven: then and only then will those beliefs become part of Dawkin's repertoire of facts to draw upon.
These religious nuts have belief resident at their front door and it subverts any attempt to change the status quo even when it's blatantly obvious to any thinking man the argument these people get behind is devoid of any reason.
I too would become frustrated and probably angry with such bigoted positions.
I am a borderline agnostic because I cannot with a 100% conviction decide upon the nature of creation.
I would like to think God created people as they are but there is far too much fossil evidence to suggest we evolved from a lesser being which isn't really consistent with the bible's teachings.
I wonder if God just created the pieces and let nature unfold which if you think about it, is no less a creation; it's just a little staggered that's all.
I wish God was religious, I really do; and he might be, but there is a slight problem with that ..... which religion does he choose to manifest in?
I heard there were over 16000 religions in the US alone but I think that's more to do with the Yank's predisposition for insecurity and gullibility with a lot of those religions borne out of an opportunity to create an income stream for somebody.
The US is important only in modern times and then as a political entity, certainly not cultural or spiritual in any way and therefore to me, it sorta implies there is no way any of those 16000 US based religions is gonna be God's chosen outlet.
The 'chosen' religion, you might think would have had its roots historically bound millennia ago and the geography being not North America but the Middle East somewhere .... but then WTF do I know?
