Is Richard Dawkins destroying his reputation?
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/09/is-richard-dawkins-destroying-his-reputationThe scientist and bestselling writer has become the face of a new crusading atheism. But even his closest allies worry that his online provocations do more harm than good
Richard Dawkins at home in Oxford. Photograph: Graeme Robertson
Sophie Elmhirst
Tuesday 9 June 2015 01.00 EDT
In Dublin, not long ago, Richard Dawkins visited a steakhouse called Darwin’s. He was in town to give a talk on the origins of life at Trinity College with the American physicist Lawrence Krauss. In the restaurant, a large model gorilla squatted in a corner and a series of sepia paintings of early man hung in the dining room – though, Dawkins pointed out, not quite in the right chronological order. A space by the bar had been refitted to resemble the interior of the Beagle, the vessel on which Charles Darwin sailed to South America in 1831 and conceived his theory of natural selection. “Oh look at this!” Dawkins said, examining the decor. “It’s terrific! Oh, wonderful.”
Over the years, Dawkins, a zoologist by training, has expressed admiration for Darwin in the way a schoolboy might worship a sporting giant. In his first memoir, Dawkins noted the “serendipitous realisation” that his full name – Clinton Richard Dawkins – shared the same initials as Charles Robert Darwin. He owns a prized first edition of On The Origin of Species, which he can quote from memory. For Dawkins, the book is totemic, the founding text of his career. “It’s such a thorough, unanswerable case,” he said one afternoon. “[Darwin] called it one long argument.” As a description of Dawkins’s own life, particularly its late phase, “one long argument” serves fairly well. As the global face of atheism over the last decade, Dawkins has ratcheted up the rhetoric in his self-declared war against religion. He is the general who chooses to fight on the front line – whose scorched-earth tactics have won him fervent admirers, and ferocious enemies. What is less clear, however, is whether he is winning.
Over dinner – chicken for Dawkins, steak for everyone else – he spoke little. He was anxious to leave early in order to discuss the format of the event with Krauss. Though Dawkins gives a talk roughly once a fortnight, he still obsessively overprepares. On this occasion, there was no need – he and Krauss had put on a similar show the night before at the University of Ulster in Belfast. They had also appeared on a radio talkshow, during which they had attempted to debate a creationist (an “idiot”, in Dawkins’s terminology). “She simply tried to shout down everything Lawrence and I said. So she was in effect going la la la la la.” Dawkins stuck his fingers in his ears as he sang.
Krauss and Dawkins have toured frequently as a double act, partners in a global quest to broadcast the wonder of science and the nonexistence of God. Dawkins has been on this mission ever since 1976, when he published The Selfish Gene, the book that made him famous, which has now sold over a million copies. Since then, he has written another 10 influential books on science and evolution, plus The God Delusion, his atheist blockbuster, and become the most prominent of the so-called New Atheists – a group of writers, including Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, who published anti-religion polemics in the years after 9/11.
more at link
= new reply since forum marked as read
Deal just with Xstian fundies and atheists who won't STFU and deferentially mind their place.
If you were truly interested in "objective consideration" (sounds so noble, doesn't it?), you would have commented on which group is more likely to base their arguments on reason and objective evidence (and wouldn't have labeled doing so as "hubris" and "arrogance"
. Not to mention commenting on which group is more likely to try to impose their views on others by government fiat or open violence. Conspicuously, but not surprisingly, you avoided both. Everyone reading this, including you, knows why.
Some people need to justify their position by creating two equally bad "extremes" so they can put themselves right in the "sensible middle."
It always fails horribly, but that doesn't seem to bother the folks who do it. A typical reaction is to just label their critic an extremist. Ta da, problem resolved! 
Right? 
"belligerent atheists"
Talk about throwing shit to see if it sticks.
Total lack of self-awareness....
I guess it is all about what description you identify with.
Of course, if you don't give a flying fuck, then why do you respond to what I say?
Is it a contest for you as to who is the biggest asshole or worst bigot, Dawkins or the Pope? If so, then you lose, big time.
Francis is head of an organization rooted in bigotry. He is making progress to reduce that bigotry, but has a long way to go. He is extremely popular in Italy right now, though the Vatican remains extremely unpopular. If Catholics can make this differentiation, then why can't the anti-theist bigots?
What excuse does Dawkins have for his bigotry? Besides an inflated ego, that is.
is a club ganging up on people.
[img]
[/img]
I thought I'd show everyone who the true bigots are.
There is nothing nuanced about bigotry. Your obsession with me is noted, but please leave both my hamster and my adorable bicycle out of the conversation.
Have a little respect for those who cannot speak for themselves.
I love the Clooney quote, btw., and I'm sure you are quite delightful irl. Be well and keep up the good work, especially the re-posting of some of my better posts. You are, without a doubt, my favorite fan 
You are using distorted logic to smear those atheists who embrace fellow liberals, regardless of their religious beliefs.
I do not laugh at the struggle of any oppressed minority, unless you consider anti-theist theophobes an oppressed minority. My compassion for the lgbt community is on record. Literally on record. I have fought for gay rights since the sixties and I am very pleased with the progress we have made on that front. But there is more work to be done. I am in Rome discussing this subject daily, with many people, both friends and strangers, many of whom are involved in this struggle.
Calling people like Pope Francis "homophobes" is counterproductive, imo. That does not make me an apologist for the position of the RCC on same sex marriage. It is an issue that the church needs to seriously rethink if it wants to survive. Personally, I have no interest in its survival.
I have little time for theophobic anti-theists who hide behind computer keyboards and attack fellow DUers by twisting their words in the hope that others will buy into their bullshit smearing of fellow atheists who do not share their disdain for people of faith. Come here to the streets of Testaccio and other neighborhoods of Rome and get involved with the struggle here on the ground before you accuse people of things you know nothing about.
I wish you well.
What a bunch of 
in that article that Dawkins haters are just lapping up.
Calling this an article would be too laudatory. A hodgepodge of impressionist colorful details.
Lots of inconsequential tidbits (eats chicken, his wife, ex wives, two dogs, home decoration)
Then, suddenly, some words which announced some substance, backed by ... nothing
So, Krauss and Dennett think there is a risk of self-sabotage, but why is not elucidated.
What was the main contention of the article is not elaborated upon. Back to details.
Great journalism. Great article.
for the next (approximately) 60 days.
Phew!
Dennett and Krauss..."Friends who vigorously defend both his cause and his character"???? These one sentence statements by them, that came from who knows where, don't seem to diminish their opinion of the man at all. Dennett just wants people to "reflect" on his books that none of you guys have read (apparently) and Krauss is worried about some tweets! HE'S TOAST!
This article is ridiculous. And so is the lip smacking, hand wringing joy with which haters lap it up.
How dare you challenge the cult of Dawkins!
And not those organizations that demand unquestioning fealty and the observation of bizarre rituals?
'cult of personality'?
But it's long and full of big words.
