<p><pre><code> "Dawkins’ narrowmindedness, his unshakeable belief that the entire history of
human intellectual achievement was just a prelude to the codification of
scientific inquiry, leads him to dismiss the insights offered not only by
theology, but philosophy, history and art as well."
</code></pre>
I suppose vaguely arguable to classify Theology as "human intellectual achievement". Bundling it up with philosophy, history and art and trying to paint Dawkins as being against those other things is just childish.
I measure people by their conviction, intellect, and humanity. I cannot fault him in either.<p>Really then - this is tall poppy syndrome at its best (or is that worst?).<p>What's wrong with someone who actually BACKS their own ideas? Dawkins is not a fool. He knows what he is saying is polarizing.<p>Why not give the guy a break for not bothering to care about being "well liked" - which sadly seems to have become the currency of social media. The man's a public intellectual for God's sake.
<p><pre><code> "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the
subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what
it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."
</code></pre>
Err... no. Imagine someone holding forth on biology when they have a rational argument that biology is fundamentally incorrect.
Dawkins problem is that people stopped asking him for his <i>expertise</i> and started asking for his <i>opinion</i>. He is the victim of society's willingness to appeal to authority[1]. While he's a fantastic scientist and thinker on the topic evolutionary biology, he isn't a particularly great communicator when it comes to <i>everything else</i>. Outside of his subject he doesn't explain his ideas well enough. He should be communicating at the sort of level a layman would need in order to understand what he's talking about, but instead he leaves giant gaping holes in his arguments because he doesn't feel he needs to explain himself in. Consequently he's often misunderstood.<p>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Appeal_to_non-authorities" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Appeal_...</a>
<p><pre><code> “To him, the humanities are expendable window-dressing, and the consciousness
and emotions of his fellow human beings are byproducts of natural selection
that frequently hobble his pursuit and dissemination of cold, hard facts.“
</code></pre>
Wait, that’s wrong? How exactly are consciousness and emotions <i>not</i> byproducts of natural selection?
Dawkins is of a different caliber than someone of the likes of Jacob Bronowski. The latter mathematician-poet, evangelist of science while Blake expert; the first, well, maybe a fanatic, but surely profane. O tempora, o mores.