I’m an attorney, which makes me an object of revulsion even among atheists

Yeah, because those guys at the ACLU are really mean and don’t help people like me when I want my civil rights protected

I have seen large parts of Root of All Evil on Youtube but have not seen the entire production as a single showing. I may very well have missed important and perhaps truly inflammatory parts. I did see the segment with Haggard and I must disagree that Dawkins’ “emotional” response to a vitriolic spew of intolerant arrogance by Haggard was either unwarranted or counter-productive. To some people, Dawkins will be criticized as being “cold” and somehow not human if he never shows strong emotions but offensive if he does display them, regardless of the provocation. I also saw the segment with the convert to Islam, which gave us all plenty of reason(s) to fear the believers.

If you can point me to some video snippets that you consider to be “over the line” I’d be happy to take another look.

I am always willing to reconsider my positions in the face of opposing evidence. I have to, I’m an attorney, which makes me an object of revulsion even among atheists

On the other hand, I have no automatic disgust of thoughtful believers; I got my doctorate at a Jesuit university and have taught at church affiliated universities as well as public ones. The teaching priests and brothers that I have known are far too intelligent to be dismissed as ignorant or confused. And not a single one of them have ever subjected me to censure or ridicule for my very unapologetic atheism. (I was not raised Catholic, by the way, so I have no emotional investment in supporting or decrying the Roman Catholic church.)

Have you seen “The Root of all Evil?” I’m interested on your take.

I thought it did cross the line. And I’m a big fan of some of his books.

Perhaps I have not seen as many videos of Dawkins as others have but from what I’ve seen, Dawkins has behaved as a gentleman. Sometimes I think that Dawkins’ British accent, careful use of language, and civil demeanor are held against him by those who consider such characteristics to be pretentious or arrogant.

When debating True Believers with an audience, it’s vitally important to remember that speaking to your opponent is a fiction; there is no chance that you’ll convince them of anything, and no reason to try. It’s the audience you’re trying to communicate with.

Consider a scene that sticks in my head, the interview with Ted Haggard in “The root of all evil?”. How, Haggard’s smarminess made my skin crawl, but when he went into Dawkins’ territory and started talking about scientists doubting evolution, Dawkins got visibly angry, which undermined his position. Anger can be percieved as fear, which is completely unnecessary. Dawkins has been studying the biological sciences (B.A. in Zoology in 1962, studies obviously started a few years previously) almost since before Haggard was born (1956), so he can claim global knowledge of biologists with complete equanimity.

That guy’s like on every other episode of Nova. Maybe I need to see him do different things, because the stuff he talks about on Nova seems pitched to a 12 year old taking science classes at a remedial level. Which is why I take his admonishment to be an educator and to meet people at their level with a look slightly ascance.

But yes, science, IS interesting. In Dawkins response he shows his trademark wit and charm. Milquetoast Tyson has none of that.

I WANT good things for Tyson. I want Tyson to be a public and persuasive intellectual and do things for science education in this country surpassing Sagan.

But really, this guy’s the Captain Kangaroo of “public television science.” He seems more concerned with being accessable than being informative.

My feeling about Dawkins is that – yes, he’s blunt and even disdainful of religion – and that’s not a practical day-to-day tone for people living in societies that are dominated by religious believers. But Dawkins and Harris serve a useful purpose as atheistic visionaries. There are, and always will be, tons of accommodationists and apologists for religion. Hearing a couple of bracing voices who aren’t afraid to loudly point out religions’ ugly side is refreshing.