Monday, January 1, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version

William Crawley, BBC Belfast, names Richard Dawkins as Person of the Year 2006

by William Crawley

Reposted from BBC Belfast:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2006/12/person_of_the_year_2006_1.html

dawkins

This has been a big year for so many people across many fields, but in the field of religion, ethics and ideas, this is one man's year. Like him or loathe him, people are talking about him and his ideas. We recognise Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, as our Person of the Year 2006. This year also marks the 30th anniversary of the publication of his book The Selfish Gene. To some he's "Darwin's rottweiller" (echoing TH Huxley's nickname, "Darwin's bulldog"); to others he's "A Devil's Chaplain" (Darwin's phrase, now the title of one of Dawkins's books). You have voted overwhelmingly for Dawkins, and for many conflicting reasons:

For being everywhere this year, with the publication of his global bestseller, The God Delusion.

For proving that scientists can still change the way people think.

For writing a book (The God Delusion) which enabled Terry Eagleton to write the most negative review ever published.

For thinking clearly in a world that doesn't much value cear thinking anymore.

For saying what he thinks.

For defending the delusion that science and religious faith are incompatible.

For creating the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science.

For writing the most overrated book of the year (in the judgment of Prospect magazine).

For making people talk about the dangers of religious fundamentalism.

For lobbying atheism and humanism into the headlines more than anyone else has done before.

For being the face of science on television across the western world.

For not having been given an honour by the Queen, while being a recipient of the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic and many scientific and literary prizes.

For marrying the actress who played Romana in Doctor Who.

For raising questions that need to be answered by any intelligent religious believer wishing to develop a coherent worldview.

For being a scientific fundamentalist and the worst advert for atheism currently doing a book tour.

For raising a debate about the nature of "science" and how future generations of schoolchildren should be pretected from "pseudo-science".

For being rude and getting away with it.

For these, and many other reasons, Richard Dawkins is our Person of the Year 2006.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, January 1, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 35 of 35 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #15551 by jburdoo on January 1, 2007 at 8:27 am

A balanced and witty article. Congrats to Dr. Dawkins.

Other Comments by jburdoo

2. Comment #15555 by Fouad Boussetta on January 1, 2007 at 9:18 am

Richard Dawkins El Akbar! :)

Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta

3. Comment #15556 by Lionel A on January 1, 2007 at 9:22 am

Balanced, I am not so sure,

Thinking that science and religion are incompatible is a delusion - hum!

For being 'rude' - again hum!

Perhaps Prospect magazine is overrated.

Other Comments by Lionel A

4. Comment #15558 by Peter Hearty on January 1, 2007 at 9:32 am

Congratulations Prof. Dawkins - let's hope we continue to see more and more common sense, and less and less religion in 2007.

Happy New Year!

Other Comments by Peter Hearty

5. Comment #15562 by plastictowel on January 1, 2007 at 10:02 am

I do wonder why so many people find him "rude." Just because he makes valid counter points in open debates, doesn't mean he's "rude."

Other Comments by plastictowel

6. Comment #15564 by Boogie on January 1, 2007 at 10:38 am

I agree, I've watched/listened to Professor Dawkins on many occasions and don't recall him ever being rude, quite the contrary (despite provocation). I think it's just another facet of the 'special respect' that religion demands - if you don't give it that respect, you are seen as being rude.

Other Comments by Boogie

7. Comment #15565 by yeahok on January 1, 2007 at 10:42 am

He is very rude:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEl4QfcAK2o

...but I still think he's right.

Other Comments by yeahok

8. Comment #15566 by Jack Rawlinson on January 1, 2007 at 10:44 am

Congratulations, professor Dawkins. Well-deserved.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

9. Comment #15567 by Boogie on January 1, 2007 at 10:47 am

[In reply to comment #15565] That wasn't rude, it was a joke, and someone else's words!

Other Comments by Boogie

10. Comment #15568 by yeahok on January 1, 2007 at 10:57 am

Also, a big part of his arguments are to show how silly the idea of a God is.

Things like, "You might as well believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster." really annoy people because it shows how ridiculous their God is. Sure he may be right, but it still comes off as rude.

Other Comments by yeahok

11. Comment #15574 by kerstens on January 1, 2007 at 11:45 am

Can you point me which word rude is in "You might as well believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster."
It's rather a provocation that asks for a funded reply and that's what he's after ...

Other Comments by kerstens

12. Comment #15575 by Boogie on January 1, 2007 at 11:46 am

[In reply to comment #15568] I think there is a difference between giving offence and being rude. If a theist takes offence, that is their problem. I wouldn't take offence if a theist caricatured me as an ape (quite the contrary, in fact).

Other Comments by Boogie

13. Comment #15577 by Donald on January 1, 2007 at 12:04 pm

Congratulations!
Nice end to a great year.

Other Comments by Donald

14. Comment #15581 by kmccardle on January 1, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Congrats To R.D.!

As to him coming off as rude, that's precisely the sort of thing he is helping to raise consciousness about. Often his comments seem rude because of the respect and deference shown to religion without reason. When you question someone's religious beliefs you're automatically labeled as rude even if the same/similar question in any other context wouldn't be.

Other Comments by kmccardle

15. Comment #15584 by Dylan Dog on January 1, 2007 at 12:39 pm

Congratualtions Richard!

On another matter- on William Crawleys blog there are quite a few articles about Andy McIntosh and the resultant replies from creationists, if anyone would like to join the debate-please come and join us!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2006/12/person_of_the_year_2006_1.html

Other Comments by Dylan Dog

16. Comment #15588 by poppythinks on January 1, 2007 at 12:52 pm

excellent news, congratulations on your fame/notoriety professor RD - and being 'good' and 'bad' - so, you're well-rounded also........!
thanks so much for TGD - best read ever.

as for the 'rude' debate - well i'm prepared to be very very 'rude' about what i think while this planet is governed by destructive godders.

along with religious indoctrination i was taught to be polite and quiet. No more.
yours obnoxiously, with lots of smilies

Other Comments by poppythinks

17. Comment #15596 by Lionel A on January 1, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Dylan Dog:

I have just had a quick look there, read as far as Billy and bailed out. Who was he, 'Billy Graham Junior' or was his rant supposed to be satire?

Other Comments by Lionel A

18. Comment #15599 by Dylan Dog on January 1, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Hi Lionel A,

Unfortuantely I do believe this is satire. The site is from N. Ireland and we have the most fundamentalists in the Uk. What Billy wrote was actually quite mild in comparison to some things I have heard ie., from Ian Paisley.

Other Comments by Dylan Dog

19. Comment #15600 by Dylan Dog on January 1, 2007 at 2:24 pm

that should be NOT satire!

Other Comments by Dylan Dog

20. Comment #15601 by NoLongerHaveBelief on January 1, 2007 at 2:25 pm

I'd say Professor Dawkins is definitely the person of the year for 2006!

I've not known him to be rude. Quite the opposite, infact. Many Theists enter this forum and complain and moan and launch into many varied Ad Hominem attacks. Indeed, the Professor is always gracious and never complains, moans or winges - infact, he never feels hard done by.

Contrast that with many a Theist in here... especially that 'loving God man' David A Robertson. He IS rude. VERY RUDE and SARCASTIC.

Well done Professor D! Keep up the good work in 2007! I've already bought both my Father and Father-in-law copies of TGD - and they love it too!

Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief

21. Comment #15608 by sandipchitale on January 1, 2007 at 3:04 pm

Congratulations Professor Richard Dawkins.

Other Comments by sandipchitale

22. Comment #15612 by Deornorth on January 1, 2007 at 3:19 pm

My first post and just wanted to congratulate Prof Dawkins and urge him to continue his hard work.

Having seen a debate on science and religion (can't remember the precise details)a few years back I would say that Richard is extremely polite and tolerant of some very aggressive rude questions- I came away very impressed...

Other Comments by Deornorth

23. Comment #15613 by Irate Harry on January 1, 2007 at 3:20 pm

Well done, Professor Dawkins. You have indeed taken up and led the good fight along with Sam, Dan, et al. Long may it continue and inspire other British and American thought leaders.

Your contributions are a potent antidote to the religious hubris that has cynically and illegitimately usurped power by conning the gullible.

I only wish there were more like you, because the battle is going to be a long one.

Wish you a fulfilling New Year.

Other Comments by Irate Harry

24. Comment #15615 by scottishgeologist on January 1, 2007 at 3:33 pm

Yes, Congrats and keep up the good work. I think things may be at some sort of critical mass now - just look at the reaction of some of the faith-heads.

Alister Mcgrath bringing out a book called the"Dawkins Delusion" - the same guy who gave us "Dawkins God". By putting so much effort into attacking one person (rather than the whole concept) it just shows how rattled he is. The book title itslef is an ad hominem attack. And this is from one of the supposed leading "anti-Dawkinsists" You've lost already, sonny.

And as for that David Robertson stuff - boy, was the cage well and truly rattled. When so much effort is put into simply defending thier ridiculous position, it shows how much they fear the truth. And as a consequence, David Robertsons church web site has been hammered with seriously good anti-reliigous arguments - wonder how many doubts that might have sown? Well done, good Rev, you've scored a good own goal there. Never mind, no doubt you'll spin it as some sort of "evangelistic opportunity" Loser.

Have a happy and superstition free 2007

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

25. Comment #15621 by HappyPrimate on January 1, 2007 at 4:36 pm

I think it is marvelous that Dr. Dawkins received this honor. He is out there to make enough noise (coherently) about the silliness in the beliefs of religious people so that maybe they will fight back by learning where he is coming from. If they do that, they will learn more science. He must provoke people out of their delusions. It won't work for all but there may be enough to get the ball rolling. Also, his speaking out is such an inspiration to us to sing along.
Congrats! Happy 2007!

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

26. Comment #15650 by icouldbewrongbut on January 1, 2007 at 9:49 pm

I don't understand this. _Whose_ man of the year is he?

Other Comments by icouldbewrongbut

27. Comment #15655 by Zaphod on January 1, 2007 at 10:22 pm

He gets my vote.

Other Comments by Zaphod

28. Comment #15661 by Ian on January 1, 2007 at 10:51 pm

Congratulations Professor Dawkins.

I knew you were special about twenty years ago when I first read this:

"They (leaders who forbid contraception) express a preference for 'natural' methods of population limitation, and a natural method is exactly what they are going to get. It is called starvation." - The Selfish Gene, Chapter 7

I'm glad the rest of the country has caught up! :-)

Other Comments by Ian

29. Comment #15662 by Veronique on January 1, 2007 at 10:52 pm

He has had my vote for 25 years. Well deserved Prof. Keep up the good fight. Don't even think what they mean by rude. Your tolerance in the often appalling thrusts at you from the religites is highly commendable. Never, ever suffer fools gladly. My gentle father taught me that.
Your sometimes testy responses seem very restrained to me.
In contrast to your vilification from religites, these pages and pages and more pages from the rest of us must help. You and Harris and Dennett (and I know there are many others but I only have so many hours in a day and am just waking up from a deep sleep of not caring about any of it) are our voices. You all have profiles. Not many of us do; all we can give is our support.
You have it.
Congratulations. Whose man of the year? Every rational thinking person in the world. Will that do icouldbewrongbut?

Other Comments by Veronique

30. Comment #15664 by Yavikins on January 1, 2007 at 11:02 pm

w00t, this is great. :) I think Dawkins certainly deserves the honour.

And regarding Alister McGrath's Dawkins-bashing books, hasn't he anything else to do with his time besides coming out with books like 'Dawkins' God' and 'The Dawkins Delusion'? Obsessed much?

Other Comments by Yavikins

31. Comment #15742 by stereoroid on January 2, 2007 at 12:05 pm

Any readers of the BBC NI article who see this are going to comment "these irony-deficient atheists just don't get it". Crawley seems to be grudgingly reporting the results of a poll he doesn't agree with. Some of the comments echo Iain Paisley's Calvinistic "Thou Shalt Not" attitude in parts - as if words uttered in lugubrious tones are more convincing than the same words spoken normally. Hardly complimentary.

Other Comments by stereoroid

32. Comment #15749 by poppythinks on January 2, 2007 at 12:49 pm

evening all,
just sent an email to news@channel4.com to register Dawkins as most important political
person of the year....why dont we all make an effort to nominate him so even more people
get to read The God Delusion.

Other Comments by poppythinks

33. Comment #15751 by poppythinks on January 2, 2007 at 1:02 pm

trying to get all Dawkins supporters to nominate him for most important political person of the year...channel 4 news tonight....email your
nomination to news@channel4.com tonight!!
tell all your atheist friends, it would be so great even if he got a mention and lots more people got to read The God Delusion.

Other Comments by poppythinks

34. Comment #15791 by G Bile on January 3, 2007 at 2:38 am

I was intrigued by the third reason for selecting Prof. Dawkins as man of the year:
*For writing a book (The God Delusion) which enabled Terry Eagleton to write the most negative review ever published*
This review (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html) is well worth reading, in my opinion.
I understand from it that mr. Eagleton finds that Dawkins attacks the wrong God: the bully/savior God that most believers pray to and want to be loved by.
Mr. Eagletons God is a 'Theologians' God, of whom Dawkins knows nothing.
Mr. Eagleton gives several definitions (descriptions ?) of this God, some are difficult to understand (by me), some seems to be conflicting to me but one looks promising:
*He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing*
'God the Answer', how can we interpret this?
An analogy could be:
The 'Cork' is the answer to why wine will not flow out of the winebottle when we hold it upside down. But this may be to naturalistic, bottle, wine, cork, are all natural things.
So a better analogy may be:
'Gravity' is the answer to why wine will flow out of the winebottle (uncorked !) when we hold it upside down.
Here some 'outside agency' does the work.
With this in mind, I can somehow imagine the 'Something-maker' responsible for there being 'something' rather than 'nothing'. We perceive ourselves (and the rest of the universe) as indeed being 'something', so somewhere 'out there' there must be a Something-maker, who can't be natural itself, so we might call it supernatural.
Of course nothing in this line of reasoning suggests any connection to: a Creator who is 'all-loving' etc.; a divine son of a virgin; or all the myths of Holy Books.
It only suggests a supernatural 'Something-maker'.
But then a further question comes up in my mind regarding the just 'proven' existence of the 'supernatural' with at least one inhabitant:
Why is there something (supernatural) rather than nothing (supernatural)? Could the answer be: the (hypernatural) GOD ?
These are the theological (deological, xenological ?) questions Dawkins did not address !
But likely the theologians will forbid us to ask these kind of questions about the supernatural, because we know nothing about it.

Take care.

Other Comments by G Bile

35. Comment #16094 by Ivan The Not So Bad on January 4, 2007 at 3:23 pm