Dawkins Demolished

[amateur51]

I can't think of one post in which someone has said "blimey, I hadn't seen it like that before". It is obviously always going to be that way.

I think that you set very high standards for the Board & for yourself, Lat. I think that a certain amount of standing back & reading between the lines is required.

I'd be amazed if a thread about religion didn't include questions about religions & their treatment of gay men, frankly given the centuries of abuse we have had to put up with right to this present day. You only have to look at the state that the Anglican church regularly gets itself into, and the Catholic church but in a different way.

Do you really think that I read the deliberately vicious nonsense of Cardinal Bertone, for one, and say to myself "Ho hum! Another day in Happy Valley!" It is an almost daily afront to my very existence

[John Skelton]

As Whitman remarked: 'Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.' No politician would sign up to that

http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2007/07/iraq-arab-saddam-iran-hitchens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcvgAMnMne0

The bit where he explains that George W Bush Jr. was referring to Hannah Arendt when he talked of an Axis of Evil is fascinating. I'd never have thought it! (Especially as I was under the impression that Bush was one of those religious nutters ).

"It has been nearly impossible to determine exact civilian casualty figures during and after the US invasion." http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spo...491536746.html

'Hitchslaps'.

aeolium. I know that Richard Dawkins opposed the Iraq War (and supported the occupation of Afghanistan). The text you link to dates from 2006. Given that he was and is fulsome in his praise for Christopher Hitchens I wonder if he has changed his mind or just stopped mentioning it? It doesn't look to me like an incidental eccentricity of Hitchens' career as a journalist and commentator.

"You will not, however, hear many condemnations of these things from Marxists - religious oppression is not important, only economic." I'd strongly dispute that. A Marxist might suggest that concentrating only on religious oppression is a good way of making economic oppression invisible and establishing a distinction between enlightened us and purblind them. So that some of 'us' can continue to enjoy the benefits of 'their' economic oppression (if necessary 'liberating' 'them' in the process to ensure that remains the case).

[amateur51]

http://www.newstatesman.com/society/...-iran-hitchens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcvgAMnMne0

The bit where he explains that George W Bush Jr. was referring to Hannah Arendt when he talked of an Axis of Evil is fascinating. I'd never have thought it! (Especially as I was under the impression that Bush was one of those religious nutters ).

"It has been nearly impossible to determine exact civilian casualty figures during and after the US invasion." http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spo...491536746.html

'Hitchslaps'.

We will have to wait decades I guess to find out if the Arab Spring was conclusively positive and if its causes were spontaneous, principally about new social media, or whether the invasion of Iraq played some part in it. Did that invasion show people in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, etc that permitting the West to do your dirty work for you was not a good idea, far better to generate you own public protest and then permit limited involvement by NATO to advance the process. Who knows?

But I do think that Hitchens got this wrong, clearly.

[aeolium]

Given that he was and is fulsome in his praise for Christopher Hitchens I wonder if he has changed his mind or just stopped mentioning it?

No, I don't think so. I think Dawkins admired Hitchens' writing and obviously he was a fellow-atheist, but it's possible surely to admire someone (even be friends with them) and yet disagree strongly with some of their opinions? This In Memoriam comment a couple of months ago still refers to the disagreement.

Why is it the case that 'concentrating only on religious oppression is a good way of making economic oppression invisible'? If you are dealing with an Islamic theocracy how can you not to a large extent focus on the way in which political - and economic - policy is dictated along religious lines, since those in charge are clerics, or answerable to clerics?

How did the slogan on the bus go - something about now enjoy your life?

Personally, I think too much attention is being paid to slogans on buses and blogs. What do you expect - a carefully worked out argument on a bus? I think Dawkins is his own worst enemy in relying overmuch on these short hits which inevitably turn into sloganeering and simplification. I'd still recommend his book as a thought-provoking contribution to the debate, and perhaps too many people reject his work on the basis of an article, or an interview - or perhaps a slogan on a bus.

[amateur51]

No, I don't think so. I think Dawkins admired Hitchens' writing and obviously he was a fellow-atheist, but it's possible surely to admire someone (even be friends with them) and yet disagree strongly with some of their opinions? This In Memoriam comment a couple of months ago still refers to the disagreement.

Why is it the case that 'concentrating only on religious oppression is a good way of making economic oppression invisible'? If you are dealing with an Islamic theocracy how can you not to a large extent focus on the way in which political - and economic - policy is dictated along religious lines, since those in charge are clerics, or answerable to clerics?



Personally, I think too much attention is being paid to slogans on buses and blogs. What do you expect - a carefully worked out argument on a bus? I think Dawkins is his own worst enemy in relying overmuch on these short hits which inevitably turn into sloganeering and simplification. I'd still recommend his book as a thought-provoking contribution to the debate, and perhaps too many people reject his work on the basis of an article, or an interview - or perhaps a slogan on a bus.

Thank you aeolium!

[John Skelton]

This In Memoriam comment a couple of months ago still refers to the disagreement.

It does, but is Richard Dawkins the author? His name is 'tagged' thus "Catholic Church, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Henry Kissinger, Intelligence Squared, Iraq War, Mother Theresa, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Stephen Fry", http://reality-based-world.org/2011/12/16/in-memoriam/ but that's all I can see. Incidentally I don't see what is "literally communist" about (human rights – he would often address audiences as “comrades”).

Why is it the case that 'concentrating only on religious oppression is a good way of making economic oppression invisible'? If you are dealing with an Islamic theocracy how can you not to a large extent focus on the way in which political - and economic - policy is dictated along religious lines, since those in charge are clerics, or answerable to clerics?

Because economic oppression is overwhelmingly not a local matter. It's both engine and product of global capitalism and it isn't accidental that where local economies (if those local economies offer significant scope for the generation of profit for global capitalism) are seen as uncooperative 'liberation' of one kind or another follows. Then the client intellectuals like Christopher Hitchens get to work.

Personally, I think too much attention is being paid to slogans on buses and blogs. What do you expect - a carefully worked out argument on a bus? I think Dawkins is his own worst enemy in relying overmuch on these short hits which inevitably turn into sloganeering and simplification. I'd still recommend his book as a thought-provoking contribution to the debate, and perhaps too many people reject his work on the basis of an article, or an interview - or perhaps a slogan on a bus.

Slogans aren't, in my view, unfortunately attenuated arguments. They are a distinct, specific, genre and if someone puts a slogan on a blog or a bus then it's as valid to discuss that slogan as it is to discuss a book.

[amateur51]

Slogans aren't, in my view, unfortunately attenuated arguments. They are a distinct, specific, genre and if someone puts a slogan on a blog or a bus then it's as valid to discuss that slogan as it is to discuss a book.

I refer to m'learned colleague, Ms Rice-Davies

[french frank]

it's possible surely to admire someone (even be friends with them) and yet disagree strongly with some of their opinions?

So isn't it possible to accept 'religion' in a general way while disagreeing strongly with some of its manifestations?


Following on from that: I'm not sure that pointing to the 'evils' - injustices and sufferings - that have been the direct consequence of religious laws and disputes contributes much to the debate on religion v. atheism. Atheism holds that the world and human beings would be much better off without religion. However, that presupposes that religion is a purely human construct which can be dismantled if/when it becomes inconvenient. But that is what the argument is supposed to prove: it can't be used as part of the argument. Part of the rhetoric, yes.

[aeolium]

It does, but is Richard Dawkins the author?

That's what it says at the top - Tag Archive:Richard Dawkins, and the content is consistent with Dawkins being the author.

Because economic oppression is overwhelmingly not a local matter. It's both engine and product of global capitalism and it isn't accidental that where local economies (if those local economies offer significant scope for the generation of profit for global capitalism) are seen as uncooperative 'liberation' of one kind or another follows.

That's one way of absolving the governments of those countries from any responsibility for the conditions of their own peoples, isn't it, to blame everything on Western capitalism (or should that be Eastern capitalism, since China is increasingly the engine driving the flow of capital and goods these days?) Is it the fault of Western capitalism that women cannot drive in Saudi Arabia, or that adulterous women are punished more severely than adulterous men, or that gays can be and are executed in Iran? Was the rebellion in Iran following the presidential election primarily caused by economic oppression?

Slogans aren't, in my view, unfortunately attenuated arguments. They are a distinct, specific, genre and if someone puts a slogan on a blog or a bus then it's as valid to discuss that slogan as it is to discuss a book.

Then in my view that is a way of terminally impoverishing debates, since it reduces everything to the discussion of soundbites rather than properly developed and elaborated arguments. Isn't it more productive to discuss the arguments contained in a book than a slogan written on a bus?

[aeolium]

So isn't it possible to accept 'religion' in a general way while disagreeing strongly with some of its manifestations?

Yes, and I am sure that is what many people including secularists and atheists do - and you could say it is not only possible but unavoidable as it so clearly a reality in all societies. It's also possible to reject the claims of religion to explain the origins of the universe and mankind, and to reject its claim to a privileged position in prescribing a code of behaviour to people in society and - in theocratic societies for example - in enforcing that code on people whether they believe in it or not.

I'm not sure that pointing to the 'evils' - injustices and sufferings - that have been the direct consequence of religious laws and disputes contributes much to the debate on religion v. atheism.

Possibly not - I was responding to a point made about a Dawkins remark about Islam. The core questions - which I hope would be brought out in the debate between Dawkins and Rowan Williams today - are surely about whether the fundamental claims of religion are true, and principally the claim about the existence of God. Everything else - the privileged positions of religious institutions and their powers to influence people's behaviour - depends on that.

[Lateralthinking1]

I think that you set very high standards for the Board & for yourself, Lat. I think that a certain amount of standing back & reading between the lines is required. I'd be amazed if a thread about religion didn't include questions about religions & their treatment of gay men, frankly given the centuries of abuse we have had to put up with right to this present day. You only have to look at the state that the Anglican church regularly gets itself into, and the Catholic church but in a different way. Do you really think that I read the deliberately vicious nonsense of Cardinal Bertone, for one, and say to myself "Ho hum! Another day in Happy Valley!" It is an almost daily afront to my very existence

Just back from food shopping. I wasn't meaning to sound critical. More disappointed. I try to learn from contributors as well as giving opinions, hopefully being thought provoking in the best sense and trying a bit to arbitrate. Cardinal Bertone isn't someone I know. I was aware of Basil Hume but he is the only Catholic cardinal I could name. I could name very few leading Jewish, Muslim, even Anglican figures. I take most notice of the supposedly democratically elected. To be frank, I have felt encouraged to learn a great deal more about Hitchens and Dawkins than I knew of them before because of discussions on this Board. It has been rewarding. But it is bad enough when MPs are not as they should be. Political religion doesn't always deserve the oxygen of publicity.

I wonder whether there is something about religion, other than it is institutional, that makes its position on sexuality more objectionable than that of, say, white van man. Is it that it is seen as claiming a morality that van drivers wouldn't claim? Or is it about experience of religion in school etc? We had harvest festivals, sang carols to the mentally ill, I remember reading a poem in church on one occasion. That was about it. It was quite nice. I can see how the more extreme elements in the hierarchy are far removed from that cosy picture but they always seem to me to be undemocratically political. It isn't as if I could vote in three years time for someone else.

I thought the thread would most obviously be about creationism v evolutionary theory. It has criss crossed quite a lot what with evolutionary theory v Islamification, evolutionary theory plus sexual orientation v Christianity, the established church v secularism plus evolutionary theory plus sexual orientation plus Islamification. In many ways that is a good thing but it doesn't provide comment on Dawkins's science. I would particularly like to see some follow-up on Bryn's comments about Dawkins. The science point more than the Islamophobia. I have made up my mind that Dawkins isn't credible but it would be interesting to hear from scientists and other evolutionists about people who they think argue the case for evolution well. There are probably hundreds and yet we never get to hear their names. Or we could hear more about why Dawkins is a brilliant evolutionist whatever his opponents say. That is not to say all topics can't or shouldn't continue. It's not for me to dictate, nor would I want to.

[John Skelton]

That's what it says at the top - Tag Archive:Richard Dawkins, and the content is consistent with Dawkins being the author.

The direct link, from the blog home page, gives http://reality-based-world.org/2011/12/16/in-memoriam/. There Dawkins is only one 'tagged' name and not '"at the top".

That's one way of absolving the governments of those countries from any responsibility for the conditions of their own peoples, isn't it, to blame everything on Western capitalism (or should that be Eastern capitalism, since China is increasingly the engine driving the flow of capital and goods these days?) Is it the fault of Western capitalism that women cannot drive in Saudi Arabia, or that adulterous women are punished more severely than adulterous men, or that gays can be and are executed in Iran? Was the rebellion in Iran following the presidential election primarily caused by economic oppression?

Only if you are interested in absolving governments from any responsibility, which I'm not. Of course the governments of those countries are responsible for those acts. You wrote:

"You will not, however, hear many condemnations of these things from Marxists - religious oppression is not important, only economic."

I suggested that was untrue, but that it serves capitalism well to focus on "these things" and to ignore global economic oppression. It's the paradox, if you like, of America denouncing terrorist states. If you think I think it's OK for the Iranian state to execute gays you are mistaken.

Then in my view that is a way of terminally impoverishing debates, since it reduces everything to the discussion of soundbites rather than properly developed and elaborated arguments. Isn't it more productive to discuss the arguments contained in a book than a slogan written on a bus?

Tell that to the people who write the slogans and hire the buses, then. They've chosen to adopt that genre of discourse - to then say, oh I / we don't exactly mean that, read the developed and elaborated arguments, is utterly disingenuous. IMV, of course.

[Bryn]

The direct link, from the blog home page, gives http://reality-based-world.org/2011/12/16/in-memoriam/. ... Tell that to the people who write the slogans and hire the buses, then. They've chosen to adopt that genre of discourse - to then say, oh I / we don't exactly mean that, read the developed and elaborated arguments, is utterly disingenuous. IMV, of course.

The atheist bus slogans were a response, rather than an initiative:

How did the Atheist Bus Campaign start?

The Atheist Bus Campaign began when comedy writer Ariane Sherine wrote a Comment is Free article in June 2008 about the Christian adverts running on London buses. These ads featured the URL of a website which said non-Christians would burn in hell for all eternity. Ariane suggested that atheists reading her article could each donate £5 to fund a reassuring counter-advert.

from: http://www.humanism.org.uk/bus-campaign

[french frank]

Possibly not - I was responding to a point made about a Dawkins remark about Islam. The core questions - which I hope would be brought out in the debate between Dawkins and Rowan Williams today - are surely about whether the fundamental claims of religion are true, and principally the claim about the existence of God. Everything else - the privileged positions of religious institutions and their powers to influence people's behaviour - depends on that.

Exactly. (I left an extra line between my first sentence - to you - and the rest which was aimed nowhere in particular).

Anyone can criticise or disagree with the 'teaching' and 'laws' of particular religions; and condemn the outrageous atrocities and injustices perpetrated in the name of and in pursuance of such religions. That isn't atheism, nor does atheism follow as a logical conclusion from them.

[John Skelton]

I refer to m'learned colleague, Ms Rice-Davies

If I write a book advancing a theory of religious delusion, if I begin an entry on the website for the foundation which bears my name - The John Skelton Foundation for the Dissemination of Enlightenment and Feeling Very Superior to People Who Aren't Enlightened - with "Given that Islam is such an unmitigated evil" the latter statement is not a footnote to the book. It doesn't refer to the book, it isn't some cryptic formulation which requires hours of diligent research in other of my publications to decode it. It is a stand-alone statement which is as unambiguous as a statement can be (with the exception of that interesting word "evil" and here I am grateful to Christopher Hitchens for explaining that henceforth "evil"as in "Axis of Evil" is to be glossed after Hannah Arendt, and contains no trace of theological reference. Especially (?) when used by George W. Bush Jr.).