|
Post by timoneill on Mar 12, 2010 9:29:20 GMT
That's true. Perhaps then you would appreciate a more secular adage: "don't s--- where you eat". I have absolutely no frigging idea what you're talking about, so I find it a bit hard to "appreciate" this.
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Mar 12, 2010 11:27:38 GMT
I think he's saying that most humanists - such as your good self - would still adhere to Matthew 7:12, and it's rather rude to take advantage of "turn-the-other-cheek-Christians" by launching verbal volleys at them. Bit like punching an Ahmish fellow, I suppose. Me, I try and give as good as I get
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 12, 2010 18:01:23 GMT
I think he's saying that most humanists - such as your good self - would still adhere to Matthew 7:12, and it's rather rude to take advantage of "turn-the-other-cheek-Christians" by launching verbal volleys at them. Bit like punching an Ahmish fellow, I suppose. And can you show me where I have launched any "verbal volleys" at any Christians, hoping they won't hit back at me? Sorry - I can't see where I've done this. The two examples of "verbal volleys" of mine that Humphrey quoted were aimed at Charles Freeman and Richard "Artie Ziff" Carrier, neither of whom are Christians. And my original post on this topic could hardly be classed as a "verbal volley" unless you count any form or criticism whatsoever as such. So (if that's what he did mean) you explanation makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Mar 12, 2010 18:16:36 GMT
And can you show me where I have launched any "verbal volleys" at any Christians, hoping they won't hit back at me? Sorry - I was thinking more of Dawkins than you. In times when I've seen you speak sharply to Christians (ie. usually here or on the Quodlibeta blog) you seem perfectly happy to take any response on the chin, which is why I was puzzled to see you criticize someone for their tone towards Dawkins.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 12, 2010 18:39:58 GMT
Don't you mean "Dawkins realises he's made a mistake, humbly admits his error, apologises and makes amends"? I agree, that's how I read it too. I was actually quite surprised at his noble apology, hats off to the man. I wssn't surprised in the slightest. The guy is the epitome of old fashioned courtesy, which is why I find the nonsense about how he's "offensive" and "rude" and "angry" and generally a horrible, horrible man so absurd. It seems the second you disagree with religion without hedging your disagreement about with the most mealy-mouthed, hand-wringing caveats you become "offensive", apparently because religious opinions (unlike political, artistic or sporting ones) must be heavily swathed in something called "respect" and saying anything "disrespectful" (like all religion is wrong) is "offensive". It doesn't matter how courteous or reasonable the person saying it is, simply saying it at all is "rude". You can disagree with what the man says (and I disagree with some of it), but simply because he holds a contrary opinion to you doesn't make what he says "scorn". On Tuesday night Dawkins was part of the guest panel on the Australian live discussion program Q&A, where guests take questions without notice from the live studio audience and via e-mail and Twitter. Dawkins shared the panel with two politicians from the left and the right (both some kind of nominal Christians), a psychologist (ditto), a female rabbi and an independent Senator who is a fundamentalist, Creationist and renowned idiot. Not surprisingly, the audience directed the lion's share of the questions to Dawkins and not the dreary/moronic politicians and he did a great job of winning them over - by halfway through they were applauding his every sentence. Two things were remarkable. One was that, when the compare would throw a religion-oriented question to one of the (Christian) politicians after Dawkins had answered it directly and clearly, they would tie themselves in knots to try not to answer it in any direct way. They kept talking about how uncomfortable they were making any direct statements about their faith. This was deeply weird. Even the rabbi, who you would expect to be fairly clear on what she believed and quite comfortable expressing it, would reply with convoluted, woolly-worded semi-theological pop-philosophical pap that didn't seem to say anything at all. At one point Dawkins was asked to respond so some of her fuzzy hand-waving and he replied "I'm sorry, but I don't know what any of that meant." (lots of laughter and applause from the audience, who seemed to share his sentiment). You'd expect the Creationist, even a moron like Steve Fielding, to be forthright about his beliefs. But even he dodged and weaved madly when challenged to state whether he believed the earth was 10,000 years old. So of course, compared with the wishy-washy, stumbling, gloriously unclear and evasive "believers", Dawkins came across as forthright and clear. The feeble wibbling from the "believers" really made me wonder how much they actually believe what they (sort of) espouse and whether they actually realised their cases were weak. The only point where one grew something close to a backbone was where it was put to Dawkins that there was some nobility in Jesus lying down his life for us. He asked the audience if they really thought it made sense that the only way God could think of to atone for our sins was to become a man and die in agony. That's all he said. At this the Minister for Agriculture Tony Burke, a man who until that point had squirmed to avoid stating clearly whatever it was he believed, suddenly got angry and told Dawkins to stop being "offensive". Understandably confused, since he had said nothing "offensive", Dawkins asked him what he was talking about. Getting increasingly angry (and pompous and condescending) Burke simply repeated "You were offensive." two or three times. The compare then moved on, so we never got to the bottom of what Burke suddenly decided to become so religiously righteous about, but it seems it was yet another case where all someone has to do to be 'offensive" and "scornful" and "rude" is ... disagree with religion openly and clearly and without some kind of nod to this crap about "respect". In other words, it's not the way he says it at all, it's the fact he's saying it at all. If someone tried to shut down their opponent in a debate about any other subject with this "respect" crap they would be rightly regarded as a fatuous clown. Yet we see it all the time when it comes to religion. Sorry guys - your religious beliefs deserve no more "respect" than your political views or your taste in music. None. And simply disagreeing with them clearly and forthrightly is not "offensive" Find me where Dawkins says he wants to urinate on the Virgin Mary or that Jesus was a child rapist and you'd have an example of him being "offensive". But him saying things about your faith that you happen to disagree with doesn't qualify. So suck it up.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 12, 2010 18:49:08 GMT
And can you show me where I have launched any "verbal volleys" at any Christians, hoping they won't hit back at me? Sorry - I was thinking more of Dawkins than you. So how does "don't s___ where you eat" apply to him? I still don't understand. I am actually as mild as a little lamb both here and on the blog, compared to other venues. Several replies on the blog that would get several megatons of sarcastic smack-down elsewhere I let ride because I know that's not the tone of discourse here. And yes, I have a hide as thick as an elephant and have yet to find anyone who can truly offend me online. My criticism was of the weakness of the attacks on Dawkins for his supposed tone. As I've said above, I keep hearing about how "rude" and "offensive" he is and all I keep seeing is an actually very courteous gentleman who doesn't pull his punches in stating that he thinks religion is baseless. It seems that this alone is "disrespectful" and therefore "rude" and "offensive". Which is a bizarre reaction that seems to only exist in relation to religion, which apparently needs to be wrapped up in the insulating cotton wool of "respect".
|
|
|
Post by turoldus on Mar 12, 2010 19:02:22 GMT
I wssn't surprised in the slightest. The guy is the epitome of old fashioned courtesy, which is why I find the nonsense about how he's "offensive" and "rude" and "angry" and generally a horrible, horrible man so absurd. The guy who calls religious believers "faith-heads", routinely assumes they are less intelligent or less educated than he is and describes religious education as "child abuse", among other kindly words, is "the epitome of old fashioned courtesy"? Really? Maybe he thinks he is. You obviously think he is. But this is not how he comes across to the audience he seeks to "convert".
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Mar 12, 2010 19:38:32 GMT
O.K well, since I was the one who started the Dawkins kerfuffle in the first place I may as well defend him in this instance.
I don't know what kind of sweeping statements he has made subsequently, but when he made the 'child abuse' comment in the 'God Delusion', it was in the context of the story of Edgardo Mortara; a Jewish lad who kidnapped by the authorities of the Papal States and raised as Catholic because someone happened to baptise him. The following section was about sexual abuse of children by priests and kids who are told that their friends are going to hell because they happen to belong to the wrong religion. The rest is more about scaring kids with hellfire and teaching them young earth creationism in schools. So, in the context he puts it in the God Delusion, that certain forms of indoctrination are child abuse, hear hear. (In fact, against my expectations, I found myself agreeing with Dawkins through a lot of the God delusion, he even says P.G Wodehouse is 'the greatest writer of light comedy in english' on page 344). Of course secularists necessarily come off any better here. I was raised an atheist and recall very clearly coming to terms with the fact I was going to end up as worm food at a very early age; I was fine a couple of days later though when I won someone's 'Transformer' off them at marbles.
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Mar 12, 2010 19:44:51 GMT
Sorry guys - your religious beliefs deserve no more "respect" than your political views or your taste in music. None. And simply disagreeing with them clearly and forthrightly is not "offensive" Find me where Dawkins says he wants to urinate on the Virgin Mary or that Jesus was a child rapist and you'd have an example of him being "offensive". But him saying things about your faith that you happen to disagree with doesn't qualify. So suck it up. Oh, and I am supposed to 'suck up' when Dawkins not just disagrees about faith (you have a nice way of embellishing things, by the way), but assumes a priori that all believers are 'irrational', that even moderate believers are 'enablers of terrorism' just because they support religion and thus allegedly indirectly support religious radical fundamentalists, and that educating your child in your beliefs is 'child abuse'? C'mon Tim, don't be silly. *** As far as respect goes, all world views that do not lead to harmful extremism and do not flatly contradict science deserve some basic respect -- also atheism. Alas, atheists cannot expect to be respected by believers as long as they (the majority of atheists, at least those vocal in public and on the web) hold falsely, and in the intellectually most childish manner, that all believers are a priori 'irrational' and 'superstitious', and that they themselves have the monopoly on 'rationality'. Fortunately not all atheists are that way. I have a personal friend who is an atheist, and we respect each other very much (and we have a similar sense of humor by the way, which also contributes to make others wonder how we both can get along so well while smiling). He does not behave as just described, and we respect each other's world views because we trust each other's intellectual integrity. That we both are scientists helps.
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Mar 12, 2010 19:49:52 GMT
I wrote my post while Humphrey posted about the 'child abuse' issue. I am not sure that Dawkins' stance is as benign as Humphrey interprets it, but perhaps it is.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Mar 12, 2010 19:57:18 GMT
I don't know that he is, but if Dawkins is saying that all religious education is 'child abuse' it would be a bit silly. After all Dawkins himself was raised in Anglicanism and confirmed in the Church of England. He also went to Oundle school (my school's arch-rival) where you have to attend chapel every morning and do extra long services on Sundays. It obviously didn't do him any harm having to sing 'all things bright and beautiful' before classes every morning.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 12, 2010 20:30:27 GMT
Sorry guys - your religious beliefs deserve no more "respect" than your political views or your taste in music. None. And simply disagreeing with them clearly and forthrightly is not "offensive" Find me where Dawkins says he wants to urinate on the Virgin Mary or that Jesus was a child rapist and you'd have an example of him being "offensive". But him saying things about your faith that you happen to disagree with doesn't qualify. So suck it up. Oh, and I am supposed to 'suck up' when Dawkins not just disagrees about faith (you have a nice way of embellishing things, by the way), but assumes a priori that all believers are 'irrational', that even moderate believers are 'enablers of terrorism' just because they support religion and thus allegedly indirectly support religious radical fundamentalists, and that educating your child in your beliefs is 'child abuse'? C'mon Tim, don't be silly. Yes, you are. And I'm not being "silly". You can disagree with all those things if you want, but to pretend that his sincerely believing things about your ideas that you disagree with is instantly "offensive" is fatuous in the extreme. I disagree with many things theists say about what I believe and do so in much the same way and to the same extent that you disagree with the statement by Dawkins that you highlight above. I could cite theists telling me that I have no rational basis for my morality, or that my atheism must lead inevitably to nihilism or that I just don't have their theological wisdom or that deep down I really believe in God. I find all these things as stupid and wrong as you find those ideas of Dawkins'. But I don't find them "offensive" - that would be absurdly fatuous, defensive and thin-skinned. So what's your excuse? But not to the extent where "respect" extends to not being able to contradict or criticise a given view for fear of being told you are being "offensive". Strangely, only religion seems to claim this peculiar and unique level of "respect". It's that level of respect, epitomised in the spluttering nonsense from the Australian Agriculture Minister I mentioned above, that somehow makes Dawkins saying things that you just happen to disagree with into things which are "offensive". Saying the Virgin Mary had sex with goats is offensive. Saying you think the concept of the Virgin Mary is intrinsically irrational is not. You guys need to deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Mar 12, 2010 20:47:14 GMT
On Tuesday night Dawkins was part of the guest panel on the Australian live discussion program Q&A, where guests take questions without notice from the live studio audience and via e-mail and Twitter. Dawkins shared the panel with two politicians from the left and the right (both some kind of nominal Christians), a psychologist (ditto), a female rabbi and an independent Senator who is a fundamentalist, Creationist and renowned idiot. I didn't watch that show, but your description rings true enough, and makes me cringe a little. I think it often comes down to who the producers ask to appear on the show and who agrees. Why would you put 3 politicians on "against" Dawkins and no scientist and no decent christian apologist? The christian side would have been much better represented by Bishop Robert Forsyth (who I often hear talking very sensibly on Richard Glover's radio program), historian John Dickson, author and lawyer Roy Williams or a scientist who is a christian. The first two at least are Sydneysiders and would have been polite, direct and credible, whether one believed in what they said or not. I'm not sure how they choose people for this sort of thing, but sometimes it feels like a bit of a set-up.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 12, 2010 20:57:32 GMT
On Tuesday night Dawkins was part of the guest panel on the Australian live discussion program Q&A, where guests take questions without notice from the live studio audience and via e-mail and Twitter. Dawkins shared the panel with two politicians from the left and the right (both some kind of nominal Christians), a psychologist (ditto), a female rabbi and an independent Senator who is a fundamentalist, Creationist and renowned idiot. I didn't watch that show, but your description rings true enough, and makes me cringe a little. I think it often comes down to who the producers ask to appear on the show and who agrees. Why would you put 3 politicians on "against" Dawkins and no scientist and no decent christian apologist? The christian side would have been much better represented by Bishop Robert Forsyth (who I often hear talking very sensibly on Richard Glover's radio program), historian John Dickson, author and lawyer Roy Williams or a scientist who is a christian. The first two at least are Sydneysiders and would have been polite, direct and credible, whether one believed in what they said or not. I'm not sure how they choose people for this sort of thing, but sometimes it feels like a bit of a set-up. The show always has at least two or three politicians (one Liberal, one Labor and one independent or minor party if possible) and then two "others". So I don't think it was a set up, it's just that our politicians aren't intellectual giants on any front, faith or otherwise. The highlight of the show was where the loathsome Senator Julie Bishop dropped even the pretence of being a pleasant human being and fixed a member of the audience who dared to interject with a five second "death stare" that would have bored through concrete. It's lovely the way live television can show you what people are really like. www.crikey.com.au/2010/03/09/deathjulie/
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Mar 12, 2010 21:11:13 GMT
Oh, and I am supposed to 'suck up' when Dawkins not just disagrees about faith (you have a nice way of embellishing things, by the way), but assumes a priori that all believers are 'irrational', that even moderate believers are 'enablers of terrorism' just because they support religion and thus allegedly indirectly support religious radical fundamentalists, and that educating your child in your beliefs is 'child abuse'? C'mon Tim, don't be silly. Yes, you are. And I'm not being "silly". You can disagree with all those things if you want, but to pretend that his sincerely believing things about your ideas that you disagree with is instantly "offensive" is fatuous in the extreme. I disagree with many things theists say about what I believe and do so in much the same way and to the same extent that you disagree with the statement by Dawkins that you highlight above. I could cite theists telling me that I have no rational basis for my morality, or that my atheism must lead inevitably to nihilism or that I just don't have their theological wisdom or that deep down I really believe in God. I find all these things as stupid and wrong as you find those ideas of Dawkins'. But I don't find them "offensive" - that would be absurdly fatuous, defensive and thin-skinned. So what's your excuse? What you say here, and the comparisons you use, make little sense to me. This on the other hand I agree with. Both religion and atheism are fair game for criticism. There we go again. 'Irrational' under which premises? That the laws of nature are regularly broken? That would be irrational, since it contradicts the evidence from the world around us. That the laws of nature may sometimes, under extraordinary circumstances, be suspended by God? This is hardly an irrational assumption. It is only irrational under the premise that philosophical naturalism is proven -- which is not the case.
|
|