The Political Thread

[Funt Solo]

1. If God does exist, I'm pretty sure he doesn't care what sort of hats we wear. For some reason though, religious types seem to think this is extremely important.
2. Religion is like a big dog - If it's yours, it can provide great comfort and security, if it's someone else's it can seem scary and threatening; but in either respect, best to keep it away from small children.

I'm with Dandontdare block.

Richard Dawkins is a bit of a wanker, though, and Stephen Fry could always ruin a good episode QI with his tiresomely smug atheism.

C'mon, now. By all means deconstruct their arguments, but ad hominem tactics just don't hold water.

[Robin Low]

Richard Dawkins is a bit of a wanker, though, and Stephen Fry could always ruin a good episode QI with his tiresomely smug atheism.

C'mon, now. By all means deconstruct their arguments, but ad hominem tactics just don't hold water.

A fair point, but smarter people than me have tackled Dawkins. I really don't like the man. IP and TB obviously disagree with my ideas passionately, but they've not sneered at me the way Dawkins does at his opponents.

Fry sadly, regardless of the merits of arguments, is also rather patronising. However, he does have personal problems, and I often feel he's working through his own issues, so yes, it probably is a bit unfair to have a go at him.

Regards,

Robin

[Funt Solo]

More ad hominem rhetoric. Still nothing about their thinking.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

More ad hominem rhetoric. Still nothing about their thinking.

There's such a thing as the fallacy fallacy, where pointing out a fallacy in an argument doesn't negate the argument. The fact that Dawkins is a smug wanker is relevant, because his air of moral and intellectual superiority damages his cause. A dickhead like him makes it that much easier for cynical bad faith (pun intended) arguments that cast science as the enemy of religion when it doesn't have to be. Dawkins indirectly perpetuates backwards tribalism. Something he is fully aware religion exploits.

[Robin Low]

More ad hominem rhetoric. Still nothing about their thinking.

I'm not being critical of their thinking, I'm being critical of their demeanor when discussing the subject.

Regards,

Robin

[Funt Solo]

The problem I have with both your arguments is that they're entirely based on perspective.

I've never found Richard Dawkins to be in the least as you describe. I have never thought him to be a "smug wanker", nor a "dickhead", nor to have some kind of negative "demeanor". I cannot argue that he's not those things in your eyes.

So, you both seem to be arguing against the man, rather than the man's logic.

We could perhaps start discussing the point: which (I assume) is that some people believe in things they have no evidence whatsoever for, and others don't.

That the people who don't believe in fantasy might not be socially to your liking is really neither here nor there. Unless we're discussing whether you'd like to hang out with them (but I didn't think we were).

[Robin Low]

The problem I have with both your arguments is that they're entirely based on perspective.So, you both seem to be arguing against the man, rather than the man's logic.

Yes. My issue is not with the logic, but with the presentation.

That the people who don't believe in fantasy might not be socially to your liking is really neither here nor there. Unless we're discussing whether you'd like to hang out with them (but I didn't think we were).

I'd quite like hang to out with Fry et al on an episode of QI, as long as it wasn't an episode with fucking Clarkson. He's a wanker too (although he was spot on about Brunel).

Regards,

Robin

[JamesC]

You'll have to make do with Sandi Toksvig.

[Robin Low]

You'll have to make do with Sandi Toksvig.

I like her. She's very good.

Regards,

Robin

[Funt Solo]

The problem I have with both your arguments is that they're entirely based on perspective.So, you both seem to be arguing against the man, rather than the man's logic.

Yes. My issue is not with the logic, but with the presentation.

So you agree then that belief in mythical beings is a nonsense?

[M.I.K.]

I've never found Richard Dawkins to be in the least as you describe. I have never thought him to be a "smug wanker", nor a "dickhead", nor to have some kind of negative "demeanor".

I have but it probably wasn't helped by the time he compared the Quran to Mein Kampf or the time he used the term "mild pedophilia" or the time he suggested it wasn't a good idea telling children fairytales because it could lead to them believing in the supernatural.

[Funt Solo]

I've never found Richard Dawkins to be in the least as you describe. I have never thought him to be a "smug wanker", nor a "dickhead", nor to have some kind of negative "demeanor".

I have but it probably wasn't helped by the time he compared the Quran to Mein Kampf or the time he used the term "mild pedophilia" or the time he suggested it wasn't a good idea telling children fairytales because it could lead to them believing in the supernatural.

I'd be interested in reading or hearing the full context in each case.

Perhaps there are some similarities between the Quran and Mein Kampf? For example, this bit seems a bit fascistic:

Fight those who believe not in Allah or the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and are subdued.

As for pedophilia coming up in a discussion of organized religion - well, that's not too surprising, is it? Just as an example: we all know, I think, that the Catholic church has in place a structure that nurtures and supports pedophiles by hiding their actions and moving them to fresh locations where their terrible nature is as yet unknown. Was Dawkins perhaps quoting the Pope?

The part about fairy-tales is intriguing, as Dawkins wrote a book (The Magic of Reality), specifically for children, in which he describes all sorts of fantasy stories (like the Eden myth, for example) as a backdrop to the science.

[sheridan]

I have but it probably wasn't helped by the time he compared the Quran to Mein Kampf or the time he used the term "mild pedophilia" or the time he suggested it wasn't a good idea telling children fairytales because it could lead to them believing in the supernatural.

I'd be interested in reading or hearing the full context in each case.

Perhaps there are some similarities between the Quran and Mein Kampf? For example, this bit seems a bit fascistic:

Fight those who believe not in Allah or the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and are subdued.

As for pedophilia coming up in a discussion of organized religion - well, that's not too surprising, is it? Just as an example: we all know, I think, that the Catholic church has in place a structure that nurtures and supports pedophiles by hiding their actions and moving them to fresh locations where their terrible nature is as yet unknown. Was Dawkins perhaps quoting the Pope?

The part about fairy-tales is intriguing, as Dawkins wrote a book (The Magic of Reality), specifically for children, in which he describes all sorts of fantasy stories (like the Eden myth, for example) as a backdrop to the science.

I'd want to know the context to - otherwise it's like the ad hominem attack on people pointing out certain Israeli policies being accused of being anti-semitic (even if the person pointing out the policies are Israeli jews).

What we'd now call paedophilia seems to be written in to the holy books of two major world religions that I know of - think of all the patriarchs marrying girls of seven or twelve years old - twelve years and one day technically.

[M.I.K.]

Quran/Mein Kampf thing

He once said in an interview that when he was a child a teacher had put his hand inside his shorts and felt him up and had also done the same to other pupils. Direct quote...

Just as we don't look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild paedophilia, and can't find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today.'

He then went on to say "I don't think he did any of us lasting harm". How he assumed he could talk for the other pupils involved, I do not know.

When defending the "mild paedophilia" comment on Twitter he said he'd meant it wasn't as bad as "violent" paedophilia and then compared it to date rape not being as bad as "stranger rape". https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/494012589828218881

His remarks about fairytales were made at the Cheltenham Science Festival, where he was quoted as saying "I think it's rather pernicious to inculcate into a child a view of the world which includes supernaturalism – we get enough of that anyway."

He later backed down, saying he didn't actually think fairytales did that, but he had wondered about it and had sort of thought it, but now he'd changed his mind and that he hoped he didn't look boring. Or something.


...and then there's his really weird (over) reaction to a reasonable request in what became known as Elevatorgate...  https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Elevatorgate

[Funt Solo]

Thanks for all the links and things - that really helps with the context.

Taking a step back for a second from the "do you like or dislike Richard Dawkins" side-debate, I think it's worthwhile following the train of logic that got us here. It went like this:

- IP said that Baroness Varsi, a member of the House of Lords, wanted to entwine religion and governance.
- Robin said (in response to that) that he didn't like Richards Dawkins or Stephen Fry.

So, I'm a bit confused as to how a dislike of two atheists (somewhat in the entertainment industry) excuses the intolerant nature of someone who's actually in a position of power over the laws of the land.

But, anyway, now we're talking about whether or not people like Richard Dawkins.

---

On the "mild pedophilia" quote - it is interesting in context, because at the heart of it he's saying that he doesn't feel he was harmed. I disagree with him (not, obviously, about how he feels about it) about being able to categorize rape by whether anyone was on a date or not. Although, without going into unsavory details, there are degrees of offence. Like ABH vs. GBH, for example.

Does his opinion on this make Baroness Varsi's stance okay? (Or make anyone's gods exist?)

---

The thing about fairytales was actually about (seeing the quote) "supernaturalism". These seem as if they could be two very different things, don't they? Like, "supernaturalism" might include the belief that crystals have healing properties (beyond a placebo), and teaching a child that doesn't seem helpful. Telling them about Hansel & Gretel is different - and surely no parent is telling their kids that the witch is real? And then, what, he's a horrible person because he thought about it and changed his mind?

Does his behavior here make Baroness Varsi's stance okay? (Or make anyone's gods exist?)

---

His tweet comparing the Quran to Mein Kampf is provocative, certainly. Is there a sense in which it's an unfair comparison?

Does his behavior here make Baroness Varsi's stance okay? (Or make anyone's gods exist?)

---

Whatever you think of the elevator story (where his message seemed to be - you think you've got it bad being propositioned in an elevator - there are women getting treated far more unfairly in Saudi Arabia) - he apologized later.

Does his behavior here make Baroness Varsi's stance okay? (Or make anyone's gods exist?)