Andrew Brown on Dawkins

the_monkey

From the guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/22/richard-dawkins-islamophobic

Sorry if posted allready:

Richard Dawkins has accused Mehdi Hasan of not being a serious journalist for his belief that Islam's prophet Muhammad was carried to heaven on a winged horse. Photograph: Murdo Macleod[/COLOR]

Richard Dawkins and Twitter make one of the world's great pairings, like face and custard pie. But whereas more accomplished clowns ram custard pies into the faces of their enemies, Dawkins' technique is to ram his own face into the custard pie, repeatedly. I suppose it saves time and it's a lot of fun to watch. On Sunday afternoon he was at it again, wondering why the New Statesman employs an imaginative and believing Muslim:

"Mehdi Hasan admits to believing Muhamed [sic] flew to heaven on a winged horse. And New Statesman sees fit to print him as a serious journalist."

But this is only half the fun. The real comedy comes when he lifts his face from the pie, dripping scorn and custard, to glare at the audience who can't see how very rational he is. Because there are some people who don't understand that everything Dawkins says illuminates the beauty of reason.
For instance, Tom Watson, the MP who pursued Murdoch, tweeted backalmost at once: "You really are a gratuitously unpleasant man". To this Dawkins replied "Actually no. Just frank. You'd ridicule palpably absurd beliefs of any other kind. Why make an exception for religion?"
"You are gratuitously unpleasant; I am just frank" comes straight out of the Yes Minister catechism of irregular verbs.
But it gets better. Dawkins continues: "A believes in fairies. B believes in winged horses. Criticise A and you're rational. Criticise B and you're a bigoted racist Islamophobe." It is of course horribly unfair to call Dawkins a bigoted racist Islamophobe. Anyone who follows him knows he is an equal opportunities bigot who is opposed to Christians of every colour as well.
But if you will tweet, as he has previously done, that "I have often said that Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today", then us inferior, less rational types can easily suppose that he means what he says, and that therefore he does think that Muslims, especially proselytising ones like Mehdi Hasan, are spreading evil and should not be employed by respectable magazines.
Of course Dawkins would probably deny with complete sincerity that this is what he means – until the next time he says it. This doesn't make him unusually hypocritical. It just means that he thinks the same way as people who believe stories that are differently ridiculous to his – that thetwelfth imam will return, or that Muhammad ascended to heaven on a winged horse.

robindch

I think Mr Brown should lay off the alter wine.

Penn

I think Dawkins was wrong in this instance.

So long as Hasan's beliefs don't influence or impact his articles or stories, what's the issue with whether he follows a religion or not?

Let's face it, with John Waters, we know what articles can be like when that does happen. So long as it doesn't happen here (and I don't believe New Statesman would publish any articles which do), then Dawkins is essentially saying he shouldn't have been hired due to his personal beliefs and that's wrong.

However, I don't agree that it's Islamaphobic. Dawkins is an equal-opportunities hater when it comes to religion.

Turtwig

Am I the only one who got reminded of David Quinn's tweets here?
That Tweet by Dawkins in unacceptable in my view. Does he forget that some scientists who won the Nobel prizes believed in zanier sh*t?

magicbastarder

dawkins comes across like a bit of an asshole here. he should have picked on an article the journalist had written as an example of his beliefs affecting his work - if such an article does exist.
in the absence of this, it's just a personal attack.

endacl

In fairness, much though I enjoy his work, RD can come across as a bit of an A-Hole sometimes....

This was a little unfair on a singer who doesn't really make a big deal of his (entirely madey uppy) faith.

Not a big Brandon Flowers fan although he always seems a pretty down to earth decent sort, and the interviewer handled things rather badly in this instance. Dawkins came out of this one looking a bit ... bullyish?

robindch

Penn wrote: »

Dawkins is essentially saying he shouldn't have been hired due to his personal beliefs and that's wrong.

I've never heard of Mehdi Hasan before and, so far as I can see, he seems to be a political journalist of some kind. In that case, he's most likely writing about the opinions of other people, or the opinions he thinks they hold, who's on the way up and who's on the way down and so on. That's not the kind of hard, investigative journalism which needs the kind of super-rational mind that Dawkins seems to be looking for. So while Dawkins is right, I think he's missing the point (and not for the first time).

My beef with Mr Brown is that he takes Dawkins' "serious journalist" comment and claims that Dawkins means that Hasan is "spreading evil and should not be employed by respectable magazines" comment -- that's unfair and unjustified, though I'm sure Mr Brown doesn't worry about either of those problems very much.

Sycopat

Does Dawkins have a book out soon?

Some of those tweets are ridiculous.

Although I feel the writer of the article isn't trying very hard to maintain the moral high ground here either.

Turtwig

Yeah I think fair is fair. Mr Brown's article was unnecessary condescending vitriol.

Dades

Jernal wrote: »

Yeah I think fair is fair. Mr Brown's article was unnecessary condescending vitriol.

Dawkins was first to swing his handbag, to be fair.

PogMoThoin

Here it is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRd-jlV82BI

TheChizler

He's not great on the old twitter machine all right, can be very reactionary and jumps to conclusions. No brain-to-keyboard filter. A shame as everything else he comes out with is generally of a superior quality.

stevejazzx

Hmmmm
Quite confused re: boards posters opinions here
While I can definitely sympathise with the idea that Dawkins has certain social deficiencies and also his inability to win over or even identify with people of other beliefs (as NDG Tyson once famously pointed out) I am really not offended by this tweet.

If reason is to be held above all things then yes someones ultimate reasoning including their religious belief should be considered. In our current PC society this course of action is almost completely unheard of not because it encompasses the wrong methodology but because it leads to a socially difficult situation and perhaps even a litigious one.

Its weird that in aspiring to the ideals we all champion Dawkins somehow comes off as obnoxious or lofty. If this tweet had of been targeted at a non religious figure I dont think it would have caused such a ripple. For some reason there is still a delicate threading ground that must be obeyed in regard to criticising practising members of any given religion, particularly Islam.

Judging by the reaction here it appears that it is ok socially to directly criticise a 'religion' but not its general members (save for some extreme examples). I'm not sure I find this approach particularly honest on behalf of us non-believers.

swampgas

I have to admit to being on Dawkins' side on this one.

In conventional terms, Dawkins is being rather rude and confrontational.

However, sometimes there is no polite way to say "these things you claim to believe to be literal truth are utterly ridiculous". I think commonly held wacky religious beliefs like the winged horse are like the emperor's new clothes: they gain credibility when they go unchallenged.

Religious people continuously spout all kinds of nonsense, and almost always it goes unchallenged, simply because it's religion. If the odd cranky atheist is prepared to stick his head above the parapet now and then and call them out on the most egregious of their crackpot ideas, well, I think that's a very good thing.

Penn

swampgas wrote: »

I have to admit to being on Dawkins' side on this one.

In conventional terms, Dawkins is being rather rude and confrontational.

However, sometimes there is no polite way to say "these things you claim to believe to be literal truth are utterly ridiculous". I think commonly held wacky religious beliefs like the winged horse are like the emperor's new clothes: they gain credibility when they go unchallenged.

Religious people continuously spout all kinds of nonsense, and almost always it goes unchallenged, simply because it's religion. If the odd cranky atheist is prepared to stick his head above the parapet now and then and call them out on the most egregious of their crackpot ideas, well, I think that's a very good thing.

That's not the issue (at least not how I see it)

The issue is that Dawkins is putting forward the claim that Hasan's personal beliefs means that he shouldn't have been hired as a journalist for the New Statesman. That his personal beliefs means he's not able to do his job correctly. That's wrong, and discriminatory.

I completely agree that Hasan's personal beliefs are ridiculous and should be challenged, as should all religious beliefs. But those beliefs shouldn't stop a person from being hired to a job in which those beliefs should have no impact in his ability to do the job anyway.

Not hiring Hasan due to his religious beliefs even though he was otherwise the best candidate for the position would be discrimination, and I really think that Dawkins has discredited atheists in general with his attitude.

pH

Despite what people think about Dawkins, he sometimes says things (on the internet) that he probably shouldn't.

Except unlike 99.99% of internet contributors, as an honest rational man he's not afraid to admit a mistake and say sorry.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/3846

Dawkins wrote:

Unfortunately, I phrased it poorly. Instead of saying “Isn’t it quaint that such a successful journalist can simultaneously believe something so daft”, I wrote, “Mehdi Hasan admits to believing Muhamed flew to heaven on a winged horse. And New Statesman sees fit to print him as a serious journalist.”

I cannot deny that this sounds horribly like a call for New Statesman to sack him, and it is not surprising that it was taken in that way and became controversial as a freedom of speech issue. Even worse, some respondents went overboard and thought I was saying that no Muslim should ever be employed as a journalist, or even that no religious person should ever be employed as a journalist.

I certainly never intended any of those meanings. Twitters’s 140-character limit is notoriously inimical to nuance. If I were to attempt a nuanced account of what I really intended to say, it would be a rather confused mixture of the following three – admittedly not wholly compatible – spellings-out:

None of those three meanings was well conveyed by my ill-judged words, and I withdraw them with apologies. I’m grateful to the many tweeters who came to my defence and saw no problem with my original formulation. Nevertheless, I cannot deny that my words were carelessly chosen.

Kinski

What Dawkins tweeted is ludicrous. Sure, there are Nobel-prize winning scientists who are religious believers - as Dawkins himself acknowledges.

Akrasia

Dawkins is completely right here.


If you want to be taken seriously as a journalist, or a scientist, or doctor or any serious profession, you should not publically profess beliefs that are completely ridiculous

Just because the belief is religious should not make it immune to criticism.

If this guy was on public record declaring that he believes in leprechauns and the tooth fairy, his career as a credible mainstream journalist would be over, he would be about as credible as David Icke and he would either be forced to re-evaluate his beliefs in the ridiculous, or remain on the fringes

Why are beliefs of a religious nature immune?
And why are some religious beliefs more immune than others?

If Dawkins was questioning the judgement of a journalist who happened to be a member of the westboro baptist church, nobody would batt an eyelid. If he was questioning the beliefs of a member of the church of scientology, most people would agree with him.

Dawkins is trying to change the culture of religious exceptionalism by calling out otherwise sensible people on their silly supernatural beliefs.

It's not racist or bigoted because he doesn't care what race or ethnicity the person belongs to. It's about attitudes and beliefs. People can choose to educate themselves or choose to have a scientific and rationalist world view regardless of their family and cultural background. In order to accellerate the shift away from silly superstitious beliefs, we need to get over the idea that religious beliefs are sacred and hold people responsible for all of their own attitudes and beliefs.

I don't have any strongly held attitudes or beliefs that I would not be comfortable defending in public. And of the beliefs that I am not so sure about, I am more than willing to change my beliefs or opinions if someone else has a pursuasive argument and supports it with evidence.

Akrasia

Kinski wrote: »

What Dawkins tweeted is ludicrous. Sure, there are Nobel-prize winning scientists who are religious believers - as Dawkins himself acknowledges.

He acknowledges it, and he challenges them on their superstition all of the time.

Dawkins is nothing if not consistent on this position.

keane2097

Can see where people defending Dawkins are coming from here.

Not sure a person who believes that Mohammed literally rode into heaven on a winged horse can expect to be taken seriously in his critical analysis of politics when it has plainly deserted him to a comical level on other matters.

Nodin

swampgas wrote: »

I have to admit to being (......) well, I think that's a very good thing.

Given that this man writes - afaik - on primarily political issues and backs a secular society, I fail to see what his private sillyness has to do with anything. Whats the point in replacing religous witchunts with secular ones.

Nodin

keane2097 wrote: »

Can see where people defending Dawkins are coming from here.

Not sure a person who believes that Mohammed literally rode into heaven on a winged horse can expect to be taken seriously in his critical analysis of politics when it has plainly deserted him to a comical level on other matters.

By which standard Isaac newton would have been put in an asylum.

keane2097

Nodin wrote: »

By which standard Isaac newton would have been put in an asylum.

I'm not really sure it's the same thing. Calculus is what it is, political commentary talks about how people should be governed and what standards we should expect from the people who make laws on how everyone else should live their lives.

I can't see how personal beliefs could influence your practise of calculus in any material way, your ideas about how people should be governed is a different story.

NIMAN

I can't understand why Dawkins is on this crusade to persuade people to drop their faith? Whats in it for him?

If people want to believe, then let them. Don't see why Dawkins should spend his life arguing against them? OK so he might change the mind of some, but there are billions of people alive who believe in a God of some description, and I can't see him living long enough to influence them all !!

Of course being Richard Dawkins probably makes him a lot of money.

Nodin

keane2097 wrote: »

I'm not really sure it's the same thing. Calculus is what it is, political commentary talks about how people should be governed and what standards we should expect from the people who make laws on how everyone else should live their lives..

...yet the man advocates a secular society, which again makes one wonder why someboy would care overly about his private beliefs.

keane2097

Nodin wrote: »

...yet the man advocates a secular society, which again makes one wonder why someboy would care overly about his private beliefs.

We're happy to criticise Iona for pontificating on laws citing their religious beliefs as reasons they're unqualified to make judgements.

Turtwig

NIMAN wrote: »

I can't understand why Dawkins is on this crusade to persuade people to drop their faith? Whats in it for him?

If people want to believe, then let them. Don't see why Dawkins should spend his life arguing against them? OK so he might change the mind of some, but there are billions of people alive who believe in a God of some description, and I can't see him living long enough to influence them all !!

Of course being Richard Dawkins probably makes him a lot of money.

It goes back a bit to a TED talk that was supposed to be all about evolutionary biology instead, after 9/11, he launched a public tirade against religion. The way Dawkins see it is religion is inherently evil and sick and while most of its adherents are perfectly reasonable and good people the religion itself provides a means to morally justify many types of outrages actions.

The fact he's beloved subject biology is constantly belittled and attacked dishonestly by Creationists probably doesn't help either.

robindch

NIMAN wrote: »

I can't understand why Dawkins is on this crusade to persuade people to drop their faith?

Probably the same aim that most scientists work towards - to make the world a better, safer place.

iMyself

Penn wrote: »

I think Dawkins was wrong in this instance.

I think he is perfectly entitled to ridicule and mock people who believe in wacky crazy stuff, i.e. all religion.

I was watching the 9 o'clock news and there was a cardinal (or maybe a bishop, not sure) talking about the pending abortion legislation while dressed up like St Patrick, staff stick and all. It was a very wtf moment, am I the only one who finds this outrageous that a clown like this is not only getting air time talking about legislation and our constitution, but he also has a strong say in it?! I would really love to dress up as a clown, walk up beside him, put my arm around him and imitate everything he says, maybe then people might get a sense of what I see.

No, I absolutely agree 100% with Richard Dawkins. People like this need to be mocked and ridiculed and most definitely should not be in a position where they can spread their bullsh!t through the media.

Geomy

robindch wrote: »

Probably the same aim that most scientists work towards - to make the world a better, safer place.

I like the way you say most lol

What're your thoughts on Monsanto ?

robindch

Geomy wrote: »

What're your thoughts on Monsanto ?

They're irrelevant to this thread, but do start up another thread on this if you want to