Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

Options
1…2829303234

Comments

  • Options
    #932
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,548 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    I don't know what this sort of posting adds to anything.

    I have met him in person and he is a very nice man. Of course many people attack him personally because they dislike what he has to say and can't otherwise refute it.

    And I have heard interviews with him where he is utterly vile to people of faith. I am an Athiest, but do I call those who are religious stupid or ignorant because they have faith and I don't, no, because that is pr1ckish behaviour.

    I imagine he would be nice to me in conversation because we have similar views on certain things, a shared background in science, all be it different areas etc. I don't agree that him being nice in conversation excuses his language to others he 'thinks' are stupid.

    I don't believe in a god or gods, I find the idea interesting but preposterous, but would not admonish anyone who does believe unless I find it dangerous. I am sure many of my friends think the same of my view of life, that no god is interesting but preposterous.


  • Options
    #933
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    CramCycle wrote: »
    And I have heard interviews with him where he is utterly vile to people of faith. I am an Athiest, but do I call those who are religious stupid or ignorant because they have faith and I don't, no, because that is pr1ckish behaviour.

    Very much the same. Personally I find Dawkins rather obnoxious and the whole mimetics thing bordering on pseudoscience. In my opinion atheism isn't a homogeneous group and doesn't have spokespeople who speak for atheists beyond those in their own fan base. There is no broadly accepted worldview common to atheism that I'm aware of, nor individuals or groups mandated to speak on behalf of atheism. To suggest otherwise is to conflate atheism either with secularism or some kind of godless religion, both of which are mistakes in my mind.


  • Options
    #934
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    I have met him in person and he is a very nice man. Of course many people attack him personally because they dislike what he has to say and can't otherwise refute it.

    Agreed I met him also. I was his driver for some time during the Atheist Alliance International Conference. He was absolutely a gentleman in all respects and had a great sense of humor, with a tinge of dark to it.

    When my toddler daughter arrived with my partner to the convention I told him his lunch had arrived (atheists being reputed at the time to eat babies :) ) and he found this hilarious. He had actually been on camera with the RTE when he arrived and I told him I had been tempted to walk up with her and say his lunch had arrived on camera. He said I absolutely should have done.

    When he gets into debate he gets a little "into it" and it manifests often like a small child having a tantrum :) with the way his fists and voice go all over the place. That can fuel people thinking he is a bit of a knob alright. But that's just his way. In debate I switch to cold and emotionless and monotone. That's just me. It likely equally comes across as dickish.

    Either way if someone is LOOKING for a reason to dislike someone, they are going to find it. One of our resident catholics for example in the last few days could find little worse to say about Sam Harris than he finds his voice boring. Couldn't fault a word the man said though. Just his voice :)

    I actually half agree with people on here saying he should "stick to what he is good at". I disagree with them because they are saying he should stick to biology and not religion. What I think he is good at is writing books. He should stay away from debate of all kinds, especially live and on stage, and he should absolutely and totally stay away from twitter. So yes he should stick to what he is good at. More from his pen. Less from his mouth.


  • Options
    #935
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,197 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    . . . Dawkins is a highly respected scholar in the field of evolutionary biology.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    . . . I actually half agree with people on here saying he should "stick to what he is good at". I disagree with them because they are saying he should stick to biology and not religion. What I think he is good at is writing books. He should stay away from debate of all kinds, especially live and on stage, and he should absolutely and totally stay away from twitter. So yes he should stick to what he is good at. More from his pen. Less from his mouth.
    Not to knock Dawkins’s acheivements as a scientist, but I think Nozz is closer to the mark. What Dawkins is most noted for is his contribution to the popular communication of scientific ideas. That’s why he got to be Professor Dawkins; he was just plain Dr. Dawkins and a lecturer in zoology until he was appointed as the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science in 1995; the mission of that chair is precisely “to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field”; the holder is not expected to undertake original research or theorising. And his many awards and honorary degrees are all or nearly all for this aspect of his career.

    None of which is to say that is scientific work is of anything less than the highest quality. But it's not what he's famous for, and it's not what has won him his high degree of academic and professional acclaim.


  • Options
    #936
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    I don't know what this sort of posting adds to anything.

    It clearly dispels the notion held by certain theists that all atheists hold Richard Dawkins in high regard. This is a useful addition to the discussion in that it illustrates the pitfalls of talking broadly about atheists on any matter other than their lack of belief in a god or gods, which is about as sensible as trying the herd cats.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #937
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    A lot of religions are personality cults built up around a single figure. Jesus and Mo being two examples.

    So I guess theists ingrained in that worldview parse atheism through the same lens and so they assume there must be a central personality we all revere and hold in high esteem or maybe even think perfect.

    The great think about not having to venerate a personality, let alone pretend they are perfect, is we can point out their flaws and learn from them too.

    I have not met many (any) Muslims for example who will list Mo's flaws and say how their own lives have been enriched by learning from those flaws and excelling over them. In fact every devout Muslim I have met would baulk at the notion of exploring whether this perfect human being had flaws in the first place.


  • Options
    #938
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I have not met many (any) Muslims for example who will list Mo's flaws and say how their own lives have been enriched by learning from those flaws and excelling over them. In fact every devout Muslim I have met would baulk at the notion of exploring whether this perfect human being had flaws in the first place.

    I've met plenty of nominal Muslims who are as disparaging of their religion as the ex Catholics on this forum are of theirs. You'd see examples of this in pop culture in movies like "East is East" or some of the books by Hanif Kurieshi, e.g. The Black Album. I think the issue is more one of risk of repercussions in speaking out in more conservative and traditional Muslim communities, which really wouldn't be that different to speaking out against Catholicism in rural Ireland in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Or against hard-line Evangelism in certain parts of the States today for that matter ;)


  • Options
    #939
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    For what it's worth I like Richard Dawkins, I find him informative and interesting.

    Now I can see why he might rub people up the wrong way from time to time, it's just his manner, which I don't find particularly bad but others might.

    Dawkins is quite refined and percise, I think he's at his best when he sticks to the facts. Christopher Hitchens was a different breed, very witty and a powerful speaker, I think he was more comfortable with humour as well.

    I like Sam Harris to, he has a very calm, calculated, reasoned demeanor, I could listen to him all day. He makes his points in a way that makes sense and doesn't get worked up over even highly emotive issues.

    Neil deGrasse Tyson is another celebrity scientist (if that's the correct term) I'm very fond of, a very entertaining and personable character, absolutely ideal for presenting complicated science to the masses.


  • Options
    #940
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    I would add Brian Cox and VS Ramachandran to that list too. Two great communicators who still manage to rub SOME people up the wrong way. Though I think the latter is suffering the affects of age these days and has lost most of his powers. Like Hitchens, Ramachandran just had a voice I could list to read a phone book though. It just struck my ear perfectly.


  • Options
    #941
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    Neil deGrasse Tyson is another celebrity scientist (if that's the correct term) I'm very fond of, a very entertaining and personable character, absolutely ideal for presenting complicated science to the masses.

    For that particular role I find I could listen to Richard Feynman for hours on end, totally engrossing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #942
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    smacl wrote: »
    For that particular role I find I could listen to Richard Feynman for hours on end, totally engrossing.

    Seen a little bit of him, certainly another person who had the personality for the job.


  • Options
    #943
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    CramCycle wrote: »
    And I have heard interviews with him where he is utterly vile to people of faith. I am an Athiest, but do I call those who are religious stupid or ignorant because they have faith and I don't, no, because that is pr1ckish behaviour.

    Calling people stupid or ignorant is utterly vile?


  • Options
    #944
    storker
    Registered Users Posts: 5,646 ✭✭✭storker


    smacl wrote: »
    It clearly dispels the notion held by certain theists that all atheists hold Richard Dawkins in high regard. This is a useful addition to the discussion in that it illustrates the pitfalls of talking broadly about atheists on any matter other than their lack of belief in a god or gods, which is about as sensible as trying the herd cats.

    I think this is a consequence of the way...the model if you like, which theists tend to use when thinking about such things i.e. assuming that atheists must be deferring to some authoritative source, being it written e.g. the bible, or human e.g. the Pope. They see someone with strongly-held opinions on matters of belief such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris etc and see them as the atheists Pope-substitute, not realising those individuals are subjected by their atheist audience to as much critical thinking as anything else they hear. There is no "Book of Atheist", nor any atheist messiah, Pope, prophet or Yoda. There are just well-known atheists who get big audiences.

    I quite like Dawkins - his speaking voice is a pleasure to listen to and he argues well. He does, however, find it difficult to disguise his impatience with some of the nonsense he hears, but given the nature of some if it you could hardly blame him. I don't find him obnoxious at all, but I can see why a theist might.


  • Options
    #945
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Calling people stupid or ignorant is utterly vile?

    Calling people stupid because they hold religious beliefs that you do not or that are different to your own beliefs is pretty obnoxious in my opinion. If you accept that not discriminating against others based on their religious beliefs is a basic human right, we certainly shouldn't call people stupid on that basis. Criticising the belief itself is very different to calling someone stupid for holding that belief.


  • Options
    #946
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    storker wrote: »
    I quite like Dawkins - his speaking voice is a pleasure to listen to and he argues well. He does, however, find it difficult to disguise his impatience with some of the nonsense he hears, but given the nature of some if it you could hardly blame him. I don't find him obnoxious at all, but I can see why a theist might.

    Tweets such as the one below I'd find obnoxious and more like the type of comment you'd here from Trump.

    https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/307366714105032704?lang=en


  • Options
    #947
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    smacl wrote: »
    Calling people stupid because they hold religious beliefs that you do not or that are different to your own beliefs is pretty obnoxious in my opinion. If you accept that not discriminating against others based on their religious beliefs is a basic human right, we certainly shouldn't call people stupid on that basis. Criticising the belief itself is very different to calling someone stupid for holding that belief.

    theres fair avenues of space between discrimination and being allowed to consider/call someone stupid for their actions/beliefs tbh, that's a bit of a reach


  • Options
    #948
    olestoepoke
    Registered Users Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭olestoepoke


    smacl wrote: »
    For that particular role I find I could listen to Richard Feynman for hours on end, totally engrossing.

    Brian Greene is also a great guy to listen to. Fantastic sense of humour.


  • Options
    #949
    storker
    Registered Users Posts: 5,646 ✭✭✭storker


    smacl wrote: »
    Tweets such as the one below I'd find obnoxious and more like the type of comment you'd here from Trump.

    https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/307366714105032704?lang=en

    This is one reason I hardly ever use Twitter. It's too difficult to get at what the person is really saying. Elsewhere Dawkins has said that his problem is not with Muslims but with we frequently see being done in the name of Islam, and I can see where he's coming from even if he worded it badly. But I don't interact with Dawkins via Twitter, so my opinion of him hasn't been informed by his Tweets.


  • Options
    #950
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Deleted User wrote: »
    theres fair avenues of space between discrimination and being allowed to consider/call someone stupid for their actions/beliefs tbh, that's a bit of a reach

    I disagree. When you refer to a huge group of people as stupid based on their religion, I'd consider it both discriminatory and inaccurate. I know many highly intelligent people who are also religiously inclined. While I'd argue the belief is irrational it doesn't imply the people are stupid. Religious belief doesn't confer stupidity any more than atheism confers intelligence. Many religious beliefs are deeply ingrained at a young age to the extent they become a central part of a persons identity. It is a mistake to call such people stupid.


  • Options
    #951
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    smacl wrote: »
    Very much the same. Personally I find Dawkins rather obnoxious and the whole mimetics thing bordering on pseudoscience. In my opinion atheism isn't a homogeneous group and doesn't have spokespeople who speak for atheists beyond those in their own fan base. There is no broadly accepted worldview common to atheism that I'm aware of, nor individuals or groups mandated to speak on behalf of atheism. To suggest otherwise is to conflate atheism either with secularism or some kind of godless religion, both of which are mistakes in my mind.

    I find it interesting that it is the religious folk who refer to Dawkins constantly.
    I was bought a copy of the God Delusion by someone who insisted I claimed to be an atheist just because I dislike the RCC (ironically this was an á la carte Catholic) as if the RCC are the only game in town, that I hadn't really thought it through, and patronisingly suggested that I would like this book.

    I have thought it through and I disliked the book.
    Donated it to a St V d P charity shop.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #952
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,238 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    smacl wrote: »
    Tweets such as the one below I'd find obnoxious and more like the type of comment you'd here from Trump.

    He's not exactly wrong though is he?

    You also have shorn it of context, where he was accused of being reluctant to criticise Islam (a constant trope of "persecuted" Christians these days)

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #953
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    smacl wrote: »
    Tweets such as the one below I'd find obnoxious and more like the type of comment you'd here from Trump.

    Can't say I find anything obnoxious about it. He is talking about Islam, a set of ideas, not Muslims. You can not insult an idea.

    Now you might think his conclusion is WRONG which is another conversation. You could evaluate his reasoning and highlight errors in it if you find any.

    But someone coming to a conclusion that X is dangerous, or even the most dangerous thing, and therefore saying X is dangerous.... is itself not obnoxious. If you think X is dangerous, you probably should say so.

    IF you think something is harmful or dangerous there is nothing wrong with saying so. Just be prepared to entertain discourse and rebuttal once you do, especially if you are wrong.

    But being lambasted just for saying it? I am afraid I am not part of that "Offence Generation" just yet myself :)


  • Options
    #954
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    He's not exactly wrong though is he?

    I think he is actually. Taking evil as "something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity" you'd expect someone with a background in biology to maybe plump for global warming, pandemics or the like. From a more societal perspective you might consider racism, misogyny or persecution of those poor. While these things happen in many majority Islamic countries they're by no means unique to them. Even if he'd said religious fundamentalism, I'd only half agree with him as the real underlying issue has more to do with systematic abuse of power than religious belief.

    While I find the word evil rather loaded and subjective, I do find the use of broadly applied polarising "us and them" style arguments to be pernicious.


  • Options
    #955
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    But someone coming to a conclusion that X is dangerous, or even the most dangerous thing, and therefore saying X is dangerous.... is itself not obnoxious. If you think X is dangerous, you probably should say so.

    Not the same thing though, is it? Sticking a fork in a toaster is dangerous but that doesn't make toasters evil. Allowing organised religions to have excessive power within a society is similarly dangerous, which is the basic premise of secularism but that doesn't make religion evil in and of itself.


  • Options
    #956
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    smacl wrote: »
    Calling people stupid because they hold religious beliefs that you do not or that are different to your own beliefs is pretty obnoxious in my opinion. If you accept that not discriminating against others based on their religious beliefs is a basic human right, we certainly shouldn't call people stupid on that basis. Criticising the belief itself is very different to calling someone stupid for holding that belief.

    Obnoxious, and even pr1ckish as CramCycle went on to describe him, is one thing, utterly vile is much different and stronger than that. What has he done that is utterly vile?
    smacl wrote: »
    I disagree. When you refer to a huge group of people as stupid based on their religion, I'd consider it both discriminatory and inaccurate. I know many highly intelligent people who are also religiously inclined. While I'd argue the belief is irrational it doesn't imply the people are stupid. Religious belief doesn't confer stupidity any more than atheism confers intelligence. Many religious beliefs are deeply ingrained at a young age to the extent they become a central part of a persons identity. It is a mistake to call such people stupid.

    Is he referring to them as absolutely stupid? Or stupid when it comes to the question of religion?


  • Options
    #957
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Obnoxious, and even pr1ckish as CramCycle went on to describe him, is one thing, utterly vile is much different and stronger than that. What has he done that is utterly vile?


    Is he referring to them as absolutely stupid? Or stupid when it comes to the question of religion?

    I didn't use the term utterly vile, I said I find the guy obnoxious. If you call a person stupid it is clearly different to calling their ideas or beliefs stupid. It doesn't need any more qualification than that.


  • Options
    #958
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    smacl wrote: »
    Not the same thing though, is it? Sticking a fork in a toaster is dangerous but that doesn't make toasters evil.

    It is not the same thing, but I still say the same thing about it, which was my point. If you think something is dangerous, harmful, evil, toxic, damaging, or any other pernicious word you want to use..... there is nothing "obnoxious" about pointing that out. Especially if you think it is the worst example of it's kind.

    The distinction I am making is between whether it is right or wrong to SAY such a thing and....
    smacl wrote: »
    that doesn't make religion evil in and of itself.

    .... whether or not such a person is correct in what they say. Here you are arguing that it is not evil. And that's fine. Dawkins is a man of reason. IF you think his evaluation of it is erroneous, he can be reasoned with.

    But it is not whether his claim is right or wrong that you called obnoxious. It was his the tweet that you took issue with as obnoxious. And it is THAT which I refer to. There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with him having made that claim in that tweet. You might think the claim wrong (and I would not be in much disagreement with you, though I would call it hyperbolic more than wrong) and can explain why, but that does not make the tweet obnoxious or the person who made it any worse a person.

    Hitchens and Harris both made similar claims. For example Harris said that we should be confronting bad ideas wherever we find them. In the same breath he then called Islam "The motherload of bad ideas" and Ben Afleck beside him almost had a seizure in his offence. Hitchens also called Islam the most harmful and dangerous religion there is in the world. He gave his reasons for this at the time.

    People who objected also fell into two camps. Those that disagreed with them and explained why...... and those that took offence to them even having made the claim at all.

    Again I think it an important distinction. The former can be reasoned with. The latter I would do nothing but tell to jog on and come back when they have a point to make.
    smacl wrote: »
    I didn't use the term utterly vile, I said I find the guy obnoxious. If you call a person stupid it is clearly different to calling their ideas or beliefs stupid. It doesn't need any more qualification than that.

    Agreed. MY motto has long been "Insults demean only the insulter, never the target". If Dawkins called people stupid.... and I am not sure to which quote we are referring here as I missed the citation if someone made it......... then he demeans only himself in doing so.

    Further he would clearly also be wrong. Some of the most intelligent people our species has ever produced.... including perhaps THE single most intelligent person our species has ever produced (Newton).... subscribed to a belief in god. Stupid they were not. Deluded maybe. Stupid no.

    I like to think of it like the common cold and other viruses. Being at the pinnacle of fitness and health does not prevent you from catching the cold or viruses. Hell it might even make you MORE prone to them as you are nice ripe target.

    Similarly being highly intelligent does not inoculate you against infection by memetic viruses. It may even make you more prone to it for all I know.

    So no I do not think whatsoever that being religious means you are stupid.


  • Options
    #959
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Hitchens and Harris both made similar claims. For example Harris said that we should be confronting bad ideas wherever we find them. In the same breath he then called Islam "The motherload of bad ideas" and Ben Afleck beside him almost had a seizure in his offence. Hitchens also called Islam the most harmful and dangerous religion there is in the world. He gave his reasons for this at the time.

    People who objected also fell into two camps. Those that disagreed with them and explained why...... and those that took offence to them even having made the claim at all.

    Again, there is a significant difference between "the most harmful and dangerous religion there is in the world" and "greatest force for evil in the world today". I'd broadly agree with the former and object strongly to the latter. The rationale here is that while I have no time for religion myself, once we restrict its undue influence in society, it isn't substantially dangerous to wider society. Thus the most dangerous religion in the world might not pose any actual danger to a robust secular society at all. Now compare that to Dawkins' statement which has no such bounds, "Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today". This is divisive in the extreme. Using a word like evil as opposed to a word like dangerous creates the dichotomy of good and evil and places the Islamic world on one side of it. This plays directly into the hands of hard right racists such as Tommy Robinson, so while Islam isn't a race Islamophobia is a tool used to further a racist agenda. As I said in a previous post, I take real issue with a statement that tries to divide people into "us and them" groupings where we're clearly the good guys and they're the enemy. I'd suggest that this tactic, which is a strong favourite of the hard right, is very dangerous to our society and is clearly being employed by Richard Dawkins in this instance. On this basis I find what he is saying to be deeply objectionable.


  • Options
    #960
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    smacl wrote: »
    Again, there is a significant difference between "the most harmful and dangerous religion there is in the world" and "greatest force for evil in the world today".

    Again, I recognise that difference but it is not a difference that changes the point I am making. Not seeing a difference, and not seeing a difference as contextually relevant are not the same thing.

    In both cases you can think the person right or wrong in their claim. But in both cases there is nothing wrong with them MAKING the claim. And that is all my point is. So when you say....
    smacl wrote: »
    I'd broadly agree with the former and object strongly to the latter.

    .... then that is great! Object to it, and explain why you think the claim is a poor one. I agree with nearly everything you said in rebuttal of the claim in fact. But that is NOT the same as claiming MAKING the claim was "obnoxious".

    Taking issue with a claim and taking issue with someone making a claim are two different things. And it is the latter I would have a problem with, not the former. There was nothing "obnoxious" about the tweet. Erroneous maybe. Not obnoxious.
    smacl wrote: »
    I take real issue with a statement that tries to divide people into "us and them" groupings where we're clearly the good guys and they're the enemy. I'd suggest that this tactic, which is a strong favourite of the hard right, is very dangerous to our society and is clearly being employed by Richard Dawkins in this instance.

    The tweet did not do that either. At all. The tweet was against Islam, not Muslims. Too many people conflate the two. Often wilfully. Attacking a set of ideas as wrong, dangerous or evil is NOT REMOTELY the same as attacking the people who hold to those ideas. If I were to say I find the set of ideas "Evolutionary Psychology" to be the most ill informed and stupid set of ideas in all of Evolution Science I would not be creating an "us against them" between evolutionary psychologogists and other evolutionary scientists either. Quite the opposite actually, it would be me inviting them into a pan-societal discourse on the issue. Just like I Think the dangers of Islam would be best addressed by discourse between all people as a whole, without division.

    That is what I meant when I tongue in cheek said I am not part of the offence generation. I do not hold to this notion of conflating people and the ideas people subscribe to. I see Idea-Space as a playground/arena distinct from any person or people. And attacking ideas in that space should not be treated as any kind of attack on, or segregation of, the people who hold to those ideas. No more than attacking a virus should be seen as an attack on the people infected with it.

    So no I do not find the tweet obnoxious or divisive. I find it hyperbolic, not entirely accurate, and easy to rebut on many levels. But I see nothing wrong with the claim having been made and put out there for discussion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #961
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    So no I do not find the tweet obnoxious or divisive. I find it hyperbolic, not entirely accurate, and easy to rebut on many levels. But I see nothing wrong with the claim having been made and put out there for discussion.

    I disagree entirely for the reasons already pointed out. The word 'evil' used as a noun is a heavily loaded term with strong religious and emotive overtones. I suspect Dawkins chose that word very purposefully in this context, which in my opinion is both divisive and obnoxious. I am certainly not alone in that opinion, nor is that tweet alone in those that have drawn criticism on Dawkins.


Advertisement