'When the facts change I change my mind' and so should you.

Show More

Posts tagged with richard dawkins

Apr 4, 2013

Comments

6 notes

This Just In: Sky is Blue; Sam Harris Promotes Islamophobia

I didn’t realize Sam Harris’ blatant Islamophobia was still being disputed but, among others, Glenn Greenwald has stirred up a ruckus on the interwebs by pointing this out again.* Admittedly though I probably didn’t realize this because I long ago ceased caring about anything Sam Harris has to say about anything.

Nevertheless, the central point that Harris promotes an irrational levels of fear of Islam is one worth highlighting. Though I disagree with the Al-Jazeera article overt comparison between historical scientific racism and “new atheism” acting as a cloak for Islamophobia, there is little doubt that Harris advocates hysterical hatred for Islam. As Greenwald notes, position for position Harris aligns himself with the worse kinds of discriminatory policies against Muslims from banning the construction of mosques, to torture, to profiling, to gratuitous war (which he thinks Muslims should be grateful for!) and he even goes so far as to say the people making the most sense about Islam are fascists.

On a similar note, I’ve long since stopped paying attention to Richard Dawkins, and though much in the recent Salon article on the thinking “new atheists” is utter trash, pointing out, among other central signs of irrational hatred, Dawkins support for the reactionary site Islam Watch and far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders is lends heavy support to Dawkins as in the same camp with Harris.** Still, I hate to repeat the old cliche but such political views are not a consequence of atheism but stem from an independent understandings of morality and politics which every atheist must determine for themselves.

The only way this is a issue for atheists as a whole then is because Harris and Dawkins have quite a following so such views get more time and respect than they otherwise deserve. The problem is, much like the efforts to explicitly define the morality within atheist circles for the better, other than separation of church and state it makes no sense to declare atheist values. Being an atheist just doesn’t commit one to being a liberal or reactionary, so any effort to make all atheists, or at least organized atheists, shun someone for such political views is likely doomed to failure.

_____________________

*Yes yes I know “Islamophobia” isn’t an optimally constructed word however “religionist against Islam” which would have been semantically more accurate sounds far more absurd and at this point it makes no sense to fight words well within common use.

**The last line is particularly laughable “Proving that a religion — any religion — is evil, though, is just as pointless and impossible an endeavor as trying to prove that God does or doesn’t exist. Neither has been accomplished yet. And neither will.” Ironically only someone who doesn’t understand reasoning or morality at all could advocate either position he triumphantly declares. This is nothing more than anti-intellectualism cloaked in the cover of emphatic agnosticism.

Dec 26, 2011

Comments

9 notes

The Infinite Monkey Cage - The Science of Christmas

Mon, 26 Dec 11

Brian Cox and Robin Ince celebrate the science of Christmas with Professor Richard Dawkins, actor and writer Mark Gatiss and science journalist Roger Highfield.

A day late but a lot of fun talking about, among other things, the physics of Santa’s travel and the origins of the superstition.

(Source: BBC)

Dec 15, 2011

Comments

7 notes

The Horsemen and I

The Horsemen of the Anti-Apocalypse have fallen from grace. If that is enough punning for you I’ll outright say I’m quite disenchanted with all of them, Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett. It’s not that they aren’t particularly effective at changing minds, I don’t think any of them are really attempting to do so, but that they are good public faces of nonbelief. There needs to be someone gathering support from people who are undecided and from closeted or inattentive nonbelievers and speaking out against the horrors of religion at its worst and I think collectively they serve this purpose rather well. However individuals effective at gaining support with a megaphone are rarely fit to be the public face for the position which they are gathering support.

Reading their books was important for me at a certain time in my life. At that time hearing my friends discuss their religious beliefs in public places just felt like a reminder of the position of nonbelievers in society. Unable to speak with anyone I knew about how I felt I turned to books and to the online community which eventually lead me here and to interacting with other freethinkers in my community. Along the path started by reading their tomes I became much more interested in philosophy, science and the pursuit of truth in general but I don’t think I’d recommend their books today (in fairness I haven’t read a book solely arguing against religion or belief in god that I would recommend).

I eventually became fairly adept at the particular question of the existence of god, if I do say so myself, and I came to realize their books weren’t very helpful on that specific issue. Ultimately though it’s not that just that I disagree with them on issues but that I no longer see any of them as publicly effective due to their rhetoric and because they could be philosophically better equipped (with the exception of Dennett for the latter). No, I’m not advocating “accomadationalism” and this honestly isn’t a “come at me” moment but I’d be interested in hearing what you think about this no matter your religious views.

Are Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennett a good public face for atheism?

Jul 25, 2011

Comments

47 notes

The Cure For Bad Science: Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design

The Basics - What are Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design

Useful Sites and Articles

Brief Videos

Lengthy Videos, Lectures & Series

Jul 11, 2011

Comments

7 notes

asker

Anonymous asked:

Hi, I'd really like to know your views towards the recent Rebecca-and-elevator-guy incident. I had a look through the first 2 or 3 pages of your blog, but I might have missed it if you've made any posts on it already, so apologies if you have. Thanks :)

You didn’t miss it, I never commented on it because I really dislike “drama” but primarily by the time I’d even heard of it, it was quite old in internet years. However if you insist, I will look back on this event with no promises this will have a overall theme or message.

Obviously Richard Dawkins comments about it blew up what honestly what would have been a minor issue. However, his use of quite a fallacious argument soon largely turned into a yelling match between those that thought he was being misogynistic and displayed male privilege for making such an argument and those that thought the people saying that were being “femi-nazis” (a term so preposterous it stings even to write it). His contention that non-physical abuse is not worth complaining about is obviously wrong and I think can be demonstrated to anyone but especially him considering he constantly and rightly speaks out against the mental abuse present within religion.

However, many of the responses I saw to this, including Melissa McEwan at Shakesville and Rebecca Watson’s reply, were far too often fatalistic. Particularly McEwan who described the reaction on PZ Myer’s blog as:

a hideous gushing explosion of misogyny, anti-feminism, and rape apologia, not only proving Rebecca Watson’s point, but illustrating precisely why it is that, despite being an atheist and online activist, [she doesn’t] touch movement atheism with a 10-foot pole.

No problem has ever been solved by turning your back on it and saying “they just don’t get it over there so I’m not even going to try.” Similarly, though far less extreme, Watson said she would never support Dawkins again expressing what many of her commenters on her blog apparently had also concluded they would do. While I’m all for boycotting organizations and people you think totally disregard your concerns I felt that asking for a formal or informal sit-down with him (even a skype conversation) to discuss the problem would have been a far better decision. I know he initially refused to apologize but she was jumping to the conclusion that “he’ll never get it” so it’s not even worth trying even after the initial steam has faded away from the issue.

Almost the only person who seemed reasonable was Hermat Mehta over at Friendly Atheist who said:

Maybe everyone has forgotten: We’re all on the same goddamn side. We’re supposed to be the rational ones. That means we should know how to discuss things privately before they become a public spectacle where no one wins. We should always encourage more atheists to speak up with their opinions, not shy away from it, because we’re the ones who know how to handle differences in opinion. No one’s saying “Keep quiet if you disagree.” It’s the opposite of that, only more tactful.

Perhaps what this incident best demonstrated was how irrational things can get even amongst the skeptic community. Along those lines, and I feel bad for even feeling the need to say this, disagreeing over what constitutes sexual harassment does not make either side a “femi-nazi” or a “rage apologist.” This level of maturity, often from otherwise respectable individuals, seemed to permeate this conflict. Too often people seem to forget that there is honestly only one thing tying the atheist community together and what makes this community unique is that very fact. Further the correct way to handle a problem is not to refuse to address it because it’s too painful or ignore it because it goes against your typical line of thinking but to confront it. Both as an atheist and a feminist I found this “you are either with us or against us” attitude perverse and counterproductive.

In the end no one but Watson determines what she finds creepy and what makes her uncomfortable but that doesn’t mean an undesirable verbal advance, which no one can say with certainty was a sexual advance but the man who uttered the words, is necessarily a brazen act of misogyny because it makes her uncomfortable. Finally, Dawkins statements, which were dismissive of women’s rights outside of Muslim countries, don’t necessarily mean he doesn’t care about rape, equal-pay or objectification of women anywhere outside of those countries but rather demonstrate solely that he made some sexist statements in an attempt to belittle what he thought was a non-issue.

Thanks for the question.

Jun 20, 2011

Comments

18 notes

5 Myths Atheists Believe about Religion

reblogged from reneehendricks

reneehendricks:

Funny. I don’t believe any of those myths.

*edit

This article attempts to expose common myths that both atheists and theists alike have about religion, all religions require a belief in a supernatural god and that all atheists are anti-religious, and as Rev pointed out it rather fails at a basic understanding of even what is claimed by religions and atheists.* However, I’ll be dealing with the other three myths it attacks which are all straw-man representations of Greta Christina, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens which it builds up itself only to knock down.

Liberal and Moderate Religion Justifies Religious Extremism

Having read the works of the authors in question it is apparent that this is not remotely what they actually are arguing. Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are actually saying that because any criticism of religion is considered a breach of taste in most every setting it is socially impossible to even ridicule the most absurd and harmful beliefs because of the halo of unjustified respect given to any religious belief. It is religion and religion alone that has such an halo so to then compare this to the political arena, where beliefs no matter where on the spectrum they lie are open to be criticized is a false analogy. An apt comparision with the political spectrum would be possible if when someone said “Glen Beck is crazy” all but those who completely reject the political system outright (and even some of those) criticized you for daring to call into question anyone’s ideology no matter their poor justification and negative impact their beliefs have on society so long as it’s true to them. Obviously this is far from reality.

Religion Causes Bad Behavior

This alleged take down of this myth is perhaps the most egregious of the author’s errors as Hitchens is quoted as if he would agree with the conclusions drawn saying:

…religion is a very powerful force for our backwards, clannish, tribal element. But you can’t say it’s the cause of it. To the contrary, it’s the product of it.

However the author makes a sharp break from anything Hitchens would endorse when an attempt is made to downplay the role of religion in conflict and separate religion from “bad things done in it’s name,” a phrase Hitchens has repeatedly denounced as an attempt to escape the specific consequences of religious ideas. Hitchens has frequently put forth the challenge to “name a moral statement that can be made by a believer or a moral action undertaken by the believer that nonbelievers couldn’t undertake because they are not a believer and conversely to think of a wicked action performed because of his or her belief.” Such a challenge demonstrates what Hitchens actually thinks, that while all behavior good and bad permeates from human nature, religion is unrivaled in it’s capacity to justify the most vile of behaviors.

To pretend that specific ideas can not and do not have specific consequences and that religious ideas don’t take precedent over all other ideas in a huge portion of society is to live in a fantasy. Moreover those who criticize religion as greatly contributing to “bad behavior” are not suggesting that all bad behavior would cease to exist if religion were to disappear but rather the aura of respect given to such behavior when done because of religious reasons would vanish and the justification now able to be trotted out as the ultimate reason to do anything, inherently giving it unmatched authority when it comes to justifying atrocities, would cease to exist.

All Religions Are “Equally Crazy”

All claims of knowledge about the unknowable made based on faith are “equally crazy,” though I would use the word “unjustified,” and as a result, as  Christina was paraphrased, all religious beliefs “contort, ignore or deny reality in order to maintain their attachment to faith.” To suggest this conclusion indicates that “Dr. King is in the same category as Osama Bin Laden” is to be unable or unwillingly to distinguish between the similar path taken to arrive at religious beliefs and the different consequences of different religious beliefs.

The point that those like these people are making is not that those who reject literal interpretations of scripture are equally out of touch with reality as those who believe in a literal six day creation but rather the baseline for both mindsets, a belief that pandimensional telepathic communication with the creator of the universe is possible, is equally unjustified because it’s based on faith. None of these people are saying anything but this, however the author feels justified in saying “if there were any serious attempts to show they know the difference between religions, these leaders would have exhibited it by now.” Such falsehoods can only be the product of complete mental ineptitude as all of them explicitly make these differences clear, like Christina does here in the article in question, or from intentionally straw-manning them.

The self described religious progressive in this article is right in saying “genuine dialogue between the religious and non-religious is possible” but such a discussion is only possible when the actual claims of each side are addressed. There are a great deal of myths about what theists and atheists believe and correcting those must come before there can be any meaningful discussion but fabricating and exaggerating the positions of those who disagree with you will not bring you closer to anything other than self-gratification.

Jun 11, 2011

Comments

12 notes

The defense offered is that religion is fine as long as it doesn’t step on science’s toes. Religion always steps on science’s toes. Religion postulates miracles, virgin births, raising people from the dead, walking on water - this is all anti-scientific and if you remove the miracles from religion you’ve got nothing left that any congregation would be swayed by.

Richard Dawkins - on the intersection of religion and science within the realm of skepticism.

(Source: youtube.com)

Jun 11, 2011

Comments

4 notes

Communicating Atheism (pt4) Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins, AronRa, ‘Skepchick’ Rebecca Wilson and Tom Melchiorre on a panel discussion at the World Atheist Convention 2011. Dawkins talks about the use of ridicule against religious ‘fence-sitters.’

(Source: youtube.com)

Jun 11, 2011

Comments

1 note

Communicating Atheism (pt3) Melchiorre

Richard Dawkins, AronRa, ‘Skepchick’ Rebecca Wilson and Tom Melchiorre on a panel discussion at the World Atheist Convention 2011. Melchiorre talks about communicating atheism in many different mediums and doing so more effectively.

(Source: youtube.com)