Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Conversation >

Ask Richard Dawkins

Page: 1(2)3

04:47 / 16.08.07

Professor Dawkins,

I REALLY need an answer for that question #4, pronto!

All of my love,

Thomas "Godkiller42" Fischer
(godkiller424269@gmail.com)

04:51 / 16.08.07

Professor Dawkins,

nevermind.

ps: we're one person closer to a more enlightened world.

pps: how do you feel about preemptive attack?

Thomas "Godkiller42" Fischer
(godkiller424269@gmail.com)

10:08 / 16.08.07

But are you going to let a (scientifically possible) man-machine like Dead Megatron make a blething fewl of ye, in public, in that sort of a way?

we prefer to be called mechanized humanoids, if you please. Thank you

Regrettable Juvenilia

10:13 / 16.08.07

iamus,

Evolution has blessed me, as a specimen of the species sapiens of the genus homo, with thirty-two (32) permanent adult teeth, suitable to an omnivorous diet. My molars are therefore fit to grind down anything which my canines and incisors tear or bite off, so long as I follow a rational and logical approach to my diet, which pays attention to the sensible science of biology, and not to the insensible nonsense of modern day dietary fads and holistic nutritionist flim-flam!

Pass the salt,

Richard.

Regrettable Juvenilia

10:23 / 16.08.07

SHUT UP MEGATRON, for the SAKE of SCIENCE!

I say, in character, of course.

Regrettable Juvenilia

10:49 / 16.08.07

And the horse you rode in on,

In the past I have likened people with religious views to a child with a dummy in its mouth. (Note I call the child "it", definitely NOT "ze", how preposterous!) I do not think it a very dignified or respect-worthy posture for an adult to go around sucking a dummy for comfort.

I have spent little time there, but The Temple forum strikes me as somewhere for people who are rather like adults who ride around in a stroller whilst wearing nappies and charming little bonnets. No doubt the post-modern relativists would tell me that I must respect their opnion, but I do not think it inspires much respect to see a grown man or woman in a giant nappy.

The fact that this forum has a such a sub-group is indeed very troubling, since it is much like having a Flat Earth forum, a Human Sacrifice forum or a The Spanish Inquisition Was Right & I Liked Their Style forum. But it is hardly uncommon, just another symptom of the War on Science that is taking place worldwide.

Yours without rancour,

Richard.

Glenn Close But No Cigar

12:18 / 16.08.07

Note I call the child "it"

Just like Dave Pelzer's mum, then.

Janean Patience

12:29 / 16.08.07

Except Pelzer's mom never called him It. She called him The Boy. The level of verisimilitude shown in that title gives you an accurate impression of the truthfulness of the books.

Sorry, Professor. You get on with blastin' on fools and shit.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

19:43 / 16.08.07

Mr Dawkins, speaking logically...

how do you, from propositions

1) you're fairly plain-looking

2) you have a really annoying voice

and

3) you're married to Lalla Ward

come to the conclusion that there is no God?

20:05 / 16.08.07

I would have added insufferably patronising to that list.

Mysterious Transfer Student

20:46 / 16.08.07

Indeed, Professor Dawkins, it seems churlish of you to hog the limelight in this manner (especially as the TRUTH must never admit of PERSONAL INTEREST) when your fellow sceptic and Warren Ellis pin-up Dr. Susan Blackmore could much more persuasively have made the same case, since she is personable, self-effacing, has groovy hair, and as a practitioner of Zen would never have sat amongst a group of chanting Buddhists in the opening scene of a TV show, eyes significantly wide open, with an expression on her face that shouts for all the world to hear: 'These people are idiots! I alone am pure!'

Professor Dawkins is probably beginning to think we're picking on him.

21:25 / 16.08.07

(As an aside, interested readers might like to know that that the last time I saw the good Prof Dawkins, he was 'taking God on' in the middle of the high street, before repairing to one of the local saunas to 'experience heaven now! Right now!'

So not to be surprised if tomorrow he seems to have what the novelist Irvine Welsh refers to as 'a nipping heed')

Closed for Business Time

20:53 / 15.10.07

Dear Professor Dawkins, why have you stopped being a scientist and become a bigoted buffoon?

SHUT UP DAWKINS!

01:10 / 16.10.07

Have you got a link to the rest of what he said? I've been trying to look up his other opinions on "the Jewish lobby" to determine if he's talking about a specific lobbying group that he's characterizing as Jewish, or if he's talking about Protocols-style conspiracy theory, or what.

Edit: There's another quote here which sounds pretty similar.

01:59 / 16.10.07

I think the blog post you link to is pretty spot on.
I get the feeling Dawkins is becoming lazy in his opposition to religion and, upon hearing someone talking about Jewish interests being pandered to, has accepted the concept uncritically.
Perhaps as he gets older he is getting more set in his anti-religious bigotry, leading him to make such sore-thumb errors of judgement.

This particular folly doesn't surprise me as much as one might have expected it to, though. I like some of his work, but I have to say I find the man himself to be fairly unpalatable and prone to being an ass.

02:20 / 16.10.07

For my money, Dawkins is clearly thinking about the much discussed LRB article by Mearsheimer and Walt. FWIW, I think they are incorrect in their analysis, as Dawkins is in his comment. In fact, I doubt very much that he actually believes what he said as it sounds like careless, ignorant, exaggeration. It was pretty bad, but I think that accusing him of bigotry is maybe a bit....uncharitable.

02:34 / 16.10.07

I'd have accused him of it before I heard about this comment, though. Perhaps we are using different definitions of bigotry, or perhaps I was uncharitable in my previous assessment.

While watching him speak I felt that Dawkins often made his mind up earlier than would be useful, and based largely on whether or not the issue raised was in any way connected to religion.
He attacked one attendee of a talk - who had asked a fairly intelligent question about religious beliefs and scientific methods being able to work in concert (one that I would have probably enjoyed Dawkins tackling properly) - with similar responses to those with which he rebutted creationists.

He seemed to think the person asking was unintelligent, and he treated the audience to an answer that didn't address the questions asked.

For me that kind of thing, when coupled with this kind of thing, adds up to a picture of someone who doesn't easily accept or process views not in accord with his own, while uncritically accepting those which are.

Perhaps I'm being unfair.

05:26 / 16.10.07

I doubt very much that he actually believes what he said

Does that not strike you as bending over backwards to defend him? I'm with you insofar as I think he's refering to the LRB article, but I do think though that you have to take his words at face value, unless there is counter-evidence. I think it's an idiotic statement precisely because he seems to be blurring the lines between religious Judaism and the actions of lobbyists for the Israeli state.

All Acting Regiment

07:02 / 16.10.07

Certainly Dawkins himself wouldn't allow that kind of 'maybe it doesn't quite mean that' lenience to a Muslim accused of the same thing.

Closed for Business Time

09:12 / 16.10.07

I'd say Dawkins is bigoted not specifically because of this, but because over a range of issues such as atheism v religion, the public understanding of science and even in his own field of evolutionary biology he is both narrow-minded and obstinate, as well as prone to proclaiming his own excellence over that of us lesser mortals.

09:57 / 16.10.07

Does that not strike you as bending over backwards to defend him?

Maybe. But what he is saying, if taken at face value, is so stupid that it is hard to believe that someone meant it seriously. How can you interpret the statement that the "Jewish lobby...monopolise[s] American foreign policy"? That American foreign policy is run by or for the interests of the Jewish lobby? Its not even remotely defensible as a position.

On the other hand, taking a lead from Mearsheimer and Walt, and saying that the "Jewish lobby" has an influence on US foreign policy disproportionate to the numbers of US citizens it represents is both much less contentious and far more relevant for his analogy - remember that he wants atheists to have a lobby with some influence on US politics. I'd also agree that "Jewish lobby" would be much better replaced by "Israel lobby", though if you read Mearsheimer and Walt they do make the argument that Jewish identity is used as a way of encouraging political unity. It is part of their point that the Jewish religious and political identity is bound to the political position of the Israel lobby.

It is still a terrible analogy.

I am perfectly willing to agree that Dawkins can be arrogant, dismissive and especially simplistic in his desire to blame religion for the ills of the world. (Having said that, I am probably much more supportive of Dawkins generally than most people here.) But I really think that bigotry, in this case, is a stretch.

10:06 / 16.10.07

Certainly Dawkins himself wouldn't allow that kind of 'maybe it doesn't quite mean that' lenience to a Muslim accused of the same thing.

I'm not sure about that. For instance, his programme "The root of all evil" was criticised, by some, for treating the big three religions fairly equally rather than concentrating on Islam. Certainly, he could have easily gone with the mainstream and focused on Islamic terrorism. If your point is that he is especially critical of Muslims, then I'm not sure I see it. If your point is that he is *uncharitable* to religion generally, then I do see it although part of this arises out of a misunderstanding of what he is doing - that is, he isn't interested in arguing Theology, he is arguing with the reasons people commonly have for their beliefs.

14:08 / 16.10.07

If your point is that he is especially critical of Muslims, then I'm not sure I see it.

I wouldn't say he is more critical of Islam, but it always seemed to me that his bringing up (and its consumption) of the notion of religion as this lunatic primitive war-starting barbarian thing after 9-11 is not so much wanting to construct an argument as much as surfing on (and contributing to) people's fear by pressing their "yup" button so they can shake their heads at those 'lunatic barbarians'. Sure, they mention their own religious nuts but so what? Brief mentions on easy-targets no one'll ever do anything about -- like start a wtf war on them. But the "truly nuts" notion of course brings up far more images for them of brown bombers boogeymen, sometimes dressed in political analysis just a few degrees more deep than a republican debate. So it feels that between the lines the discussion is, if not a bridge to 'casualy' get to Islam, is marginally and unconsciously just pressing those buttons. "We have our nuts, fuck yeah/ I agree with/ adimit that/, I'm totally impartial, but theirs, phew, go off the charts!", but all sort of dressed in a somewhat superficial discussion of contemporary social context, but that seems more like just an excuse to meddle with images of people going nuts while talking to God and wanting to kill teh west -- 'cause, you know, God is the only thing making them do it.

I feel I can't quite explain it, but it seems like an understated thing. Like it's shorthand for Islam without never actually having to mention it and adimiting to themselves it is purely about their fears ("because we also talk about american nuts, catholic nuts, evangelical", blabla). It feels to me it's not what is being mentioned, but why, the context and so on. It's the same subtext I feel creeping on my skin when news venues all around the world just have a hard-on with words like "CLASH of civilizations" and when they can get a hold of images of brown people in middle eastern countries going ape shit with fish-eye lens so they'll appear kinectly deformed and coming straight at the viewer (the cartoons, or the flaming troll Pope thing) or in the middle of violence, or even the tiniest thing just to poke and pander the "barbarians! The horror! Folks going crazy" button.

14:24 / 16.10.07

Is it crazy for me to be worried that this sort of discourse is being easily accepted on public space? Every once in a while I'd catch a stupid comment like that untouched in any way, but it would usually come from some fanatical nut (one I clearly remember is Phil Donahue going on about "secular jews oppresing the catholic church"). And now, I think last week or 2 weeks ago, I saw this other guy plugging a book on Colbert Report -- I think it's called "The Israel Lobby". Colbert sort of pulled the guy's rug a bit, but still.... Isn't really worrisome that this is being even brought into discussion? Not that it should be censored -- but you don't see people who think black people are 5 dimensional lizard aliens from the core of the earth being interviewed or given that sort of space to express themselves, so why the hell are these people being giving a chance to spout a new iteration (just now trying to be a bit more careful with their words, and not appear fuckshit crazy) of the old "jews run the world" shit?

Every time I do a search on youtube now on anything like daily show, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher etc I get tons of results of variations of "911 truths", "evil Israel" vaguely disguised as "social analysis" or whatever and variations of the Jewish Conspiracy (seriously, I can't even bother to look anymore, just 1 out of 15 would be a video I could watch).

The other day I stopped to think about a colleague who has a Star of David on his wallet (he's not jewish) and sometimes would go on about how (paraphrasing from vague memory) 'they' have a higher and more lucid way to deal with "some things". By having that star on the wallet, I'm assuming now thinking back he was refering to "some (money & power) things". If this is the case, this is a really weird way of delusional prejudice turning on its own ass and maintain itself (so it would mean he not only thinks "the jews run the world", but he wants to bend to the masters' will and be accepted into the order or some shit).

Bit threadrotty, but felt I had to unload on that.

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:27 / 16.10.07

Er, but there is an Israel lobby. That's how AIPAC self-describes.

14:30 / 16.10.07

If 'bigoted' simply means that Dawkins is hostile to religious beliefs and the special treatment he thinks is accorded the practitioners of those beliefs, then this is not about the Jews. If Dawkins is an anti-semite or is running around saying anti-semitic things, that's a quite different and much more serious matter. I don't think that being anti-Muslim as well makes anti-semitism any less serious (as though being prejudiced against lots of groups makes it ok?).

I really wish I had a better sense of what else he has said, but when I try to look it up I keep getting the same statement. I'm trying to think of what else would be consistent with anti-semitism, and see where his statements fit in: is he hostile to atheists who were raised Jewish? Does he promote stereotypes? Does he have repulsive things to say about the holocaust? Does he think Jews are inferior to non-Jews?

The idea of a Jewish lobby that controls the US is stereotype while the idea that the US gives too much aid to Israel is an opinion or political view. Since the two could be phrased similarly, I'd like to see what else he's had to say on the topic before condemning him as an anti-semite, and to be honest, I think that's what's happening here and 'bigot' is being used as a euphemism.

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:32 / 16.10.07

I mean, I can understand how this kind of thing can be confusing, since anti-semites who believe in an international Jewish conspiracy often try to frame themselves as legitimate critics of the state of Israel, and opponents of legitimate critics of the state of Israel often try to frame them as anti-semites who believe in an international Jewish conspiracy. But looking at how people self-identify is a useful start.

14:44 / 16.10.07

Thanks Petey. That's basically my confusion on the matter.

It seemed iffy not as much that a critic of the state of Israel could be given a voice in that manner, but that how the crazy ones seems to be popping up more and more in ludicrous ways (and sometimes in the language of my day-to-day), and sometimes framing themselves in that respectable light (or even copying-'n-pasting those authors' arguments to add into their fuckshit crazyness). And also how what might be genuine and valid critique (I didn't read the guy's book, so I can't be sure) might be just massaging people's hate muscles in a similar way I tried poorly to explain my issue on Dawkins and Islam (not that that would necessarily invalidate anyone's argument).

All Acting Regiment

15:05 / 16.10.07

@ Lurid - yeah, my comment was a vague one and maybe not very useful. I suppose what I meant was, that there's a certain Dawkinsian style of discourse in which things people say are immediately pounced upon and pulled apart, and where ambiguous statements are treated as the worst possible; and where the possible reasons (outside the debate) for the statements' being made go un-considered.

In the discourse, for example, an Iranian speaking against Israel in mythical or violent terms would be mocked, held up as an idiot, a fundamentalist, and so on, without the mocker thinking about why the Iranian might be angry about Israel in the first place (which is what is necessary if the problems are to be resolved).

Anyway, the various people and lobbies accusing Dawkins of anti-Semitism seem to be using this on Dawkin himself (although I say this with the caveat that I haven't finished reading any of what's been said by either party).

All Acting Regiment

15:13 / 16.10.07

And also how what might be genuine and valid critique (I didn't read the guy's book, so I can't be sure) might be just massaging people's hate muscles in a similar way I tried poorly to explain my issue on Dawkins and Islam (not that that would necessarily invalidate anyone's argument).

To be honest, I think the danger of this happening - critiques of Israel descending into anti-semitic rabble-rousing with or without the critic's intent - is very slim at the moment, given that

A) the pro-Palestinian position is very much a marginal one (at least in America and largely in the UK)

B) populations at large in the west, to some extent even the further right, are much more aware of the dangers of racism against Jews than of the dangers against Muslims (consider the relative average awareness of what it was like to be a Jew in Europe to the average awareness of what the Empire was like for those underneath it), and are at the moment very keen to avoid, or to be seen to avoid, anti-Semitism; and even to use accusations of anti-Semitism against minority groups and their opinions - the classic example being Richard Littlejohn, and

C) the main pro-Palestinian voice, Edward Said, who is nearly always cited as the center of the movement, is very keen to avoid any insults or racism on his part against the Israelis.

Regrettable Juvenilia

15:19 / 16.10.07

The problem with all that, AAR, is that a simple Google search will reveal that actual anti-semitic critics of Israel are all too real and vocal. That's the downside of the internet, I guess.

Regrettable Juvenilia

15:21 / 16.10.07

Although having said that I think I misinterpreted you as saying that such a stance isn't very vocal or well-represented, when in fact you were just disputing the idea that genuine and valid critique... might be just massaging people's hate muscles - which I can't really respond to since I have no idea what it means/

16:25 / 16.10.07

I was just recycling my wonderings (not really affirming nothing with certainty) on Dawkins, Islam and religions to the area of critics of the state of Israel. That such ideas might not be untrue or not valid, but that some things leave me wondering the context, the reason and how they're being consumed, and wondering the reason of its popularity and if in any way it's related to fear or hate (muslims in Dawkins or jews in the 'Lobby'). That people with anti-semitic conspiracy theories agendas could be apropriating what might be critiques of a valid approach against the state of Israel. So I was just left wondering if there's any trace of an overall vague anti-semitic rise from what I've seen popping up, or if these few voices are just making themselves louder to me.
(I hope I made myself clear, I'm a bit confused by what you didn't understood, Petey. Sorry if I'm not making myself clear here. A bit groggy by lack of proper sleep in the last weeks)

[threadrot]
(the guy's book I mentioned earlier apparently isn't really just about the AIPAC. From the little I've read in the last hour it's basically begins by attempting respectability saying it's not there to talk about conspiracies or cabals and that it wants to discuss the lobby like one would discuss the NRA. But, apparently, it ends up holding the broader jewish community at large as controlling America's foreign policies and its bad directions and decisions, not "being an influence" but "controling", with no reference to oil, military complex or nothing else outside of Israel and the jewish community. And God, the cover is Israel's flag covering the U.S.'s...)

I think I should stop derailing the thread here.

10:22 / 18.11.07

Dear Prof. Dawkins,

I get that you're an atheist.

Gonnae stop going on about God?

15:03 / 21.11.07

I get the sense that he'd love to, if only the other 97.65% of the population would stop shoving their theistic idiocy down his throat.

Page: 1(2)3