Comments on: Dawkins is still jumping the shark

By: thechristiancynic

thechristiancynic — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:21:46 +0000

The problem with ignoring Dawkins is that he has a great deal of influence. Besides, there's plenty of cyberspace out there, and I doubt we'll run out of it anytime soon. Just as long as we can discuss issues other than Dawkins' gross errors of judgment.

By: John A. Davison

John A. Davison — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:52:27 +0000

Why waste cyberspace on Dawkins? He is a loser. He has recently decided that Einstein is his hero, apparently oblivious to what Einstein thought about the likes of him -

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source… They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

By: MikeGene

MikeGene — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 20:12:50 +0000

Yes, this is the type of thing that creates doubts about his sincerity. I guess it was just wrongoid (something that looks wrong, but never really was wrong).

By: thechristiancynic

thechristiancynic — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 20:00:16 +0000

Bloody hell! All that storm in a teacup for nothing! If only the petition had been worded properly in the first place "¦ And if only I had read it more carefully "¦ And if only Brayton had read it more charitably "¦ No wonder lawyers and diplomats need special training. I'm out of my depth here.

This makes me really sad. You'd think a Professor of the Public Understanding of Science would have some knowledge of how to go about understand things in their entirety and what effects his public actions might have in the public realm. I've maintained that people make mistakes, but it's like he rationalizes his own error while acknowledging it. Maybe he needs some "consciousness-raising" of his own.

By: KC

KC — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 18:52:49 +0000

Hi Krauze,

You're right. The link is gone, with no sign of ever having been there (compare this to this). It will be interesting to see if Dawkins will add an explanation, in case some of his readers didn't read it/didn't think it involved the government/thought it asked the government not to teach religion in schools and mistakenly signed it too.

Check again. He has posted Nick Matzke's post on Panda's Thumb explaining his position.

By: MikeGene

MikeGene — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 17:12:45 +0000

I agree that Dawkins himself is clearly not a fascist who wants the government to abolish religion altogether. What is clear is that he deeply hates religion and is being driven by his emotions. He admitted that it was his passion that led him to sign the petition. In other words, his emotions caused him to comit an act of stupidity that had political consequences. It's one thing to get emotional and make some comments. Its another to get emotional and sign and circulate a political petition.

The problem with his "consciousness raising" efforts is that he abandons his principles about critical thinking, reason and evidence and is now using propaganda to appeal to emotions. Labeling religious parents as child abusers can only enhance emotional reactions on both sides and front-loads society such the similar petitions will again arise (from both sides) and when that happens, people will stand by their signature.

It's the lesson of the South Park cartoon.

By: thechristiancynic

thechristiancynic — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 17:05:44 +0000

By the way, from the sounds of it, someone could pull a serious con on Dawkins for a lot of money. Just put something in front of him that includes the phrase "allowing parents to label their children with their religious beliefs is child abuse" prominently at the top; I'd wager that he'll sign it without even reading the rest.

By: thechristiancynic

thechristiancynic — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 17:03:14 +0000

I just wanted to say that I can sympathize with Andrea in the fact that the timbre here in response to Dawkins' signature in the first place was that this is the beginning of his irrationality in trying to wipe out religion, and Andrea seems to have wanted the posters here to recant on that after finding out Dawkins didn't know what he was signing (which really amuses me). I however think his current position on indoctrination and labeling as child abuse is insipid enough that this isn't an unreasonable position; it's just that we should probably give him the benefit of the doubt as to the process by which he wishes to snuff out religion. I still doubt that he wants to persuade everyone by honest rational discourse since he doesn't seem to do very well with that these days, but at the very least, we should try to avoid vilifying him as a fascist who wants the government to abolish religion altogether.

By: MikeGene

MikeGene — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 16:34:28 +0000

The link disappeared on New Year's Eve. I agree with Krauze. Since Dawkins has rethought the petition and now sees the horrific nature of the petition, and since his official web page once promoted this political activity (and probably solicited signatures), shouldn't he also encourage the readers of his own web page to rethink their signature?

By: Krauze

Krauze — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 16:12:32 +0000

Hi KC,

You're right. The link is gone, with no sign of ever having been there (compare this to this). It will be interesting to see if Dawkins will add an explanation, in case some of his readers didn't read it/didn't think it involved the government/thought it asked the government not to teach religion in schools and mistakenly signed it too.