You can now read Richard Dawkins official statement on the controversial petition over at the Panda's Thumb.
- Log in to post comments
Advertisment
You can now read Richard Dawkins official statement on the controversial petition over at the Panda's Thumb.
Having read the PT post, I will repost my comment just entered on the prior thread on this subject.(see below) I agree that the cultural/political/language differences between the UK and US have contributed to some dissonance on this subject, but I also think that Dawkins' goal of simply making religious labeling of children uncomfortable is far too weak a pot of tea for the culture we live in. To borrow a word from Hank, 'Godders' actively work to stamp out atheism and the religions of others. We will not turn that tide if we accept a purely defensive position on 'civil rights' grounds. I think that the right of those children to become informed citizens is being seriously erroded in the current climate, and that it is not a civil right to do whatever you wish with your children.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a very few others have pointed out, there is an underlying reason to be concerned about what children are taught. Given that one of the points of religious indoctrination is, as it says "indoctrination", we all have reason to be wary of giving free reign to parents in this arena. Consider that in some states home schooling is allowed and is embraced by some parents because it prevents public education from diluting their religious indoctrination. Facts and peers are a dangerous thing for cults/religions and children are pliable, dependent parties who can be controlled. If we are to avoid a world of ignorant adults, we need to take assertive steps to discourage the religious indoctrination of children.
So, the petition is poorly worded, and 'child abuse' is an inaccurate and inflammatory descriptor; but we cannot have a free and informed society if most of us enter adulthood having been indoctrinated in ignorance for 18 years first. It is difficult to be an informed citizen if a major portion of the culture encourages ignorance.
This "Kerfuffle" illustrates the wondrous powers of the internets to allow a forum in which people can write first and think later. The harm done with some careless posting causes far more damage than the corrections are able to fix, because the people that read the original posts, and wish to use this against Dawkins will never go back to check out the facts.
Hell, people are still spamming me with petitions to prevent Madalyn Murray O'Hair from taking this or that religious show off the air, never bothering to check whether or not she is taking action (let alone from beyond the grave.)
I am sure that I will now receive some spams urging me to boycott Dawkins' work and all of his sponsors, etc etc etc because of this.
Ed's original post, taken straight from an ID site, was a classic reasonable-middle-man gambit aimed at boosting his mediator cred with the religious folks. He simply miscalculated the strength of the language and drew undue attention.
imo
One cannot help but wonder why, at the time of this posting, one does not find "Richard Dawkins [sic] official statement" on Richard Dawkins's official website.
rhubarb: "One cannot help but wonder why, at the time of this posting, one does not find 'Richard Dawkins [sic] official statement' on Richard Dawkins's official website."
It's because the webmaster is on holiday. There's this little thing called "New Year's Day" coming up.
The fundies are doing a lot of things right to promote the cause - board and video games, fancy web sites, online certificate programs, "inspirational" books in Park bookstores, entire museums - and unless there is some serious pushback, they will continue to gain adherents.
We have a small squad of prominent atheist/agnostics: Richard Dawkins, Julia Sweeney, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, PZ, etc. When an intelligent person calls Dawkins a totalitarian and PZ an asshole, it doesn't do much good for the cause.
Dennett wrote recently:
"There are many deeply religious people who believe that they may democratically impose more and more of their creed on the nation, by simply exercising their First Amendment rights to free expression and creating thereby a climate of opinion that renders opposition by secularists politically ineffective. This is a grave danger to democracy, more subversive, in fact, than anything Al Qaeda threatens."
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/daniel_c_dennett/2006/12/a_p…
Ed Brayton falls on the side of protecting people's liberties:
"I am very passionate about civil liberties, as anyone who has read my writings over the years can tell you. I am a Jeffersonian to the core, meaning that I reject wholesale the notion that any government has the authority to police our thoughts or interfere in our lives without an absolutely clear warrant to protect another person against direct, tangible injury or deprivation of their equal rights."
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/my_letter_to_richard_dawkins…
I agree with Brayton, but I wish he would stop helping the other side by attacking people who are doing their best to make people aware of the "grave danger" we face as a country.
In the long run, it is far more dangerous to give society control and authority over children. When there's no centralized control, people will make all kinds of mistakes - but people have the freedom not to make them. When there's centralized control, no one has the freedom to do differently, and large groups are far more likely to fall into error.
Brayton isn't a proponent of freedom. He tolerates everything but intolerance - or believes he does - and the madness spreads further.
Thank you for your explanation, J. J. Ramsey; Happy New Year to you. May one assume, then, that today's post of an article written by Dr. Dennett (reposted from the Newsweek site) on the official Richard Dawkins website was accomplished without the webmaster's intervention?
I heard an interview once with an astronaut who was asked the inane question; "if you were on a spacewalk and something happened so you had only 10 minutes of air left, what would you do?" He said that he'd spend 7 minutes thinking and the last 3 minutes acting. To avoid doing something stupid.
But Dawkins isn't the only (to some extent, self-inflicted) victim from saying something stupid. Ed and especially PZ - and the chorus' of both - entertain themselves by tossing their swords up in the air. The resulting carnage is of great aid and comfort to the godders. I've been meaning to say that for a long time, OK, I've said it.
rhubarb: "May one assume, then, that today's post of an article written by Dr. Dennett (reposted from the Newsweek site) on the official Richard Dawkins website was accomplished without the webmaster's intervention?"
I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me. There's also the matter that posting articles may be easy to push up to the web site with a few clicks, while corrections of old material may require more manual tinkering. I'm no expert on web sites, but I would imagine that it is easier to do some kinds of modifications than others.
I read both of your blogs (and PT), so I saw this whole thing unfold (and have seen the other kerfluffles between you and Ed), and the one thing that amazes me is how nasty you two are to each other. You're on the same side of the evolution/creationism war, so act like it! It's entirely possible to clear up these things while being nice to each other, and it's also entirely possible to argue about tactics (the only place you two differ) with some civility.
You both seem like nice guys, I think it's time to start acting like it. Save the venom for the IDiots.
So obviously we need to set aside our differences and join forces to become a single, monolithic group working in concert for the greater averaged-together goal, because if we hold onto anything that keeps us separate, we'll lose.
Yeah... we'll get right on that.
Oh, yeah, I sure regret calling Brayton a liar and an asshole now, and all those accusations of perfidy against Dawkins that were subsequently shown to be false...boy is my face red.Oh, and no, we're not on the same side. Don't you remember? Brayton himself declared us to be on different teams.
"So obviously we need to set aside our differences and join forces to become a single, monolithic group working in concert for the greater averaged-together goal, because if we hold onto anything that keeps us separate, we'll lose.
"Yeah... we'll get right on that."
Well said and put, because we need to remember that "Sharon" claims to be on the same team.
Not only did he say you were on different teams, he has now linked to an IDiot and agreed with his "evolution supporter" hierarchy that further splinters the pro-science crowd. But no...you and Dawkins are the one making people choose sides.
I always gathered that you were all on the same side, only you and a few others like to call a spade a spade and will tell anyone, regardless of "teams" when they're ideas are idiotic. And I respect that far more then the "other teams" method of not challenging anything as long as the person is considered a "friend of the cause".
PZ, I am NOT suggesting that disagreements be squelched, only that they be handled less destructively. And both you and Ed have called each other deplorable things to the great benefit of the godders. I suppose someone could do a statistical analysis of who used more insults, but since I have not, I retract the "especially PZ" qualifier. Maybe I just read your blog more often than his.
Acting as a discredit to your species, are you likely to persuade anyone of anything? Or does that matter? With the dung flinging all over the place, few from the ID camp will conclude that you might have a point.
Just think about it, OK?
If one believes in an afterlife, one will be haunted by spectres, it seems ...
you and Ed have called each other deplorable things to the great benefit of the godders
Being called on deplorable behavior is always worse than the behavior, lest the godders win.
Just what isn't for the great benefit of the godders?
Marching in lockstep like knives through butter until PZ came along, our side (who am us, anyway?) have reputedly employed centuries of logic, reason, observation, evidence, and the scientific method, against which the godders are ever impervious. Apparently we must reign in the slightest hint of any internal discord so we can out-civility them.
Heaven forfend we might offend.
People who accept ideologies tend to make use of whatever methods they can to propagate it - in their minds, the ends justify the means.
People without ideologies tend to be concerned more with means than ends because the means are all they have.
I agree, but let people be offended by our ideas, rather than by how we manage our differences. For starters, we could avoid exaggerating one another's statements.
Handling differences constructively keeps the focus on issues, rather than personalities. It gives the other guy a way to change his mind and come to agree with you.
Try it sometime. When someone insults you, try ignoring the insult and addressing only the content. Keep it up long enough for the other guy to cool down, too. Amazing what you can work out that way, common ground you can find, and common purpose achieved.
Or just go on the way you have been - as someone said, professional wrestling.
Oh, and just to clarify, when I said; "I agree" above, I was agreeing with the ironic subtext of your statement that offense is not necessarily a bad thing.
Brayton apologises to Dawkins like a cocky 12-year-old,
It's incredible how juvenile this man is.
Heh heh.
Still, perhaps "X is like Rushdoony, he wants to bring us to the world of 1984, he can no longer be taken seriously" could be replaced with "this seems poorly worded at best and authoritarian at worst, perhaps signing it was injudicious", without entirely compromising our intellectual diversity?
exaggerating one another's statements
That handy pullquote was employed to caricature a position at the expense of exaggerating yours.
The condescending tone of or your response, its contempt thinly masked by an attempt to appear gracious in an appeal to common ground, is something I find highly offensive.
Now, is this a five minute argument, or the full half-hour?
How cynical. I can only tell you that I am completely sincere in saying that the tendency to whip out the flamethrowers is a weakness, rather than a strength of this forum. If you see that as condescension, oh well.
Nope, that's pretty much the whole thing. It wasn't a complicated point and there's no reason to beat it into a blunt instrument.
PZ, I hope you can now see that Brayton wasn't criticizing Dawkins because Dawkins is an atheist. He was criticizing Dawkins because of such an anti-civil liberties position that Dawkins appeared to support.
If Dawkins' atheism were unknown (or weren't made such an issue by you), then Ed's post would have been nearly identical in content and in snarkiness to his many other posts that promote civil liberties.
Ultimately, I find it unfortunate that you equated Brayton's criticism with an attack on atheism in general.
Happy new year to all.
What Ken Cope said. The inoffensive, quiet, logical commentary that has characterized most atheist statements for the last 100+ years has gotten us nowhere. The mere existence of atheists is still considered offensive by the god-soaked rabble.
So it appears that atheism does need loud, articulate supporters who are not afraid to "offend" the delicate sensibilities of the loud mouthed religionists.
A lot of atheists are not comfortable with aggressive, politicized atheism. Fine. It's not for everyone. But there certainly is a place for it, and a need for it.
Now, do I take on an aggressive, politicized atheistic stance at my place(s) of work? No. Not even in my own office. I don't want to create a politicized work place or cause any staff member to feel unfairly scrutinized on account of their religion. But everyone eventually knows my position, sooner rather than later.
People like Dawkins and PZ catch the attention of the media and the masses. In turn, that gives me a chance to be able to naturally comment on these issues as they arise in natural conversation. And it makes it quite clear that I am not a lone voice crying out in a godless wilderness.
I am appreciative of Nick Matzke for working to put this dog to bed. By soliciting Dr. Dawkins and giving him a chance to explain, in his unmistakeable prose, exactly what mistakes were made, he performed an inestimable service for all of us.
Another inestimable service could be performed if others in this tempest could follow Dr. Dawkins' example. My opinion of the man (which was already high) went up a notch because he was accountable for his actions, while at the same time muted in any criticism of others involved.
Very refreshing.
Now, what would it take for someone to say, "I'm sorry. I overreacted. I'll try to do a better job next time of asking questions before I shoot"? Just my two cents, Mr. Brayton, in case you're reading...SH
Please go away. The hypocrisy reeks.I just took a look at Brayton's sanctimonious letter to Dawkins, where among his usual self-serving tripe, he says "I can only say now that I wish I had been as gracious myself, as I hope Prof. Myers does as well." A fine sentiment, that; but then you'll notice that 20 minutes after posting that, he makes this whiny little rant.It puts the lie to his whole pious stance in the letter, doesn't it? Seriously, he must have started writing that comment right after posting his reply—he didn't mean a word of what he wrote to Dawkins, I suspect.
PZ, I refuse to believe that you are as unintelligent as your last comment implies. I'm not inside Ed's head, but from reading all the relevant posts, I find everything that he wrote to Dawkins in his letter to be very sincere.
But this has nothing to do with his personal stance on you. But just because he apparently still has a beef with you, it does NOT imply that he was insincere about Dawkins.
Why do you have such a huge chip on your shoulder when it comes to atheism? You seem to have a pattern of defending atheism against attacks you perceive, but aren't actually there. I think you should read more of Brayton's posts on civil liberties, and then you might see that his post was about that, and not about attacking atheism.
Brayton: "I can only say now that I wish I had been as gracious myself, as I hope Prof. Myers does as well."
PZ Myers: "It puts the lie to his whole pious stance in the letter, doesn't it?"
How does Brayton hoping that you wish that you had been as gracious as Dawkins conflict with his complaints that you hadn't been gracious?
I presume you think that after declaiming his wish to be more gracious, it was entirely gracious for him to go on an extended rant against me? The word does not mean what you and he seem to think it means.
And no, I have no respect for Brayton's stand on anything: I regard it to be as insincere and self-serving as his position on graciousness, nothing but a mask for his hypocrisy.
Wow. Just wow...
This is the bitterest divorce I've ever seen. I'm just glad that children aren't involved. lol
Just a lurking opinion here....
I lean more towards the calm conversation mode. I do not push too hard in favor of the "superstitious nonsense" type of language to persuade or debate.
However...
If we do not have PZ and Dawkins and others who use direct language, to the point of being abrasive, my fear is that the kinder, gentler Braytons of the world will not HAVE a debate.
It is critical that strong, pointed, and intelligent opposition speak out. They need to speak out in a way that makes the opposition UNCOMFORTABLE. Will every debate take place at that volume? No, but if the bell does not sound, we'll never get into the ring.
Oh, please. Where does anyone who has followed this get the idea Brayton is kindler and gentler? Look at the language he has applied to Dawkins and me! He's an unprincipled libertarian thug; you can all stop trying to persuade me otherwise now. I'm done with him.
PZ Myers: "I presume you think that after declaiming his wish to be more gracious, it was entirely gracious for him to go on an extended rant against me?"
No, but it is far easier to want to be gracious than to actually do it, especially when one has been repeatedly provoked. I'm sure you know that from personal experience.
He commits the offensives, then expects his opponents to construct elaborate apologies for the conflict he initiated.
The man is slime.
A fine sentiment, that; but then you'll notice that 20 minutes after posting that, he makes this whiny little rant.
Ed Brayton:
"...I get numerous private emails from our mutual colleagues that say...."
Aside from smelling to high heaven of "the lurkers support me in e-mail", this little line of Brayton's highlights another annoying thing about the man. In the middle of smearing PZ, he refers to "our mutual colleagues". PZ's colleagues are working scientists. Brayton isn't a scientist, and yet he frames his statement in such a way that an inattentive reader might take it to mean that Brayton's hands-on experiences in science are greater than zero. It's a double layer of self-aggrandizement: one for pretending to some sort of rhetorical sanctity and one for allowing the readers to think he's in the same league as PZ.
Ed Brayton:
"...I get numerous private emails from our mutual colleagues that say...."
When I read this, I immediately thought of PZ's and Ed's co-collaborators at Panda's Thumb. Several of them have been somewhat critical of PZ in the past as well.
Yeah, they're critical, but most seem to have the same complaint. That PZ won't be a good little boy and stop criticizing the theists on "their" side. I doubt he cares much for those "asshole" comments from that crowd, nor should he.
I was also surprised to see the attack on PZ so shortly after that letter that seemed to be a semi apology, a "we shouldn't overreact like this" type of comment. It was pretty classless.
Sometimes "Fuck you, and the horse you rode in on" is the only reasonable response left to give. Other than silence, of course.
Update for rhubarb and anyone else interested: The link to the nasty petition is gone from Dawkins' web site.
Brayton has made a habit of attributing anti-civil liberties positions to outspoken atheists, and of linking their atheism to those positions. Case in point: his reaction to Larry Moran's "Flunk IDers" post. Note that Moran's post had all of nothing to do with theism or atheism.
Um, except for the bit about Dawkins favoring an "atheist dystopia" and "coercion to try and stamp out religion."
PZ didn't do that. He said that Brayton tends to attack outspoken atheists, which is perfectly true. If he attacked atheism itself as a position, it would be a refreshing change.
Well, this was an interesting chain of events to get to after the New Year festivities calms down. Dawkins position on indoctrination becomes much more clear, though I have to find out more around Orac's observation on another thread that the "child abuse" position may be inconsistent. (Since Dawkins doesn't propose harder consequences.)
Anyway, Dawkins came up on top and Brayton on the bottom - as usual he can't in the end resist attacking people (Moran, Myers, Dawkins) from a negative read even if he sometimes manage to get the prior analysis correct. And he ends consistently with an overlong apology letter where he likewise can't refrain from suggesting that Dawkins should be chamberlaining.
There is also humor to be found. Brayton has himself slipped in his chamberlaining. His confessed strategy was:
While he now says:
If anyone wanted the links to Brayton's parade of odd comments, you are out of luck. Evidently PZ's spam script is hypersensitive about Ed.
Oh, and I have resolved Orac's point to my satisfaction by now. (This comment was languishing in the spam queue for a day.) It is a conflict between "child abuse" and "personal discomfort at home", which isn't there regarding other abuse.
Well, this was an interesting chain of events to get to after the New Year festivities calms down. Dawkins position on indoctrination becomes much more clear, though I have to find out more around Orac's observation on another thread that the "child abuse" position may be inconsistent. (Since Dawkins doesn't propose harder consequences.)
Anyway, Dawkins came up on top and Brayton on the bottom - as usual he can't in the end resist attacking people (Moran, Myers, Dawkins) from a negative read even if he sometimes manage to get the prior analysis correct. And he ends consistently with an overlong apology letter where he likewise can't refrain from suggesting that Dawkins should be chamberlaining.
There is also humor to be found. Brayton has himself slipped in his chamberlaining. His confessed strategy was:
While he now says:
If anyone wanted the links to Brayton's parade of odd comments, you are out of luck. Evidently PZ's spam script is hypersensitive about Ed.
Oh, and I have resolved Orac's point to my satisfaction by now. (This comment was languishing in the spam queue for a day.) It is a conflict between "child abuse" and "personal discomfort at home", which isn't there regarding other abuse.