…and this is a 
Never let the facts get in the way of damning Dawkins
Category: Godlessness • Kooks
Posted on: December 30, 2006 11:12 AM, by PZ Myers
Ed Brayton and Mike Gene have gone over the top in accusing Richard Dawkins of wanting to coerce the religious into giving up their beliefs; as is usual for Ed, he has no problem immediately comparing an atheist to R.J. Rushdooney and calling him a totalitarian, on the basis of a rather poorly written petition that Dawkins signed.
I must say, though, that this petition is certainly strange, and I don't quite see how it could have gotten over a 1000 signatories. I sure don't approve of it, although I can understand the motivation behind it.
In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians. At the age of 16, as with other laws, they would then be considered old enough and educated enough to form their own opinion and follow any particular religion (or none at all) through free thought.
I was suspicious immediately. For one thing, Mike Gene pulls a bait-and-switch that Ed fell for without question: he claims that Dawkins endorsed this petition on his website. This is not true. There is a different petition from the same group that is endorsed at richarddawkins.net, which encourages the removal of government support for faith-based schools. There is no link anywhere on that site to the controversial petition (Wait—there is a single link without comment in a list of petitions; Mike Gene was not pulling a bait-and-switch, he was just elevating the significance of the link). When an ID creationist pulls something that sneaky, it's a good idea to think twice.
For another, the first comment on that article is from Dawkins himself, saying "There is value in Religious Education, including Comparative Religion". Hmmm…that outright contradicts the anti-indoctrination petition. Perhaps if Mike Gene or Ed Brayton had actually read a little farther they might have noticed a discrepancy with their uncharitable interpretation?
Now I also have the advantage of having actually read The God Delusion, which is a little unfair to Ed, who has not, yet is happy to condemn its author. I've also talked very briefly with Dawkins on this subject. I know that religious indoctrination is a major concern, and it is a serious problem with no practical resolution in sight. Dawkins discusses it in his book, and no, he does not propose policing religious people to make sure that they do not teach their children prayers at night. In fact, his specific proposal is to go the other way — to see that more comparative religion is taught.
A good case can indeed be made for the huge educational benefits of teaching comparative religion. Certainly my own doubts were first aroused, at the age of about nine, by the lesson (which came not from school but from my parents) that the Christian religion in which I was brought up was only one of many mutually incompatible belief-systems. Religious apologists themselves realize this and it often frightens them. After that nativity play story in the Independent, not a single letter to the editor complained of the religious labelling of the four-year-olds. The only negative letter came from 'The Campaign for Real Education', whose spokesman, Nick Seaton, said multi-faith religious education was extremely dangerous because 'Children these days are taught that all religions are of equal worth, which means that their own has no special value.' Yes indeed; that is exactly what it means. Well might this spokesman worry. On another occasion, the same individual said, 'To present all faiths as equally valid is wrong. Everybody is entitled to think their faith is superior to others, be they Hindus, Jews, Muslims or Christians — otherwise what's the point in having faith?'
What indeed? And what transparent nonsense this is! These faiths are mutually incompatible. Otherwise what is the point of thinking your faith superior? Most of them, therefore, cannot be 'superior to others'. Let children learn about different faiths, let them notice their incompatibility, and let them draw their own con- clusions about the consequences of that incompatibility. As for whether any are 'valid', let them make up their own minds when they are old enough to do so.
It's all very peculiar. What to do? The obvious thing: I wrote to Dawkins and told him that this particular petition was awfully sloppy and open to nefarious interpretation and asked if he really signed it.
His reply was that yes, he had signed it, but only because he had read just the short version, which mentions opposition to religious indoctrination, a position he shares. When informed of the full text, he agrees that it was a mistake and has asked to have his name removed from it. He has publicly disavowed the petition in a comment on Brayton's site (yes, I can confirm that that actually is Dawkins), and has also deplored the further misquotation of his comments.
Simple summary: Richard Dawkins does not believe in coercing religious people, and he does not endorse any kind of totalitarian action to separate children from religious instruction. He also does not have horns and a forked tail. Some people, though, are awfully quick to use their ignorance to impose outrageous beliefs on the man.
Comments
Posted by: DavidByron | December 30, 2006 11:28 AM
So what sort of religious education do American schools have? In the UK they often have exactly that sort of "here's a bunch of religions -- they're all the same really" approach and it likely has helped to make the UK essentially an atheist nation along with a lot of that sort of wishy-washy religion that says nothing religiously ideological really matters.
Posted by: Caledonian | December 30, 2006 11:29 AM
What will it actually take for Brayton to be recognized as an enemy of your cause? I've seen you hint, insinuate, and imply, but I don't believe you've ever actually renounced Brayton pubically, PZ.
Posted by: Caledonian | December 30, 2006 11:31 AM
Public schools? Officially, none in the vast majority of cases. Unofficially, there are many teachers who use school as a podium for proselytization.
Posted by: Elf Eye | December 30, 2006 11:36 AM
Caledonian: So, exactly how do you want PZ to go about renouncing Brayton "pubically"? This should be interesting.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 30, 2006 11:49 AM
I HEREBY RENOUNCE ALL PUBIC ACCESS TO ED BRAYTON. HE IS BANNED FROM MY NETHERS HENCEFORTH AND FOREVER AND RETROACTIVELY.
Seriously, though, is there anyone who is at all confused about my opinion of Ed Brayton who has been following these sorry spectacles? I guarantee you that Ed has no uncertainty whatsoever.
Posted by: Joshua | December 30, 2006 11:51 AM
Posted by: Joshua | December 30, 2006 11:52 AM
Bah! Forgot to close the blockquote. Well, it should be obvious where the quote ends and my comments begin.
Posted by: TheChristianCynic | December 30, 2006 11:55 AM
PZ, I believe you may be mistaken. Dawkins actually endorses two different petitions on his site, "Stop indoctrination and labeling of children (UK)" and "Abolish faith schools (UK)". The former is the petition in question, and it is far from clear that the purposes of the two are incoherent (one wants the government to disallow schools based on faith, the other wants the government to prohibit parents from giving their children regular religious education and labeling them by religion). You can find this on the main page of his official site, below "The God Delusion unabridged audiobook: iTunes (UK) | download (US) | on CD (Amazon.com)" and above "The Blasphemy Challenge".
Posted by: andy.s | December 30, 2006 12:05 PM
Interesting; a link to the petition that he allegedly disavowed is on the main page at http://richarddawkins.net/home
I also find it interesting that the petition considers 16 to be the minimum age at which you are allowed to take your children to worship.
So I presume the Brits will soon be arresting parents for having a Bar Mitzvah ceremony for 13 year olds?
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 30, 2006 12:08 PM
No, as I think has been made quite plain by now, Dawkins does not support criminalizing religious ceremonies or instruction. Are you willfully stupid, or is this the result of some terrible cranial accident?
Posted by: Caledonian | December 30, 2006 12:16 PM
Gaaah! Accursed typos!
That was of course supposed to be 'public', but I didn't even catch the error until it was pointed out.
Clearly you have a very low opinion of Brayton and his positions, but that's not quite the same thing as actively declaring your opposition to him. I'm sure you have a low opinion of me, yet our goals are fairly compatible. Brayton doesn't seem to be using different methods which you disapprove of to achieve similar goals. On the contrary, his goals are actively incompatible with yours - or so it seems to me.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 30, 2006 12:16 PM
Dawkins has also plainly said, "I regret signing it, and I admit that I was wrong to do so."
Given the past record of how his words are distorted, though, I suspect someone will turn that into an admission that he drinks the blood of Christian babies.
Posted by: JohnJB | December 30, 2006 12:21 PM
Thank you, PZ, for clearing this up.
Ed Brayton's post raised loud alarms on all my BS and "there's-more-to-this-story" meters.
Posted by: Russell | December 30, 2006 12:25 PM
PZ, I think you're letting the tiff between Ed and yourself get the better of your objectivity. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that Ed would publicly criticize what Richard Dawkins publicly posted on his site. Do you really propose the rule that everyone who would do that should first send the author email asking, "is this really what you meant?" Do you follow that rule, before you criticize what you see on other people's websites? Say a creationist website?
That's not how the blogosphere generally works. I'm glad to see that Dawkins didn't really intent what that petition says. But I don't think Ed is to blame, for pointing out what it says.
Posted by: peanut gallery | December 30, 2006 12:27 PM
Prof. Myers, how exactly do you identify the Richard Dawkins commenter as authentic?
"I am the Richard Dawkins who wrote The God Delusion (although I don't see how I can prove it.)"
Bit theological, isn't it? :)
Posted by: TheChristianCynic | December 30, 2006 12:30 PM
PZ,
Would you consider retracting your comment about the "bait-and-switch"? Of course, this would be preceded by the acknowledgment that Dawkins has been promoting this on his official web site (sort of a silly thing for him to do without reading it thoroughly, but mistakes happen to the best of us). It's pretty unfair to say that Mike pulled any such stunt when he accurately relayed the information that anyone could have found right on the main page of Dawkins' personal site.
Posted by: stubie | December 30, 2006 12:32 PM
No, no, no, Dawkins doesn't drink the blood of christian babies, he doesn't drink the blood of babies who have been labeled as christian.
Posted by: Ebonmuse | December 30, 2006 12:35 PM
I don't think Ed did anything wrong by discussing the petition. Its wording was pretty clear, which is why I found it hard to believe that Dawkins would actually endorse the position it seemed to be endorsing.
Nevertheless, PZ did a very good deed by writing to Dawkins and asking him about it (and it probably helps that he has Richard Dawkins' personal e-mail address! I'm jealous). I'm very glad that the mistake has been corrected; this will hopefully forestall endless iterations of dishonest creationists using it to drag Dawkins' name through the mud. I do hope Ed posts a correction.
Posted by: KC | December 30, 2006 12:52 PM
It wouldn't have helped with Mike Gene. The fact the petition clearly contradicted what Dawkins has been writing and saying for years only reinforces Mike's delusion that Dawkins has a hidden, authoritarian agenda. For example, when Dawkins said he regretted signing the petition, Mike writes:
LOL.
KC
Posted by: writerdddd | December 30, 2006 12:59 PM
"For another, the first comment on that article is from Dawkins himself, saying "There is value in Religious Education, including Comparative Religion". Hmmm...that outright contradicts the anti-indoctrination petition"
Sorry PZ. I'm sure you've read The God Delusion. I don't see how you could have missed the point that Dawkins thinks indoctrination is child abuse. Learning ABOUT religions is not even remotely the same thing as being indoctrinated into a religion.
Posted by: James Orpin | December 30, 2006 1:01 PM
"In the UK they often have exactly that sort of "here's a bunch of religions -- they're all the same really" approach"
That's often true, but it depends on the teacher. Mine (Simon Danes - name and shame) covered the other main faiths but gave them all short thrift. We then used the textbook he had written for Christianity which contained such howlers as 'there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than of Julius Caesar' and 'the resurrection must have happened, none of the other explanations are believable'.
I'm sad to say that like many school children I thought what the teacher told me was essentially true. It's amazing how long it can take to get 'facts' learned at secondary school out of your brain. How many other children go on blindly believing this crap.
So whilst I agree that teaching kids comparative religion is good, we have to be sure that what is taught is of a high standard.
Posted by: sharon | December 30, 2006 1:05 PM
I'm sorry, PZ, but you're wrong. That petition (as well as the other one) is indeed linked at Dawkins' site right at this moment (and moreover has been there for long enough to be cached by Google). They're at the top of his homepage in clear view.
Posted by: Orac | December 30, 2006 1:06 PM
Let me propose an even simpler summary, PZ: Dawkins was too freakin' careless to bother to read the whole petition before he affixed his signature to it, and his carelessness came back to bite him. True, he did the right thing by disavowing the petition, but, quite frankly, from my perspective he has no one but himself to blame for signing it in the first place and deserves to get some egg on his face for his mistake.
Posted by: TheChristianCynic | December 30, 2006 1:09 PM
Thanks for at least the partial correction, PZ.
Posted by: George | December 30, 2006 1:11 PM
Ed: The atheist dystopia he seems to favor is no less appalling than the Christian dystopia favored by people like RJ Rushdoony.
That's an awful thing to say. About Rushlooney:
Rushdoony was one of the first members of the secretive Council for National Policy, which the Rev. Tim LaHaye and others started to bring right-wing Christians, other conservative activists, and John Birchers together with wealthy patrons willing to fund them. He also served on the board of Dr. Jay Grimstead's Coalition on Revival (COR), an umbrella group that attempted to bridge the theological differences of competing sects within an increasing emphasis on dominating secular institutions.
A Rushlooney quote: "Democracy is the great love of the failures and cowards of life."
Take it back, Ed. Dawkins is a reasonable human being. Rushlooney was a fanatical nutcase.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 30, 2006 1:12 PM
Yes, I agree and he agrees that he made a mistake, and has said so plainly. When I informed him of the full content of the petition he was quick to reply that he did not agree with it?
So isn't it time for people to stop assigning opinions to him that he does not hold? It's fine to accuse him of hastiness and sloppiness, but we've got people saying he wants to erect an atheist dystopia, shares fundamentalist attitudes with Christian Dominionists, and wants to coerce religious people into repudiating their beliefs. His biggest mistake was an error that allowed bigots to parade their worst delusions about atheists; and now it's being used to make excuses for that bigotry.
Posted by: CR McClain | December 30, 2006 1:15 PM
I agree totally with Orac. Who signs a petition without reading the full text? He made a mistake and someone called him on it.
Posted by: Orac | December 30, 2006 1:17 PM
I have to agree here. Even though, my B.S. detecting antennae started twitching a bit when I read Ed's post, leading me to wonder if there was more to the story than what Ed posted, I see nothing wrong with his having pointed out that Dawkins signed the petition and what that petition said. Yes, Ed could have tried to contact Dawkins and asked him if he really endorsed the petition, but this is the blogosphere. Who does that, except when it's one's friends who screwed up and whom you want to defend? Indeed, I doubt PZ would have gone to the trouble he did to contact Dawkins if Dawkins were not someone he considers a friend and whom he admires.
And Sharon is correct. There are a links to both petitions right at the very top of Dawkins' home page.
Posted by: TWood | December 30, 2006 1:24 PM
As of the writing of this post both petitions are still on Dawkins site. There are two links in a single line of text. There was no bait and switch, but it's all irrelevant now anyway since Dawkins retracted support.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b113/tomwood2/religion/dawkinspetitions.jpg
Posted by: Caledonian | December 30, 2006 1:27 PM
Ah, but is Brayton criticizing Dawkins for being sloppy in signing the petition, or is he criticizing Dawkins for supporting the causes listed in the petition?
Seeing as the rest of the petition supports ideas that contradict much of what Dawkins has said in the past, using this as evidence that Dawkins seeks a totalitarian atheist state seems rather a stretch.
Posted by: Russell | December 30, 2006 1:28 PM
C R McClain:
Who kisses a girl, without asking first if she has a beau? When I do something stupid on the internets, I oft blame it on the fact that I did it in the eve, when in my cups.
Posted by: Orac | December 30, 2006 1:32 PM
Prior to Dawkins' disavowal of the petitions he signed, it was not entirely unreasonable to accuse him of such attitudes, based on the wording of the petitions that he signed, petitions that he clearly endorsed, as evidenced by his prominently placing links to them near the very top of his own home page.
So, yes, now that he's retracted his support of the petition, it's time to stop accusing Dawkins of such views, but Dawkins did get caught being embarrassingly careless and sloppy. Quite frankly, it's embarrassing, and makes me wonder about him a bit, given other episodes of sloppy thinking, such as his continued use of the excruciatingly bad historical analogy known as the "Neville Chamberlain School of Evolutionists" gambit, which, to my knowledge, he's never disavowed.
Posted by: peanut gallery | December 30, 2006 1:33 PM
Dawkins miswrote, Brayton misrant, PZ misattack'd. Time for apologies and clarifactions all around!
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 30, 2006 1:35 PM
How about someone who has actually read the guy's book and sees that the sentiments therein do not bear out the accusation that he's out to establish a Rushdooneyesque atheist fascist state? It would be presumptuous to call Dawkins a friend, but I can tell when someone with whom I share many attitudes is being grossly misrepresented.
When I ran across the petition last night, I also prepared some comments where I would plainly reject it -- I didn't have to post them because Dawkins himself was very prompt about it, as I expected he would. There's just no factual basis anywhere to this idea that Dawkins favors legal coercion to interfere with parental rights -- while deploring religious indoctrination, he's also always been quick to say that he finds any mechanism to block it even more intolerable -- so that ought to make one wonder about that petition. It fit with Ed's bigotry, though, so he ran with it.
Posted by: Observer | December 30, 2006 1:37 PM
I agree with Orac - Richard Dawkins simply screwed up. Whether it was hasty fervor, carelessness or whatever, the only noble thing is to accept the goof, clarify (as he's done) and move on...and be more careful in the future. He should also remove the link to that totalitarian poll from his site immediately. Who thought of that poll? It's so counterproductive I'm embarrassed if it was an atheist who thought of it.
That being said, I got The God Delusion for Xmas from my religious sister - yay, I'm reading it now. :-)
Posted by: peanut gallery | December 30, 2006 1:38 PM
"Seeing as the rest of the petition supports ideas that contradict much of what Dawkins has said in the past, using this as evidence that Dawkins seeks a totalitarian atheist state seems rather a stretch."
That seems unfair to me. To someone who knows Dawkins well and is familiar with his positions (such as PZ), yes, it is unreasonable. But to someone coming in from outside, like many of the readers of this blog and that, the wording of the petition was clear, and rather damningly attached Dawkins to an unsavory political position. Unfortunately for him, it's one he did not actually hold. I suppose after this awful mess of PR, he'll be far more fastidious with his signature.
Posted by: Jim in STL | December 30, 2006 1:41 PM
And I agree with him, this is absolutely evidence that Dawkins does indeed favor coercion to try and stamp out religion. - Ed Brayton
Brayton brought evidence that in turn was brought to him by someone obviously antagonistic towards Dawkins and then declares the absolute presense of evidence for a conclusion that would seem to reinforce a preconceived bias. At the very least it appears a rush to judgement. It would have been a good idea to test the evidence a bit - I don't think that a call/email to Dawkins was out of the question.
It may have been good bloginess to charge ahead and post such a strong, and certain to incite, post but it wasn't exactly good journalism or science.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 30, 2006 1:42 PM
Orac, read the lengthy quote from The God Delusion that I included in the article above, in which Dawkins' remedy is to encourage more instruction of comparative religion in the schools. Anybody who had read the book would know that while calling the labeling of children as religious was abuse, he did not propose any totalitarian steps to correct the problem...unless education is now a tool of dictators.
Brayton's only excuse is gross ignorance. He's got a nice fantasy image of the Great Godless Tyrant Dawkins built up in his head, though, formed out of his own distaste for atheists, and we certainly can't disabuse him of that.
Posted by: poke | December 30, 2006 1:45 PM
There's nothing in the petition that states that parents would be stopped from indoctrinating their children. The petition is poorly written and whoever wrote it appears to lack an understanding of basic law ("the Prime Minister to Make it illegal") but it's not obviously coercive either. The phrase "regular religious teaching" seemed to me to be obviously referring to schooling; but I can see how it can be interpreted otherwise. Perhaps the difference lies in British and American usage of "teaching." And the notion that parents would be somehow forced not to refer to their children as "Muslim" or "Catholic" is so absurd as to not be worth contemplating.
Posted by: peanut gallery | December 30, 2006 1:51 PM
Anybody who had read the book would know that while calling the labeling of children as religious was abuse, he did not propose any totalitarian steps to correct the problem...unless education is now a tool of dictators.
This seems unfair to me. Isn't it okay to expect someone's statements or signatures to mean what they say, and not what they should-have-said-if-you-only-new-the-man's-full-personal-biography? I'm a huge fan of Dawkins, but this appears to be plainly his fault for egregiously misspeaking.
There *may* be valid criticsm of Brayton as an atheist-phobe (I'm totally unfamiliar with him), but what's been given in this exchange today certainly doesn't condemn him as such.
Posted by: Orac | December 30, 2006 1:51 PM
I've read the guy's book as well, PZ, plus a lot of other articles he's written and interviews he's given. Probably not nearly as much as you have, but still quite a bit. Although I mostly liked The God Delusion, the one argument Dawkins makes that always gave me the creeps and that I see as massive hyperbole is his likening of the religious indoctrination of children to abuse, indeed, here is Dawkins in the chapter "Childhood, Abuse, and Religion" (p. 317):
Also referenced here.
Posted by: orac | December 30, 2006 1:55 PM
(Oops, hit "post" too soon.)
The above simply leads me to wonder whether the reason he signed the petition is because he was indeed sympathetic to its aims, if not its emphasis on government, and that sympathy led him into signing first, regretting later.
Posted by: Keith Douglas | December 30, 2006 1:55 PM
James Orpin: Indeed. Even my mild-mannered grade 9 teacher in what would be called in part compartive religion elsewhere just had us open Acts and read it as if it were a historical record, when all but fundies agree it is mostly to all not.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 30, 2006 1:56 PM
And that quote, of course, supports the contention that "Dawkins does indeed favor coercion to try and stamp out religion" and that "The atheist dystopia he seems to favor is no less appalling than the Christian dystopia favored by people like RJ Rushdoony. Both seek to make government the enforcer of their ideological views, to punish those who believe differently or dare to advocate those views."
Did you find anything in the book or his interviews to support those claims?
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 30, 2006 2:01 PM
Not quite. In my communication with him, it's clear that he read it as expressing opposition to indoctrination, which I think we would all favor. Reading it more carefully revealed that it was more sweeping and has more troubling implications than he cared for, and he has repudiated it because he is not sympathetic to its aims.
Posted by: waldteufel | December 30, 2006 2:03 PM
Good post, PZ. I often agree with Ed Brayton, but I do think he is a tad fast with his trigger finger sometimes. This was clearly one of those times.
Posted by: poke | December 30, 2006 2:09 PM
Regarding the state of Religious Education in Britain. The way I was taught in secondary school, Christianity received the vast majority of the attention. The other major religions were given a few hours at best. For example, Hinduism was given one lesson, in which we simply burned incense. The text book we had was similarly focused on Christianity. I don't know if things have changed since then. All of this came after primary school, in which Christian indoctrination was more stark, with mandatory prayer, Christian assemblies and regular visits to church. (To my knowledge this is still the norm in state primary schools.)
Posted by: Chris | December 30, 2006 2:11 PM
Now I'm sure that Dr Dawkins is sorry.
Though as both the petition links are still up & active on his site I may be incorrect?
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 30, 2006 2:14 PM
Dawkins has someone to manage the website, Josh Timonen. It's a holiday weekend.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | December 30, 2006 2:17 PM
I was going to comment on the fact that people seem to be of the impression that people like Dawkins make their own changes to their websites. That's not how it usually works.
Posted by: Jim in STL | December 30, 2006 2:24 PM
Though as both the petition links are still up & active on his site I may be incorrect?
Posted by: Chris
Yeah! And since he hasn't held a single international press conference yet today.......
Sheeeesh.
Posted by: plunge | December 30, 2006 2:32 PM
Yet again, another scuffle. And people like me, who appreciate both Ed and PZ's thoughts quite a lot, are left scratching our heads at the huge degree of personal enmity between these two guys, who agree on like 99% of everything important.
I certainly hope and expect that Brayton will post a follow-up and maybe even an apology for jumping the gun in assuming that Dawkins could not have made a mistake or misjudgment, which was uncharitable... but then, it's not like PZ is particularly charitable with Brayton either. There's a lot of uncharitability going around. Dawkins screwed up, and like any good scientist, acted fast to correct his error when notified of it.
Given that trolls like Dembski and DaveScot are going to spend the rest of their careers ignoring that part of it and trumpeting Dawkin's supposed support for SWAT raids on youth Bible study groups, I would hope that the bloggers that know better will still be able to move on from each other and keep combating the real asses.
Posted by: Caledonian | December 30, 2006 2:33 PM
And what percentage of our genes are shared with chimpanzees?
Posted by: plunge | December 30, 2006 2:37 PM
"And what percentage of our genes are shared with chimpanzees?"
The answer to your question is complicated as it turns out. There are lots and lots of different ways to measure both difference and sameness, and it really matters what particular things you mean, and what you mean by shared (do they need to be exactly the same? Recognizably similar to a certain degree? Do different numbers of repeats of the same shared sequence count as sharing or not sharing the same genes? etc.)
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 30, 2006 2:39 PM
Don't count on Ed to back down. In email, he's trying to tell me that he has been confirmed to be absolutely right in his original post, that "Dawkins does indeed favor coercion to try and stamp out religion" and that "The atheist dystopia he seems to favor is no less appalling than the Christian dystopia favored by people like RJ Rushdoony. Both seek to make government the enforcer of their ideological views, to punish those who believe differently or dare to advocate those views."
Those, apparently, are 100% accurate explanations of the Militant Atheist Position.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 30, 2006 2:56 PM
Let's look at the facts:
1. The text of the petition IS obviously totalitarian. The fact that Mike Gene is the one who brought it to our attention made me initially suspicious, but he's entirely right that signing it is unconscionable.
2. Dawkins DID link to the petition on his site without comment, which can be reasonably interpreted as an endorsement of it....in addition, you know, to the fact that he signed it.
3. Ed entirely reasonably concluded that in signing the petition, Dawkins endorsed what it says-- which amounts to endorsing anti-religious totalitarianism.
4. There is absolutely no reason why Ed must first read Dawkins' book in order to conclude the above.
Not being privy to the emails you two send each other, we're in no position to rule on them....but quite frankly, the reports from both of you sound rather less than mature. Why don't you agree to stop sniping at each other and go on with life?
Posted by: Mooser | December 30, 2006 3:01 PM
Who kisses a girl, without asking first if she has a beau?
I sure as hell always did. I would never have (in my long-lost kissing days) insulted a woman granting me the pleasure of osculation by asking her if it was all right with her boyfriend. If osculation is the word I want.
Posted by: Mooser | December 30, 2006 3:01 PM
Who kisses a girl, without asking first if she has a beau?
I sure as hell always did. I would never have (in my long-lost kissing days) insulted a woman granting me the pleasure of osculation by asking her if it was all right with her boyfriend. If osculation is the word I want.
Posted by: Shmuel | December 30, 2006 3:05 PM
"Some people, though, are awfully quick to use their ignorance to impose outrageous beliefs on the man."
A certain man though was awfully quick to sign an outrageous and ignorant petition.
Posted by: j | December 30, 2006 3:06 PM
"A certain man though was awfully quick to sign an outrageous and ignorant petition."
The difference being, of course, that the certain man to whom you refer has already apologized for his hasty judgment.
Posted by: plunge | December 30, 2006 3:10 PM
PZ, given that both of you routinely claim to be misrepresented by the other, I don't want to get involved in trying to judge either of your reports about what the other claims. I don't trust either of you when it comes to talking about each other. That's not meant to be a slight against you, but rather a pragmatic position of just not wanting to get into a subject where you guys have all sorts of private information that I can't judge.
In any cae, personally, I'd like to see: Ed update and react and restate his position on Dawkin's retraction. He needs to do this and I'll be far more inclined to agree with you about him if he continues to refuse to do so.
I also think that Dawkins could really use a much clearer (mostly by which I mean: a shorter and direct statement that brooks no coy interpretation of his many many writings) explanation on his behalf than he's already given, less for Ed's claims than the claims the Telic Thoughts people are still making about him and no doubt whom other ID people will continue to do.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 30, 2006 3:11 PM
And nobody has said otherwise. Apologizing, however (and in a way which was actually rather vague and difficult to parse-- he appears to still endorse the former part of the petition, if not the latter) does not erase the irrationality of signing it in the first place.
Posted by: Dave Carlson | December 30, 2006 3:12 PM
but quite frankly, the reports from both of you sound rather less than mature. Why don't you agree to stop sniping at each other and go on with life?
Amen. I really enjoy reading both of you guys (although Pharyngula is--and will remain--my favorite blog on the internets), so it's frustrating as hell when you frequently come at each other with so much anger and aparent bitterness.
I must say, though, that Gary Hurd is the worst. Over at IIDB, he frequently resorts to calling Ed childish names seemingly out of the blue. Frankly, it gets annoying.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | December 30, 2006 3:13 PM
At the risk of sounding conspiratorial, it almost seems as if Dr. Dawkins was set up with the intent of providing a future 'gotcha' for creationists: you know, along the lines of, 'Richard Dawkins and other evolutionary biologists, if they had their way, would prevent you from bringing up a child in your faith.'
Let us hope that this was simply a series of honest mistakes by skeptics. It would be just the kind of filthy, underhanded tactic employed by professional creationists.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 30, 2006 3:15 PM
Brayton has clearly enunciated his position now. Don't expect a revision.
Posted by: Chris | December 30, 2006 3:18 PM
>I was going to comment on the fact that people seem to be of the impression that people like Dawkins make their own changes to their websites. That's not how it usually works.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | December 30, 2006 02:17 PM>
I apologise for not realising that Dr Dawkins is somehow different from other people.
Though I do take PZs point that it is a holiday weekend, something I had forgotten.
Posted by: Caledonian | December 30, 2006 3:24 PM
Posted by Brayton:
So because Dawkins agrees with one of the minor points in Brayton's original post - that signing the petition was bad - Brayton's entire post is supported, including the parts where he accuses Dawkins of favoring a totalitarian atheist state.
Does that seem right to you?
Posted by: doctorgoo | December 30, 2006 3:25 PM
PZ, you are incorrect on your interpretation of Brayton's position.
Brayton simply said that at the time he wrote his article, all the information he had indicated that Dawkins believed that government coersion is appropriate. (As Gretchen indicated above, his logic was correct)
Now that Dawkins clarified his position, Brayton HAS backed off on his accusations. But for some reason, you think he hasn't.
I think you both need to calm down and think before you post.
Posted by: Observer | December 30, 2006 3:37 PM
Ed posted based on what it appeared Dawkins endorsed. Dr. Dawkins has expressed regret over his hasty fervor in signing the poll. Ed has posted a new post linking Dawkins's apology, but in the same breath accuses PZ of lying. PZ has posted in hasty fervor, too.
As an observer, this is unattractive, to say the least. Did everyone have too much coffee today? Please don't let past disagreements cloud every new post. It is what it is - move on and stop throwing mud at eachother.
I doubt Dawkins will ever sign a poll hastily again! :-)
Posted by: George | December 30, 2006 3:40 PM
Other worthy petitions on that UK site:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to recognise Jedi Knights as a religion on par with Christianity, Islam and other beliefs.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/JediKnights/
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to recognise the moral and ethical values held by Atheists as on a par with with religions.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/atheism/
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Disestablish The Church of England and introduce a law to forbid the establishment of any religion.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Disestablish/
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Paganism is the traditional and original belief system of Britain, it should be recognised as a religion once more.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Paganism/
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to cease the creation of more faith schools, take existing public-funded faith schools from the control of religious bodies and convert them to unbiased schools for all.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/endfaithschools/
Hear, hear.
Posted by: Observer | December 30, 2006 3:40 PM
Sorry, that should be "each other." Arggh, I always want to squish them together.
Posted by: poke | December 30, 2006 3:41 PM
Even if the petition did state that it should be illegal for parents to indoctrinate their children into their religion, which it clearly does not, that's still not "obviously totalitarian." Different cultures have different standards concerning what parents can and cannot do to their children. Parents cannot mentally and physically abuse their children; parents cannot bring their children harm through neglect; and in many countries parents cannot smack their children. I wouldn't be surprised if this sort of protection has already been extended to removing children from parents involved in cults. It's also illegal to keep your children from attending school in most countries. I wouldn't be averse to seeing such measures extended to those who subvert their childrens' education in detrimental ways; i.e., Christian fundamentalists. I would certainly like to see an end to government funding of so-called "faith schools."
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 30, 2006 3:47 PM
People keep saying Brayton has backed off his accusations against Dawkins. This is simply not true. All he has said is that Dawkins retraction confirms that he was entirely correct in his complaints about the petition in the original post.
Where I come from, an announcement that "I was right!" does not constitute anything that could be called a retraction.
And no, his logic was not valid. The original petition -- I quoted it in the article above -- is a vague, sloppy, impracticable bit of wishful thinking, not a call for jackboots and a prayer police. If it is, then this...
...is a nightmarish demand for the troops to blow up the churches.
Arguing that it would require a police state to enforce does not mean that the author was dreaming of oppression, merely that they were not thinking about implementation.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 30, 2006 4:05 PM
If Ed's complaints were not valid, then there presumably wouldn't have been a need for Dawkins to make his retraction. In his retraction, Dawkins says "In any case, like any decent liberal, I am opposed to the element of government coercion in the wording." It is the element of government coercion which so sparked Ed's ire in the first place, and therefore Dawkins did vindicate Ed for having complained as he did.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 30, 2006 4:12 PM
You aren't getting it. Brayton was correct to complain about the petition, and in my email to Dawkins I told him that I thought it was a terrible idea myself. What you don't seem to understand is that Dawkins also thinks coercion is intolerable, which is why he was quick to withdraw his support, so all of Brayton's fantasies that Dawkins favors a totalitarian anti-religious state were false. He has not retracted those.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | December 30, 2006 4:12 PM
PZ Myers: "The original petition -- I quoted it in the article above -- is a vague, sloppy, impracticable bit of wishful thinking, not a call for jackboots and a prayer police."
You didn't quote the first bit of the petition, which indicated that this "vague, sloppy, impracticable bit of wishful thinking" would be enforced by law; the word "illegal" in it is hard to miss. That's something not contained in your quote of John Lennon's Imagine.