Some guy named Quentin Letts made a list of the 50 people who wrecked Britain. I'm a bit handicapped in reading it, since I don't know who Quentin Letts is, and I have never heard of 9/10ths of the people being damned by him, but I did recognize a few, like Tony Blair and this guy:
Anti-religionist Dawkins, the best-known English dissenter since Darwin, is the merciless demander of provable fact.
He is the Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and tours the world lecturing the elites of the West that they are stupid to believe in any god.
He proselytises against the proselytisers, most of his targets wishing they had a fraction of his apparent certainty.
He is the anti-preacher whose sermons are designed to erode churchgoing and, with that, weaken our happiness.
A man less obsessed with himself and with the narrow calculations of men in white coats might realise that religion, although never offering proof of God's existence, can sugar catastrophe and brighten chasms.
In times of turbulence, the human being is little different from the vole or the dormouse. It will take shelter where it can.
No amount of superior lecturing from an anti-Christ, not even one with so important a title as his, will alter that.
Typical apologetic rubbish. Atheists aren't trying to weaken anyone's happiness; atheists are happy without god. We've discovered that you don't need a veneer of lies to make it through life, and that the truth and reality and the real world are satisfying and beautiful — and that the nonsense the priests tell you is squalid and pathetic. The Trinity is a feeble glimmer next to the glory of the Calculus, Genesis is a short, limping, clumsy limerick next to the epic poetry of Evolution, and the mewling whining of sanctimonious theologians is a simpering whimper drowned out in the vigor and rigor of good, roaring science.
I actively despise this attitude that the purpose of an idea is to be a band-aid against reality — that the virtue of religion is glossing over pain with happy lies and wishful illusions. Yes, in times of turbulence we should seek shelter…but real shelter, in ideas of substance that can provide real help, not this dishonest sugarcoating.
He's right, though, that it's often tough to get people to accept the strength of reality when there's always a slithering pack of lying con-artists always ready to provide glib promises of prosperity and immortality and love eternal at no greater cost than throwing away one's intellect and integrity to believe in a fantasy. I guess Letts' idea of what wrecks a country is a bit different than mine: I can see the ruin of my country all around me in the acceptance of the false dream of faith and the blind obedience to pious authority. I know, it feels so good to close one's eyes and pretend all is well while the chaos rises all around, and damn those people yelling "WAKE UP!" — but they aren't the wreckers. They're the only genuine hope we've got.
- Log in to post comments
Amen, as it were.
Graham Chapman made a somewhat similar point, albeit a less forceful one, in Monty Python's Contractual Obligations Album: "There nothing an agnostic can't do if he really doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not."
"merciless demander of provable fact"
How dare he!
He (Letts) should be equally scathing towards parents who don't want their children to suck pacifiers their whole lives, or anyone who actively works to cure alcoholism or drug addiction. Those things make people happy, too - who cares if they happen to be detrimental to their lives and the lives of others?
FYI, there were under 2,000 hits for "vigor and rigor" when I Googled it, which suggests that it's been used on occasion but not with any regularity. I love the sound of it as a characterization REAL science against dogma, theodicy and pseudoscience. I intend to use it as a rallying cry more often!
So his argument in a nutshell it seems is: "Dawkins is bad because he's trying to break the institution that feeds on the weakness of humanity." Well I'm sure he wouldn't put it that way, but it's basically what it amounts to. "Religion helps in times of tragedy", so what? Many people turn to the bottle in order to cope. Does that mean that we should refrain from criticising drunks?This is nothing more than pure apologetic nonsense there to show off the "new atheists" as bullys who want to suck the happiness out of the world. Why do people feel it necessary to protect delusions, the memetic parasites that thrive on the weakness and suffering of our species? Is reality that bleak to them that they have to not only coddle up to their precious fantasy but chastise anyone who calls it one? It seems in doing so they pay little respect to the human condition and the mind's ability to embrace reality.
Oh, so the religidiots admit they're hopeless sad sacks!
Let's use this guy's idiocy to shoot the rest of them in the foot.
It might feel easier if I "had faith" but I do not. I am unable to stop thinking about all of nature. I just do not believe it because "you say so" it has to be real regardless of what "you" say.
I want no sugar coating no delusions no what if. I love stories as stories and reality as reality.
do not let the B.S. stand unchallenged!
"He is the anti-preacher whose sermons are designed to erode churchgoing and, with that, weaken our happiness. "
http://cornerstork.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/crying_baby.jpg
I wonder what they'd say of the new RDF censorship spree. A bit in their favour, isn't it?
-Disgruntled OT refugee-
I didn't recognize most of the names either but my favorite is definitely #29, Dame Suzi Leather. Is she from San Francisco originally?
England must have a shortage of country-wreckers or Quentin Letts must be a real tool if a bunch of TV weather guessers made it onto his list.
Why should uncertainty lead to a belief in god? Quentin Letts accuses Dawkins of being certain about god's non-existence. But if I am uncertain about an idea I don't clutch to it for dear life.
Dawkins is not certain about god's non-existence. He is doubtful about his existence based on a complete lack of evidence. Christians don't grasp the distinction.
If god showed up tomorrow, no doubt, Dawkins would change his mind. But Christians are going to waste their lives waiting at "God's bus stop" hoping for a ride.
Why should uncertainty lead to a belief in god? Quentin Letts accuses Dawkins of being certain about god's non-existence. But if I am uncertain about an idea I don't clutch to it for dear life.
Dawkins is not certain about god's non-existence. He is doubtful about his existence based on a complete lack of evidence. Christians don't grasp the distinction.
If god showed up tomorrow, no doubt, Dawkins would change his mind. But Christians are going to waste their lives waiting at "God's bus stop" hoping for a ride.
I kept reading that as Quentin Letts making the list, as in....getting on the list. I wondered too what Quentin Letts had done that was so terrible that he wrecked Britain. Now I know. ;)
Went to church for a big part of my live. Basically every Sunday up until last year. Can't really say it made me particularly happy, nor did the other folks I saw there look particularly happy.
One German sceptic once said about Christians: "Shouldn't they look, like, more salvated?"
Aha! So that's why Zeno abandoned Catholicism in favor of atheism.
I'm not as familiar with the U.K. press as perhaps I should be, but isn't the Daily Mail a far-right, anti-gay, xenophobic tabloid that makes The Sun and the "Torygraph" look moderate?
We learned that, but:
Now that's psychology, and it is very difficult to get around in anyone who already is a theist. In a sense, they're interested in what we are, getting to know what they do not know, only they have no idea of the proper epistemological boundaries for such an endeavor.
Thus they desire "their unkown." They are not likely to cease to do so, and only new generations are open to learning a better way of knowing the world.
And many of them are not really--it was reported recently that non-religious college students are more likely to fall for non-religious bullshit than are the religious students (the attention commanded of the obscure and "inexplicable"). Competition of bullshit no doubt, but who cares, the point is that people are gullible.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Ragutis - yes. The Daily Mail is the worst British paper in existence, followed by the Daily Express, the Daily Star, the Sun, and the Mirror in that order.
Oh, I forgot to attribute my quote to Nietzsche. As in:
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
The Trinity is a feeble glimmer next to the glory of the Calculus, Genesis is a short, limping, clumsy limerick next to the epic poetry of Evolution, and the mewling whining of sanctimonious theologians is a simpering whimper drowned out in the vigor and rigor of good, roaring science.
Really good stuff from PZ as usual, but what good is it if only atheists read it?
Dawkins is overrated when it comes to the atheist movement. For all the attention showered on him, he's far less effective than a H.L. Mencken or a Madalyn Murray O'Hair both of whom effected real, substantial change and didn't just propagate the same old arguments in a new book. Hell, Dawkins wasn't even original, he is to use Dawkins' favorite term a "flea" of Sam Harris.
Also, he, like old man Myers here, fails to recognize that evolutionary theory is mere history, a subset at that, and that's just a mere humanities professor.
What's even more amusing is his merry band of followers who parrot his positions without understanding them. Take postmodernism as an example- Some of the best histories ever written are postmodern, but since Old Man Dawkins doesn't understand it, well postmodernism must be bogus. Never mind that teacher nor pupil have a clue.
"Most of his targets wishing they had a fraction of his apparent certainty"..
Is the guy a mind reader? How on earth does he know what people wish or do not wish? Jeez, someone here is presumptuous...
Oh and by the way, of course he know better than we do whether we are happy or not. Boy oh boy.
Why does Dawkins need to bring new arguments to the table? What's there left unsaid that he could contribute to?
Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?
"Most of his targets wishing they had a fraction of his apparent certainty"..
Is the guy a mind reader? How on earth does he know what people wish or do not wish? Jeez, someone here is presumptuous...
Oh and by the way, of course he know better than we do whether we are happy or not. Boy oh boy.
The question shouldn't be "why are we here", it should be "how are we here", when we answer that the "why" is meaningless.
"Most of his targets wishing they had a fraction of his apparent certainty"..
Is the guy a mind reader? How on earth does he know what people wish or do not wish? Jeez, someone here is presumptuous...
Oh and by the way, of course he know better than we do whether we are happy or not. Boy oh boy.
MarcusA @13...
I wonder if transfers are available?
Can I get an AMEN? Let me hear ya!!
As soon as I saw the link went to the Daily Mail web site, I knew it wasn't worth following. The worst of the yellow press in the UK, absolutely the worst...
... like Tony Blair ...
Give credit where due: Mr. Letts can claim to be at least 2% right!
There's a middling episode of This American Life where a man tells the story of how he got into a belief in Ghosts and UFO's and other foolishness that mirrors a belief in religion quite perfect- specifically on the front PZ's discussing. Its in an episode called 'Fake Science.' (If you ask me though, they take it too easy on the nutters as well.)
Take postmodernism as an example- Some of the best histories ever written are postmodern, but since Old Man Dawkins doesn't understand it, well postmodernism must be bogus.
In my college days I had various humanities professors (mostly English literature) who were gaga over postmodernism I can unequivocally state that they were full of shit. The grotesque conceit of postmodernism is that it validly applies to everything; i.e, postmodern math, postmodern biology, postmodern nuclear physics... and these specific conceits were articulated by people who knew less than nothing about the above fields (I'm looking at you, Dr. Gurney). Postmodernism may be an interesting literary device or a novel artistic sensibility, but beyond such pursuits (and sometimes even within them) the charge of "bogus" is not wholly underserved.
"religion...can sugar catastrophe"
So can morphine.
How appropriate that this Quentin Letts fellow was educated in Kentucky at a place called Bellarmine College (now Bellarmine University).
It's a Catholic college named after the inquisitor who prosecuted Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei amongst others for blasphemy.
Hear, hear.
How unenviable a position he's in to be lamenting a reality-based existence!
Ah yes, the perils of a godless existence.
If only I could be in church every sunday again. Three hours of lectures by boring old men, sitting, standing, kneeling, mumbling hosannahs and wondering if I believed in God enough to be allowed into Heaven ultimately, or if I would fail to measure up and be sent into eternal damnation. It truly brought peace, happiness and contenment into my life. And then Dawkins had to ruin m y idyll with his near certainty that maybe it was all bollocks. Drat you, Richard Dawkins, drat you to some place mildly warm.
"A man less obsessed with himself ..."
Jeez, Quentin. Project much?
"A man less obsessed with himself ..."
Jeez, Quentin. Project much?
Are there any biologists or other scientists or atheists here who are interested in defending science and/or attacking Christianity?
You all could talk to each other and accomplish nothing, or you could go visit a Christian blog which has this thread about the latest bullshit from the Dishonesty Institute: Scientist Coalition Accused of 'Suppressing' Evidence Against Darwinism
Okay, that wasn't my fault! It was that darned Evil Twin Hank!
This sounds like a job for Sastra...
(queue batman music...)
Read the rest of his list. He's quite obviously a grumpy old man yelling at the kids to get off his lawn.
He even has a go at Anthony Crosland, who's "crime" was to implement comprehensive schooling. Elitism is one thing, but elitism from age 11 is repulsive.
We could, or we could bang our heads against a wall repeatedly. The latter is probably a far less painful endeavour.
"Why does Dawkins need to bring new arguments to the table? What's there left unsaid that he could contribute to?"
Nothing really, but when one does not have something useful or at least original to say, manners dictate one not clutter B&N bookshelves with repeat material.
" Also, he, like old man Myers here, fails to recognize that evolutionary theory is mere history
Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? "
Evolutionary biology, geology, astronomy all look at the past to see what occurred. History does the same thing. However, it is completely arbitrary division as noted by E.O. Wilson in his book Consilience.
Not useful? It's brought many people to reading those arguments who would have otherwise been unexposed. It's brought many people towards seeing atheism in a different light; I'm amazed how many times I've heard "I was a Christian, then I read The God Delusion". Even if it's just a rehash of others work, it's still useful. And given the whole evolution vs creationism controvery, it makes intellectuals like Dawkins sought after. He knows his science, and that's what people want. Also, he is a really eloquent writer. That helps things as well, The God Delusion was a much more accessible book than The End Of Faith.
You forget the predictive nature of science, evolutionary biology, geology and astronomy all have uses in understanding the world around us and thus helping us to make predictions. Evolutionary theory is vital to fighting viruses and bacteria, those harmful bastards keep mutating!
amen.
#44: We could, or we could bang our heads against a wall repeatedly. The latter is probably a far less painful endeavour.
Unfortunately you are probably correct.
Objection, evidently false Your Honor.
"You forget the predictive nature of science, evolutionary biology, geology and astronomy all have uses in understanding the world around us and thus helping us to make predictions."
Ahh, but history has predictive powers as well. Notice that this economic crisis, and most of the rest since the 30s, have met with rate cuts, not hikes. Why? because using historical knowledge you can predict that when rates are hiked in these situations, the economic goes down like the women in the Palin family.
"mere history"
Does not parse, please resubmit.
Of course history has predictive powers, but history is not comparable to the sciences you afformentioned. Surely you can see the difference between the study of evolutionary biology and the study of history.
I'm so very terribly sorry about this OT item: another poll, CNN (see quick poll on right side - scroll down):
http://www.cnn.com/
Poll is who would make a better first lady: Cindy McCain or Michelle Obama. Michelle winning at 72% (20K votes vs 8K votes).
Again, sorry for the OT.
Regarding that dit-head with the list - has the rest of Britain noticed that it is wrecked?
Notice that this economic crisis, and most of the rest since the 30s, have met with rate cuts, not hikes. Why? because using historical knowledge you can predict that when rates are hiked in these situations, the economic goes down like the women in the Palin family.
Actually, since the 20s, economic crises like this have been preceded by rate cuts for the wealthy, along with massive deregulation.
*Tears hair out*
GOD DANG THOSE ATHEISTS, RUINING THIS HAPPINESS MY RELIGION GIVES ME! Why can't they just realize it's not supposed to be proven, it's supposed to fill us with an irrational bliss, an opiate high to blunt the pain of reality! Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go write several more articles about people I despise.
Seriously, though, not only does practically no religious person agree with this guy--most people think it's somehow proven in one way or another, or else they just don't think about it--his argument goes against the whole point of religious belief. No one believes just because it makes them happy, it makes them happy (in perhaps the shallowest sense of the word) because they think it's true. Saying that you only believe because it makes you happy just means that you don't really believe it, it doesn't make you happy, and that your professions of belief actually relate to something other than your professed belief, an ulterior motive like social conformity or for reasons related to one's psychological defenses.
For example, no one believes that Bill Gates has willed to them a vast inheritance to be given to them upon Gates' death just because it makes them happy (except for crazy people). Why? Because it is both obviously not true and because as soon as you admit you're only believing it to be happy, you stop believing it and it stops making you happy. If your "happiness" is dependent on being associated with a bunch of other people who believe the same thing, though, it becomes much less costly to admit this.
Ahh, but history has predictive powers as well.
Uh, no. "history" as you're using it is simple induction, which is inadequate as an inferential methodology. On top of that, you're misstating the historical facts.
I have to admit, that article is probably the best example of the Daily Mail 'little England' cliche I've seen. It's worth remembering in the US that newspapers are still very influential media sources over here. And unfortunately, the Mail does sell quite well.
Even if it's just a rehash of others work, it's still useful.
And it's even more useful since it isn't just a rehash of others' work. I don't recall Sam Harris introducing the term "selfish gene". (I do, however, recall debating with him around that time on Psyche-D about the nature of consciousness, which he held to be some sort of mystical dualistic goo.)
I Thought we were purely talking about The God Delusion. Though agreed, Dawkins has brought something useful to the field in terms of gene-centered evolution and the idea of memes. That was something absent from Harris' work.
Actually, since the 20s, economic crises like this have been preceded by rate cuts for the wealthy, along with massive deregulation.
And using your knowledge of history, what do you predict will happen the next time the rich get rate cuts and deregulation occurs?
"I don't recall Sam Harris introducing the term "selfish gene"."
I was referring to GD and End of Faith.
"Of course history has predictive powers, but history is not comparable to the sciences you afformentioned. Surely you can see the difference between the study of evolutionary biology and the study of history."
Every science has some limits be it history or sciences I've mentioned before. Look, not even creationists are going to look down on you for conceding that natural history and historical sciences and people history aka history as we learned it in school fall under the same umbrella.
I Thought we were purely talking about The God Delusion.
Given the "so wise" one's comment "he, like old man Myers here, fails to recognize that evolutionary theory is mere history", his critique of Dawkins clearly extends further. But criticism of Dawkins from someone so grossly ignorant about the nature of science isn't worth much.
http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/fa…
Every science has some limits be it history or sciences I've mentioned before. Look, not even creationists are going to look down on you for conceding that natural history and historical sciences and people history aka history as we learned it in school fall under the same umbrella.
Look, you know nothing of science, and specifically evolutionary biology, if you think it is "mere history". The scientific method is based on inference to the best explanation, not on induction. You might want to read A.F. Chalmers' "What is this thing called science?" and David Deutsch's "Fabric of Reality". Then re-read Consilience, because you didn't get it.
I was referring to GD and End of Faith.
Even on that you FAIL. They don't have the same content, and Dawkins' book was much more widely read and much more effective.
http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/fa…
Indeed. This "so wise" imbecile seems to think that evolutionary biology, astronomy, etc. are simply a matter of recording what happened in the past. Perhaps something could stir in his thick skull if he were to contemplate the word "prehistoric".
I assume "I am so wise" is of the postmodernism school of thought and is calling himself "I am so wise" ironically.
is calling himself "I am so wise" ironically
That would be wise, but since he isn't, it's likely that he's quite serious about the handle.
At first, I thought he was praising Dawkins. What with the "Anti-religionist Dawkins, the best-known English dissenter since Darwin, is the merciless demander of provable fact".
Oh, and this:
And using your knowledge of history, what do you predict will happen the next time the rich get rate cuts and deregulation occurs?
Again, induction is an inadequate methodology; as Hume noted, causation cannot be deduced from mere succession -- post hoc ergo propter hoc. One can predict what will happen by understanding economic systems. History only serves as confirmation/disconfirmation.
"But, savvy alpha male that he is, he refrained from getting into a gutter brawl with a scrawny, marginal primate such as myself'."
Not so savvy are the primates here.
Late to this party, as ever.
As others have pointed out, Letts is something of a High Tory, writing for the Telegraph and Mail. He is, therefore, one of those literate opinion-makers who can sugar-coat some quite disgraceful views.
As a rule of thumb, I assume that anyone who reads the Mail is a cnut. Any ideologue who writes for the rag is truly beyond The Pale.
This guy also thinks it's terrible to eliminate corporal punishment from schools. I don't think anyone who thinks an adult should be able to use their authority to beat a child into obedience even needs consideration.
"But, savvy alpha male that he is, he refrained from getting into a gutter brawl with a scrawny, marginal primate such as myself'."
Well aren't you the clever intellectual coward.
#43:
That describes the readers of the Daily Mail very well. Those who write for it are something more sinister, I think.
That was so well put, PZ, that I declare this comment redundant.
We're 75 comments in and so far nobody has posted a dissertation - even when postmodernism is the subject! Good stuff!
I'll agree with this article on the EastEnders show. Even seeing promos for it on PBS makes me want to throw something into the television.
I prefer reading this Quentin.
British media watcher here: Quentin Letts is a right-wing tosser of no significance whatever, and the Daily Mail is a crazy right-wing rag. It's edited by a militant Catholic bigot, Paul Dacre, who insists on his staff publishing silly stories about the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark. Dacre also insists on his staff writing drivel about career women being miserable, abortion being evil and contraception being A Bad Thing in general. Also, Dacre promoted the Wakefield MMR scare, banging the anti-vaccination drum long and loud. So to be pilloried in this way is a ringing endorsement of Dawkins' worth as a citizen, in my view.
""mewling whining of sanctimonious theologians is a simpering whimper""
Don't hold back, PZ, say what you mean :0)
As a UK resident, I didn't know who Quentin Letts was, either. I do now, and his list tells me more about him than the people on it.
What a sanctimonious arseshole.
I too switched off as soon as I saw it was the Daily Mail. This is the paper that Ben Goldacre has characterised as being engaged in a project to divide the inanimate objects of the world into those that cause and those that cure cancer.
Pay it no heed, most of its readers buy it for the comedic value only.
Quentin Letts is a typical populist journalist writing for a newspaper generally read by bigots. He is often lampooned in the satirical magazine Private Eye (I suggest PZ send a copy of his critique to the magazine). The Daily Mail is read by people who want to return Britain to the 1950s, and who basically don't think. It seems to print press releases from the fundamentalist 'Christian Institute' verbatim. The Mail has always made snide attacks against Dawkins, and anyone 'liberal'.
If you look at the comments sections under articles, it tends to be full of religious nuts, and right wing extremists.
Echoing the other Brits: were I to own a parrot, I would not line its cage with the Daily Mail for fear that my parrot's guano would be dirtied by The Mail's content.
I will make one slight "correction" to AdrianT's comment in #81 though: The Daily Mail is not read by people who want to return Britain to the 1950s and who basically don't think. It is read mostly by people who want to return Britain to an entirely fictional imagining of what the 1950s supposedly was, and for whom thinking beyond a soundbite is something best avoided lest one wish to appear elitist. Some of them read it out of habit.
Louis
Except Blair apparently got included in the list too. Although that can be filed under "accidentally right" (as is possible for even the most mindless of processes), one still needs to be able to make the distinction between worthy and wrecker oneself - since the list-maker isn't a competent filter whichever way you regard his output.
I am sorry you and your commenters spent so much time attacking Quentin Letts: it's pointless, like throwing mud at a sewage farm. No-one in England has heard of this hack except readers of the right-wing journals for which he scribbles cheap and nasty sneers.
I take exception to your anagram, Lee@71. The insult 'Daily Mail reader' may lack Anglo Saxon punch, but it is genuinely pejorative.
"Can sugar catastrophe"
Ummm...... yeah. I'll pass. If it ain't strong enough to stand on its own, it ain't worth having. Catastrophe, tea, or otherwise.
Exactly! Too much emphasis on facts and reality is what caused this crisis. If we would all just rely on wishful thinking and magical mysticism, it'd all be great and wonderful all the time! Or, at least, we'd think it was.
OK, then, point us to one of these great histories. I mean, one that is written in comprehensible language and that is not semantically vacuous. The analogue of popular science writing, but explaining some postmodernist theme.
Personally, I think Postmodernism Disrobed is one of Richard's better essays (OK, it's a book review, but it stands on its own).
It's the Daily Mail, aka the rough equivalent of the National Enquirer. Ignore it.
The British newspapers as described by Jim Hacker in Yes Minister
"..can sugar catastrophe and brighten chasms."
So does morphine. Cheaper and without the bollocks.
ElHerring: excellent, but a bit out of date by now.
The Daily Mail is the vilest, most hateful right-wing rag in the UK and everything found there should be taken with a very large pinch of salt. Quentin Letts is very typical of the sort of ignorant, blustering anus who writes for it.
Wow, it's rare that we get such a blatant admission of trolling. Thanks for making it clear that I should ignore you!
It seems that some are misunderstanding the meaning of the expression: "a fraction of his apparent certainty" - the point is Dawkins displays a degree of certainty about matters that has nothing to do with evidence. Most reasonable people have the humility to acknowledge they may be wrong, funamentalists (and Dawkins belongs in that category) believe absolutely. Funamentalists are idiots whether they claim to be Christian, deist or atheist. Rational people everywhere should disown them.
Quentin Letts is a right wing journalist and author. I'm afraid the comments by several on this blog that even though they are from the UK they had never heard of him is just them showing their ignorance; do they never watch/listen to/read news items? His political views are not to my taste and I usually disagree with him and even find him annoying even though he writes well. Notwithstanding this he is insightful and on the matter of Dawkins I wholeheartedly agree with him. PZ, as for you not knowing who Quentin Letts is, thats your loss not his.
I saw Religulous last night. I thought it was great! It almost made me want to see Expelled, just for contrast.
slars: it is only because of my strict adherence to the belief that all knowledge is intrinsically valuable that I am able not to laugh at the idea that anybody might be at a loss for not knowing who Quentin Letts is. Somebody might be quite media-savvy in the UK (I count myself here) and never encounter Mr Letts simply by dint of never reading the right-wing papers. I note from Wikipedia that Letts writes for the Mail, the Telegraph and the New Statesman (the latter is not right-wing, but neither is it required reading for the politically aware). Crackpots are all over the country; does one really need to maintain an exhaustive list?
"The Trinity is a feeble glimmer next to the glory of the Calculus, Genesis is a short, limping, clumsy limerick next to the epic poetry of Evolution, and the mewling whining of sanctimonious theologians is a simpering whimper drowned out in the vigor and rigor of good, roaring science."
I need this on a t-shirt.
Emmet Caulfield,
Check out National Deconstruction by Campbell which is the best book about Bosnia or Mad Blood Stirring by Muir.
I have a feeling you'd enjoy the Death of Christian Britain.
Look, if you need a primary on postmodernism, forget Dawkins and go read Postmodernism for Historians.
@ #12 If god showed up tomorrow, no doubt, Dawkins would change his mind.
But how could we know it was the God TM and not just some god, or not even a god at all but simply some amazingly powerful natural creature that we simply couldn't explain?
Frankly, I don't know what proof could even be given to human beings so that we could know, with certainty, that the entity which appeared to us in all of its manifestations was, in fact, the God TM.
No matter how amazing this thing could be that appeared, even if to all people across the world simultaneously (and repeatedly) it would always be possible for a thinking person to wonder if this wasn't just god's idiot little cousin messing around with Earthlings for the fun of it. There would simply be no way to know it was the God TM.
@ #12 If god showed up tomorrow, no doubt, Dawkins would change his mind.
But how could we know it was the God TM and not just some god, or not even a god at all but simply some amazingly powerful natural creature that we simply couldn't explain?
Frankly, I don't know what proof could even be given to human beings so that we could know, with certainty, that the entity which appeared to us in all of its manifestations was, in fact, the God TM.
No matter how amazing this thing could be that appeared, even if to all people across the world simultaneously (and repeatedly) it would always be possible for a thinking person to wonder if this wasn't just god's idiot little cousin messing around with Earthlings for the fun of it. There would simply be no way to know it was the God TM.
Sorry for double post. It timed out and said to check and my post wasn't there so I posted again. Argh...
Quentin Letts writes for the Daily Mail, a rightwing rag much addicted to conservatism and with a strange penchant for woo: rarely a week goes by without some Daily Mail miracle food or other appearing in its rancid pages.
Toilet paper is more use, and a better read.
Why not skip the middlemen and worship sugar and flood lights?
Let the Turbinado vs. Confectioners Crusades over the doctrine of High-Intensity Discharge lamps begin!
I wish only that the religious apologists who post here would actually read what Dawkins says about his belief. I paraphrase it briefly: "I would say I am a 99.9% atheist. I maintain a small doubt because I am a scientist and am open to the existence of God, if some proof can be given."
@slars:
You're going on hearsay apparently then. Dawkins DOES admit that. I've personally heard him say so.
"I take exception to your anagram, Lee@71. The insult 'Daily Mail reader' may lack Anglo Saxon punch, but it is genuinely pejorative."
I suggested they were cnuts which is to say, like the aged king, they wish to hold back the tide of progress.
He may be drawing a fine line of distinction, although it is not clear, between a Darwinist, which Dawkins is, and a pluralist along the lines of Jay Gould for whom the designation, "Darwinist" would be repugnant.
"sugar catastrophe"
I think this is as good a description of the benefits of religion as I've seen. On the one hand, the Titanic sinks, killing hundreds of people. On the other hand, have a piece of candy.
Does the candy help the situation?
He may be drawing a fine line of distinction, although it is not clear, between a Darwinist, which Dawkins is, and a pluralist along the lines of Jay Gould for whom the designation, "Darwinist" would be repugnant.
Is Max Verret, AKA Silver Fox, morphing to Bald Eagle? Inquiring minds want to know.
my new goal in life is to be known as the "merciless demander of provable fact."
my new goal in life is to be known as the "merciless demander of provable fact."
The article reminds me of the character Margo Ledbetter from the comedy series "Good Neighbors" which was called "The Good Life" (I think) in Britain. A conservative, she was always concerned about what people might think.
This article reminds me of the episode in which she wrote a letter beginning with: How can Great Britain remain great with so-called managing directors...
Apparently, Quentin Letts longs for the good old days.
The Daily Mail is pretty much the UK equivalent of Fox News. Considering that, it's pretty tame really.
Erm , yes. Though they aren't homophobic as such, they're certainly 'conservative' in thier views on marriage. They also aren't far right, they're moderate right, but over here they appear extreme. They're no-where near the level of Fox. They do have problems with Xenophobia though. They like to blame everything on immigrants or foriegners. The Telegraph is moderate, though obviously Tory biased. The Sun is just crap...
Actually it's: Sport, Sun, Mirror, Mail, Express, Telegraph, Guardian, Observer, Times.... (bad to good)
Letts is a political commentator who is occasionally funny, but normally spends his time commenting on personalities rather than policies. Sounds familiar huh? He doesn't represent many of us UK types...
Redhead: If you look at 108 &110 you've answered your inquiring mind question.
Can you morph any response as to whether he is making a distinction or not in the content of the thread?
Bald Eagle, Morphing is considered bad form. Are you hiding something?
The Dail Mail is a rightwing bigots' newspaper. It back Hitler and the fascists for years in the 1930s and is still controlled by the same family.
Worse still the former government chief scientist openly stated in public that its MMR campaign, headed by a graduate in English, Melanie Phillips, had resulted in the deaths of 50-100 children. Phillip's reply was that she was only doing her job in reporting. That she is pig shit ignorant of even basic science doesn't seem to worry her or the editor of the Mail, Paul Dacre. It's standards of science are reflected by its most popular page being astrology.
For those on the oether side of the pond, journalism in the UK is rated as the lowest of the low as a profession. The term "hack" is commonly used to describe journalists - it is exceedingly insulting. Letts is a true hack.
The Mail is basically a woman's newspaper targeted at secretaries - people who traditionally left school at 16.
The Dail Mail is a rightwing bigots' newspaper. It back Hitler and the fascists for years in the 1930s and is still controlled by the same family.
Worse still the former government chief scientist openly stated in public that its MMR campaign, headed by a graduate in English, Melanie Phillips, had resulted in the deaths of 50-100 children. Phillip's reply was that she was only doing her job in reporting. That she is pig shit ignorant of even basic science doesn't seem to worry her or the editor of the Mail, Paul Dacre. It's standards of science are reflected by its most popular page being astrology.
For those on the oether side of the pond, journalism in the UK is rated as the lowest of the low as a profession. The term "hack" is commonly used to describe journalists - it is exceedingly insulting. Letts is a true hack.
The Mail is basically a woman's newspaper targeted at secretaries - people who traditionally left school at 16.
Can we please have a moratorium on using the phrase "wake up" when presenting an argument? Like many other fallacies, it is used as easily by those with poor arguments as by those with good arguments, and it is entirely insubstantial. If a person contends that the only reason someone would disagree with their proposition is via a coma-like lack of awareness, then the arguer is essentially admitting "I have no grasp of my opponent's position." That implication does you a disservice, P.Z. Your dissection and analysis of opposing arguments is typically too sturdy to prop it up with the rotten crutch of fallacy.
"Erm , yes. Though they aren't homophobic as such, they're certainly 'conservative' in thier views on marriage. They also aren't far right, they're moderate right, but over here they appear extreme. They're no-where near the level of Fox. They do have problems with Xenophobia though. They like to blame everything on immigrants or foriegners. The Telegraph is moderate, though obviously Tory biased. The Sun is just crap..."
The Telegraph is hardly moderate, as it has only recently managed to put clear water between itself and Conrad Black. However, it is the paper that the security services and the generals read, and for that reason is useful. It is not much more than thirty years since figures like Mountbatten were setting up private armies to topple the Wilson government. It is good to have a mouthpiece like the Telegraph to judge their paranoia by.
As for the Sun, it is hardly crap. It is opportunist, populist and venal but it is entertaining to a certain audience and has the best and most expensive sports coverage in Fleet Street. Mock not that last one, because it is the selling point that partly underpins its commercial success and political influence.
"The Mail is basically a woman's newspaper targeted at secretaries - people who traditionally left school at 16."
That's not entirely true, nor was it always so. The Mail's 'Femail' pages--by women and for women--originated in the '80s and have attracted a huge audience of middle-class professionals who like to steep themselves in self-esteem-lowering misery, complete with digs at the fat or unattractive, catty captions, fad diets and new age nonsense.
It has certainly made the Mail Britain's second most popular newspaper. Which only goes to prove that we British really are a nation of thuggish, mean-spirited cnuts.
Which is how we like it, really...
Re: MMR
As I understand it, the problem with MMR is in being administered in combination. MMR does not have to be administered in combo. So if anyone is concerned, why not just ask the pediatrician to give them separately over time.
Lee Brimmicombe-Wood: I think history has been rather unkind to Cnut (or Knut or Canute). The legend would have it that he attempted to hold back the waves to demonstrate his power, but in reality (as I understand it) he was actually proving to his courtiers his lack of power.
From Wikipedia:
Just thought I'd throw that in.
Here's another Cneat little Cnugget on Cnut, from the Genesis Discography of all places (since some people sneer at Wiki):
Peter Gabriel must have known the true story:
They told of one who tired of all singing,
"Praise him, praise him."
"We heed not flatterers," he cried,
"By our command, waters retreat,
Show my power, halt at my feet."
But the curse was lost,
Now cold winds blow.
("Can-Utility and the Coastliners", Genesis 1972)
In times of turbulence, the human being is little different from the vole or the dormouse. It will take shelter where it can.
What a pessimistic, cynical view of life. There is the little totalitarian nutshell for ya - the rationalization for the nihilistic cynic to manipulate and control his fellow man "for his own good".
Back in the 1930s the Daily Mail was a massive supporter of Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists (aka Blackshirts) and on 15 January 1934 published the headline "Hurrah for the Blackshirts". Their political orientation hasn't changed much in the 7 decades and a bit since.
lol he writes for the Daily Mail.
Nuff said.
My apologies to Lee@71.
Thank you for your explanation, how could I have misinterpreted your intention?
You know, if atheists were not starting to talk to believers like PZ does...like they are ignorant vile scum...then maybe there WOULD be more atheists.
Hint: treat people like garbage and they won't see things your way.
So carry on. Ensure that you will not achiee political power so PZ can keep his ratings up.
"You know, if atheists were not starting to talk to believers like PZ does...like they are ignorant vile scum...then maybe there WOULD be more atheists."
We've tried that. Didn't seem to be very successful.
So you think you can shake someone out of a delusion with niceties? Well good luck with that. Been there, tried that. It didn't work, antagonism is a lot more fun.