Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Religion
 He doesn't speak for me, either
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 5

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13476 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2016 :  13:41:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Richard Dawkins by Massimo Pigliucci

If you are following at all the skeptic / atheist / humanist / freethought movement(s) (henceforth, SAHF), last week has been an exciting and/or troubling one for you. First, the announcement that the Richard Dawkins Foundation had merged with (or taken over, depending on whom you ask) the venerable Center for Inquiry, up until then the chief remaining operation established by one of the founding fathers of modern skepticism and humanism, Paul Kurtz.

Then, a mere six days later, the organizers of the North East Conference on Science and Skepticism (NECSS), likely to soon become the major skeptic conference in North America (given the apparent demise of The Amazing Meeting), dropped a bombshell: Dawkins was being disinvited — probably a first in his career — on grounds of yet another obnoxious tweet he had thoughtlessly sent out to his 1.35 million followers.


It seems, therefore, like this is as good a time as any to take stock of Richard Dawkins and of the SAHF community and see where they stand. I will begin with my personal assessment of Dawkins as a scientist, science popularizer, and public intellectual. I will then get into some (not too lurid) detail about the latest twitter-storm, and conclude with a few reflections on the significance of all this for the SAHF movement(s) at large. Needless to say, everything that follows reflects my own opinions, not those of Plato…


Read on. I happen to agree with this assessment of Dawkins, from my limited perspective, and certainly agree that the disinvitation was the correct thing to do.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf

USA
1486 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2016 :  15:48:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit ThorGoLucky's Homepage Send ThorGoLucky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Regarding the flowchart, mostly indeed, though his God Delusion was a good read to me with my armature understanding of philosophy.



Edited by - ThorGoLucky on 02/01/2016 16:00:58
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2016 :  19:00:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Massimo Pigliucci is also a bit of an ass:
In all of this, it hasn’t helped that some on the progressive side (a side with which I identify, broadly speaking) have confused atheism (technically, simply a negative metaphysical stance) with secular humanism (a truly politically progressive philosophy)...
No, nobody has "confused" them. They have concluded that if one is the be an atheist, one should be a humanist because the other choices for moral/ethical philosophies for atheists suck (Randian libertarianism, for example).

The biggest problem with dictionary atheism is that there is no guide whatsoever for what comes next. If atheism is strictly nothing more than "a negative metaphysical stance," then there is no reason for atheists to, say, "further reason and critical inquiry, to promote science and debunk pseudoscience, to build a community of like minded people, to provide a civil alternative to religion." All that would have to come from something else, but what? Dictionary atheism is mute on that point.
...a confusion made all the more maddening by the vocal stamping of a number of high profile characters who relish in (and profit from) making outrageous statements with the transparent purpose of increasing web traffic while vilifying and insulting some of their own readers (you know who you are, no need to mention names).
Pigliucci is childishly (and without evidence) saying that PZ Myers does what he does for the clicks. Nevermind that those clicks generate perhaps a couple/few thousand bucks in income every year for Myers.

Kil wrote:
I happen to agree with this assessment of Dawkins, from my limited perspective, and certainly agree that the disinvitation was the correct thing to do.
I do, too, of course.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2016 :  19:30:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Ophelia Benson has more constructive thoughts on Pigliucci's piece than I did: It’s hard to resist the cachet of a celebrity

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2016 :  20:39:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Jeph Jacques, one of my fave web comic authors, got in on the Dawkins action (third comic down - part of an hourly comic day challenge thing, so not his standard quality).

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2016 :  20:55:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Today’s installment of wit and insight from TwitterDawkins...

Also, lots of people seem to be wondering how CFI is feeling about the merger, now.

And calling Dawkins "the Donald Trump of atheism" seems to be gaining ground.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 02/02/2016 :  05:24:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Scenes from a Multiverse, last October:
And today:
Today's includes a note:
Dickard Rawkins is an expert in saying things that pop into his head. What crazy thing will he say today for no reason other than to be spiteful?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13476 Posts

Posted - 02/02/2016 :  09:57:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Ophelia Benson has more constructive thoughts on Pigliucci's piece than I did: It’s hard to resist the cachet of a celebrity
I like this article.

There is talk that the SJW's have leaned on those who decide at the NECSS. But hey.., Moderates like me think it's a good call. Dawkins has managed to offend almost everyone with his tweets. (Everyone but those who regularly rail against SJW's.) I'm not what they call a SJW, even though I have always been one. You know what I mean. If you care about humanistic values, you care about what Dawkins is doing.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 02/02/2016 :  18:54:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil

There is talk that the SJW's have leaned on those who decide at the NECSS.
Boo-hoo for any Dawkins' supporters making such a claim.

Someone(s) may have exercised their free speech, and their opponents probably didn't think Dawkins' tweets would matter to the NECSS, and they were wrong. That'd be a classic assumption of privilege. They had just as much time to try to persuade the NECSS committee as anyone else, but probably didn't think they might need to. Too bad. I was about to say, "maybe they'll learn for next time," but it's not likely.

"Leaned on" makes it seem like threats of violence were involved, like how the Mafia leans on people. If that's the intent, then it's textbook conservative demagoguery. Without clear evidence of someone saying, "nice conference you've got here, shame if something 'happened' to it," they're just fear mongering.
But hey.., Moderates like me think it's a good call.
What's it even mean to be "moderate" when the question is whether or not women should be considered the equals of men?
Dawkins has managed to offend almost everyone with his tweets. (Everyone but those who regularly rail against SJW's.) I'm not what they call a SJW, even though I have always been one. You know what I mean.
I've heard it said recently that "SJW" is a pejorative term and a shibboleth that lets one know that whoever is using it is a sexist, racist or what-have-you (depends on context). In other words, activists for social justice don't call themselves social justice warriors.
If you care about humanistic values, you care about what Dawkins is doing.
Clearly. Clearly, Dawkins is not just failing to display the attributes of a humanist, but what's he's been doing has been actively opposed to humanist ideals (and even capital-H Humanist doctrine).

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 02/08/2016 :  18:38:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
So in an interview with Hemnant Mehta, CFI's new CEO, Robyn Blummer, said this:
Blumner: I will also say that not everything that Richard says on his twitter feed reflects the views of RDF or CFI, so you know it’s sort of like, if you’re dad or your brother Uh [Mehta chuckles] says something that you may or may not agree with, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re speaking for the family.

Mehta: Sure.

Blumner: So we need to make sure that organisations don’t get attributed to everything that anyone who’s associated with them says.
But she also said this:
I think Richard Dawkins is purposefully misunderstood at times as a way to generate clicks on some bloggers' page. It's because his name brings page views and eyes so why not generate a lot of heat around something that is pretty tame if you really unpack it.
Someone needs to teach Robyn Blummer a few lessons from Blogging 101. And the idea that these unnamed bloggers haven't really unpacked what Dawkins has tweeted is ludicrous. As Monette Richards pointed out, NECSS made a detailed analysis.

Also, what is Hemnant Mehta's day job again?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 02/09/2016 :  10:17:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Larry Moran doesn't get it. Dawkins isn't being "attacked" for any sort of "scientific" disagreement. And calling a teenager "hoax boy" and guessing that the kid is a master manipulator is neither polite nor respectful.

Brian Dalton thunks all around, but misses, too.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13476 Posts

Posted - 02/09/2016 :  15:24:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Larry Moran doesn't get it. Dawkins isn't being "attacked" for any sort of "scientific" disagreement. And calling a teenager "hoax boy" and guessing that the kid is a master manipulator is neither polite nor respectful.

Brian Dalton thunks all around, but misses, too.
Yeah. As the go-to spokesperson for atheism by the media and by a whole lot of followers, Dawkins does have a responsibility to not behave like a petulant brat, or worse.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 02/09/2016 :  18:37:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
PZ Myers responds to Dalton:
I also think Dalton is being fundamentally dishonest with himself. He cares, too. He cares enough to be moved to post a belittling monologue in which he tells the people who find Richard Dawkins to be unrepresentative of their interests to sit down and be quiet and accept him as their lord and master, their better, more worthy king of atheism. It’s also telling that he is only so moved when the target of dissent is Richard Dawkins; absent are the similar videos where he tells all the smug dudes of atheism that their hatred of Rebecca Watson is unwarranted, or that the position of Freethoughtblogs or Atheism+ is a valid side of the atheist experience and all the abuse should stop, or that perhaps criticizing Sam Harris for his position on racial profiling is a good idea, and certainly not so divisive that we should be sending this Myers guy hate mail every day.

But no, I’ve noticed that the people who say differences don’t matter all seem to have differences so great that they think we all ought to accept their side without question.
Meanwhile, in the comments on his own post, Larry Moran compared Dawkin's critics to lynch mobs, villagers with torches, starting World War III and being pilloried. So I replied to someone else fed up with that garbage:
Nonono. Criticizing what Richard Dawkins says is exactly like lynching him or starting World War III, while receiving death/rape threats for criticizing Dawkins is a part of that 3% where we differ that should be ignored like Brian Dalton says. Professor Moran should be congratulated on the politeness and respect he demonstrates by hitting the nail so squarely on the head.

My goodness, don't you see that despite whatever he says voluntarily, in public, through a medium of his own choosing, Richard Dawkins'
reputation is at stake here? If people point out all the crappy things he says, someone else might...

...Aw, hell, I can't keep that nonsense up.

The idea, Larry, that people are doing harm to Dawkin's reputation "just to prove" their own tribal
bona fides is as polite and respectful as Dawkins has been lately to anyone who doesn't side with him on "the issue": not at all.

But I'm sure you'll consider the above criticism as part of a witch hunt against you, right? Got to keep comparing your (and Dawkins') critics to violent mobs, after all. It's the
reasoned and rational thing to do. The kind of discussion Dawkins says he wants to have.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 02/09/2016 :  20:29:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
A great comment by karpad:
that 97% thing is really bothering me a lot. Even issuing that proclamation is dubious. I don’t believe in gods and think religion as a whole is damaging. Science is, in general, a good thing. That’s literally 3 things.
How does the Dawk feel about Dungeons and Dragons? or the Arrow/Flash TV universe? How does he feel about Shakespeare and which is his favorite play? He’ll probably say Hamlet. Self absorbed boys with pretentions of genius always say Hamlet. Does he like spicy food? How does he feel about vegetarianism? I imagine he and I have very, very different opinions about hip hop as a whole, since he’s got that Rhodes-inspired British Supremacism thing and is also super old. But would we even agree about “Which is the Beatles’ best album?” as I’m sure he just fucking loves them.
97% of “things” is an awful lot. Hell, I doubt we’d even agree on the answer to the question “What thinker contributed the most to the development of meme theory?” Where he would no doubt answer himself, but the correct answer is Hideo Kojima, who actually constructed an elaborate lab test for it in the form of a series of weird as fuck video games rather than simply coining a term.

And that’s before we get into political and philosophical differences within movement atheism, which is ostensibly the thing we’d be most likely to agree about.

If you handed me a questionaire with a bunch of questions, and him one, I wouldn’t be too astonished if it lined up somewhere between the 97% and the 3%. But I would be surprised if it landed closer to the 97 than the 3.
And another good one from anteprepro:
I see it is still common for Dawk Defenders to blame the man’s massive failures on Twitter on the limitations of Twitter itself. They keep appealing to the difficulty of communicating properly in 140 characters. They keep insisting everything would be better if he had more characters! The problem is, it isn’t just ever one tweet. It is almost always a series of tweets, wherein he keeps fucking digging and becomes more antagonistic and makes it clear that the charitable re-interpretations of the tweets are not actually valid. For fuck’s sake, years ago, when he did this several times, he would go make a full-size statement about the Twitter controversy of the week on his website, and the full-size, paragraphs-long article would only confirm exactly what everyone saw in the tweets: he is an insensitive jackass and a knee-jerk anti-feminist who credulously regurgitates whatever nonsense his fellow assholes feed to him, and he continues to give exactly zero shits about people not liking that.

I just find it to be the height of fucking absurdity that other people are still pretending that he is a kind and sympathetic gentleman who is just having difficulty expressing himself properly on that newfangled tweety word netblog. He’s been on Twitter since 2008. 7 and a half fucking years. And yet, when convenient, the apologists still pretend Dawkins just doesn’t know how to say what he means on the Twitter! Fuck that absolute fucking dishonest nonsense.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 02/09/2016 :  20:51:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
But who is the one actually taking offense?
Oh, yes, it’s all just offense. But who is the one actually taking “offense”, if we look at it from the big picture? Dawkins took offense that Rebecca Watson didn’t want guys hitting on her in the elevator. He took offense that people thought a young boy should not have been arrested for bringing a clock to school, because “he didn’t really make a clock”. Language purity. He took offense because feminists protested an inappropriate shirt. Dawkins seems to be just one big ball of quivering offense right now, and we’re being told by everyone to lay off being offended because it’s so not freethinking, etc.
Read on.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 5 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.3 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000