Exploiting one's name to promote values/ideas a disservice?

[lordpasternack]

It's legal to use your own fame to promote your values. It's even ethical to do so. It is not ethical to use someone else's fame as proof that your values are correct. I like Dawkins though. I think he's interesting enough.

Two posts up, I wrote:

My own thoughts were more about the appropriateness or expedience of attaching one's name to a charity or online community - not the ethics, really, as such.

I think I'll change the thread title...

[camoguard]

It's legal to use your own fame to promote your values. It's even ethical to do so. It is not ethical to use someone else's fame as proof that your values are correct. I like Dawkins though. I think he's interesting enough.

Two posts up, I wrote:

My own thoughts were more about the appropriateness or expedience of attaching one's name to a charity or online community - not the ethics, really, as such.

I think I'll change the thread title...

Ferrets are illiterate so it won't matter if you do. but it really depends on the charity. I think Arianne Sherine is doing a great job promoting atheists because she's not only semi-famous but she's cute. I'm pretty sure that many men will at least consider where the women are at when contemplating philosophical issues. So in her case, I think she is expediting things somewhat. In terms of Dawkins, I think he's moving things along as well. Having a conversation is important even if it's not a very good conversation, I think. It's very good to not be killed, stoned, or shunned for having a bad conversation. We'll get to the rest of the atheist movement before too long. I think you're expecting too much for a religiously bound society. They haven't gotten used to this freethinking thing yet.

I can guess by your avatar that you've been burnt by Dawkinites. I'd be interested in hearing that story. Disagreeing with your opinion may simply be me figuring out what it is you're saying after all.

Here's to friendly disagreement.

[lordpasternack]

I have great respect for Richard, and he also respects me. Most of your post is so off-the-mark that I can't be bothered addressing it. But certainly, please do not assume I have an ax to grind against Richard.

(I have an ax-wound to grind against him.)

[lordpasternack]

Well, I just renamed the thread as best I could to encapsulate what I could about what this thread's about, within the character limit... :-|

[Rum]

I have a great deal of respect for Dickie too, but I do sometimes become a little uncomfortable with the use of evolutionary biology as a 'weapon' against religion. (I know LP - you started with a different point to make but it has drifted and I think that's fine). For those of us who know it, atheism is neither a philosophy, an ideology and certainly not a religion of course, however many people who don't really understand think that it is one of those things.

RD challenges ignorance, as he should. And while I am glad as it happens that he challenges religion, I do sometimes think those who are are agnostic, religious or general fence sitters could easily make a case that he steps from the scientific into the 'metaphysical' (whatever that much misused word means) rather too freely.

P.S. As to the use of a person's name for a foundation - well its common and he certainly does not come over as an egotist.

[Drewish]

Well, I just renamed the thread as best I could to encapsulate what I could about what this thread's about, within the character limit... :-|

Making my response seem off topic by doing so! Now ask yourself, is it wrong to use your ability as first poster to re-frame a thread mid-discussion?

[lordpasternack]

For those of us who know it, atheism is neither a philosophy, an ideology and certainly not a religion of course, however many people who don't really understand think that it is one of those things.

Fer sure!

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 2#p2285640

P.S. As to the use of a person's name for a foundation - well its common and he certainly does not come over as an egotist.

What about the use of one's own name - for a foundation that isn't so much about a 'personal' kind of cause - where appending one's name adds little significance to the nature of the foundation (and potentially detracts from it)? I just think, personally, that it would be much better called something like 'The Foundation for Reason and Science', or something to do with the 'public understanding of science', or something. Something purely descriptive and not attached to any specific individual...

[lordpasternack]

Well, I just renamed the thread as best I could to encapsulate what I could about what this thread's about, within the character limit... :-|

Making my response seem off topic by doing so! Now ask yourself, is it wrong to use your ability as first poster to re-frame a thread mid-discussion?

Nah - I'd still consider it on-topic from my brief skimming of your post. Moderately tangential - but it had that feeling to me even before I altered the title.

And I started the discussion, so I rule the thread title, and source from which the discussion shall hence meander.

[Rum]

What about the use of one's own name - for a foundation that isn't so much about a 'personal' kind of cause - where appending one's name adds little significance to the nature of the foundation (and potentially detracts from it)? I just think, personally, that it would be much better called something like 'The Foundation for Reason and Science', or something to do with the 'public understanding of science', or something. Something purely descriptive and not attached to any specific individual...

How planned was it do you think? I mean there are perceptions and interpretation about motivation in everything we do and yet my experience of life is that we stumble into most decisions and live with the consequences. It hardly sends a message concerning empiricism the scientific method, if that is what you are getting at, and he could be accused of being partial and require members to sign up to a particular world view. We are where we are and RD is well respected all over the place now, if hated in some places too.

[camoguard]

I have great respect for Richard, and he also respects me. Most of your post is so off-the-mark that I can't be bothered addressing it. But certainly, please do not assume I have an ax to grind against Richard.

(I have an ax-wound to grind against him.)

I'm not really sure what your point is then. Why would Richard Dawkins be considered to be wrong for attaching his name anywhere? Unless it is specifically immoral attaching his name to even a neutral cause should be okay. Trump attaches his name to towers. I'm on board I think with Rumertron's observation.

But this is coming from a person, me, who actively seeks out friends because they have the same first name as me. So I genuinely promote seeing my name everywhere.

[lordpasternack]

What about the use of one's own name - for a foundation that isn't so much about a 'personal' kind of cause - where appending one's name adds little significance to the nature of the foundation (and potentially detracts from it)? I just think, personally, that it would be much better called something like 'The Foundation for Reason and Science', or something to do with the 'public understanding of science', or something. Something purely descriptive and not attached to any specific individual...

How planned was it do you think? I mean there are perceptions and interpretation about motivation in everything we do and yet my experience of life is that we stumble into most decisions and live with the consequences. It hardly sends a message concerning empiricism the scientific method, if that is what you are getting at, and he could be accused of being partial and require members to sign up to a particular world view. We are where we are and RD is well respected all over the place now, if hated in some places too.

I agree with you, Rum. I suspect it was something that most likely wasn't considered at the depth at which I am now considering it. I did say that I had the gift of being able to consider this at arm's length, vicariously, and tumble it over in my mind while not engaged in the actual pressure of wanting to set such a thing up.

As I also said - I don't expect anyone to go shifting things around and going through the bureaucratic renaming them to more closely approximate my/our/anyone's quixotism. And as I also said, it's just something that, the more I consider it, the more uneasy my general sentiment about it.

It's been good just to air it and garner some other input on the ideas that had been sifting a little in my mind...

PS. If only Richard would allow me to be a personal adviser. I'd happily offer him my deep throat insights, over an above a free periodic fallacy-busting service.

[Rum]

PS. If only Richard would allow me to be a personal adviser. I'd happily offer him my deep throat insights, over an above a free periodic fallacy-busting service.

A whole new meaning to the phrase 'blow work'!

[floppit]

Hang on a sec. This might be cod's poo, but perhaps the naming of the charity is a reflection that it encapsulates more than science and reason? Perhaps if it was the intention to stick to science and reason rather than also promote RD's opinion and world views of sociology/political endeavours then maybe it would have had a title to reflect that?
These are genuine questions, time will tell what the charity 'does' and whether that in the long run illuminates the choice of name.

I must admit, for me atheism is an individual thing, while discussing ethics (not referring just to the original thread title!!) is something I find utterly worthwhile, the choices are ultimately my own and not guided by any one source.

I don't agree with all of Einstein's social commentary but I do agree with this:

Communities tend to be guided less than individuals by conscience and a sense of responsibility. How much misery does this fact cause mankind! It is the source of wars and every kind of oppression, which fill the earth with pain, sighs and bitterness.

(Albert Einstein, 1934)

I wouldn't lose communities for the above but I think there's cause to remain wary.

[charlou]

Well, I just renamed the thread as best I could to encapsulate what I could about what this thread's about, within the character limit... :-|

Making my response seem off topic by doing so! Now ask yourself, is it wrong to use your ability as first poster to re-frame a thread mid-discussion?

Hi Andrew, I had split this thread from another and tentatively titled it, leaving lordp the decision to change it to better reflect the gist of her premises if she wished. Sorry for any confusion or upset that may have caused. These discussions tend to meander around the main topic anyway so no harm done, I think.