Announcement about RDF Part 3.

[mark1961]

To bring a little levity into the discussion I offer the following:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJaMtBKn ... re=related[/youtube]

A fellow newbie of sorts. Thanks again for the welcome extended to us newbies

[lordpasternack]

I just wanna pimp my new thread here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... =75&t=9530

I think it will be invaluable if it's fleshed out properly.

That's all.

[Barry Cade]

I felt rather less aggrieved than many other people at the ‘coup’ carried out by professor Dawkins and his cronies and, quite frankly, I can’t get terribly worked-up over the implosion of RD Net. I suspect I feel this way partly because I invested relatively little time and effort in the site (1000 posts in just over 3 years). But, in any case, I already regarded Richard Dawkins as a flawed individual, whose reputation has recently become unjustifiably inflated; his fit of pique is therefore not all that surprising. I have read several of Dawkins’s books, and although I would rate him as a reasonably accomplished populariser of science, he has recently shown none of the élan or clarity of other writers such as Jeff Coyne or Frank Wilczek. Where The Blind Watchmaker succeeds in making complex ideas accessible and interesting, TGSOE is a big disappointment; a lacklustre, occasionally smug and poorly paced trudge through the evidence for natural selection, which is eclipsed by Coyne’s far sparkier (and more succinct) Why Evolution is True, or Neil Shubin’s Your Inner Fish. I have no idea if Dawkins is an impressive public speaker in the flesh, but when given a platform on TV, he is distinctly unimpressive. When directly confronted by religiously motivated opponents of evolution, he doesn’t seem able to muster much more than spluttering indignation and exhortations to go and look at the fossil evidence.

Dawkins’s recent elevation to the status of international atheism tsar (yes, tsar, not star) has only exposed and magnified his intellectual and personal shortcomings. His patrician contempt for those who don’t buy into his world-view has been displayed again and again, and his limited ability to comprehend the material roots of religious sentiments renders him completely unable to engage effectively with those who, for various reasons, seek comfort in faith. There are many examples of Dawkins’s snobbish demeanour, but one that typifies his attitude is this footnote from TGSOE:

‘Well educated’ reminds me of Peter Medawar’s wickedly astute observation that ‘the spread of secondary and latterly tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought’. Isn’t that priceless?

Priceless, indeed! And what a self-satisfied declaration of intellectual superiority, from someone who is meant to be dedicated to education and enlightenment.

The very first post I contributed to RD Net was a criticism of Dawkins’s dismal grasp of political realities. He is so blinded by his obsession with religion that he cannot see the deep material causes of social conflicts. His observations in The God Delusion on the Northern Irish conflict, for instance, are laughable and would be laughed out of an A-level politics class, yet he feels secure enough in his ivory tower to hand this drivel down for public consumption.

Richard Dawkins never deserved the ridiculous hero worship he received from his admirers on RD Net, and he has now betrayed their illusions. This may be a bitter pill to swallow, but Dawkins wrote the prescription for it years ago. Looking on the bright side, maybe some of those disappointed ex-Dawks will feel more comfortable engaging in debate on a forum that isn’t so intimately connected with an individual and his ‘mission’.

Barry

Your post is interesting. It makes several criticisms of Dawkins and his books, and grants more authority to other texts you cite than any authority you allow Dawkins. Thing is, you don't provide any detail at all. First of all, your providing detail would allow us to determine if you are a serious reviewer, and secondly, if you know your salt. As it stands, your piece illuminates neither the proposed science of Dawkins nor his scientific failings. You come across as a non-scientist who has no scientific credentials whatsover but who simply wants to have a bash at Dawkins. If I'm wrong about this, please do be more generous in granting us your specific scientific objections to Dawkins' scientific stances. Your data will be warmly received here.

Unfortunately, without any of the above information, your post comes across as utterly dismissive of Dawkins, especially when you offer such comments, again without any substantiation, as 'personal shortcomings' to bolster your flailingly empty position.

Please make your next post more precise and detailed, if you can.

Sean Tyrer

What a peculiar response.

I didn’t grant “more authority” to some texts than I did to Dawkins’ writings although I did proffer the opinion that some recent books covering similar ground to TGSOE were better written and more succinct than Dawkins’ book. I’m not sure this requires special “scientific credentials”, but you probably know better.

My main criticism of Dawkins is that his brand of atheism is crude and reactionary. I mentioned in particular his views on the Northern Irish conflict. In TGD he struggles to make his beliefs relevant to the situation, and is reduced to some pretty feeble reasoning. Take this passage:

At the opposite end of the spectrum from pacifism, we have a pusillanimous reluctance to use religious names for warring factions. In Northern Ireland, Catholics and Protestants are euphemized to ‘Nationalists’ and ‘Loyalists’ respectively. The very word ‘religions’ is bowdlerized to ‘communities’, as in ‘inter-community warfare’.[pg21]

Later on, Dawkins develops his argument:

Religion is undoubtedly a divisive force, and this is one of the main accusations levelled against it. But is frequently and rightly said that wars, and feuds between religious groups or sects, are seldom actually about theological disagreements … Religion is a label of in-group/out-group enmity and vendetta, not necessarily worse than other labels such as skin colour, language or preferred football team, but often available when others are not.

Yes, yes, of course the troubles in Northern Ireland are political. There really has been economic and political oppression of one group by another, and it goes back centuries. There really are genuine grievances and injustices, and these seem to have little to do with religion; except that – and this is important and widely overlooked – without religion there would be no labels by which to decide whom to oppress and whom to avenge. And the real problem in Northern Ireland is that the labels are inherited down many generations. [pg259]

The real problem? Having established that religious denominations are used as mere labels, and having rather impatiently conceded that economic and political conflicts lie at the heart of the problems in Northern Ireland, Dawkins desperately tries to shoehorn his pet peeve into the equation. The ‘real problem’ it appears, is that the occupying power professes allegiance to a different branch of Christianity than most of the occupied population! And the professor seems to believe that ditching the words ‘Nationalist’ and ‘Loyalist’ – which at least have some purchase on the political and material realities of the Northern Ireland conflict – and replacing them with ‘Catholic’ and ‘Protestant’ would be less euphemistic. It is hard to know where to begin unpicking this tripe, but a quick glance at the history books might have helped the professor. The Presbyterian affiliations of Wolfe Tone might have given Dawkins pause for thought, or the socialist convictions of James Connolly. But hey, ho, what does historical veracity matter when the professor’s freedom to pontificate is at stake.

To paraphrase one of the world’s foremost intellectuals:
“You come across as a non-historian who has no historical credentials whatsoever but who simply wants to defend Dawkins, regardless of his piss-poor grasp of basic political and historical realities.”

[z8000783]

I'll start off of course with the saved cache Thinking Aloud happened to have of most of the thread on RD.net that was supposedly so 'vitriolic' that the forum had to be closed and put into read-only mode (keep scrolling down, it's a long file): http://thinking-aloud.co.uk/temp/rdf.html

Well that was all fairly tame, hardly equivalent to this -

Be that as it may, what this remarkable bile suggests to me is that there is something rotten in the Internet culture that can vent it. If I ever had any doubts that RD.net needs to change, and rid itself of this particular aspect of Internet culture, they are dispelled by this episode.

I guess the fact that the mods resigned made them poo their pants and shut down the forum early.

John

[tortouse]

i hear you barry cane ... always had the feeling richard D is the type of person who works at being liked by people, without also working out why he doesn't like them.

if someone is an atheist, a non-believer, an agnostic etc. it doesn't follow that they have to make eliminating religion their goal or purpose.. richard dawkins seems so threadbare and devoid of wherewithal once he steps outside genetics or waffling with other professors in the common room, that, maybe i'll buy and send him a copy of michael moores "capitalism" for his b'day. with any luck he may come to recognise that the indoctrination of the young with illogical ideologies isn't just the preserve of religion, nor is religion it's biggest exponent.

thinks ... "if only dawkins had been that cool ganga smokin prof. instead of the odd guy at the party nodding and tapping his toe in time with the music. you know the one ... you can't take the piss coz it's at his house" ...

[Skinny Puppy]

Guys... You've done all you can. Let it rest for now. Remember that Richard is probably very busy with his book tour or whatever he's in Australia for. Yes, I understand that he's responded to articles on his website, but keep in mind that this situation is of several orders of magnitude higher than responding to an article and he may need more time. I'm not saying that I think he'll definitely respond. I don't know. I hope he does. But for now, give it a rest. You've done everything you can, and then some. If this is still not sorted out in a month, then try again.

That's my suggestion, anyway...

Julie

At the risk of whoring my own previous post, this sums it up. Sing it to the tune of Don McLean’s American Pie.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 04&start=0

Until Richard owns-up and acts honestly, he gets ZERO leeway. He’s a disgrace to himself and to the atheist movement.

Right now excuses for him are flowing like shit at a diarrhea convention. His credibly is crumbling; he can find the time to salvage it. Instead he’s maintaining his self-delusions of grandeur and acting like an injured party.

He’s going to continue to sink even further unless he stops his blatant hypocritical stance and acts, not for his own self-interests, but for what atheism stands for… the truth regardless of how a bitter a pill is may be to swallow.

He’s spent a lifetime ‘preaching’ science and reason over lies and superstitions, yet he’s now gone into the same camp as those he’s condemned for doing what he’s now engaged in, telling lies and hoping the mindless masses believe the bullshit that’s thrown out to them.

When he learns what ‘truth’ is and acknowledges it, the furor will die down, until then… I very much doubt it!

[Bella Fortuna]

Damn, Mr. Puppy, that beats my parody version!

[lordpasternack]

I guess the fact that the mods resigned made them poo their pants and shut down the forum early.

John

As I already said in another thread - staff expressly said that they'd respond to illegal stuff, porn, and stuff potentially damaging to RD's reputation.

[pdavid]

I'm a hideously lazy twat and can't be arsed to do even the smallest amount of digging to find out what has been going on over at RDF. Can somebody sum it up for me please?

[Ilovelucy]

I'm a hideously lazy twat and can't be arsed to do even the smallest amount of digging to find out what has been going on over at RDF.

The Times just called, they wondered if you wanted a job?

[klr]

I'm a hideously lazy twat and can't be arsed to do even the smallest amount of digging to find out what has been going on over at RDF.

The Times just called, they wondered if you wanted a job?

Here's the funny version, not that there's anything funny about it:

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 72#p348772

Here's the serious version:

http://realityismyreligion.wordpress.co ... open-soon/

http://realityismyreligion.wordpress.co ... m-closure/

http://realityismyreligion.wordpress.co ... rreaction/

[pdavid]

TLDNR

[klr]

TLDNR

Next thing you know, you'll want me to summarise the rise and fall of the Roman Empire in a single sentence.

[lordpasternack]

I'm trying to get a thread together, but it will probably still be too long for your goldfish-esque attention span.

[lordpasternack]

I'm a hideously lazy twat and can't be arsed to do even the smallest amount of digging to find out what has been going on over at RDF.

The Times just called, they wondered if you wanted a job?