Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[HomerJay]

Being right isn't enough - the truth must be expressed wisely, intelligently and with foresight. There is a larger picture here. Population dynamics, ghettoisation and social attitudes. Without tact there is a real risk of inflaming a situation, unleashing forces that can not be readily or easily put back in their boxes. Any damn fool can start a war(of words and worse).

Dawkins was clearly and unambiguously talking about religious fundamentalism when referring to creationist teachings in muslim faith schools as "alien rubbish". He was also clearly and unambiguously referring to the oppression of women in islamic societies when he described to the burka as 'the full bin-liner thing'. If you require more "tact" than that, it becomes indistinguishable from accomodationism. That did not work under Neville Chamberlain, and it is just as likely to fail in this instance. Dawkins is focused full-time on fighting institutionalised, organised, primitive, superstitious forces that try to overturn secularism, humanism and a scientific approach to knowledge in favour of theocracy. I think it's a bit much to expect him to focus directly on racism, poverty, capitalism and crime as well.

I agree 100% with Dawkin's attack on fundamentalist crap being spouted at Islamic (and other) faith schools, and I agree that such criticism must be expressed robustly. I just think his choice of the word "alien" was unwise, and played into the hands of the Imams, who can claim that Dawkins is aiding and abetting racist attitudes.

The feedback thus far from the UK muslim community hasn't demonstrated that, I expect they'd be more offended by seeing their beliefs dismissed as rubbish.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-15226421

Inayat Bunglawala, never one a pass up an opportunity to hitch a lift on a passing bandwagon is nicely defensive:

http://inayatscorner.wordpress.com/2011 ... n-rubbish/

Off course 'alien' isn't used in the UK as a synonym for immigrant in the manner it is elsewhere.

Where it has been criticised has been the well meaning, non-muslim chattering classes. So perhaps it would be more accurate to say that;
"I just think his choice of the word "alien" was unwise, and played into the hands of the intelligentsia who will demand more self-censorship".

If you watch the video on Inayat's site the question of apes comes up. This is something I have found when discussing this on muslim forums, even intelligent muslims who accept evolutuion reject the notion that humankind could be anything other than Created. Bear in mind they are brought up on a diet of jews as apes and pigs and there is enormous resistence to the idea that they could also have been descended from apes.

(BTW You'll notice Inayat waxing lyrical about the beauty of Darwinism, but I like to know if he stops at the human bit).

[Jason]

If you're so confident about what he meant, I presume you'll be looking for him to be prosecuted for hate speech.

Or write a letter to the editor of every one of the many newsrags calling him out on his deliberate ambiguity and the racial/cultural clash it promotes. I understand he sometimes replies to such things.

Someone may want to waste their time writing letters (or more likely emails) to all and sundry publications, but "waste of time" is what it would be. Whatever other faults they may have, editorial staff can usually tell whether something is newsworthy or not.

They publish all sorts of letters - but you're right. This one might be a little too brain cell intensive for the average news paper reader for it to be "news worthy".

[klr]

If you're so confident about what he meant, I presume you'll be looking for him to be prosecuted for hate speech.

Or write a letter to the editor of every one of the many newsrags calling him out on his deliberate ambiguity and the racial/cultural clash it promotes. I understand he sometimes replies to such things.

Someone may want to waste their time writing letters (or more likely emails) to all and sundry publications, but "waste of time" is what it would be. Whatever other faults they may have, editorial staff can usually tell whether something is newsworthy or not.

So do you think it was a slip of the tongue?

Yes, end of story.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Dawkins says one word, "alien" and people are freaking out. Meanwhile:

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

So do you think it was a slip of the tongue?

What are you trolling for, Exi2?

[Exi5tentialist]

Dawkins says one word, "alien" and people are freaking out. Meanwhile:

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

So do you think it was a slip of the tongue?

What are you trolling for, Exi2?

I'd like some clarity from some of the people here. People are talking around Dawkins's use of the word alien without addressing his motivation for using it. So what do you think - was it a slip of the tongue by Dawkins, was it a calculated manoeuvre to use the word in the full knowledge that it had ambiguous meanings, or did Dawkins forget that it there were other interpretations?

Incidentally, please don't accuse me of trolling.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I doubt he forget there is more than one meaning to any word. I learned this in the second grade, and he went to better schools than I did. I do think he used it properly. People can claim ambiguousness for anything they want, of course, and do so when they wish to use that to attack someone. Like in this thread, for example.

[Exi5tentialist]

I doubt he forget there is more than one meaning to any word. I learned this in the second grade, and he went to better schools than I did. I do think he used it properly. People can claim ambiguousness for anything they want, of course, and do so when they wish to use that to attack someone. Like in this thread, for example.

So what you're saying is that you believe Dawkins used the word deliberately knowing there were other meanings that would make its use racist or dehumanising.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I doubt he forget there is more than one meaning to any word. I learned this in the second grade, and he went to better schools than I did. I do think he used it properly. People can claim ambiguousness for anything they want, of course, and do so when they wish to use that to attack someone. Like in this thread, for example.

So what you're saying is that you believe Dawkins used the word deliberately knowing there were other meanings that would make its use racist or dehumanising.

So what you're saying is we shouldn't use any word that has more than one meaning.

[Exi5tentialist]

I doubt he forget there is more than one meaning to any word. I learned this in the second grade, and he went to better schools than I did. I do think he used it properly. People can claim ambiguousness for anything they want, of course, and do so when they wish to use that to attack someone. Like in this thread, for example.

So what you're saying is that you believe Dawkins used the word deliberately knowing there were other meanings that would make its use racist or dehumanising.

So what you're saying is we shouldn't use any word that has more than one meaning.

What I'm saying is that Dawkins could have just said "alien to science". Then we could have been more certain he didn't mean to imply that the teachings were rubbish because they were foreign or non-human.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay, go tell him that. I'm sure he'll consult with you in the future regarding word usage.

[Jason]

I doubt he forget there is more than one meaning to any word. I learned this in the second grade, and he went to better schools than I did. I do think he used it properly. People can claim ambiguousness for anything they want, of course, and do so when they wish to use that to attack someone. Like in this thread, for example.

It's a double-edged sword. People can also use ambiguity to say things, or make attacks, which they can then claim was not their intent with ease.

I learned this in preschool.

[Exi5tentialist]

Okay, go tell him that. I'm sure he'll consult with you in the future regarding word usage.

Sounds like, apart from yet another attempt to needle me, you agree with me. In any event, you haven't really come up with anything convincing to suggest that I've misinterpreted Dawkins's motivation. The fact is, he's an absolute bigot, and he uses language to match.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay, go tell him that. I'm sure he'll consult with you in the future regarding word usage.

Sounds like, apart from yet another attempt to needle me, you agree with me. In any event, you haven't really come up with anything convincing to suggest that I've misinterpreted Dawkins's motivation. The fact is, he's an absolute bigot, and he uses language to match.

Now you trot out what you really intend with this thread. A dig at Dawkins. Pity you're no where near his league.

[Exi5tentialist]

I doubt he forget there is more than one meaning to any word. I learned this in the second grade, and he went to better schools than I did. I do think he used it properly. People can claim ambiguousness for anything they want, of course, and do so when they wish to use that to attack someone. Like in this thread, for example.

It's a double-edged sword. People can also use ambiguity to say things, or make attacks, which they can then claim was not their intent with ease.

I learned this in preschool.

Exactly - and I do think Dawkins would know to avoid using this 'double-edged sword' when he's playing with racist and de-humanising inuendos.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Exactly - and I do think Dawkins would know to avoid using this 'double-edged sword' when he's playing with racist and de-humanising inuendos.

You're the one trotting out the racism card here, Exi2. And it's rather sad, such a lame effort.