RICHARD DAWKINS ❤ CANCEL CULTURE (or not)

[Moontanman]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

Who would you choose as 'experts' in a discussion about garbage such as 'revealed faith' ?

Since "revealed truth" is simply telling people what you want them to believe regardless of any conflict with reality, possibly actors would be the experts to use? 

[Gian]

22 hours ago, CharonY said:

I think the quotes from Dawkins are missing the mark and certain folks are weaponizing that kind of arguments...

Can people here define free speech please, and with a philosophical rationale justify how people should react to opinions they strongly disagree with?

I hope no one here agrees with sacking people for their opinions

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

Edited April 3 by Gian

[Moontanman]

9 minutes ago, Gian said:

Discuss!

Can people here define free speech please, and with a philosophical rationale justify how people should react to it?

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

There was a time when I would have supported free speech unconditionally... then came the people who use free speech to make false claims and the gullibility of people to influence them in directions that are anti social at best... see the maga movement. 

Edited April 3 by Moontanman

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

The soft sciences,  psychiatry being one example, is where I would find issues with your approach.

That is actually the gist of my argument. If there are for example different schools of thought, you invite folks who have been dealing with that question in a serious manner. Evidence for that includes publishing scholarly articles and reputation among other scholars, you know, the same way we do it in hard science.

Then, if there are competing viewpoints, folks outline their arguments based on their research and expertise and highlight why they disagree with other models, for example. This includes highlighting what supporting evidence exists as well as educate the audience regarding gaps and challenges. 

This level of engagement requires significant knowledge on the subject matter. Again, not unlike in hard sciences. So the point you are missing is that not only the folks in the panel should be vetted professionally, but also the subject matter. As I tried to outline the role of Universities should be to identify areas where discussions can be held on that level. This won't be the case for random free-for all topics.

In your example, the issue is one of psychoanalysis, a field that has been hotly debated in the field for a variety of reason. So the discussion could be around the validity of psychoanalysis the issue of memory and so on. And this is the part where I see universities fail- they do not rely sufficiently on experts to develop such discussions.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Who would you choose as 'experts' in a discussion about garbage such as 'revealed faith' ?

And this again is my point. A discussion has to properly contextualized. Otherwise you are just throwing soundbites (incidentally, like OP) and then complain that the outcome is garbage. GIGO, I say.

Or perhaps in attempt to make it clearer, what I am trying to say is that universities should be the place for curated content. And yes, one could argue what level of curation is acceptable for a given discussion, but the basic idea is to maintain intellectual rigour, which after all should be one of the missions of universities.

[Gian]

On 4/2/2024 at 3:26 PM, Moontanman said:

What do you want to discuss here? 

Discuss Dawky's comments.

And I put this in Physics & Astronomy because not being a scientist I respect astrophysicists. I suppose an "Evolutionary Biologist" only describes what's already there. 

 

I guess an astrophysicist needs to be able to think laterally, outside the box. That's why Dawky can't get religion and makes such a fool of himself.

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

Edited April 3 by Gian

[exchemist]

5 minutes ago, Gian said:

Discuss Dawky's comments.

And I put this in Physics & Astronomy because not being a scientist I respect astrophysicists. I suppose an "Evolutionary Biologist" only describes what's already there. 

 

I guess an astrophysicist needs to be able to think laterally, outside the box. That's why Dawky can't get religion and makes such a fool of himself.

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

He doesn’t strike me as making a fool of himself in the remarks you quote. He seems to be arguing, rather intemperately, for people to feel free to attack religion, instead of, as he seems to think, showing it undue respect. Well, it’s a point of view, and not self-evidently silly, it seems to me. Why do you think it makes him look a fool?

 

[CharonY]

20 minutes ago, Gian said:

Can people here define free speech please, and with a philosophical rationale justify how people should react to opinions they strongly disagree with?

I hope no one here agrees with sacking people for their opinions

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

I do not see a reason to react to something just because you disagree with them. I also do not see a reason for a philosophical rationale, which seems like an odd request.

Disagreement is a simple fact of life.

 

[Gian]

On 4/2/2024 at 3:28 PM, MigL said:

Stems from the  new attitude permeating the Western world; that whatever you 'feel' cannot be wrong...

I think it's more a case of what you "feel" should not be dismissed out-of hand. I suspect alot of scientific discovery starts with someone just having a feeling, or hunch about something.

But Dawky and people like him were extremely unwise in the so-called "atheist spring" post 9/11 to encourage people to be disrespectful, which is another word for bigoted.

What Dawky's too dumb to realise is that if he encourages bigotry in one department eg religion, it never stops there.

Given that over the last 15y or so there seems to have been a noticeable increase in racism and in particular antisemitism, Dawky should cut out the rabble rousing.

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

[Moontanman]

15 minutes ago, Gian said:

Discuss Dawky's comments.

And I put this in Physics & Astronomy because not being a scientist I respect astrophysicists. I suppose an "Evolutionary Biologist" only describes what's already there. 

 

I guess an astrophysicist needs to be able to think laterally, outside the box. That's why Dawky can't get religion and makes such a fool of himself.

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

I don't get religion either and I am basically uneducated, I just require the things I believe to be real actually exist. 

[CharonY]

4 minutes ago, Gian said:

Given that over the last 15y or so there seems to have been a noticeable increase in racism and in particular antisemitism, Dawky should cut out the rabble rousing.

If you think that antisemitism and racism is a recent thing, boy do I have news for you...

[Moontanman]

22 minutes ago, Gian said:

Discuss Dawky's comments.

And I put this in Physics & Astronomy because not being a scientist I respect astrophysicists. I suppose an "Evolutionary Biologist" only describes what's already there. 

 

I guess an astrophysicist needs to be able to think laterally, outside the box. That's why Dawky can't get religion and makes such a fool of himself.

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

You are trying to poison the well by being a disrespectful jerk, Dawky... really? Religion deserves no respect and Richard Dawkins gives religion none and rightfully so. You seem to be disappointed we don't bow down to your nonsensical disrespect of Dawkins. I respect anyone who stands up to the idea of a god as nonsense and I lack not only a belief in a god I lack respect for you... personally! 

[Gian]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

He doesn’t strike me as making a fool of himself in the remarks you quote. He seems to be arguing, rather intemperately, for people to feel free to attack religion, instead of, as he seems to think, showing it undue respect. Well, it’s a point of view, and not self-evidently silly, it seems to me. Why do you think it makes him look a fool?

 

MOONTANMAN

Well because in 2002 he was encouraging people to be disrespectful, and 21y later he's weeping about cancel culture.

And the "logic" of his ridiculous book The God Delusion is about as logical as me saying that Dawky and all other scientists are stupid because they believe the Earth is flat.

The Flat Earth Society have made scientific experiments which they claim prove the Earth is flat.

Therefore as Dawky et al are all scientists, they must of logical necessity believe the Earth is flat.

That's how ridiculous he's being in his anti-religious methodology. He's just one of those atheists who needs God in order to have something not to believe in.

That's why when I asked a priest friend of my mum and dad about Dawky, he replied "I don't think we're particularly worried by Professor Dawkins."

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

PS I respect you and everyone else here💘💋

PPS Most people I know are atheists

 

53 minutes ago, CharonY said:

If you think that antisemitism and racism is a recent thing, boy do I have news for you...

Antisemitism is 1800y old. Racism was invented in the 19th century. 

Both seem to have got worse in my lifetime

GIAN🙂XXX

Edited April 3 by Gian

[Moontanman]

50 minutes ago, Gian said:

MOONTANMAN

Well because in 2002 he was encouraging people to be disrespectful, and 21y later he's weeping about cancel culture.

And the "logic" of his ridiculous book The God Delusion is about as logical as me saying that Dawky and all other scientists are stupid because they believe the Earth is flat.

The Flat Earth Society have made scientific experiments which they claim prove the Earth is flat.

Therefore as Dawky et al are all scientists, they must of logical necessity believe the Earth is flat.

That's how ridiculous he's being in his anti-religious methodology. He's just one of those atheists who needs God in order to have something not to believe in.

That's why when I asked a priest friend of my mum and dad about Dawky, he replied "I don't think we're particularly worried by Professor Dawkins."

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

PS I respect you and everyone else here💘💋

PPS Most people I know are atheists

 

Antisemitism is 1800y old. Racism was invented in the 19th century. 

Both seem to have got worse in my lifetime

GIAN🙂XXX

I don't give a shit what other people believe or do not believe, all that is important is what you can show and what you are showing is disrespect for reality. 

Edited April 3 by Moontanman

[CharonY]

47 minutes ago, Gian said:

MOONTANMAN

Well because in 2002 he was encouraging people to be disrespectful, and 21y later he's weeping about cancel culture.

And the "logic" of his ridiculous book The God Delusion is about as logical as me saying that Dawky and all other scientists are stupid because they believe the Earth is flat.

The Flat Earth Society have made scientific experiments which they claim prove the Earth is flat.

Therefore as Dawky et al are all scientists, they must of logical necessity believe the Earth is flat.

 

This is just silly. Flat Earthers who have conducted experiments have (repeatedly) shown that the Earth is, in fact, not flat. They just don't like the outcome, which is the main difference to scientific methodologies, where you are not just doing random experiments, but rather have to consolidate data with your model. The fact that you do not seem to understand this distinction makes any discussion rather moot.

50 minutes ago, Gian said:

Antisemitism is 1800y old. Racism was invented in the 19th century. 

In case you have forgotten, you were talking about the last 15 years.

[Gian]

CharonY

Of course it's silly, and it's precisely that methodology that Dawky uses to "critique" religion, so he's being equally silly.

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

PS My words were that racism and intolerance seem to have got worse over the last 15y. I did not say I thought they had only appeared in my lifetime. It was all there anyway

 

MOONTANMAN

 

35 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I don't give a shit what other people believe or do not believe, all that is important is what you can show and what you are showing is disrespect for reality. 

Honey it's not disrespect to disagree

GIAN🙂XXX

Edited April 3 by Gian

[Moontanman]

3 minutes ago, Gian said:

CharonY

Of course it's silly, and it's precisely that methodology that Dawky uses to "critique" religion, so he's being equally silly.

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

PS My words were that racism and intolerance seem to have got worse over the last 15y. I did not say I thought they had only appeared in my lifetime. It was all there anyway

Why is it silly to critique religion? Religion is in desperate need of critical thinking, in fact religion is a prime source of nonsensical people deceptively tryin to denigrate the very thing that Richard Dawkins is knowledgeable about he has every right to defend Science from. 

8 minutes ago, Gian said:

CharonY

Of course it's silly, and it's precisely that methodology that Dawky uses to "critique" religion, so he's being equally silly.

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

PS My words were that racism and intolerance seem to have got worse over the last 15y. I did not say I thought they had only appeared in my lifetime. It was all there anyway

 

MOONTANMAN

 

Honey it's not disrespect to disagree

GIAN🙂XXX

 I'm not your honey, and disagreement is not what we are talking about, we are talking about lying to influence people against the reality of the scientific method. Any and all deception is worthy of being denigrated as a reasonable topic of discussion. 

[CharonY]

27 minutes ago, Gian said:

Of course it's silly, and it's precisely that methodology that Dawky uses to "critique" religion, so he's being equally silly.

You have failed to provide any evidence for that. You are just asserting it. The main  criticism I could agree on is that his books on religion are not based on expertise in areas of religion or philosophy. But then he is not necessarily a thought leader on that topic, either (as atheism is not really a organized system like religion).

 

27 minutes ago, Gian said:

PS My words were that racism and intolerance seem to have got worse over the last 15y.

And again, this suggests you have not been paying attention regarding the level of open racism 15 or 20 or 30 years ago. The major difference are phases where things were more or less overt but I see politicians, rise of populism, concerted efforts by right-wing groups to push identity politics and other effects on the forefront. More importantly, the undercurrent never went away. As mentioned, what see is mostly just how overt things are. I have no idea what Dawkins has to do with any of it.

We might as well discuss the impact of Hawking on the current state of donuts.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Gian said:

 

Well because in 2002 he was encouraging people to be disrespectful, and 21y later he's weeping about cancel culture.

And the "logic" of his ridiculous book The God Delusion is about as logical as me saying that Dawky and all other scientists are stupid because they believe the Earth is flat.

....[snip].......

But surely, if he was complaining about the supposed need to be unduly respectful towards religion over 20 years ago, then today's "cancel culture" (if it exists) shows him to have been rather prescient, doesn't it?

Or are you suggesting it is his iconoclasm that has brought "cancel culture" about? 

Edited April 3 by exchemist

[J.C.MacSwell]

15 hours ago, MigL said:

That the Earth is not flat is factual, and can be proven.

That vaccinations are beneficial is also factual, and can also be proven.

I stand by my claim that subjective opinions are NOT factual.
Just like a rectum, everyone has one.
And society decides which opinion is 'fashionable'; dissenting opinions only get you labelled, and the fashionable opinion 'du jour' must then be protected against the dissenting views.
What the hell is 'revealed faith' anyway ?
I may tolerate it,but I see no reason to protect such garbage.

That vaccinations can be detrimental is also factual, and can be proven.

I realize the two statements are not on equal footing, scientifically speaking. 

[MigL]

For myself, faith and religion, are not offensive ( as it may be to Moon ), because, although they lack any existential evidence, some people have a 'need' for them The delusion of faith, or religion, gives them peace of mind and relieves their fear of the unknown. I see no need to take a crutch away from an emotional cripple.
So, while I have no need for it, I tolerate it.

But when it starts getting 'in your face' with ridiculous garbage like 'revealed faith', most sensible people, and R Dawkins certainly is one, will push back. My respect for him has gone up even further.

And by the way, didn't you guys ( Exchemist, Moon, Charon and JC ) read ... the OP only respects Physicists 😄😄 .

Edited April 3 by MigL

[Moontanman]

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

For myself, faith and religion, are not offensive ( as it may be to Moon ), because, although they lack any existential evidence, some people have a 'need' for them The delusion of faith, or religion, gives them peace of mind and relieves their fear of the unknown. I see no need to take a crutch away from an emotional cripple.
So, while I have no need for it, I tolerate it.

But when it starts getting 'in your face' with ridiculous garbage like 'revealed faith', most sensible people, and R Dawkins certainly is one, will push back. My respect for him has gone up even further.

And by the way, didn't you guys ( Exchemist, Moon, Charon and JC ) read ... the OP only respects Physicists 😄😄 .

It's really not religion that pisses me off, it's the people who not only believe but think they have the right to dictate how I live based on their fairy tales. 

[Gian]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

But surely, if he was complaining about the supposed need to be unduly respectful towards religion over 20 years ago, then today's "cancel culture" (if it exists) shows him to have been rather prescient, doesn't it?

Or are you suggesting it is his iconoclasm that has brought "cancel culture" about? 

Yes I am suggesting that Dawky's encouragement to disrespect other's opinions at the 2002 Ted talk has contributed to intolerance. I mean what other effect could it have?

"Stop Being damned Respectful" means stop being damned respectful

GIAN🙂XXX

 

MOONTANMAN

It's silly to critique religion if using a stupid methodology, same way It's stupid to try to critique science by using a skipping rope.

It's not critique that's wrong, critique is never wrong. It's the methodology the Dawk uses that's wrong.

GIAN🙂XXX

Edited April 3 by Gian

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

And by the way, didn't you guys ( Exchemist, Moon, Charon and JC ) read ... the OP only respects Physicists 😄😄 .

Darn physicists, what have they ever done for us?

 

[iNow]

9 hours ago, MigL said:

Who would you choose as 'experts' in a discussion about garbage such as 'revealed faith' ?

Sanitation workers?

[Moontanman]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Sanitation workers?

I stand corrected!