1. Teenage girl buried alive in Turkey for talking to boys

Comment #458522 by Richard Dawkins on February 5, 2010 at 6:43 pm

At least they didn't stone her. That's progress of a sort.

Yes indeed. And don't let's forget the wonderfully humane ruling about the size of stones to be used.

Nothing is left to chance when it comes to a good stoning in Iran as Article 104 of the Iranian Pe-nal Code actually specifies the size of stones participants should use when, for example, stoning adulterers to death. Evidently the purpose is to increase the suffering of the victim – they don’t like you to die too quickly in Iran.

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:ityj4UpzCyMJ:www.theolivepress.es/PDF/29W.pdf stoning. "size of stone" Islam&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Richard

2. Teenage girl buried alive in Turkey for talking to boys

Comment #458449 by Richard Dawkins on February 5, 2010 at 4:11 pm

I'd be interested to know who is responsible for the comment 'But it's part of their culture, so it's OK', which appears under the headline in the Latest News section. It's not part of the Telegraph article, so presumably it's the 'editorial opinion' of someone on this site. It's obviously meant to be offensive, and there's always a time and a place for that, but whom is it meant to offend? Who are 'they'? Just this family? All Turks? All Muslims? I suspect we wouldn't see it under the headline 'Cellar incest case shocks Austria'.

As it happens, I was responsible for the comment to which you object, and I do not apologise. The equivalent would be wholly inappropriate for the Austrian cellar case, because that had no connection with normal Austrian culture or religion. But 'honour killing', and the ill-treatment of women generally, has everything to do with the Muslim religion and culture, even if it is not practised by a majority of individual Muslims. Did I intend to offend Turks? Certainly not. Did I intend to offend Muslims? Yes, but only those Muslims who fail to stand up and condemn the disgusting misogyny and cruelty that is rampant throughout their religion. Mainly, however, my comment was intended as a satire on those wishy washy European liberals who are so terrified of being thought racist that they use almost exactly the same patronising and condescending words. The most glaring example was a German female judge who, in 2007, absolved a Muslim man of blame for beating his wife and threatening to murder her, citing a Koranic verse to justify it as an accepted religious practice in Islamic culture.


Richard

3. Teenage girl buried alive in Turkey for talking to boys

Comment #458442 by Richard Dawkins on February 5, 2010 at 3:49 pm

Most Muslims don't do honour killings, but the vast majority of honour killings are done by Muslims, loyally practising their faith and following what their religion has taught them is the right and proper thing to do.

Richard

4. Secular society upset by Judge Cherie decision

Comment #458208 by Richard Dawkins on February 5, 2010 at 12:07 am

I've written to the NSS to ask how we can help bring pressure to bear to have this vile woman disciplined. She is very clearly not fit to be a judge.
Richard

5. The Great Tim Tebow Fallacy

Comment #458035 by Richard Dawkins on February 4, 2010 at 12:15 pm

According to my wife in the States, this Advert has been shown all over the media because of the controversy, so they could pull it and save the $2.5 million as the message has had much greater coverage in any event.

Yes, the admirable Herb Silverman, in his Oh Faith column, speculates that this is exactly the game they are playing:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/herb_silverman/2010/02/one_nation_under_football.html

Here's my hypothesis: Focus on the Family wants CBS to turn down its request for a Super Bowl ad. Then the ad not paid for or aired at the Super Bowl would be aired free and endlessly on conservative TV shows.

I think Herb has it about right.

Richard

6. The Great Tim Tebow Fallacy

Comment #457856 by Richard Dawkins on February 3, 2010 at 10:52 pm

I believe what Richard means by 'unborn babies' are ones that were never conceived in the first place... as distinct from being a fetus (or embryo) and certainly from being a baby. You have bought into the religious myth that a fetus is in fact an 'unborn baby'. They tend to win the language wars....

Thank you Diocletian, yes, that is exactly what I meant. I've just gone in and changed it to read 'unconceived'.

Richard

7. Papal aggression

Comment #457645 by Richard Dawkins on February 3, 2010 at 11:02 am

I'm surprised that this article, by Andrew Brown, is not receiving a more friendly reception here. For once, it seems to me he is talking sense. Ratzinger is the leader of the second most evil religion in the world today, after Islam, and it seems to me that Andrew's condemnation of his illiberal remarks is to be welcomed. As for his description of me as 'noisy', I've been called far worse, and his quotation of what I said in Dublin is accurate.

Richard

8. Should Richard Dawkins be arrested for incitement to religious hatred?

Comment #457437 by Richard Dawkins on February 2, 2010 at 3:05 pm

Apologies if somebody else has already quoted this but, according to Damian Thompson, 'Cranmer' is Adrian Hilton, a former Conservative political candidate. The piece quoted by Damian Thompson (who certainly knows nasty when he sees it) is very nasty indeed:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/8716603/Cranmer_on_Jade_Goody_the_creepiest_blog_post_of_the_year/

See also http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/4454576/Is_the_EU_a_Popish_Plot/

And there's a Wikipedia entry on Hilton here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Hilton

The only good thing I can think of to say about him is that he is anti-Catholic. And that's not neglgible.

Richard

9. Hear the rumble of Christian hypocrisy

Comment #457244 by Richard Dawkins on February 1, 2010 at 9:46 pm

220. Comment #457058 by Steve Zara on February 1, 2010 at 1:20 pm

Brilliant, Steve.

Richard

10. Should Richard Dawkins be arrested for incitement to religious hatred?

Comment #457135 by Richard Dawkins on February 1, 2010 at 5:38 pm

Cranmer's response is mostly drivel to avoid answering Dawkins questions.

It is an assertion that cannot be made other than by faith, for you cannot possibly know by any epistemology or method of science. His Grace is content to say that he does not know whether or not Adam existed because he cannot know. But then he does not believe that the Book of Genesis is in the same literary genre as The Downing Street Years.

Did Cranmer say that, Dhamma? I can't find it on his blog.

Richard

11. Should Richard Dawkins be arrested for incitement to religious hatred?

Comment #457023 by Richard Dawkins on February 1, 2010 at 12:18 pm

It is now more than two hours since I put two very simple questions to 'Cranmer' and nearly two hours since he signalled that he had read my post, by an evasive answer pretending that he didn't believe I was genuinely who I said I was. Various people have pointed him towards this site for authentication, and at least one person has challenged him to recognize that my questions deserve an answer, whoever sent them in.

How long will it be until 'Cranmer' explains which bit of Christian theology I got wrong? Which bit of my comprehension of theology is 'sub-GCSE' and how does his own theology dilffer from it? Two hours and counting . . .

Richard

12. Should Richard Dawkins be arrested for incitement to religious hatred?

Comment #456981 by Richard Dawkins on February 1, 2010 at 10:22 am

I was about to comment on this blog but as I clicked to add my comment I noticed that Richard himself (or someone who can do a good impression of his written style*) had replied moments before me, so I didn't bother.

No, please bother, on occasions like this. They do!

Richard

13. Should Richard Dawkins be arrested for incitement to religious hatred?

Comment #456971 by Richard Dawkins on February 1, 2010 at 9:59 am

I have just submitted the following open letter to 'Cranmer' on his website. It'll be interesting to see whether it is censored, and whether he replies to it.
Richard

Dear Cranmer

I am intrigued by the Christian vitriol that is being thrown in my face after my article in The Times. You, Cranmer, have even suggested that I should be arrested for incitement to religious hatred. Here’s a brief summary of what I actually said. Cranmer, please explain, calmly and coolly, what is wrong with it.

Whether Christian, Muslim, Jew or atheist, we all agree in condemning Pat Robertson’s suggestion that the earthquake was God’s punishment to the Haitian people for making a pact with the devil. But Christians, unlike Muslims, Jews or atheists, are hypocrites to condemn Robertson, because he is the one who clearly and unapologetically stands up for Christian theology. As follows:-

1. God metes out terrible punishment for sin. The doctrine of post-mortem punishment for sin in Hell is fully sanctioned in the New Testament (not in the Old Testament, incidentally, although the Old Testament has plenty of wholesale punishment for sin in this world). Cranmer, are you now saying that Pat Robertson is mistaken in his emphasis on divine punishment for sin?

2. Humanity is so deeply sinful that the only way God could forgive us was to have his own son punished vicariously for all our sins. He was tortured and crucified so that humanity’s sin could be purged. Cranmer, are you now denying that Jesus died for our sins? Moreover, the principal sin for which Jesus died was the sin of Adam, who actually never existed. Cranmer, are you saying you think Adam existed and therefore that evolution is false?

3. Robertson’s devil talk may sound barbaric, but all Christians subscribe to the belief that Jesus ‘cast out devils’. And this cannot just be an archaic way of saying ‘cured mental illness’, because on one occasion the devils departed from a madman and entered a herd of swine, causing them to stampede over a cliff. Christians who believe that Gospel story are therefore committed to the belief that ‘devils’ are actual entities or agents, capable of leaving one brain and entering another. Cranmer, are you denying the truth of that Gospel story? (Many modern Christians would, but Pat Robertson would stay true to the Gospel).

If you are denying some parts of the Gospel but not others, how do you decide which parts? As it happens, Pat Robertson, like the true Christian he is, chooses to deny none of it.

Cranmer, you accuse me of a “sub-GCSE level of comprehension of theology and an utterly simplistic caricature of religious philosophy.” My comprehension of Christian theology is set out in points 1 and 2 above (and arguably point 3, depending on what kind of Christian you are). My understanding of Christian theology is that all true Christians stand by at least 1 and 2. Cranmer, do you deny either of them? Please answer clearly and honestly, and without personal venom or irrelevant sideswipes.

Richard Dawkins

14. Creation Commits the Sin of Thoughtfulness, and Is Quite Moving in the Process

Comment #456464 by Richard Dawkins on January 30, 2010 at 3:07 pm

I've seen the film. It is indeed visually beautiful and the acting by Paul Bettany is good. There are major flaws, however. I think Emma Darwin's religiosity is unfairly exaggerated, and the portrayal of Huxley as a malignant, belligerent dwarf is an outrage. Darwin's friend the vicar is unjustly misrepresented as meting out a vicious punishment to a child because she believed in dinosaurs. So, I have mixed feelings about it. On balance I think it is good, but is best regarded, not as a historical documentary but as historical fiction vaguely based on fact.

Richard

15. Did Charles Darwin get it wrong?

Comment #456422 by Richard Dawkins on January 30, 2010 at 6:47 am

This refutes a key prediction of Neo-Darwinism, Ernst's Mayr's statement that it would be futile to look for similar genes in different creatures.

Others on this thread have answered this well. All I can add is a guess as to why Mayr might have said such a thing. Let me put into my own words what, I guess, Mayr meant to say: "Of course it would be a fantastic triumph for Darwin if mice and fruit flies were discovered to have genes in common that did the same kind of things. Pie in the sky, but if only we could discover a gene that caused camera eyes to develop in mice, and a recognizably similar gene that switched on compound eye development in flies, Darwin would punch the air in triumph. Unfortunately, we live in the real world so, much as I, and Darwin, would have loved it, I reluctantly have to say that it would be futile to look for similar genes in different creatures."

How hox genes can be misrepresented as anti-Darwinian completely beats me. It is one spectacular piece of wishful thinking, and a free gift from Fodor to creationists. As for the old 'survival of the fittest is a tautology' nonsense, you might as well say "Horse races are won by the fastest horse" is a tautology, therefore it is pointless betting on horses!

Richard

16. Echolocation in bats and whales based on same changes to same gene

Comment #456088 by Richard Dawkins on January 29, 2010 at 7:22 am

Thank you, Mike, for posting this. It came just in time for me to look up the original research papers and slip a footnote in to the paperback edition of The Greatest Show on Earth, on Page 325 (which will have to be readjusted a bit, so the page numbeing doesn't change):

A rare case where ‘the exception’ really does ‘prove the rule’ was published just before this paperback edition went to press. Some (but not all) bats and some (but not all) whales find their way around by ‘sonar’ – using the echoes of special cries that they utter for the purpose. I always presumed that they’d converged on the same clever trick by completely different routes, but the truth is even more amazing! Mammals have a gene called Prestin, which is involved in hearing. Two independent groups of researchers did a Penny-style analysis using the protein product of Prestin, and found that echolocating whales and bats come out closer to each other than either do to their non-echolocating counterparts! To pursue my ‘voting’ analogy, Prestin bucks the trend of the rest of the genome by casting its ‘vote’ for an outlandish tree, in which echolocating bats and toothed whales appear to be closely ‘related’ to each other! Of course Prestin is massively outvoted by the rest of the genome, confirming that bats and whales are not really closely related. What happened is that, while bats and toothed whales were independently evolving sonar, natural selection in both lines favoured parallel mutations in the same Prestin gene. Revealingly, the convergence shows itself if you look at the amino acid sequences of the Prestins but not if you look at the DNA sequences that specify them. There’s no contradiction here, because the genetic code allows amino acids to be specified in several different ways by DNA. This provides a marvellous way to separate convergent from ancestrally derived resemblances. Thus, different species of bats derive their sonar, not convergently but from an echolocating ancestor. And this real cousinship, unlike the apparent cousinship to the whales, receives the ‘vote’ of the Prestin DNA sequence (as well as that of the amino acid sequence). This remarkable story bids us ask whether there are other examples. Dare we hope that the pill woodlouse and the pill millipede (see p 300) have achieved rolling up into a ball by independently modifying the same gene as each other?.

Richard

17. Hear the rumble of Christian hypocrisy

Comment #455981 by Richard Dawkins on January 28, 2010 at 10:47 pm

This is nothing new...

Oh how silly of me. You see, when I read the caption at the top, "This is an expanded version of the article already published on the Washington Post's 'On Faith' blog under a different title" I thought to myself, Oh, right, this'll be completely new and original then. Oh silly me. Etc.

The point, you see, is to bring to a British newspaper-reading audience, what has previously been seen by an American Internet audience. Actually it is rather longer than the 'On Faith' version, and makes an attempt to answer the commonest criticism of that version.

Richard

18. reddit.com Interviews PZ Myers

Comment #455888 by Richard Dawkins on January 28, 2010 at 6:30 pm

What a nice man PZ is. What a good advertisement for the strident and shrill.

Richard

19. The God Delusion - back on the Times extended list at #24

Comment #455798 by Richard Dawkins on January 28, 2010 at 1:01 pm

Excellent news - 2 million copies in english! I wonder what total worldwide sales are now.

I can't give you worldwide sales, but I happen to have an up-to-date figure for the German edition, Der Gotteswahn: More than 260,000.
Richard

20. The God Delusion - back on the Times extended list at #24

Comment #455619 by Richard Dawkins on January 28, 2010 at 12:27 am

How many have been sold in the USA?

As it happens, I have just been sent some recent figures for sales of The God Delusion in English:-
North America 907,161
Rest of World 1,179,241
Total English language 2,086,402

Richard

21. Why David Cameron wants a boom in faith schools

Comment #455282 by Richard Dawkins on January 27, 2010 at 10:30 am

I am really, really keeping my fingers crossed for a hung Parliament. It's the best that can be hoped for.

Yes and I shall, as usual, vote Liberal Democrat at the next election. An easy decision, since the Lib Dem MP for Oxford happens to be Evan Harris, the most stalwart atheist and suporter of liberal decency in parliament, the one who got the blasphemy law abolished (and main parliamentary supporter of the heroic Simon Singh and the campaign to change the British libel law). If there is a hung parliament, the hope is that the Lib Dems will be able to knock some sense into whichever of the two main parties they cooperate with, not least when it comes to faith schools. Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader is an atheist, although not so admirably outspoken as Evan Harris, and he sometimes sounds as though he believes in belief. I've never voted Tory in my life, but I wonder whether there is one respect in which they might be better than Labour, where faith schools are concerned. I suspect that the Tories are likely to be most sympathetic to Anglican faith schools, and, much as I disapprove of them, they are at least more harmless than the competition. Labour are constantly sucking up to Muslim voters, whereas the Tories don't, or not to the same extent. Islam is surely the greatest man-made evil in the world today, and I think I'd feel a tiny bit more secure against the menacing threat of Islam and Islamic faith schools, under the Tories than under Labour. But the Lib Dems are the best of a bad lot, and Evan Harris is very positively a good thing. His Oxford seat has become less safe than before, because of boundary changes, so may I urge people living in Oxford (or even not living in Oxford) to rally round and help Evan get re-elected. I have been asked to donate to the Lib Dems, and I have replied that my donations will go specifically to Evan Harris's campaign.
http://drevanharrismp.wordpress.com/
http://oxwablibdems.org.uk/

Richard

22. Open Your Eyes

Comment #454210 by Richard Dawkins on January 24, 2010 at 5:06 pm

Characteristically lovely poem, Dorothy, thank you.

Richard

23. Open Your Eyes

Comment #454142 by Richard Dawkins on January 24, 2010 at 8:13 am

But your consciousness is not a statistical matter. If it were, then identical twins would have the same consciousness.

Yes, this very point is made in the original, which is Chapter 1 of Unweaving the Rainbow. The reading recorded here is a set of disconnected paragraphs from the book, and obviously cannot be expected to cover everything that is in the chapter itself.

Richard

24. Open Your Eyes

Comment #454138 by Richard Dawkins on January 24, 2010 at 7:48 am

A million million spermatozoa,
All of them alive.
Out of their cataclysm but one poor Noah
Dare hope to survive.

And of that billion minus one
Might have chanced to be
Shakespeare, another Newton, a new Donne . . .
But the one was me.

Shame to have ousted your betters thus,
Taking ark while the others remained outside.
Better for all of us, froward homunculus,
If you'd quietly died.

by Aldous Huxley (From memory, so I may have got details wrong, but it impressed me when I first read it in my teens, and it has lodged in my mind ever since. By the way, Huxley would have used 'billion' in the old British sense of 10^12, whereas nowadays we normally adopt the American 10^9).

I can't throw any light on who produced the film. The reading is obviously by me, although faster than I usually read it. The Bach is lovely

Richard

25. Church of England congregations fall again, and half are pensioners

Comment #453856 by Richard Dawkins on January 23, 2010 at 7:20 am

The Times, in 2007, reported the following:

Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and is likely to rise to No 1 by next year, a study by The Times has found. The name, if all 14 different spellings are included, was shared by 5,991 newborn boys last year, beating Thomas into third place, followed by Joshua and Oliver.

I find it hard to gloat at the poor old Church of England's decline, when I look at the competition.
Richard

26. Geert Wilders Goes on Trial

Comment #453511 by Richard Dawkins on January 22, 2010 at 2:20 pm

You seem to think that the enemies of your enemies are your friends. Maybe that is not a very rational thing to do.

I did no such thing. I explicitly stated that my endorsement of Wilders should be withdrawn if he turned out to have made racist or otherwise objectionable statements. I asked for examples and you replied, not by giving them to me but by inviting me to read all the way through the entire thread. I look forward to doing so when I get time. Meanwhile, I simply repudiate the 'enemy's enemy' charge. That would be valid only if I continued to praise Wilders after being convincingly told something bad about him. In Fitna, taken on its own, I have found no cause to put Wilders on trial or even to censure him in any substantial way.

Richard


Richard

27. Geert Wilders Goes on Trial

Comment #453475 by Richard Dawkins on January 22, 2010 at 12:52 pm

I have just watched Fitna. I don't know whether it is the original version, but it is the one linked by Jerry Coyne. Maybe Geert Wilders has done or said other things that justify epithets such as 'disgusting', or 'racist'. But as far as this film is concerned, I can see nothing in it to substantiate such extreme vilification. There is much that is disgusting in the film, but it is all contained in the quotations, which I presume to be accurate, from the Koran and from various Muslim preachers and orators, and the clips of atrocities such as beheadings and public executions. At least as far as Fitna is concerned, to call Wilders 'disgusting' is surely no more sensible than shooting the messenger. If it is complained that these disgusting Koranic verses, or these disgusting Muslim speeches, or the more than disgusting Muslim executions, are 'taken out of context', I should like to be told what the proper context would look like, and how it could possibly make any difference.

To repeat, Wilders may have said and done other things of which I am unaware, which deserve condemnation, but I can see nothing reprehensible in his making of Fitna, and certainly nothing for which he should go on trial. Like the film of Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, the style of Fitna is restrained, the music, by Tchaikowski and Grieg, is excellently chosen and contributes to the restrained atmosphere of the film. The horrendous execution scenes are faded out before the coup-de-grace; all the stridency, and almost the only expressions of opinion, come from Muslims, not from Wilders.

Why is this man on trial, unless it is, yet again, pandering to the ludicrous convention that religious opinion must not be 'offended'? Geert Wilders, if it should turn out that you are a racist or a gratuitous stirrer and provocateur I withdraw my respect, but on the strength of Fitna alone I salute you as a man of courage, who has the balls to stand up to a monstrous enemy.

Richard

28. Bowling for Atheists: Haiti Proves that Nonbelievers Care Too

Comment #452518 by Richard Dawkins on January 20, 2010 at 11:25 am

The important thing is to get as much money flowing to Haiti as quickly as possible. NBGA has been brilliantly successful, and has raised approximately $100,000 PER DAY during the first three days, with no sign of the rate slackening off. Those who object to NBGA, or to the tone of its manifesto, have to answer the following question. Do you think the total flow of money to Haiti would have been greater if NBGA didn't exist, and we all simply gave independently to a charity such as Red Cross or Médecins sans Frontières?

Opinion on this site seems about evenly divided between the NBGA objectors and the NBGA supporters (using "NBGA" as a shorthand for "NBGA or the tone adopted in its manifesto"). I suggest the following approach to answering my question above. The NBGA objectors would no doubt have given money anyway, via a different channel. So they are irrelevant to our calculation. Of the NBGA supporters, probably many of them would also have given the same amount of money anyway. So they are irrelevant to the calculation. But there is surely a remaining class of NBGA supporters, however small (and I suspect that this class is not small), who would be moved to give a bit more, or give a bit earlier, or give for a second time, because something about the NBGA manifesto appealed to them. And this seems to me to argue strongly for one answer to the question I posed. The net effect of NBGA, whether or not you have a high-minded and praiseworthy objection, or a sanctimonious and priggish objection, is to INCREASE the flow of money to Haiti at this terrible time. And that's good enough for me.

Professional fundraisers habitually use tactics that you could object to and protest that people ought to give anyway. Why do fundraisers hold thousand-dollar-a-plate dinners? Why do they organize sponsored walks, or sponsored runs, or sponsored swims? Why don't they just say, "People should give to this good cause anyway, without the additional inducement?" The reason is that a person's individual decision on whether to give, and how much to give, is a balanced, nuanced affair. There are competing demands. Little things can push us into giving, or giving more. Sponsored walks or climbs or swims make a difference. People are clubbish, they feel they are participating in a joint effort. There can be a feeling of solidarity, of group identity. There is nothing too terrible about that, is there? Is it so very wrong if you feel that, while of course you are giving mainly because of your sympathy for the poor people of Haiti, you are also incidentally pleased to identify yourself with a group of people whose more general aims you approve? Isn't it a bit like joining in a sponsored run with a group of like-minded friends?

Even if only a minority of the donors who swelled our $300,000 (so far) feel clubbish in that way isn't it worth it, for the sake of the extra money we raise for Haiti? Once again, do you seriously suppose that the total flow of money to Haiti would have been more if we hadn't set up NBGA? Do you seriously think that every dollar of that $300,000 would have reached Haiti anyway, by different routes?

So, if you object to NBGA, by all means give your money in a solitary way, and that is a wonderful thing to do. But if, on the other hand, you feel like joining our charity run/swim, let's see how quickly we Non-Believers can raise half a million.

Richard

29. Religious no longer a protected class

Comment #450246 by Richard Dawkins on January 12, 2010 at 7:07 pm

What an utterly SPLENDID piece by Dan.
Richard

30. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #449354 by Richard Dawkins on January 9, 2010 at 8:12 pm

No doubt, it is a great centre of scholarship for philosophy and the classics. Science, however, seems to be an almost entirely American enterprise

http://www.socialcapitalgateway.org/eng-deprankings.htm
The world's top 10 natural science universities
1 Massachussets Institute of Technology (MIT)
2 University of California, Berkeley
3 University of Cambridge
4 Harvard University
5 University of Oxford
6 Princeton University
7 California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
8 Stanford University
9 University of Toronto
10 University of Tokyo

31. Seeing Further: The Story of Science & the Royal Society, edited by Bill Bryson

Comment #449290 by Richard Dawkins on January 9, 2010 at 4:49 pm

I saw this book in Waterstones the other day and it looks very good. I didn't part with my cash however as I've got too much to read as it is, but does anybody know if by buying this by using the Amazon buttons provided whether or not this benefits RDF or not?

Yes it does. A tithe of Amazon's money goes automatically to RDFRS's Paypal account whenever you go to Amazon by clicking a button on this site.
Richard

32. [UPDATE-07-Jan: commentary by Russell Blackford] Prejudiced Danes provoke fanaticism

Comment #448023 by Richard Dawkins on January 6, 2010 at 12:51 pm

Steve Zara

Now, it seems like the Cartoons were designed to be quite offensive. That was the artistic intention. Putting aside any judgement on that, wouldn't it have been more interesting if the cartoons had been designed to be hardly offensive at all, in the style of the UK atheist bus campaign. It would have make those claiming insult and offence look very silly indeed.

Unfortunately for this otherwise constructive suggestion, it is hard to imagine how the Danish cartoons could have been made LESS offensive, unless you buy into the peculiar Islamic conception of offence. The Westergaard cartoon, which is normally touted as the most offensive of them (if you don't count the three EXTRA cartoons conjured up by Muslims and never published in Jyllands-Posten) simply showed a (presumed) Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. Any President or Prime Minister in the world would have more right to take offence at the daily cartoon in some newspaper or other. The Westergaard cartoon implies nothing more offensive than that Islam is a violent religion, a fact that was amply demonstrated by the response to it. Part of the problem, as many here have pointed out, is that Islam expects special treatment: expects to be allowed to take disproportionate offence, far beyond that assumed by anybody else on Earth.

Mr Forrest

Now I believe that it is every mans right to choose what he wishes to say. I wholeheartedly believe that it is NOT every mans right to choose what his fellow man should say.

Yes, and it is also every man's right not to offer himself as a martyr, for fear of being thought a coward.

Richard

33. [UPDATE-07-Jan: commentary by Russell Blackford] Prejudiced Danes provoke fanaticism

Comment #448012 by Richard Dawkins on January 6, 2010 at 12:12 pm

Philip1978.
The bus campaign is a good test case, because the posters were 'in your face', in the literal sense that you might be able to avoid seeing them, but what they said was extremely mild: "There's probably no God." If you are hurt or offended by something as mild as that, too bad. Grow a thicker skin.

Your second point, that "these idiots WANT the violence, they WANT to be outraged" is an excellently shrewd one. I hadn't put it into words before but, now that you do, it has the ring of truth.

Richard

34. [UPDATE-07-Jan: commentary by Russell Blackford] Prejudiced Danes provoke fanaticism

Comment #448006 by Richard Dawkins on January 6, 2010 at 12:01 pm

Interesting distinction by Steve Zara (327). And I suppose there is a gradient between a poster that you can't help seeing, and a newspaper that you don't seek out. Steve's point applies to pornography, and horrifyingly violent pictures, perhaps more than 'hurt' and 'disrespect'.
Richard

35. [UPDATE-07-Jan: commentary by Russell Blackford] Prejudiced Danes provoke fanaticism

Comment #447954 by Richard Dawkins on January 6, 2010 at 9:58 am

In defence of cowardice
If I had been the Editor of Jyllands-Posten, I would not have published the cartoons, on grounds of simple cowardice. Or, more accurately, prudence. I think he was brave, but one could argue that there are better things to be brave about, given that his life was at stake. The point I want make here is that, of all the reasons one might think of for not publishing pictures of Mohammed, prudence (or physical cowardice if you wish) is far preferable to the moral and intellectual cowardice of any of the following:
1. You shouldn't publish those cartoons because they hurt people's feelings.
2. You shouldn't publish those cartoons because that shows disrespect for religion.
3. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to insult.

No, those three, and others like them, are bad reasons to refrain from publishing something, and they are often hypocritical as well, since they are often used as camouflage for honest, physical cowardice. The following, it seems to me, is a perfectly valid reason why he might have decided not to publish the cartoons:

4. I won't publish those cartoons because I don't want to be beheaded, I don't want the offices of Jyllands-Posten to be blown up, don't want the cartoonists or their families to be endangered, etc. But let me add that, while I may fear you if you threaten me and my editorial staff and my cartoonists with physical violence, this does not mean I respect you or your ridiculous religion. Quite the reverse. A religion that has to resort to the threat of physical violence has clearly lost what little entitlement to respect it ever had. I may fear you but, more importantly, I DESPISE you and hold you in utter contempt.

Richard

36. [UPDATE-07-Jan: commentary by Russell Blackford] Prejudiced Danes provoke fanaticism

Comment #447940 by Richard Dawkins on January 6, 2010 at 9:27 am

SaintStephen: I respectfully withdraw my request to those other gentlemen.

What request?

He's withdrawn it, whatever it was, so there is nothing to ask about. It is withdrawn.
Richard

37. [UPDATE-07-Jan: commentary by Russell Blackford] Prejudiced Danes provoke fanaticism

Comment #447921 by Richard Dawkins on January 6, 2010 at 8:58 am

Mike is doing a great job, but perhaps you need one or two people more to help him out. Acting swiftly is crucial to successful site management.

Mike is doing a brilliant job. The problem lies in the SYSTEM of negative editing (publish unless there's a good reason not to) as opposed to positive editing (only publish something if there is a good reason to). Like most such sites, we have negative editing. Perhaps we should go over to positive editing, but things would be extremely different, and I'm not sure that many people would like it.

Now let's get back to the Danish cartoons. But before we do, in response to root2squared and Saint Stephen, I should apologise for calling that woman a 'bitch', when I should have called her 'the woman in the next seat who was described as "bitching".' Try reading it as 'bitcher', which is what I should have said in the first place.

Richard

38. [UPDATE-07-Jan: commentary by Russell Blackford] Prejudiced Danes provoke fanaticism

Comment #447908 by Richard Dawkins on January 6, 2010 at 8:23 am

Ophelia wrote

Just for a start, I don't think everything boils down to what is rational. It's not 'rational' for a child to be attached to a particular battered blanket, but I really don't care; if the child loses the blanket I will go to a lot of trouble to help find it. It's not 'rational' for people to visit someone's grave, but I really don't care; I take walks in cemeteries but I'm careful not to go skipping cheerily around people who are visiting graves. It's not 'rational' for people to cherish a particular object because a loved person gave it to them, but I really don't care; I wouldn't smash such an object and replace it with one identical in appearance.

I completely agree, Ophelia, and it is hard to imagine that anybody here wouldn't.

You don't call people vicious names, because it's wrong. It's morally suspect. You don't call people fat, or ugly, or smelly; you don't call them racial epithets; you don't call them faggots or dykes; you don't call them untouchables; you don't call them bitches or cunts.

In some circles it's apparently hip to flout all that. I dislike those circles. If RDF is one of those sites, then I'll have to take my wit and wisdom elsewhere. It's a matter of taste, if you like.

I haven't followed the full history of the derailing of this thread from the Danish cartoons. But I can see enough to realise that something has gone sadly wrong, and it is typical of what happens all over the Web.

No, RD.net is not 'one of those sites'. Or if it is, I wish it were otherwise. I'm afraid the symptoms are all too common, all over the web. Speaking personally, I would like to make this site stand out as a shining beacon to others, in NOT being 'one of those sites'.

What can we do? With a newspaper, it is easy. There is an Editor, with a staff of helpers, who decide what goes into the paper and what doesn't. When a Letter to the Editor is submitted, the default assumption is that it will not be published unless there is a good POSITIVE reason to do so. On the Web it is typically the other way around. A Comment is published unless there is a good reason NOT to -- and when that happens it sounds like censorship, with all the 'freedom of speech' issues that inevitably arise.

This is not a newspaper, and we have no full time Editor. Maybe we should have? But I don't have time to be an Editor, and I don't think the money we raised in our recent brilliant drive should be spent on employing one. We have bigger fish to fry.

Yet clearly we need to do something here and now to stop interesting threads like this one degenerating into irrelevant flame wars (as here), or inconsequential chatroom gossip (as in some others). We are going to do something about the problem, but this is not the place to discuss it. This is the place to discuss the Danish cartoon affair and Nancy Graham Holm's cowardly response to it. In an attempt to restore this thread to its rails, may I recommend Ophelia Benson's thoughtful piece on 'Fear and Censorship', which appeared in the Guardian blog one day after Nancy Graham Holt's infamous one.
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jan/04/religion-islam

And, while I am about it, may I more generally recommend Ophelia's excellent 'Butteflies and Wheels' website, and welcome her as a distinguished guest on this one.

Richard

39. The God Fraud

Comment #447546 by Richard Dawkins on January 5, 2010 at 6:19 pm

Game, set and match to Sam. What a ridiculous woman. I'm amazed she even tried to reply. It would have been more dignified just to slink away in shame.

Richard

40. Brit Hume: Tiger Woods Must Become Christian To Be Forgiven

Comment #447482 by Richard Dawkins on January 5, 2010 at 4:45 pm

87. Comment #447445 by Diocletian
First let me state that I agree that people's personal lives are just that, personal. But, our fascination with the sex lives of others is not based on stupidity - - rather it is part of our evolved psychological make-up. Humans evolved in small groups - rarely exceeding a 100 people. Knowing how we were related to one another was more than curiosity - it could be a matter of life and death. Thus, keeping tabs on who has been with who.... especially those individuals who possessed higher social status... was important. Our archaic brains did not evolve with mass media, and its invasion into every aspect of our lives perhaps 'fools' the brain into thinking that these famous people are part of their band. This is a very brief explanation, and their have been some very interesting studies done in this area. Still, it is no excuse to pry into other people's lives - we don't have to rely on our archaic brains to make decisions.

Excellent post by Diocletian, and a perfect example to us all of how to take a story that was previously nothing more than frivolous, tabloid tat, and deploy it to illustrate an important scientific insight. This is the kind of thing this website should really be about!
Thank you
Richard

41. Brit Hume: Tiger Woods Must Become Christian To Be Forgiven

Comment #447343 by Richard Dawkins on January 5, 2010 at 6:46 am

I have adopted my own position regarding other peoples' sex lives. 'Don't ask, don't tell' is not good enough for me. My own policy regarding consenting adults is: 'DK, DC, DWK, DWC' (Don't know, don't care, don't wanna know, don't wanna care). I neither know nor care what Tiger Woods did, and I don't want to know, and I hope I never care. Other than Tiger, his wife, and his mistresses (if any) who cares? It's nobody else's fuckin' business!

Exactly.
Richard

42. Brit Hume: Tiger Woods Must Become Christian To Be Forgiven

Comment #447211 by Richard Dawkins on January 4, 2010 at 11:30 pm

Why on earth should it be the business of 'the American people' to 'forgive' a man for something he does in private with other consenting adults? He is not the property of 'the American people'. Nor is he the property of his wife. As for her, if it is really true that she assaulted him with a golf club, that is criminal violence and she should be arrested and tried.

Richard

43. [UPDATE-07-Jan: commentary by Russell Blackford] Prejudiced Danes provoke fanaticism

Comment #447124 by Richard Dawkins on January 4, 2010 at 9:28 pm

This article is the most disgusting, deplorable piece I have read in a long time. I am happy to say that even the Guardian readers, on the source site, are kicking her all around the room. What a truly despicable woman.
Richard

44. The Richard Dawkins - Thunderf00t discussion

Comment #446929 by Richard Dawkins on January 4, 2010 at 11:50 am

New book idea for Richard Dawkins:

The Group Selection Delusion

Thank you for the kind suggestion, but no thank you. The group selection delusion is just so BORING, I couldn't keep awake long enough to finish the book.

Richard

45. The Richard Dawkins - Thunderf00t discussion

Comment #446908 by Richard Dawkins on January 4, 2010 at 8:54 am

I am sure Josh is not responsible for its (embarrassingly poor) audio quality. It cannot be the acoustic in Richard's library. RD himself is quite audible.
I think it has something to do with the American accent of the interviewer...or is it only my impression ?

No of COURSE Josh had nothing to do with it. No, it has nothing to do with the acoustics of the room. Yes, it is only your impression that it had to do with somebody's accent. The reason for the poor sound quality is a no-brainer. Thunderfoot didn't bring a separate microphone with him, and relied upon the cameras' own built-in microphones. There were two cameras, but both were many feet away from the speakers. Maybe the mike that was pointing at me was slightly better than the mike that was pointing at him, or a bit closer. But the sound quality for both speakers is very poor because the mikes were too far away, and he has apologised for that.

Richard

PS Or were you joking because Thunderfoot is actually English, not American?

46. The Richard Dawkins - Thunderf00t discussion

Comment #446800 by Richard Dawkins on January 3, 2010 at 9:35 pm

The previous comment by Donald gets to the heart of the modern group selection misunderstanding.

Nobody disputes that living in a group is different from living alone, and that an individual may benefit from living in a group. But that is NOT group selection. The group is just an aspect of the environment, like a forest or a desert, in which the individual survives and reproduces. If, say, living in a forest benefits individual survival, you wouldn't talk about 'forest selection' would you? Why, then, do you talk about 'group selection', when all you mean is that group living benefits individuals.

Richard

47. The Richard Dawkins - Thunderf00t discussion

Comment #446311 by Richard Dawkins on January 2, 2010 at 3:00 pm

I'm sorry to say I was so distressed by the sound quality when I heard this that I didn't persist with listening to it. The YouTube comments include some recommendations of software solutions to improving the sound quality. I haven't tried them, but maybe they help.

Richard

48. Atheist Ireland Publishes 25 Blasphemous Quotes

Comment #446179 by Richard Dawkins on January 1, 2010 at 10:48 pm

Anyone know how this law works in detail? Who brings the complaint - Joe Public or the state? How is it triggered? If it's simply up to the state to take action proactively, they'll probably just ignore the provocation as the lesser evil, recognising that an actual prosecution would be a farcical can of worms.

I wanted to ask the same question. I'd love to be prosecuted as a test case, although it might be politically more valuable if an Irish person was. I suspect you're right that they will never bring a prosecution, for fear of making fools of themselves. All the more reason for all of us to blaspheme as much as possible in Ireland, and in Irish newspapers. Blaspheme especially against the disgusting Catholic church, which is still distressingly influential in Irish politics, although not as much as it used to be. The most encouraging sign of all is the pathetic trickle of young men seeking ordination, in a country where, not so long ago, to have a priest in the family was considered a high honour. The rate at which old priests are dying off exceeds recruitment ('vocations' as they are ludicrously called) by a most gratifying margin. The other encouraging sign is that the church is increasingly held in contempt by Irish intellectuals, as I have discovered when lecturing in Dublin.

Richard

49. Atheist Ireland Publishes 25 Blasphemous Quotes

Comment #446176 by Richard Dawkins on January 1, 2010 at 10:30 pm

The Atheist Ireland site keeps going down, probably because of overload. I guess that must be a good sign, since it indicates that lots of people are reading it. I suppose it might be because of an attempt at censorship, although I doubt it. In either case, I wonder whether we could help out by hosting a copy of their page of blasphemies on our server. I'll ask Josh and Andrew.

Meanwhile, my experience is, if you can't get in, try again and you probably will. It's worth it, there are some good blasphemies.

Richard

50. Oppose “Big Floss”; practice alternative dentistry

Comment #446174 by Richard Dawkins on January 1, 2010 at 9:45 pm

I can sort of hear John Cleese's voice, "YES, well, it's not VERY funny, is it?"
Richard