201. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #125542 by keith on February 11, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Al-Rwandi,

Also if you look back at my suggestions on how to deal with the situation you can see my position clearly. Stern talking was not the last resort. An invasion was. I wasn't against invasion itself, I was against lies and profiteering.

You seem unable to tell the grammatical difference between.

"Invasion"

&

"This invasion"

Thanks for the grammar lesson. My own view is that you can't say 'this invasion' because it would suggest that an invasion is still going on, rather than an occupation. 'That invasion' might be better. Even so, to have made it clear that you meant 'all invasions' then you should have used the present tense i.e. 'I'm not against invasion itself'. 'I wasn't against invasion' suggests either that you have since changed your mind, or that you were, in fact, referring to the invasion of Iraq. I believe you meant the latter but if you want to claim otherwise, that's fine with me.

202. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #124317 by keith on February 9, 2008 at 5:04 am

Smith,

keith (C#63): Anyway, my reason for changing the activities and times was that I thought an analogy would make things plain.
keith (C#66): Therefore I can't understand why you think this is a change of activity.

Yes, very clever. I think you must be aware that the first quote refers to changing the activity to make an analogy and the second quote refers to your misunderstanding that there was a change of activities within the analogy.

Either you're having a job keeping up or you're intentionally cutting and pasting to suit your needs. Either way it makes the exchange pointless.

So I won't persue this any more.

Good luck,

Keith

203. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #124176 by keith on February 8, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Al-Rwandi,

Also if you look back at my suggestions on how to deal with the situation you can see my position clearly. Stern talking was not the last resort. An invasion was. I wasn't against invasion itself, I was against lies and profiteering.

I didn't say that giving Saddam a stern talking to was your last resort but I might have insinuated that it was your only resort, since you were against both sanctions and the invasion. However, from your last post it appears that I have been labouring under a misapprehension. You now say you weren't against the invasion at all. I have no idea how I arrived at the conclusion that you were. So, I must apologize for believing that you were against the invasion. Happy now?

But your avoidance of historical data isn't really helping the discussion along.

What do you think might help the discusson along? Perhaps if I agreed with you more? And precisely what historical data am I avoiding? The following, perhaps? (It's the second paragraph I'm most interested in. The first was just to give it context)

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was played in the media quite well. A young Kuwaiti girl was coerced into giving a false statement about Iraqi soldiers ravaging a hospital and its patients. It turned out she was the daughter of some official and had made the whole thing up.

The majority of Iraqi violations of human rights were done under the supervision of the United States, and more specifically these agents held prominent roles in the US govt. during the 2nd Iraq war. So the US bears some culpability in the Iraqi crimes to begin with.

When you say I am 'ignorant' of these facts, I think you simply mean that I don't see things in the same way you do.

I would rather continue discussing with MaxD, who has the courage to follow his convictions and join the military.

Even if I did want to go I very much doubt that the forces would want me at my age, so it's not really an issue. However, does this mean that in order to hold the opinion that a war is the correct option you have to be ready and willing to go there yourself? This way no one over the age of 40, no mothers with young children, nobody in the essential services and many more could even be of the opinion (or at least never state it aloud) that they agree with an invasion. Is this what you really think?

Anyway, I entirely understand that you would prefer to debate with MaxD. Even I have to admit that he is much kinder than me and he probably won't draw attention to your inanities as much as I did. Anyway, lucky old MaxD for being selected by you, that's what I say.

204. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123975 by keith on February 8, 2008 at 4:03 am

feeble...unjust collective punishment...criminal aggression...hundreds of thousands of deaths...misery beyond counting...morally unfit to be in the same room as George Galloway...inept analogy...pernicious...ludicrous...Galloway's courageous opposition...the destruction of Iraq...preposterous...slippery...feeble attempt...prissy...serpentine...despicable...despicable...despicable...

Yes. So, what you're saying is you like Galloway and you don't like the others, right? Would you say there comes a time in a discussion when actually making a point is replaced by vehemence of expression? Do you think that the sheer weight and venom of your prose could win you the argument and the person with the most unbridled outrage takes the day?

Hmm. Not sure that that was a great tactic.

205. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123955 by keith on February 8, 2008 at 2:58 am

Al-Rwandi,

By the way, what does Al-Rwandi mean? Are you of Arabic descent?

I would like to hear why you think this war is so great... Maybe you could handle that without side stepping.

Yes, well, I think claiming that I thought the invasion was 'great' might be overstating the case. I would describe it as the best of some bad options but I'm used to your emotive language by now.

Anyway, you will find my answers as to why 'the war was so great' at '330. Comment #122444'. I'm not going to repeat them. To those reasons I would add that the invasion also stopped the need for sanctions. So, if you want to call me a war-monger that's fine, but you can't throw baby food at me in the same breath. (Nice image!) By the way, I think your obsession with baby food has outdone your mania for telling us what history will say about the invasion.

I know that you believe that neither the invasion nor sanctions were necessary and that simply talking firmly to Saddam would have done the trick. However, that's where we part company and, I feel, where wishful thinking overtakes realism.

So now I have addressed the Galloway issue, which makes the substance (if I could call it that) of all of your posts of no consequence.

Really? Truth be told, I've barely mentioned him. So, the fact that you feel that some comment you made about Galloway negates all my previous posts is odd. Either you're getting me mixed up with MaxD (again), or you simply make things up as you go along.

Incidentally, when you said you went to Berkeley, did you mean you went there to study?

206. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123805 by keith on February 7, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Noodly,

Williams must feel as sick as a parrot, but then Christianity is really a game of two halves: the first half lasted 2,000 years and the whistle has now blown for the commencement of the second half. Of course, Williams hadn't noticed the change of ends and thus scored an own goal. However, the Archbishop of York, playing in the role of sweeper, will soon put him right. I understand that Jesus, playing upfront, is good in the air.

207. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123789 by keith on February 7, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Perhaps sharia law becomes 'inevitable' once the Islamists really start to believe that Rowan Williams is typical of the weak-willed, cowardly British, a people not prepared to stick up for their own way of life. Williams' prophecy thus becomes self-fulfilling. I bet the Islamists can't believe their luck: they have a fifth-columnist doing their work for them.

208. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123774 by keith on February 7, 2008 at 3:52 pm

How frighfully prissy of you. Nevertheless, I am unable to overlook Galloways's opposition to the horrors of sanctions and war and the despicable support of others for it, including the House which suspended him, laughably, for 'bringing it into disrepute'. I have got the impression that you are in the despicable camp. I hope I'm wrong.

Well, that told you, Steve. That's what you get for arguing in a restrained fashion. You now have the unhappy choice of admitting to being in the 'despicable camp' of the anti-Galloways or taking back every single word you've written. Tough choice, huh?

However, you do have one consolation, namely, the satisfaction of seeing your prediction of the side-stepping of the issue come true.

209. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123770 by keith on February 7, 2008 at 3:44 pm

I usually dislike 'slippery slope' arguments but I suspect this might be a case where it could be quite reasonably applied. In fact, I'd even go as far as to say that this could be the thin end of the wedge of the slippery slope. That's how it will go: one day they will introduce sharia law for the Muslims, the next (once we have got used to that idea and the demographics have changed in their favour) there will be sharia law for everyone! Oh, happy day!

210. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123760 by keith on February 7, 2008 at 3:30 pm

In that case, I apologise.

I assume you're joking, and I assume you know I was.

211. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123746 by keith on February 7, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Blockquote Which is it to be? (And a straight answer, please. No diverting off to matters of law, or saying how nasty Mr Blair and the Americans are)

Steve,

I feel you're being a bit harsh here. I don't believe Hugh, or Al-Rwandi for that matter, would do anything like that.

212. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123693 by keith on February 7, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Your Reverence, these Islamists are just soooo scary. What should we do, stand up to them or give in to their demands?

Er, well, if it's all the same to you I think I'd quite like to just give in. That way there will be no confrontation, or at least, only with the non-violent, civilised bunch we are betraying. Anyway, I'm sure there is some way of dressing all this up as something else. How about portraying me as a champion of tolerance and diversity? Could you manage that Nathaniel?

But...Your Reverence, what about all those British men who fought and died in the last war to keep totalitarian doctines from the door? What about history's arrow that seems to be flying in one direction, that of democracy? What about the Muslim women, homosexuals and apostates who might need the support of secular law?

Don't make things unnecessarily complicated, there's a good chap. We must put our trust in God, Nathaniel. He knows best and He has intimated to me that we should try and curry favour with the scariest groups. He actually put it in those words as I prayed by my bed last night.

Ah, why didn't you say so earlier, Your Reverence! Well, if that is what He wants, then that is what we must do.

Good chap, Nathaniel. Now, off you go and tell the press. I'll put on my best purple robes, stroke my beard and try to look wise. Now, where did I put that book? Ah, here it is: 100 Ways to Appease Scary People, by N. Chamberlain. What a book!

213. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123621 by keith on February 7, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Al-Rwandi,

I am done with Keith, he likened my moral concern for life to that of Saddam. I take a lot of flak around here, but that one was way out of line.

Al, please stop making things up. Your imagination is running wild again.

I tell you what, we can actually settle this. If you can find a quote where I say anything remotely like a comparison between 'your moral concern for life to that of Saddam' then I promise to call myself a 'lying git' on this site. And if you are unable to find such a quote, you must do the same. How's that?

I await your next post...

214. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123368 by keith on February 7, 2008 at 3:44 am

I am happy to discuss which laws are just and unjust. But we can't assume a certain point of view and then say "but this international law, just or not, was broken.. this is a simple matter" if we are going to hand-wave away Galloways breaches as acceptable because it was "just".

Believe me, they can and will. Watch them. Or else hear the deafening roar of silence. Either way, I would be willing to bet that this point won't be dealt with (at least not in a way a thinking adult would recognise).

215. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #123038 by keith on February 6, 2008 at 11:48 am

Smith,

1) If I told you I was going to Wembley, you would assume that watching a football match was my main activity, right?

And if I told you it was going to Wembley and the match was going to be a long one so I was taking a flask of coffee with me, would you then assume that my main activity there was to drink coffee? No.

Equally, if I told you I was going to a gallery, you'd assume that I was going to look at paintings, right?

And if I told you I was going to the gallery for four days and so was going to eat and sleep there, would you then assume that eating and sleeping were the main activities? No. Therefore I can't understand why you think this is a change of activity.

2) Show me the 'tone' that you feel made MaxD's post desrespectful towards Sam Harris and I'll agree with you. How's that?

216. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #122562 by keith on February 5, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Al-Rwandi,

Sorry to follow you around but I couldn't help but notice your rubbish analogy. Eliminating theology is not like eliminating criminology at all. Criminology tries to explain why people commit crimes. Theology doesn't try to explain why people are religious. Or do you think that Dan Dennett was engaging in theology in Breaking The Spell?

217. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122558 by keith on February 5, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Al-Rwandi,

Since there comes a time when the degree of evil is just a question of nit-picking, I actually wouldn't baulk at the comparison of Saddam to Hitler though it is one that I never made or even considered.

I really don't care if you are convinced that that's what I wrote but I would like you to read the whole exchange below through again and still claim, with your hand on your heart, that you are a reliable observer and analyst of what you have read.

So, this is what I wrote:

[The] numbers of dead alone cannot tell you whether an action was right or wrong. For example, it's more than possible that if no country had resisted the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s, fewer people would have died in WW2. Okay, all Jews who couldn't escape to other countries would have been killed, plus all gypsies, homosexuals and a few more unfortunates, but it's more than possible that the final death-toll wouldn't have reached the 50 million figure if no one had stood up to Hitler. By your reckoning then, no one should have resisted. Is this right?

Now, from that you managed to arrive at the following:

Keith,

Hitler = Saddam

Nice analogy. Please take that particular form of nonsense elsewhere.

and then later, when I asked you how you arrived at that conclusion:

You asserted that standing up to Hitler was important. The mere fact that it occurs in a thread on Iraq suggests you are making the comparison. You suggested standing up to Hitler was important in the way that standing up to Saddam is important. I reject that analogy for a number of reasons, all of which I have made explicit here before.

You have completely misunderstood the reason for the analogy. It was not to show that standing up to Hitler was important but to show that numbers of deaths alone cannot tell you whether an action is good or bad. Standing up to Hitler was a good thing. Even so, maybe more people died because of this than would have died had no one resisted. Therefore, simply by counting the dead can't tell you if an action was good or bad. That was my point. Can you understand now? (The third time).

Also, the fact that I mentioned Hitler (and gypsies and homosexuals for that matter) does not automatically mean that I am making a comparison.

Please Al, try and get a grip on your imagination. (I really don't know why I've had to go over this again).

p.s. That isn't really you on your avatar, is it? I'm beginning to wonder.

218. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122472 by keith on February 5, 2008 at 10:01 am

Al-Rwandi,

You seem to think I said we should have left Saddam in power and the problem would have gone away. Please jog my memory with a citation to one of my posts (if I said it, I will need to see the context).

I suggested a number of other potential options. One of which was dealing with Saddam.

(Stifles laugh) Aha! So dealing with Saddam was the way to topple Saddam! Brilliant. Are there any more details to this devious plan?

Anyway, here's the requested quote:

Saddam would have found himself under increasing pressure from the world community had he remained in power. It would not have been hard to topple him without an invasion.

So...Had Saddam not been put under pressure by the world communtity before? Do you think he would have stepped down if enough countries had called him 'naughty'? Would the people have risen up if things had started to get bad? Sorry Al, but this isn't a plan. It's nonsense. It's a plan to do precisely nothing.

Keith,


Hitler = Saddam


Nice analogy. Please take that particular form of nonsense elsewhere.

Al, please tell me where you think I say that Hitler = Saddam...

Have to go for my pancakes. It's shrove Tuesday...Back later for more nonsense...

219. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122444 by keith on February 5, 2008 at 9:15 am

I think concentrating too much on the US government's reasons for invading Iraq is something of a red herring. Maybe it was just for oil, maybe it was so that Bush's cronies could get rich. I really don't know for sure (though Al-Rwandi does, of course). Many Iraqis in exile (we couldn't ask most of those within Iraq) were under no illusions regarding the benificent nature of the Bush administration yet they still wanted military intervention anyway. The logic was that sometimes good results can be attained for bad reasons. My guess is that the people who benefited from the regime i.e the Baathists, wanted Saddam to stay while the majority of people wanted him gone. This, however is just a guess. However, I suspect that either Hugh or Al know what Iraqis thought? Gentlemen, please oblige.

I know it's a very complicated idea for some people to grasp, but it has been suggested that Iraq - as opposed to Sweden which also isn't a perfect state - was singled out for invasion, not just for a single reason or cynically because it was an oil-rich state, but because of attempted genocide, the harboring of terrorists, a track-record of invading neighbour states, the torture and murder of dissenting citizens, non-cooperation with weapons inspectors and the suspicion of the possession of WMD. The latter turned out not to be the case. The other things were all true.

In no other country did all these factors come together. If they had, my hope is that the UN would have made the same threat that it did to Iraq, namely, that there would be 'serious consequences' if it continued not to cooperate. And I hope the same threat would have been made to a non-oil rich country. The fact that the UN threatened Saddam with serious action but had no intention of following through with it - something Saddam guessed at - was a shame.

Now, it was very bad of Blair and Bush to lie about the WMD. They clearly wanted to justify the invasion of a foreign country to citizens who might be against the idea of such an adventure by which they personally had nothing to gain and much to lose: a debacle a la Vietnam would mean higher taxes and in this case the danger of reprisal attacks. However, the fact that some of us could see these dangers, not only for the Iraqi people but also for ourselves, yet still thought a case might be made for invasion is surely testament less to our callousness and more to our spirit of solidarity with Iraqis.

This might be something of a surprise to Hugh Caldwell who seems to think that doubters of the 'Leave Saddam in Power' strategy - I won't call them 'the anti-war faction' because all of us are that - are all really little boys who want to play tin soldiers but this time with real bombs and using other people. I, and I suspect all of the 'pro-war' faction, hate war just as much as he claims to do.

Those who were against the invasion may well have foreseen the problems better than we did and weighed up the probable death-toll more accurately, but they were also prepared to keep Saddam in place, something that horrified those of us who had read reports from Amnesty International and other organisations. This trade-off is something often pointed out but very seldom addressed by Hugh, Al et al. The fact that there was any decision to make doesn't seem to have entered their heads.

When Al-Rwandi claims that soon the problem of Saddam would have gone away by itself without military intervention or sanctions is...well, I really can't think of a polite word to describe it. Not even the impolite words that come to mind would do justice to such inanity. Tell me Al, how would this miracle have come about? By standing in a circle and praying very hard?

The oddest thing about this whole thread, and I think it is precisely this that Steve has problems with, is the absolute certainty of the anti-war faction. My standpoint was always that I was torn between letting the Iraqi people get blown up by American missiles or letting Saddam go on torturing his people. However, I really don't see the tortured doubt on this matter from Al-Rwandi and Hugh Caldwell. This is because for them it wasn't necessary. All they needed to know was that American Foreign policy is always venal and that's that. End of conversation. And the Iraqis rotting in Saddam's torture cells? A case of 'out of sight, out of mind', I'm afraid. "Please don't remind me of the people I campaigned to keep in the torture cells. Instead show me pictures of civilians being blown up in sectarian fighting and I'll stick my fingers in my ears and say, "IT'S THE AMERICANS, IT'S THE AMERICANS LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU..."

So, blame the Americans for all of it, even when a Shi'ite straps a bomb to his stomach, catches a bus and travels to the other side of Baghdad, enters a Mosque and blows everyone up. It's the Americans. The Iraqis are as lacking in free will as the weather. They are just reacting to the Americans who have a monopoly on free will and who can be praised or blamed while the Iraqis are like so many mindless billiard balls. Wow, what condescension! How patronising!

Al-Rwandi, I don't know if you have a crystal ball with you but you seem determined to tell us what history will think of the invasion of Iraq. By the way, why do you repeat yourself so much? I counted the same prediction four times. However, your prediction is not really a prediction but more of a projection. You assume that since no wars in history were ever embarked upon for the good of the people being invaded, it must follow that the same will be true of the present and the future. Thus, by your reckoning, the American intervention in Bosnia will also not be viewed kindly by history. The British intervention in Sierra Leone won't be viewed kindly by history (yawn). I could go on but I get bored with repetition. How about you? And please don't say that the invasion of Iraq was 'a war against the people of Iraq'.

By the way, many of your arguments simply revolve around the sheer numbers of people killed in Iraq. You make the strange assertion that because more people have died due to the American invasion than would have died under Saddam, humanitarian motives can't have figured in the Americans' calculations. I'll leave it to you to reflect on the logic of this. Suffice it to say that gaining more Lebesraum can't have been Hitler's intention because Germany ended up smaller. Q.E.D.

Even if the above made any sense, numbers of dead alone cannot tell you whether an action was right or wrong. For example, it's more than possible that if no country had resisted the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s, fewer people would have died in WW2. Okay, all Jews who couldn't escape to other countries would have been killed, plus all gypsies, homosexuals and a few more unfortunates, but it's more than possible that the final death-toll wouldn't have reached the 50 million figure if no one had stood up to Hitler. By your reckoning then, no one should have resisted. Is this right?

Although I don't share Broshiesq's style, I can understand his frustration. Your posts are just so riddled with half-truths, urban myths and unsubstantiated claims that it's difficult to know where to start to answer them. Your tendentiousness makes it clear that you have no interest in understanding why someone might have had qualms about leaving Saddam in place, even if most of us would fall short of being outright 100% advocates of the invasion. For you it was simply a matter of choosing war or peace, right?

220. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121552 by keith on February 3, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Hugh,

What, in your view, was the allied's intention when they invaded Iraq? To plunder the country? To steal all the oil? To show them who's boss. To cause havoc in the region so that they could..er..do something evil?

I have to say that I find your view that George Galloway is a paragon of virtue, as well as your conviction that Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the allied invasion of Iraq are 'the same crime' just a bit silly. Do you ever listen to yourself? Do you never realise you sound like a mouthpiece for a certain ideology rather than a thinking human being? rather like a propaganda tapeloop that churns out the same stuff when the word 'Iraq' is mentioned. Do you never feel that your lumping together of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the allied invasion of Iraq, or the fascism of Hitler and the so-called 'fascism' of Christopher Hitchens has less to do with similarities between the actual events or people and more to do with your idee fixe of the evil west, your inability to see shades of either good or bad? More to the point, do you have any friends that you could talk to about this?

221. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121367 by keith on February 3, 2008 at 9:58 am

Hugh,

Lifting sanctions would not have been 'doing nothing'.

I actually asked what you would do apart from sanctions and war. Do please try to keep up.

A humanitarian policy which would have allowed children to thrive, may not excite you as much as bombs, bullets and devastation, but it's not 'doing nothing'. As to the 'necessary measures', it would have been for the UN to decide on that, on the basis of the final report of the weapons inspectors.

No Hugh, you misunderstood. Since you were against sanctions and war, I asked what you would do. I'm afraid simply imagining that there was some miracle solution unseen by all political commentators and then saying 'it would have been for the UN to decide on that' doesn't answer my question.

The US pre-empted a peaceful solution...

Pardon me while I stop choking. I don't think even the most virulently anti-war campaigner would suggest that there was any peaceful solution available. However, if you mean you were prepared to let the Iraqi people go on being tortured with no end in sight and for Saddam to continue to try to get his hands on nuclear weapons, that's fine. That's a fair trade off. However, referring to this as a 'peaceful solution' is a trifle disingenuous, wouldn't you say.

Incidentally, your keen to bring in the weapons inspectors, but please remember that Hans Blix, just weeks before, had said that Saddam wasn't co-operating with his inspectors and that it was impossible to find out anything if he wasn't allowed to interview scientists without them being guarded. The only reason Saddam then started to co-operate more was that allied soldiers started ammassing on his borders. He would have continued to play this game of cat-and-mouse for as long as he wanted once the soldiers had gone home.

Unprovoked aggression against a sovereign state and the welter of propaganda surrounding it, does recall the bloodbath mentality of Herr Hitler. On this occasion, it was referred to as 'Shock and Awe'. You do seem to have a very frail memory. Couldn't you just re-acquaint yourself with a quite recent period of history and stop making irritating demands to be educated in the facts?

I am suitably chastened, Hugh. So, from what I can tell, you're saying that anyone who supports the invasion of a sovereign state, even a failing one, is a fascist. Is that right? And that if my memory were better and if I studied a little recent history this interpretation would be clearer to me and I wouldn't have to ask you. Is that it? I shall do my best.

222. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121340 by keith on February 3, 2008 at 9:13 am

Hugh,

...and the whole, evil point of the invasion was the sadistic wish of Bush and Blair to inflict pointless misery on the Iraqi people and to bring Iraq to its knees, no matter how much it cost both America and Britain in terms of money and soldiers' lives and how low this would bring Blair in the opinion polls...

Of course.

The obvious humanitarian act was to lift sanctions, leaving the option of any necessary measure which did not involve devastating collective punishment of the Iraqis simply in the furtherance of US foreign policy in the region.

Since you neither agree with war nor sanctions, what is this 'necessary measure' you have in mind? Doing nothing, perhaps?

Please Hugh, you owe me an explanation of your use of 'fascist' when referring to Hitchens. I'm still waiting...

223. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121331 by keith on February 3, 2008 at 8:38 am

SJK,

Do you believe it is ok for the US and its allies to break the law?

It all depends on whether I agree with that particular law and how it is implemented on that particular occasion. As far as Iraq is concerned, I feel that international law stood in the way of doing the right thing. And yes, I can see the slippery slope argument of the danger of a mighty country making unilateral decisions on world affairs. I can equally see the danger of groups of countries being unable to agree on any course of action because they are hamstrung by their own interests.

For instance, Britain under John Major blocked any interventions in Bosnia put forward by other EU countries. It was only because the Americans took charge that millions of Muslims there were saved. If they had waited for all countries to agree, nothing would have been done. I don't hear too many complaints about the Americans there. Or the old complaint that they only act when there's oil involved, though I'm sure Hugh will find some American oil interests in Bosnia.

Apart from this, what we were actually discussing was not whether the allies are allowed to break international law but whether or not Hugh Caldwell should base his own moral decisions on a literal reading of that law. The two things are not the same. I'm sure he would back international law to the hilt - as long as it coincided with his own views on Iraq. However, once the two departed, would he still be such a staunch advocate of leaving all personal intuitions of right and wrong to a group of lawyers?

Obeying the law may be "anti-western" to you, but it is one of the defining principles for the rest of us.

Did I really say that obeying the law was anti-western? I would say that this is a rather spurious reading of what I wrote. What I wrote was that some people have a reflex anti-westernism. The anti-war protesters, who it seems have international law on their side, had some of these people in their ranks. It is a large jump from this to say that I believe that obeying the law is anti-western.

I'd have to say that it is only a certain kind of mind that could arrive at this interpretation. Still, I can only stand back and applaud such a consumate display of verbal gymnastics.

224. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121151 by keith on February 3, 2008 at 2:56 am

Epeeist,

I'm not sure what you found good about Ian Buruma's piece. Surely all he's saying is that it would be best if democracy were achieved through the support of the local population rather than being 'imposed' from the outside. Well, yes, this is true, but only in the trivial sense that the pope is right when he says we should all live in peace and harmony. It is a case of what Basil Fawlty would call, 'stating the bleeding obvious'. I'm sure that even George W. Bush would have preferred a local uprising in Iraq to oust Saddam to intervention by American forces.

Buruma says,

"There must be mechanisms to resolve peacefully political conflicts of interest and to change a government in power, if most people desire it."

However, he doesn't say what these mechanisms might be. Or is he simply recommending the mechanism of democracy as a way of introducing, er, democracy to countries that don't have it? This, of course, is circular.

What was it, precisely, that you liked about this article?

225. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120839 by keith on February 2, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Hugh Caldwell,

From a purely stylistic point of view, I would say that your posts would carry more weight if you didn't pepper them with such emotive language, you make the tabloids sound positively restrained. Obviously you are of the opinion that the more irate you sound, the more correct your opinion must be. However, the opposite generally tends to be the case.

Any news on your explanation of why you twice referred to Hitchens' view as 'fascist'? You claimed that the first time it was just a throwaway comment. And the second time? Two throwaway comments saying the same thing starts to look less like a careless use of language and more like a genuine opinion. Care to elucidate?

Incidentally, why do you insist on including the date and time of the post you're responding to when you cut and paste? Are you planning on taking legal action at some time in the future and want to have everything well-documented?

If the United Nations Charter had stated that the invasion of Iraq was okay, would you then have supported it? Even if the results had been the same? If your answer is 'no', then you have no right to hold up the UN Charter as the last word on morality. And if you answer 'yes', then it's not really the Iraqi people you're worried about, is it? Could it be that you suffer from what is now called 'White Guilt' and taking an anti-western stance is your way of feeling ever so self-righteous? Your frothing posts certainly raise that possibility.

226. Happy Birthday Josh Timonen!

Comment #120447 by keith on February 1, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Happy Birthday, Josh. Please don't make the site any better or I'll never get to work.

Best wishes,

Keith

227. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120422 by keith on February 1, 2008 at 4:03 pm

"This has got to be the stupidest comment yet. Hitchens, whether you like him or hate him, is in no way a fascist."

Just a throwaway statement. Yes, the Great Man is completely wrong, gutless and fascistic on the Iraq issue. Would you care to compare his windy words with the tremendous courage shown by Galloway to free the Iraqis from the cruel, crushing and murderous weight of US/UK sanctions?

No, I don't want to compare anything because we'll just get into an argument that will go nowhere. However, I would like you to explain why Hitchens is "fascistic on the Iraqi issue". Do you simply mean he was for the invasion? Don't you think that overusing a term can lesson its effect? Would you, for instance, put Hitchens on the same moral plane as Adolf Hitler? Benito Mussolini? Oswald Mosley?

Also, I find your explanation of "Just a throwaway statement" rich coming from one with such a litigious mind.

228. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #120393 by keith on February 1, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Smith,

Did you notice that you changed the activities in the gallery as you changed the time spent there? Care to clarify?

Yes, I did notice. And did you notice that I used the same time scale as you when you changed 'living in a cave' to 'spending time in a library', and changing 'one year' to 'one week'? i.e. 1 year became 1 week with you; two hours became 4 days with me. Both either shrink or muliply the original figure by 52.

Anyway, my reason for changing the activities and times was that I thought an analogy would make things plain. And your reason?

keith: I think all of us can understand why someone with a stressful way of life would want to take up a restful hobby. However, this isn't what meditation as a career move is all about.

I'm lost here, keith. Are you still talking to me? For your information, I don't practice meditation and, frankly, find it quite scary. By the way, I'm curious; would you please tell me what meditation as a career move is about?

Some people meditate to relax from their work. Other people go off to caves for 20 years to meditate. This can no longer be construed as 'winding down' after work but is instead a full time occupation, what I jocularly called 'a career move' (these things aren't quite so good when you have to explain them). This wasn't referring to you at all and was a comment on meditation in general.

keith: Why the sarcasm?

Well, read MaxD's comment again. Note the tone. Let's be fair. Judging from his writing, what he says in public and his willingness to put something he believes in to the test, I think Sam Harris deserves our respect and patience. Would you agree?

Yes, I agree that Sam deserves our respect. I am a big fan of his, have read both his books (I have signed copies of both) and all (I think) of his articles. I agree with almost everything he says. However, both MaxD and I would like to know why he thinks spending 20 years in a cave is a good use of time. There is no disrespect in asking this question, unless, of course, you think that questioning is disrespectful.

I have re-read MaxD's post and I really can't see any disrespect or sarcasm there. So, we'll just have to disagree on that point.

229. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120377 by keith on February 1, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Point put forward by MaxD:

And why is no one else offended by the Galloway comment celebrating the 150 or so successful operations in iraq. He was talking about the insurgents who care not a whit for their fellow iraqis and in fact target them with much greater frequency than they do americans and (formerly) british troops.

Response by Al-Rawandi:

I agree about Galloway, he gets a little whacky. However I shy away from this nonsense about terrorists being those who attack occupation forces. By that logic, American revolutionaries were terrorists, more so because they targeted officers with snipers.

The targeting of other Iraqis gives me a sense that they are anarchists as well as a number of different ethnic and religious groups.

Al-Rawandi, your post in no way deals with the assertion that nobody, not even George Galloway, should cheer on the 'insurgents' who intentionally target fellow Iraqis as a means of undermining the democratic process. As has been pointed out a million times (and I shall do so again), being against the invasion (a very reasonable position) does not mean that you should now be on the side of the insurgents who are trying to wreck Iraq (a stupid position and that of Galloway). This is a change from an anti-war/pro-Iraq stance to a simple anti-Americanism/anti-democratic Iraq stance in the blink of an eye.

230. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120367 by keith on February 1, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Hugh Caldwell,

Hitchens, on this occasion, was a fascist buffoon

This has got to be the stupidest comment yet. Hitchens, whether you like him or hate him, is in no way a fascist.

Do you perhaps mean, Hugh, that anyone who doesn't agree with your analysis of the Iraq question must, by definition, be a fascist? What, specifically, did Hitchens say on that evening that leads you to call him a fascist buffoon? I'm assuming you chose your words carefully since you've been so fastidious in upbraiding Fanusi for his criticisms.

231. Launch of 'Atheists in Foxholes' Book Anthology

Comment #116754 by keith on January 27, 2008 at 10:43 am

Mphil,

Okay, I'm probably going to be bashed for this one, but here goes.

Please, no false bravery. The chances of you getting a bashing for being against the Iraq invasion is hardly a minority point of view and you should thus feel on pretty safe ground.

Just two quick points. Your idea of not keeping a standing army and only rustling one up once you're attacked isn't feasible. It takes a long time to prepare for war. This was Britain's problem in WW2. The only reason we survived was that Hitler turned on Russia when he had us pretty much at his mercy. Russia gave us a chance to find our feet.

The second point is that you have a very touching view of the absoluteness of the sovereignty of state. If you stick to this position Hitler, as long as he hadn't invaded the Sudetenland or anywhere else could quite happily have gone on murdering Jews. As long as he stayed within Germany's borders we could have done nothing. For me this isn't acceptable. For you it seems to be the absolute rule.

232. Launch of 'Atheists in Foxholes' Book Anthology

Comment #116734 by keith on January 27, 2008 at 9:37 am

Fighting Falcon,

I seem to remember that 'Notsobad' is a contributer who thinks we live in a Matrix-like world that is ostensibly run by governments but is in fact controlled by powerful corporations. The media and military are their unwitting lackeys. Noam Chomsky is the only person to have seen through this conspiracy to The Truth. He has, like Winston Smith, somehow managed to find a crack in this all-enveloping lie.

Anybody who disagrees with this point of view is a capitalist dupe. All you have to remember is to take up a stance that is anti-western in general and anti-American in particular, regardless of the issue. This way you will feel you are sticking up for the underdog (whether he is a fascist or not) and also feel very self-righteous into the bargain.

Sometimes I almost wish western forces would simply stand down and as we were slowly overrun by 'undemocratic' forces, it would be interesting to see who would be the first to ask for our troops back and to see how useful a strategy of unilateral pacifism really is when faced with an opponent who isn't much impressed by it. As someone once said, in a world full of pacifists, all you need is a butter knife to take over that world.

I'm amazed about the people who like to claim that they barely know what anger is and would certainly never want to hurt anyone. Have they never been children? How did their ancestors survive out on the savannah? Is the DNA that codes for aggressive behaviour simply missing from these gentle souls? Or do they just mean that they have decided not to hurt others? This, of course, is different from claiming that you can't understand aggression or violence.

And the people who say "I'm non-violent." Really? In all situations? I too generally hate violence (partly because I'm rubbish at it) but I wouldn't be able to describe myself as the human equivalent of a lamb, since that would be untrue and dishonest. These people might be surprised about what they were capable of if the situation were desperate enough.

233. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #116725 by keith on January 27, 2008 at 8:49 am

Smith,

I'm not sure you have quite appreciated something quite basic, i.e. that one year is 52 times longer than a week and a damp cave is not a library.

If you can understand someone who says "I enjoy spending a couple of hours in a gallery but four consecutive days eating and sleeping there would be too much", then you should be able to grasp MaxD's point. Why the sarcasm?

I think all of us can understand why someone with a stressful way of life would want to take up a restful hobby. However, this isn't what meditation as a career move is all about.

I fail to see the parallels with the Theory of Gravity. Surely one of the features of meditation is that it is as open to bookish and unbookish people alike. So, unlike the Theory of Gravity, it isn't necessary to "stand on the shoulders of giants" before deciding if meditation is worth the while or not. Part of the reason Sam is studying neuroscience might well be to find out how meditation works but I'm sure he isn't studying it to discover whether or not meditation is a good way to spend your time.

MaxD's question was simply to ask why Sam seems to take for granted that it would be a good idea to sit in a cave for a considerable period. And the relevance of this to Newton and gravity is...?

234. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #116252 by keith on January 26, 2008 at 3:39 am

Emmet,

I wonder if Sam Harris still thinks sitting alone in a cave for months is a good idea? Seems like it's apt to turn one into a religious nut-job :o)

You know, I've been thinking about Sam and his cave too. When you envision someone going off to a cave for years at a time you picture some bedraggled old bloke who has nothing left to lose in life, or perhaps just a pair of sandals.

However, imagine Sam's pretty 18-year-old (and purely hypothetical) daughter telling dad that she's going off to live in a cave for a year. The obvious questions for Sam to ask would be, "Why? Aren't you happy? Don't you want to see something of the world? Don't you want to keep your friends or make some new ones? Don't you want to read about the history of the world or find out about how plants grow?"

It seems to me that going off to meditate for long spells of time is perhaps an activity for the world-weary and jaded. I can't see why someone with a lust for life and a curiosity about the world would want to find an alternative, solipsistic spiritual world...Unless, of course, you find yourself surrounded by plastic tat and Big Brother Celebrity Hijack and Gangster Rap and hoodies and ugly council estates and rude shoppers in town centres and old people who talk like they've had their brains removed. Then a damp, dark, mildew-ridden cave really does sound quite attractive.

235. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #113402 by keith on January 19, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Timmur,

Thanks for the link to 'Luck Swallows Everything'. As you said, it is very good overview of the debate. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen it put so well.

Susan Blackmore's view was one that wasn't really elucidated. She is a determinist and also suspects that we don't have free will but that we should take responsibility for our actions anyway, in the same way that I take responsibility for knocking over a vase in a china shop, even if I didn't mean/want to do it. It was still 'me' that did it, even if all my past life and present environment brought me to this fated place and moment. However, Blackmore also wonders if the sheer difficulty of the free will problem doesn't indicate that we are perhaps approaching it from the wrong angle. It's possible that as Strawson states, all the information is in and has been for a long time. However, it could be that for some reason we just can't see the wood for the trees.

Even if there were some almighty being up there with my past, present and future laid out in front of him and even if all my actions are caused by previous actions which in turn were caused by factors (genes, early environment) over which I had no say, my actions remain my actions and my decisions remain my decisions, even if they do turn out to be caused and determined all the way down the line and I am ultimately just a wind-up doll set in motion half a century ago. The person standing in front of that cake shop in the article, wondering whether to buy the cake (£10 is a bit steep for a fucking cake!) or donate the £10 to Oxfam (ditto) has a genuine choice and has genuine free will at that moment, even if he finds himself in a determined universe and his unchosen past caused him to be there at that moment.

By the way, I like Dennett's idea of creating some elbow room for yourself. Some of Strawson's arguments (e.g. that you have no control over whether or not you are the kind of person who could or would even want to achieve some elbow room) only relate to responsibility, not to free will. And like Dennett - really I'm just stealing his ideas and will follow him wherever his mind goes - I believe that we do have free will, even if we don't have absolute free will. It's enough that we have choices and can choose one or other of them. Whether we are determined by our unchosen past (and I'm sure we are) doesn't change that fact.

Having said all that, I will re-read the article, partly because it was so good and partly because I know it refuted, seemingly unanswerably, my claims to free will. I still feel he's missed something...but what?

236. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #111762 by keith on January 15, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Automath,

This so called free will that most experience is little more than a myth.

Andr3w,

Freewill is nothing more then a threadbare illusion.

Er...how do you know? If Dennett, Wegner, Blackmore, Chambers et al are still discussing this and can't agree, how is it that you both know the answer so firmly? Have all the experts missed something? Do you have some evidence that they don't? If not and this is just your opinion, how about stating it with a little less certainty?

237. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105435 by keith on December 31, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Quite often I can't find something in the fridge, despite the fact that my eyesight is very good and what I'm looking for is right in front of me. In the end I need someone to come to the fridge and point and say (a little tetchily), "There, for christ's sake!...There!"
I've also had similar moments when I've been unable to understand something that later seemed obvious.

After so many of these moments I can't help being aware of my blindspots and how much I must miss, not only in the world of physical things, but also in my understanding of how the world works. I am so conscious of this now that I approach things with a little more caution than I did when I was young and ignorant.

I wonder if 'Billy Coconut' and 'Wooter' can say the same? The fact that they might have cognitive blindspots doesn't seem to have ever crossed their minds. They have the sureness of the genuinely ignorant; what they know is all there is to know.

238. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105052 by keith on December 30, 2007 at 1:10 pm

Haikuin,

Dan is simply amazing. Something I've been trying to say for years, in various ways, has finally been said by a Higher Authority. Which somehow proves the point... ;)

Ahh, so you beat Dan Dennett to the thought, if not to the expression of the thought. Still, it's the thought that counts, I suppose. Incidentally, I actually beat Richard Dawkins to the idea of memes, though he expressed it far better than I could. And I also beat Alan Turing to the idea of the computer. Still, he was simply amazing for expressing what had been on my mind all along. There but for my lack of ability to express myself properly and a doctoral seat went I.

Just out of curiosity, what 'point' is proven by all this? That praise of others is sometimes used as a vehicle for praising oneself?

239. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104441 by keith on December 28, 2007 at 1:43 pm

Maton100,

Another example of association by default via inconguous conflation and misplaced flattery.

What does this mean? (You're not the bloke who used to say lots of long words on 'The Good Old Days', are you?)

240. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #98969 by keith on December 15, 2007 at 4:17 am

Josh,

Fantastic. I was supposed to be getting ready to fly back to the UK and now I still have it all my packing to do. But, we all have to get our priorities in order. The whole thing was fascinating.

However, next time can you bring some sellotape to put over Hitch's mouth. The other three are good listeners. Hitch is only a good listener inasmuch as he's looking for a way to get back into the conversation. I remember hearing him debating Stephen Fry and someone from the audience asked Hitch to shut up for a moment and give Stephen Fry a chance. Hitchens seemed genuinely surprised and responded that people had bought tickets to hear both Fry and himself. Surely he must be aware of his bullishness and of how he monopolises a conversation? No wonder he's such a good debater; he just talks over the top of his opponents. I had hoped he wouldn't do the same when amongst friends, but apparently he does it with everyone. Well, at least he's even-handed. What must he be like to live with? Did anyone object to him smoking?

The highpoint for me was Sam bringing up the subject of how secular societies rather tend to have passed over the numinous and ceded the idea of there being a depth or even direction in life to religion. I think addressing this area would be much more useful than endlessly pointing out to believers that their views are daft (which, of course, they are). I don't think truth is what interests them, or at least, only marginally. If they had some atheistic place to jump to that went some way to meeting their need for profundity and humility, then some might be more ready to do so.

I know RD has made a start on filling this gap by writing 'Unweaving the Rainbow', but it's still very little. There must be some other way of winning over some of this territory short of just parroting how awe-inspiring it is to look through the Hubble Telescope and pondering the size of the universe.

I suspect that it will be Sam who articulates best how non-believers can tap into this feeling of humility and mystery that is perhaps essential to any contented life but which at present is catered for only by religion.

241. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98859 by keith on December 14, 2007 at 6:52 pm

Jupiter5

You're right, my solution is simplistic and doesn't take account of the situation of many Muslims and I have no desire to see an exodus of persecuted people. However, I agree with AHA that the 'accommodation' that TGA talks about isn't something to be worked towards only by 'white males' and I can already see what is going to happen: Europe will bend over backwards to accommodate Muslims until we find ourselves staring up our own backsides while the Muslims won't have moved an inch. And why should they? If they see that the other side is prepared to do all the work and beat themselves up with guilt about how they have failed these newcomers, then Muslims would actually be foolish to move position. Why pay for something when someone will give it to you? So, I think that we'll not only meet them halfway on the subject of their religion but probably go all the way to their doorstep; we really are that craven when it comes to religious sensibilities and especially those of foreigners with a different skin colour.

You point out that often we are talking about 2nd or 3rd generation Muslims who have no other country to go back to, so being given a choice of accepting our ways or 'going back' is not an option for them. In that case, and if they really do feel English and have grown up here, then it should be so much easier for them to leave behind the frankly poisonous beliefs of their elders. And if they don't feel very British, don't relate to our way of life and what you say is true that they're actually more religious than their parents, then they will probably be more than happy to leave. The alternative is to stay and hate everything around them.

If this is the case now, this surely is a sign that we have been doing something wrong until now. The only question is whether we have encouraged the religiosity of the young too much or too little. I think most people would agree that it's probably the former. So, something has to change. The only real disagreement I could see between TGA and AHA is how drastic and how soon this should all happen and I had the impression that he wanted to do very little. Just leave things for Muslims to sort out by themselves.

Please remember, we're not talking about making people eat bread when they would normally eat and prefer rice. This is the kind of culture people mean when they talk about variety and diversity. What we're talking about are beliefs that are totally incompatible with a civilised society and wanting to hang on to such beliefs, though understandable, is unacceptable.

I really believe that if you tell people that they have a year in which to settle their consciences, think about their position here and then decide what to do, they will take a year. If you give them ten years as a deadline they will take ten years. If you talk about 'bridges' and 'accommodations' and 'revisions' and 'reinterpretations', then I think there will be no changes since it will be clear to all concerned that we don't have the political will to insist on such changes. We hope it will come from within and put our faith in some 'forward-thinking' Muslims who want to reinterpret the texts. I'm sorry to bring in a hackneyed comparison, but this is like asking a Neo-Nazi to try to tone down Mein Kampf so that it doesn't appear to mean what it clearly does. Reinterpretation is okay as a way of smoothing over the rough bits, but there's nothing like the smack in the face of an honest, literal reading of a text to see how barbaric this all is. And I think the reason that some people have resorted to ad hominem attacks on TGA (me included) is because this whole enterprise of trying to make a text mean something it doesn't is quite frankly dishonest and TGA's weasely ways are only thrown into stark relief when he is placed next to the transparent honesty of an AHA.

I believe that Europe became a generally secular place, not because Christianity decided it was time to retract it's claws and stop the inquisitions and witch-hunts, but because it had it's teeth pulled for it by a burgeoning secularism and I think something similar, where reasonably possible (e.g. no crusades), has to happen with Islam.

242. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98779 by keith on December 14, 2007 at 9:26 am

What we don't seem to understand is that plenty of Muslims are desperate to find a bridge between Islam and liberal democracy.

Well, that's good if it's true. Any figures on how many Muslims are desperate to find this bridge and just how desperate they are? More desperate than Johovah's Witnesses? What kind of a bridge would this be that allows both free speech and the intolerance of free speech?

As a religion, Islam has been more tolerant than Christianity for most of its history. That's a fact.

This isn't actually saying very much. For how long has Islam been tolerant? For how long has Christianity been tolerant. How do you judge the degree of tolerance? By the number of hands not cut off?

And many Muslims today want to rediscover that tolerant heritage.

The doors are open, brother. Nothing stopping them. By the way, how do you know all this? Have you done some research?

We need to appeal to Islam's strong sense of justice and fairness to allow them to make a step at a time toward democracy and human rights.

Would you say that Islam's sense of justice and fairness was strong compared to, say, that of Hinduism? Compared with Christianity? Compared with UNESCO? And justice for whom? Women? Apostates?

My own view is that these are thinking people like you and me. We just have to make it clear that if they are going to continue living in the west they must give up the idea of honour killings, women viewed as slaves, intolerance of homosexuals and apostates. No appeals necessary. Just a simple choice. If giving up their tradition is too hard, then I'm afraid they'll have to leave. It really boils down to how badly they want to cross this so-called bridge of yours.

243. The Pagan Christ

Comment #98771 by keith on December 14, 2007 at 8:41 am

ADH,

Steve, therein in act lies the challenge that Jesus indircetly issued to Caesar, as Paul later points out in Romans.
"You think you are the Son of God. You are not - I am!".
"What are you talking about? I am the son of god".
"No, I am, you mean"!
"I am, you big fat pig!"
(Jesus, Sticking fingers in his ears) "I am I am I am I am la-la la-la la, I-can't-hear-you, la-la la-la la, I'm-the-son-of-God, and-you're-a-fat-pig, and-you-smell-of-poo, la-la la-la la..."

ADH,

Is this how it was? If not, how do you know? And if so, again, how do you know?

244. The art of the soluble

Comment #98737 by keith on December 14, 2007 at 7:07 am

ADH,

Excellent review, excellent book. I wonder when Lennox and Dawkins will cross swords again on British soil. Keep me posted if you get wind of anything.

What do you mean, "keep me posted"? Do you think we have your email address or something? That as soon as we hear of a clash of those titans, Dawkins and Lennox, we will think, "Ah, I must write to let that very interesting person ADH know"?

Was your post meant to inform or to annoy? In what way was the review a good one? The fact that it didn't go on too long? The fact that it didn't mention Stalin?

245. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #98700 by keith on December 14, 2007 at 4:50 am

"Bonzai, great stuff. Really thought provoking:-)"
The Guardian

"Bonzai, I agree with brian, your posts have been excellent on this thread".
The Observer

"Your recent posts have been some of the most intelligent and thought-provoking I have seen on this site".
The Times

Jesus, I think I must be losing my marbles. As far as I can see this is just more sophistry on your part. All you are doing is making a special case for Muslims and denying to posters like Zamboro, Janus and Fanusi what you would allow from RD.

You tried to show that Richard Dawkins would have acted very differently from 'my cohort of literalists'.

When confronted with the "this is not my God" argument from sophisticated Christians, Richard's typical response would be along the line "Yes, this is not your God but your God is not the God of the masses, I am concerned about the God of the masses because it has real impacts on the society." But your literalist cohorts would instead say, "Look, if you're a real goddamn Christian you have to believe in the God that I describe or you'll burn in hell for eternity because it is written in Leviticus..." as they are thumping away at their King James Bible and foaming at their mouths. A casual observer would easily mistaken them as evangelical preachers trying to get converts.

See the difference?

Yes, I see the difference and I also see what you've done. What you're describing is what Christian Fundamentalists would have said, not what Zamboro et al would have said. I suspect they would have said the following:

"Yes, this is not your god but your god is not the god of the masses, I am concerned about the god of the masses because he has real a impact on society."

It is, in fact, the 'god of the masses' that my literalist cohorts are concerned with. See the difference?

When does Richard insist on Biblical literalism?

If you mean, 'When does he quote the bible literally in support of his idea that religion is not a good thing', I would say the answer is all the time. If you want I will find quotes where RD has quoted the bible to show how stupid and bad the ideas are, but I don't think that's necessary because these quotes are everywhere.

I do hope you're not going to change my meaning from 'insisting on a literalist interpretation of the bible' to 'insisting that others interpret the bible literally and believe it'. Please tell me you're not going to go down that road because it seems to me that that's where you're heading.

Yes, there's no question that some believers cherry pick the things they want to believe and leave the unsavoury bits out. This is good in some ways and bad in others. It's good that they don't all want to blow up the infidel. It's bad that this glossing over of what the koran actually says means that they never have to confront the oddness of some of the teachings. Of course, some believers really do believe the whole thing.

The point of insisting on a literalist interpretation is to show believers that there's a lot of nonsense in these texts and that maybe they shouldn't be basing their lives on them. This, however, is a far cry from argue 'as a Muslim Fundamentalist', as you accused various posters of doing (not 'like' but 'as', you insisted on this word. Yes, both literalists and Fundis are insisting on a certain reading but the latter insists that others believe the literal text, while the former is trying to open up a gap of disbelief. You are intentionally conflating the two very different motivations.

Bonzai: But if he [Richard Dawkins] tries to nitpick over interpretations for specific verses in the Bible against a theologian of course he would need to know Hebrew and Greek, at the very minimum.

First, there is no nitpicking interptretations needed of the following:

Sura (9:11-12)
"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them".

How many interpretations of this passage could there possibly be? I think if someone wanted to deny that this passage means what it appears to mean (vinelectric, for example) he would probably talk about intention and context rather than whether certain words have been properly translated. Then all the Arabic and Greek and Hebrew in the world won't help you to resolve the 'real meaning'.

It is not necessary for RD to speak Hebrew or Ancient Greek to comment on such passages, be they in the koran or the bible. We can pretty much assume that the translator hasn't made so much of a pig's ear of things to render a harmless passage harmful. It was you who changed the idea of insisting upon literal readings of religious texts to one of discussing individual verses with some hypothetical biblical scholar. There was no need to turn the situation into such an unlikely one. The non-Hebrew speaker can comment on the bible.

I'll stop now because I have a feeling you'll repeat the same stuff and this will be followed by endless praise for your thought-provoking ideas. God give me strength.

246. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98678 by keith on December 14, 2007 at 3:04 am

Zamboro,

Yes, yes and yes again.

(By the way, how about putting quotes in 'Blockquotes'?)

Bonzai,

I sometimes feel that your writing has two Trojan Horses, neither of which I ever see coming in advance.

The first is an almost willful ability to misunderstand any points the person you're debating has made. It was this that made me wonder if your first language was really English. Anyway, this is actually a great tactic because it wears people down, having to constantly rephrase everything.

The other is pure sophistry that you use, not to get at the truth, but to avoid losing an argument. The latter is without question the more annoying of the two but both are great tactics!

247. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98667 by keith on December 14, 2007 at 2:30 am

This reminds me of the exchange I had with Bonzai a week or two ago. One side claims that Islam is simply a bad idea while the other asserts that this is only true if you insist on a literal interpretation of the Koran. Your everyday Muslim doesn't believe in all that stuff and what's more, some people are working tirelessly towards making it all seem to mean something it doesn't, so let's wait for them to work their magic.

Not being allowed to point to what religious texts actually say makes any criticism of the bible or koran impossible since by doing so you will be seen as being in possession of a hoplessly non-nuanced mind and of over-simplifying things; basically, you are accused of having the same mindset as the Fundamentalists themselves. This is game, set and match, and no further argument is needed to defeat you. You are some plodding dolt who wants to crack a nut with a sledeghammer.

Most of this seems to boil down to whether or not you believe Sam Harris's assertion that people act on their beliefs. Clearly some people do, or we wouldn't have had the bombings of 9/11 or 7/7. I don't know how many more of these attacks there would need to be to make Timothy Garton Ash change his mind that perhaps what is written in the Koran is indeed taken seriously by enough people to make it necessary, as AHA claims, to actually try and tackle it firmly now.

I find it impossible to distinguish the revisionism that Garton Ash advocates from simple dilution. But why dilute something that it would be better to do without completely? It's like trying to slowly wean someone off slave-trading.

I think AHA is right to draw attention to the rather patronising belief of some intellectuals who assume that Muslims need their beliefs, whereas we more sophisticated westerners don't need these fantasies. Give Muslim children a proper education and see how much they need these barbaric views. I think they'll need them as much as AHA does.

For me all Garton Ash is really doing is to perpetuate the struggle against stone-age beliefs by muddying the water with his 'nuanced' views. Whatever syndrome Scott Atran has, whether it be White Guilt or a superiority complex he's attempting to suppress, I feel Garton Ash has the same thing.

Quine,

AHA: "no angels whispering"

She just keeps getting better.

Really? You must have a pretty poor opinion of what she has said before if you think that this comment is the high point of her speaking career so far.

Mejdrich,

Not trying to fight over semantics, but an apostate is also an unbeliever, and the punishment is still apparently beheading.

It's like saying, "no, no, the Koran doesn't say to kill all westerners. That would be barbaric. It says to kill all foreigners."

Good comment, wonderful analogy.

Mitchell Gilks,

What a smug bastard that guy was.

Actually, ad hominem attacks are frowned upon on this site. Having said that, I have to agree with you that Garton Ash comes across as being a self-satisfied, slow-talking, self-important bore. In fact, smug bastard.

Robotaholic,

Im happy she's free but I'm sick of hearing about islam, iraq, or basically anything middle eastern- overload -but that's just me.

Clearly it is just you. At the risk of sounding rude, why, precisely, did you feel the need to tell us this? Why didn't you go straight to something that interests you and by-pass the moaning?

248. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93023 by keith on December 2, 2007 at 2:19 am

Steve,

Are you sure that you didn't pay ADH to write that? Or are you in fact ADH, a character you wheel on when you want to strengthen your argument?

You've almost won me round to the gentle approach. Even so, I suspect it will make little difference on a practical level. All it means is that in future I will probably back Fry instead of Hitchens when talking dispassionate tactics but will continue to follow Hitchens, without wanting to, when I find myself involved in a debate.

249. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93010 by keith on December 2, 2007 at 12:42 am

Steve,

You're right. You do make the point that RD changes his tactics depending on the situation: sometimes he's verging on strident, sometimes he goes as far as to suggest we work together with the enemy. But surely this is making my point rather than yours, which was that your comparison of a face to face interview by a high profile atheist and a YouTube video, aimed at no one in particular, by someone no one has ever heard of is not necessarily a fair one.

Can you imagine how dull the video would have been had Pat Condell simply said, "Well, I think we need to work together with Christians, despite our differences...etc." In fact, so dull that it wouldn't have been worth making - which is perhaps how you feel about it anyway.

I'm not sure how your view sits with the general consencus that there is more than one way to skin a cat in regards to the problem of religion. I know you don't want to stop anyone from acting as they see fit, but you are suggesting that there is a best way of skinning that cat, and not only for yourself but for others too.

I am afraid I honestly feel Pat Condell's approach as expressed in this video is counter-productive. We claim that we are rational and eager to promote understanding, but he discourages friendly debate.

Perhaps. I once tried to talk to a friend about religion and it escalated to such an extent that we now no longer talk to each other. Had I been able to put on my calm, dispassionate teacher's head, the situation could have been salvaged. Whether this means that I might have won him round had I been less objectionable and whether he is now nearer or farther away from his beliefs I have no idea.

I think that if you personally are able to approach this subject from a purely rational standpoint and all you have in mind is promoting understanding, then I genuinely admire you. However, in my conversations, arguments and postings, I couldn't in all honesty claim to be motivated purely by rationality and the desire to promote understanding, however much I'd like that to be the case. I just want to give my honest opinion on a subject that means a lot to me. I find the whole thing devastatingly stupid and can't find it in myself to dress it up any other way. And of course, this rather rules out friendly debate.

The truth is, although all of us here like to claim that we belong to the atheist cause with the single-minded goal of optimizing our effectiveness as spreaders of atheism, that certainly wasn't why I joined this website and even now I don't really feel that this is my main motivation. If it was, then I might be out on the streets proselytising. Instead I'm here, typing.

I can see that you and I represent Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens respectively in our views on how to tackle the religion problem: Fry wants friendly debate and Hitchens wants to bring things to a head as soon as possible. I have no idea which approach is better. My experience with my ex-friend might suggest that Fry is right, though I can't be sure.

We claim we follow the Golden Rule, but he wants us to respond to even mild preaching with mockery.

Actually, this all seems to come down to whether or not you think Pat Condell mocks or not. If he is just being strident, fine. If he is mocking, not fine. I really don't know if I would call his style 'mocking'.

Anyway, I actually think that I do follow the Golden Rule and in this case, if I were as deluded as religious believers are, I would want to be told as much in no uncertain terms. Not necessarily mocked, but given a verbal slap around the face until I came to my senses.

Yet would mockery have been the correct approach? Richard did not think so, and gained a useful ally against the teaching of Intelligent Design/Creationism. Mind you, this does not stop Richard having a go at those who aren't initially persuaded by calm discussion.

Do you think RD had a go at the Bishop of Oxford or do you think he persuaded him? I suspect neither. And what does this tell us? No idea.

250. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92988 by keith on December 1, 2007 at 9:54 pm

Bonzai,

Actually I wasn't pursuing this to take potshots at you personally. I have read some quite sensible comments by you. I just didn't, and don't, think these were among them. And incidentally, the fact that Zamboro didn't pick up on what you were up to doesn't mean that you weren't up to anything.

You're right in saying my argument boils down to one of scriptural literalism. And we both agree that Muslim Fundamentalists plus some atheists (me included) insist that if your beliefs are going to be consistent, you must believe either all or none of what is in holy texts. The alternative to this is cherry picking the bits that you like. This method is alright if you have a book of aphorisms in front of you, but it isn't okay if the book is one that you consider to have been dictated by god and that you lead your life by.

I find it very odd that you chose to call Janus, Fanusi and Zamboro 'Islamic Fundis' whereas, by your own admission, they are in fact 'atheists who insist on scriptural literalness'. There really is a difference and I think you know this. The fact that both groups hold the same views on this point doesn't mean that the atheists are arguing "as Muslim Fundies". This would be like saying that because I want the trains to run on time, I am arguing 'as a Fascist'. After all, this is what they wanted too.

If you had just called the three of them extreme atheists you wouldn't have led me all round the houses on a wild goose-chase, trying to find out why they are in the camp of Fundamental Muslims. And I have to say that I don't believe this was just lazy writing on your part. I think your intention was to tar them with the same brush as the Muslim Fundis.

To go back to the subject of cherry picking. My own opinion is that Janus et al are right to insist on scriptural literalism. There may be an argument - your argument - that says that it is better to believe a little nonsense rather than a lot. However, I think it is much more likely that you will undermine a Muslim's beliefs in the perfection of the koran if you draw attention to the internal contractions therein rather than letting them go unnoticed and uncommented on, as has been the case for the past 1,000 years plus.

It seems to me that not drawing attention to these inconsistencies and not pointing out how certain views in the koran clash with most reasonable Muslims' views on morality, will get us nowhere. Either the koran is perfect in every utterance or it isn't, and insisting on scriptural literalness seems to me to be the only way to draw attention to the fact that it clearly isn't a perfect book and for this reason shouldn't be used as a guide to how to live.

I can't help thinking that the words 'scriptural literalism' sound almost like swear words to your ears, words to be spat out and that leave an unpleasant taste in the mouth. To my ears they sound like 'meaning what it says it means'. Am I being a bit thick, a bit gauche in finding scriptural literalism a good thing?

Just out of interest, would you consider drawing attention to passages in the bible that condone violence out of bounds, simply because this would be insisting upon scriptural literalism? If you wouldn't allow it, why not? And if you would, why do you make a special case for Muslims?

I can, however, see that their arguments are rather pointless because they insist that the moderates must accept their premise of scriptural literalism and it is comical that these 'literalists' cannot even read those scriptures in their original!

You're surely not suggesting that you can only insist on scriptural literalism if you speak the original language the text was written in? This would discount Richard Dawkins from discussing any passage in the bible, simply because he doesn't speak Aramaic or Hebrew, or whatever language the bible was written in. Or maybe you think that the King James Version of the bible was the original?