Religion
Related: About this forumCan a religious believer be a serious journalist?
Richard Dawkins and the unbearable smugness of tweeting
By Scott Stephens
ABC Religion and Ethics 23 Apr 2013
For some time I've been expecting to see a particular secularist conceit expressed in a particular way - and over the weekend, Richard Dawkins finally came through. Without any direct provocation that I can see, apart from whatever bad feelings remain from a bruising encounter late last year on al-Jazeera, Dawkins tweeted: "Mehdi Hasan admits to believing Muhamed flew to heaven on a winged horse. And New Statesman sees fit to print him as a serious journalist."
Dawkins's views on religion are by now extremely well-known, to the point of cultural saturation thanks to the media's fixation with him. Dawkins makes for good copy - that's why journalists love him. But the dogmatic assertions and withering dismissals that made Dawkins a media-darling and The God Delusion an international bestseller lend themselves particularly well to the anarchic medium of Twitter, where his unjustifiable claims can shrug off any residual requirement for justification. At the hand of his hundreds of thousands of followers, who rehash and #hashtag with a well-nigh evangelical fervour, Dawkins's tweets take on the force of a Delphic pronouncement.
This echo-chamber seems to have had a peculiar effect on Dawkins, however. His Twitter stream has become increasingly septic of late; it is almost as if, egged on by his acolytes, he has become a caricature of his own public persona. The chink in the amour of Dawkins's rhetorical brilliance and aggression - as his critics have long pointed out - is his theological illiteracy, but he now seems to have fully embraced a brazen ignorance of anything beyond the basest (mis)understanding of religious belief, as though being thus ignorant was intellectually virtuous or the self-evident manifestation of a superior mind. Take, for instance, his smug quip: "Haven't read Koran so couldn't quote chapter & verse like I can for Bible. But often say Islam greatest force for evil today." And again: "Of course you can have an opinion about Islam without having read Qur'an. You don't have to read Mein Kampf to have an opinion about nazism."
The wilful ignorance capable of making such statements is not just dangerously uncritical, to the point that it can nestle comfortably alongside the vilest forms of bigotry and anti-Islamic sentiment; it is also inexcusably ahistorical. It evinces a deliberate effacement of the role played by Islam in the formation of modern science and the intellectual foundations of western civilisation as a whole. Moreover, it ignores the productive dynamism evident throughout the development of Islamic jurisprudence, as well as the complexity, and even beauty, of its formulations concerning gender and the constitution of a good and just society.
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/04/23/3743221.htm
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/325957740835004416
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)print a list of what jobs we should apply for and which ones we should not bother to. He seems like a bitter man.
rug
(82,333 posts)@PaulJohnson001 Would you take seriously a man who believes in fairies at the bottom of his garden?
This is the result of tossing all beliefs not scientifically verifiable into the same bin.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)He just comes off very arrogant. He and the religious right have a lot in common. It is my way or the highway.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)Dr. Dawkins definitely has nothing in common with the religious right, left or middle! I would say that you have much more in common with the religious right than Dr. Dawkins. Of course it is not difficult to get the religious people in this country to get their underwear in a bind because he does challenge their belief system and the less than rational thought that comes with it.
On edit: see post #4, longship makes an excellent point.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)What does it matter what his faith is. If he shows a bias than say so but do not bring up his religion. The religious right does that stuff. That is what I meant.
And except that we share the same faith I doubt the religious right would like a gay man who is episcopalian.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)Dr. Dawkins. Have you ever read any of his books or actually listened to him via YouTube?
Did you read post #4 which I referenced in my original post? As longship said I also don't agree with everything Dawkins says but he usually has a point to make, even when it can be perceived as outrageous. At least he makes some people think about the issues at hand.
You also seem to have missed the irony of my point that you have more in common with the religious right than Dawkins. It seems that you and the religious right believe in stuff that is totally unverifiable with no evidence. As an atheist that befuddles me. I suppose that makes me one of the "fundamentalist, militant atheists or what ever the de jour negative comment about atheists is today.
on edit: the gay thing might be problematic and I hope you live in a community that does not care about your sexual orientation. I live in the Cincinnati metro area and my gay friends have to be careful. We are surrounded by religious right-wing nuts and they tend to make it difficult for anyone who is perceived as "different."
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)He has an arrogance that the religious right has. I am right and that is that kind of attitude.
I enjoy listening to him debate at times. He is highly intelligent and very logical. But he has an arrogance that can turn you off.
By the way I want to say I am sorry if I was not clear and gave you offense.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)I am a little feisty tonight. I can see where Dawkins can be annoying and he can make some less than intelligent comments at times just like the rest of us less intelligent beings!
I also added a comment to my post #10.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I have to say I think Dawkins is very brave because I know he gets death threats. Funny how religious people can want to kill in God's name. But sometimes when you talk for a living you make mistakes.
My favorite Atheist is George Carlin.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="
rexcat
(3,622 posts)and a great city to visit but personally I would not want to live there after a visit. It always takes a couple of days for my adrenalin to come down. I work in the Pharmaceutical industry and have had some clinical sites in NYC. My wife has family in and around the city. One of her uncles lives in Brooklyn and is a retired fire department captain.
My niece lives in Texas and when she came out I was the first to know. She decided to let her "liberal" uncle be the first one to hear the news. Her dad, my brother, was not pleased about it but he has come a long way since.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I go to a very gay friendly church and All my family and friends love me for who i am. My family is not religious at all so it really was not an issue.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Lessee:
Usurer.
Field hand.
Maid.
Migrant farm worker.
Cannery worker.
Cook.
Janitor.
longship
(40,416 posts)I know that that is what drives him. He may be fierce in his advocacy, but I do not blame him. He sees what's happening here, especially with the GOP, and just maybe he is correct to be alarmed.
I also am alarmed by what I see, hear, and read. I am especially alarmed since I have been fighting this thing since the late 70's with the birth of religious conservatism.
I see nothing good happening from this confluence of religion and politics, to say nothing of religion and government. If there's one thing that history should have taught every one of us is that these are toxic mixes.
Whether you agree with his tactics or not, we need people like Richard Dawkins to bring awareness and to help people to think about what they might be doing. He may not always be correct, but I have no problem with his goals, to raise awareness.
I don't care if people disagree with Dawkins or not. I don't always agree with him myself. But I will never doubt his resolve to bring these very important issues to the forefront.
I, for one, wholeheartedly support Richard Dawkins, not because I think he's always correct, but because this world needs somebody to say things like he says.
We need to divorce from religion's grip on our institutions of government and culture.
And I am not concerned about people's religious beliefs. I only want people of diverse beliefs to all have an equal seat at the table. This, above all, is what Richard Dawkins is fighting for as well.
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Does he have an approved list who can have what job? If he thinks he is a bad journalist then say why. This makes him look mean spirited and bigoted.
rug
(82,333 posts)He does this consistently.
Making imprecise, easily rebutted claims and attacks is also poor politics.
I agree with you that there needs to be loud, strong voices against all privileges, including religious, but his message is rapidly becoming him, not the focus of his attacks.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)Anyone who can suspend their beliefs and biases can be a serious reporter and journalist.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)the flood? Do any of us imagine those same 'journalists' have a chance to understand global warming?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)believed in fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, satyrs, etc.
The issue is that they have a mental block that prevents them from understanding that their silly beliefs fall under the same fantasy category as the ones I listed above, and share the same lack of proof.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)What does that have to do with anything?
Issac Newton believed in Alchemy, god, and even tried to predict the end of the world. Did not affect the genius of his contributions to actual science and mathematics.
Believing in any of these myths has no affect upon their ability to do their job as a Journalist. It does not means they aren't good at researching their subject, asking questions, or analyzing the information they find.
If a theist made these types of accusations against us we would crucify them.
rug
(82,333 posts)- An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture (1704), regarding his calculations "Of the End of the World" based upon the prophecies of Daniel, quoted in Look at the Moon! the Revelation Chronology (2007) by John A. Abrams, p. 14-
