A schism in the Church of Dick 26 Feb 201018 Sep 2017 I know, it’s just schadenfreude on my part and it’s so very childish, but I can’t help it. The Church of Dick has undergone a schism, with the prophet anathematising previously loyal followers. But, and I state this for the record, it isn’t anything like a religious movement. Nope… Should I be amused that Dawkins is now asking for civility? Bad John! Evolution Philosophy Religion Science
Philosophy Trying out a new theme 6 May 201415 May 2014 The old one was so 1992. Comments? I think it is easier to read onscreen. OK, I reverted. It lost all my widgets. OK, I bought the commercial version. Thanks to all who donate to my blog, because I can afford to do this. Let me know if you encounter… Read More
Creationism and Intelligent Design Irreducible complexity robotics 29 Dec 201121 Jun 2018 Click on the image to go to the comic. Read More
Epistemology Pattern cladism and the myth of theory dependence of observation 4 Mar 2011 A new paper has been published in the History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, entitled “Pattern Cladism, Homology, and Theory-Neutrality” by Christopher Pearson. Either the journal has done something horrible to the text, or the author doesn’t know the difference between Willi Hennig and William Hennig, or between Gareth… Read More
Honestly, this sounds more like generic internet drama than a religious schism. Now, one could argue that those two often have a lot of similarity to start with but that may be a separate issue.
I said I was being childish! Yes, it is a garden variety internet stoush, but then, that bears a generic resemblance to all other meaningless stoushes based on power relations, which includes religious stoushes.
It looks like the RD forum members felt themselves to be a little community. Dawkins, as an ethologist, should have had some glimmerings of how communities react to the prospect of being forcibly and arbitrarily evicted from their home. Of course, he had the right to do it. It’s his website, after all. And it’s not as if they have nowhere else to go. There won’t be sad little groups of homeless atheists huddling in cardboard boxes in Internet doorways and back alleys. But as has been noted elsewhere, it was badly handled and needlessly squandered a fund of goodwill and support.
Oh so sad, nevermind :o) Herding cats may be difficult and dawkins has decided that after herding them they aren’t a lot of use you can make from them. The posters there object to their comments being deleted, forgetting that those comments belong to dawkins. If he wishes to trash them all that’s his business. No he can concentrate on getting the big corporate sponsers that had been put off by the directness and honesty of the forum posters. A jolt of reality and real world laws for all the suckers who followed the shaman. Sad to say, like most followers, the former members will seek a new prophet whilst defending the one who has cast them aside as unworthy (please master let us back in so you can maltreat and insult us again, seems to be the cry).
He has defended the prophet, but has also pleaded on behalf of the anathemised that they be allowed to take away their forum and that the deleted threads be restored from backups (assuming the dawkin kept backups). A foot in both camps. So he probably will increase his acolyte horde a little. Could sciendeblog handle 100,000 visits to one blog every day (assuming all 85,000 of the dawkin’s anathemised converted to myrrhism)?
Whenever I think of PZed’s minions I always remember the Dude’s line from The Big Lebowski: “You’re not wrong Walter, you’re just an asshole.” But there’s no need to be religious to be that.
PZed is a great guy, and a friend, and I will be meeting him in a few weeks with great pleasure. He is about as far from being an arsehole (note proper speeling) as one can get. I am sure Dawkins is a fine fellow to his friends also. But the test of a person is how they behave to their opponents. PZed treats everyone the same, so I have no problems with him (likewise, Larry Moran at Sandwalk – he’ll tear you a metaphorical second anus but then be the nicest guy over beer). However, right up until Dawkins said what he said, and similar comments that what he calls “Chamberlainists” “have faith in faith” and so on, I thought Dawkins was doing a public service. I no longer think that – I think he is being deliberately divisive in order to make those who agree with him feel good about themselves. As I have often said before, let a thousand flowers bloom, and we have to normalise lack of religion in social discourse, and that means that we will get arseholes like Dawkins. I do not want him to be quiet, but I won’t approve of the way he plays the exact same game those he criticises do.
Whoa. I was very careful to use the phrase “PZed’s minions”. I don’t think of PZ, himself, in such terms at all and if I gave that impression, I apologise. However, his commentators are a zoo and incapable of having a normal conversation. That’s what I meant. As for Dawkins, you may well be right. I know for sure that he has a way of getting a lot of reasonable people angry at him. Quite possibly I’d share your view of him if I bothered to spend more time looking at what he’s like.
As for the speeling, I used the US version as I was quoting. I also far prefer ‘arse’, myself. If that’s not revealing too much.
However, his commentators are a zoo and incapable of having a normal conversation. Well said that man!
Oh, I think it is like religion. Myrrhzil is defending the dawkin just like an iman defending the antics of the prophet. There is wailing and gnashing of teeth. There have been pleas to the prophet to allow the followers to collect what they considered their goods, defenders saying “the prophet couldn’t have known, he was in Australia how could he know what was happening ” being just one example. Then the prophet spoke, “you are all cast out and anathema. No true believer will speak to you on pain of expulsion. Josh enacts my wishes”. Seems like an atheist version of the witnesses and their schisms.
Because nothing says “religion” more stridently than a fierce desire to maintain one’s sense of community built up over years, even if the one losing the community doesn’t have the legal right to preserve it. You know, I never thought of it before, but those damned protesters in south Chicago picketing at the closing of their community center were just religious zealots going through a schism with the owner of the center, Dawn Richardson. It all makes sense now. And his defender, a long time attendee and yoga instructor Lizhrrym, was just like an imam too. True, her long association with the center had left a softspot in Liz’s heart for Dawn, but that’s not really relevant. Liz was simply a zealot calling for jihad. I’m sure those put out of the community center will all go worship at the YMCA now. As if that festering cesspit of zealotry didn’t already have a large enough membership…
Oddly enough, religious people do try to defend their communities. The schisms of the free churches in Scotland are a good example of this, also of the legal wrangles over who owns what. The unhappiness and loss generated in those who lose their communities, vrtual or physical, is real. Their claim to ownership and/or legal rights isn’t. The dawkin has every legal right to trash it all, though, in my opinion, no ethical right. Just as in many areas of the real world a building’s owner can change its use, the web is like that in so far that the use of a facility owned by others confers no rights on the user. In the real world, of course, the local community has political strength, not so in the virtual.
This is absolutely ridiculous! I know you’re not really being serious, but that’s no excuse. What exactly is it about this that reminds you of religion? There are no beliefs in the supernatural involved, and the schism does not have anything to do with zealous followers of any leader, religious or otherwise. The conflict seems to come from lack of respect for the forum members, nothing else. To liken this conflict to a religious one is stupid beyond belief! Amused by Dawkins asking for civility? Why? When has he been uncivil toward someone who hasn’t deserved it? Is it not ethical to mock ridiculous beliefs? (And yes, all beliefs about objective reality not based on science are ridiculous, especially when held on to after being enlightened to the lack of empirical evidence.) Is it uncivil to call people who believe to have some sort of contact with god delusional? Absolutely not, giving them any other label would be laughable. I really do not understand you hostility toward Dawkins, all he does is ridicule the ridiculous (and yes, all varieties of religion really are ridiculous, just as belief in alien kidnappings, big foot or anything else not empirically verifiable), a noble activity.
How about the arbitary changes to the rules by the leader. Lies from the ruler or his immediate subordinates to those who kept the edifice going (unpaid moderators and erudite posters/commenters who gave their time freely to help the cause). Sounds similar to some other groupings. As for the dawkin being uncivil, well you are free to have your opinion. Oh so sad, nevermind :o)
Sure, those things happen often in religions, but also in other kinds of movements. What I was asking for was something that justified likening this to a religious movement. A response to this request has to show what exactly about this issue that was characteristically religious, in other words, not typically shared with other kinds of movements.
Sure, those things happen often in religions, but also in other kinds of movements. What I was asking for was something that justified likening this to a religious movement Hard one to seperate. What is the difference between most organised religion and political groupings? Scriptures (foundational writings, codes of belief etc) exist in most religions and political groupings. Prophets, apostles and martyrs also exist in both sets of groups. Schisms also exist in most religions and politics. If we take the dawkin, we have scripture and moralising aplenty. Right thinking towards out groups is required and argument against the dawkin is frowned upon. So call it religion or politics, your choice unless you have something that is uniquely religious. Note: belief in God may seem the obvious difference, but the deification of political founders isn’t uncommon in practice if not in name. (US founding fathers being one example of this, the iconography of marx and lenin are two others)
At first I didn’t think that the reasoning of the posts signed by you could be accidentally so weak and simultaneously provocative. I thought you were doing some variant of a Poe. It seems not. There is no Dawkins “scripture”. I think you perhaps you conflate emotions of fans for apologetics for doctrine. That Dawkins inspires and cultivates emotions as any celebrity would do is unremarkable if regrettable. And no, Brad Pitt fans or J.K. Rowling fans, no matter how “fanatic” they are, are not generally religious towards their object of fan adoration. They are freaking fans. Same thing with Joel Osteen fans and Transformers fans. (Of course, in every case, there are creepy exceptions.) Unless of course your definition of religion has a very low bar. So, the fact that Dawkins can field an emotionally invested base of fans is pretty trivial and uninteresting. Next, there are no scriptures. Dawkins has a fan group who have largely gotten together precisely because the selection criteria for being part of that fan group is because they liked a particular book. If I joined an Anne McCaffrey club, there’s a very good chance that 95% or more of the fans have read the Dragonriders of Pern. Does that make it a “scripture” for the cult of Anne? No. If I joined a judo club, I’d likely spend my mornings splayed out on a pad in front of an authoritative figure genuflecting before and after interactions with that authority figure. And I’d probably read his manual too! Is that a religion? As for code of belief, there is none, except that the criticism of faith is unlikely to endear such a social context to those of faith. So, there will be a commonality of belief. As for “right thinking about out groups”, you seem to suggest that any people that are like minded must avoid collecting together if they are to avoid being called religious by the likes of you. I am completely uninterested in Dawkins as an atheist personality (although I’d love to chat about science popularization with him), his book, or his website. I am unaffiliated, but I feel strongly that dogmatic belief systems in general (and religious expressions in particular) are dubious, and I would like to minimize the damage they do to society. If some day I wanted to help disseminate such arguments, would you think me “religous” for either starting an advocacy group or joining a pre-existing one? And again, if you entered an Anne McCaffrey fan group and started ragging on Anne, would you expect a warm reception? I think you’ve just discovered that atheism is part of modern popular culture. Welcome to 2005.
But does anyone have an example of Dawkins being uncivil? Is talking trash about the christian god being uncivil? I would think you are uncivil to persons not thought constructs? Of course, seizing the mike at a funeral in a church to critisize the christian god is uncivil, but context matters, and I though I am not a follower of Dawkins, I have never heard about him being uncivil to people, but perhaps someone here can enlighten me?
@JJE At first I didn’t think that the reasoning of the posts signed by you could be accidentally so weak and simultaneously provocative. I thought you were doing some variant of a Poe. It seems not. Thank you. Scripture: any writing that is regarded as sacred by a religious group Religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects Religion: the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices Religion: something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience
Seems to me that using dictionary definitions (or ad hoc ones that sound like them) as arguments is rather lame. I respect John and am sort of a fan of his (I was upset when he left ScienceBlogs and even was ridiculed by commenters in Pharyngula because of this). That being said, I feel that John’s (and many readers’ and commenters’ here) feelings of antipathy toward Dawkins are based on snobbery (I sincerly hope John doesn’t think I’m pissing on his living room floor; I’m just trying to get to the point and call them as I see them). It seems to me that proffesssional philosophers and people who really are into philosophy (I’m just a simple scientist) feel that worthy ideas shouldn’t be popular, simple, intuitive or expressed in plain language (the abstruseness of philosophical language, some of which I have witnessed in the comments in this blog, is astounding), things all that describe Dawkins and his ideas and writings.
My floor remains urine-free, don’t worry. I certainly do not object to popularisation of abstruse ideas, of course, and that is not why I object to Dawkins on this topic. The third link shows why I object to him on religion. He fails the tu quoque test – that is, he is something of a hypocrite. He says that he objects, quite rightly, to the us-and-themism of religion. So do I. But then he starts drawing us-and-them lines, accusing those who do not outright reject any hint of religion as being – and I quoted him – “feeling good that someone has religion somewhere”. In short, he is doing what Joe McCarthy did, naming “fellow travellers”. That is appallingly bad, and it is a form of faux religion in itself. If he had only stuck to popularising what he knew, then I would merely critique that. Instead, he starts a movement of disciples and exclusion – a damned good approximation of a religion. And those disciples attack me and others as “accommodationists” and say that we cannot ask for civility because, let’s face it, we are ideologically impure. And if I call bullshit, it is because that is the very definition of hypocrisy. Hence the schadenfreude.
I have to say that my take on Dawkins is more positive. The way I usually put it is “I’m glad that he’s doing what he’s doing and I’m glad that I’m not.” I’ve never been one to join causes or any sort but I am happy that Dawkins is getting people organised and vocal. I think some of what we’re seeing is what you get whenever people get organised. To what degree it has to do with Dawkins’ personality I guess I just do not know, never having done more than read his books and seen a couple of his TV shows.
What else is there but definitions when using words? They are actual dictionary definitions, not ones I made up, not that that makes them anymore valid. It was in response to JJE claiming that I didn’t know what religion was. JJE uses his particular definition, I’m more open and accomodating. But the squall seems to have blown over now.
Their was a time when biology took an intense interest in Ethnology. The nature of modern academic disciplines means that is no longer the case. Perhaps it’s why the dictionary definition of such things seem fuzzy round the edges.
I see Dawkins has posted what I would call a handsome apology for – and clarification of – the way the transition was handled.
A case of damage limitation is my guess. How he can claim not to have understood that people would be hurt by the lies told on his behalf amazes me. Is he going senile? He’s shocked that people don’t like having years of their work cast aside without a by your leave. I may be being cynical but, I put this in the same class at his pretend suprise at people being offended by his comments about Jews and his signing petitions that he didn’t understand. Be nice if he let those who used the forum take it away and run it themselves, he obviously doesn’t think it is worthwhile.
Dawkins has posted an apology for how things have happened. http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5165 Whever he is like, this seems to me to be a classy reaction.
Yes, Dawkins’ considered reaction is much better than his first one, where he criticised the (many) critics, defended Timonen and showed little recognition of the multitude of fans and especially the site moderators who had supported him magnificently for years. What is still missing is any apology and acknowledgment by Josh Timonen of his role in the disaster, a role which seems to have gone from bad to worse, and certainly let Dawkins down. Hard to beat for insensitivity. The matter may be blowing over now, but the hard feelings will take much longer to overcome. Many habitues of the site swore that they would go and never come back. Not all of them really meant it, I suspect. Speaking personally and as a non-scientist, I have found Dawkins’ books (mostly) lucidly written and tremendously informative, especially The Ancestors’ Tale. I was always much more interested in the science than the atheism/ religion aspect. I used to lurk on his site occasionally, but often found the format and the threads hard to follow. Whatever you think of Dawkins and his acolytes, the whole business is a shame – and not a great advertisement for rationalism (or perhaps for rationalists).
Could sciendeblog handle 100,000 visits to one blog every day (assuming all 85,000 of the dawkin’s anathemised converted to myrrhism)? I get about 90,000 per day right now, so that would be a doubling of traffic. Sure, it could handle it. It would just mean all the other scienceblogs would be buried in the deluge. Small price to pay for increasing my hegemony and the power of the Pharynguloid empire.
My apologies, I didn’t realise the size of your present horde. Good luck with the world domination. :o)
Assuming each hit represents a different person (which it doesn’t) and assuming a world population of 6 000 000 000 (its actually bigger) the doubled traffic would only be 0.003% of the world population. A long way to go to world domination I think!
You mean you aren’t intending to take over the planet? Then why do I comment on Pharyngula? If I’m not getting into the good graces of the future planetary overlord why should I bother? Oh well, at least I can be sure that when Cthulhu wakes up I’ll be eaten quickly.
“Sarcasm translates to the web so poorly.” If the intent is as clear as a bell it works. If not it falls rather flat. Best performed live where you can see the person, it resolves a lot of the problems.
I’m going to jump in and guess what John was getting at in comparing this to religion. I think the whole point hinges on the fact that Dawkins fans most definitely are*not* a religious group and yet the same kind of tribalism Dawkins himself criticises in religion pops up among them, making the claim that reducing religosity will help the problem questionable at best. In other words, it doesn’t take religion for good people to do bad things.
Ah. The likelihood of my scheme to conquer the world was apparently not clear as a bell. All clear now.
I should think it is increasingly likely as time goes by. Extrapolating the growth of Pharynguloidaea as an evolutionary radiation leads me to conclude that they will be the dominant life form in no time at all – say around 100,000 years. That’s the blink of an eye…
I think what you write is clear as a bell. I particularly enjoyed the ending of the spear throwing incident. Had no idea about the world domination bit though. Good luck.