Is it ok to mock beliefs?

[lunamoth]

Now, isn't it interesting how you see something so clearly while others see it so clearly on the other side of the debate?

Does that reveal character, reading comprehension, intelligence, or bias? Or any combination of such?

Stepping back, I find it fascinating how some will interpret his body of work one way while others see it wildly different. You know, kind of like how John 3:16 is interpreted by it's readers.

Some see it as exclusionary and hateful. Some see it as liberating and noble. And to all who have studied it and read it in context, it's "obvious."

I have been thinking the same for quite a while; it is quite a bit like arguments over scripture. If you don't agree with another person's interpretation, just claim that they need more context. You can widen and widen the context until the phrase in question can mean just about anything.

Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that. ;-)

 

[HerDotness]

I have been thinking the same for quite a while; it is quite a bit like arguments over scripture. If you don't agree with another person's interpretation, just claim that they need more context. You can widen and widen the context until the phrase in question can mean just about anything.

Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that. ;-)

Weeelll, yes and no.

Scripture is written in many places in parables, allegories and metaphors--all literary devices that have multiple interpretations.

Dawkins's RRally speech differs somewhat in that the language chosen is meant to convey his thinking clearly. It must be, or listeners are unlikely to grasp his meaning.

I suspect that the problem with opposing views of what Dawkins said and meant results more from the convictions and mindsets that people bring to an expression of opinion. Those who disagree are more likely, I think, to find what they already expect will be there...or to go along with what others who share their views tell them is there. Other possibilities, of course, including simply misunderstanding altogether.

But then, bringing a mindset inclined to agree with a speaker to his speech can be equally hazardous because a person who does so may assume and not listen as carefully as is necessary to be certain that bias isn't skewing one's understanding.

Dangers both ways...

 

[Road Warrior]

Dawkins's RRally speech differs somewhat in that the language chosen is meant to convey his thinking clearly.

His Reason Rally speech was simply another step in the same direction he has been heading for some time. Remember, this is the same guy who loves to repeat this quote: "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can f*** off."

While his apologists may say he is only saying it for fun, humor, whatever, as seen in this clip in his response to Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson's comments to him at Beyond Belief 2006, he is quite clear in his attitude and, IMHO, arrogance. I think Dr. Tyson has the correct idea on how best to convey science to the general public. Despite his words to the contrary, Dr. Dawkins seems more interested in generating controversy and notoriety rather than teaching science or reason.

 

[vepurusg]

I think Dr. Tyson has the correct idea on how best to convey science to the general public. Despite his words to the contrary, Dr. Dawkins seems more interested in generating controversy and notoriety rather than teaching science or reason.

I think you're looking at this all wrong. Dawkins is not trying to convey science to the general public; his audience is very explicitly people who already like science and reason, and want to know more.

In economic terms, you can think of him more as a wholesaler; he isn't particularly interested in marketing or selling to the public, so much as to the Middle men (empowering non-believers with more confidence and encouragement).

He is interested in educating- you are just misunderstanding his target audience.


That is not to say that I fully agree with his methods, or necessarily even his message- I just see what he's trying to do (and what he's not trying to do).

 

[Road Warrior]

Sorry, but I disagree 1) that his audience already like science and reason and 2) or teaching "Middle men".

Yes, some of his audience, indeed, already like science and reason, but then so do a lot of people who also like spiritual enlightenment.

As for "Middle men", please explain more. As far as I see it, Dawkins is simply the atheist version of Rush Limbaugh; a pundit who loves to rabble rouse and throw red meat to his fans. His interests are very secular - a deep attraction to fame and fortune.

 

[vepurusg]

Sorry, but I disagree 1) that his audience already like science and reason

The people he's trying to appeal to do- his is, for the most part, an appeal to "closeted atheists" as he sees it.

You can disagree with that if you want, but those are his motivations and his intended audience. He reaches more people than that- particularly with some of the free press he gets by saying things that are otherwise a bit controversial- but that doesn't mean that his message is tailored to be liked by the general population.

His books are mostly bought by atheists and agnostics who don't know much about the subject, and a few moderates who are interested in his perspective.

and 2) or teaching "Middle men". [...] As for "Middle men", please explain more.

How do you disagree with it, if you don't know what I'm talking about? :areyoucra

He teaches people who want to learn about it (namely, his fans as you put it), who may then in turn (given that knowledge) educate others if they so choose. That may or may not happen in practice, but that's a different matter. (What his goals are vs. whether they are useful)

As far as I see it, Dawkins is simply the atheist version of Rush Limbaugh; a pundit who loves to rabble rouse and throw red meat to his fans.

See emphasis: that is his core audience. He's not quite as much of a rabble rouser as Limbaugh, but you're not too far off (of course, on the opposite side of the political/theological spectrum).

His interests are very secular - a deep attraction to fame and fortune.

Dawkins is not that rich. His interests are very secular, though- he is interested in promoting secularism.

In the same way, but on the opposite side, Limbaugh is interested in promoting conservatism. Limbaugh may be a little more in it for the money, though, comparing net-worth. I can't really know his motivations, though- and neither can you.

Most people, Limbaugh included, do what they believe in to some extent.

 

[4consideration]

I have been thinking the same for quite a while; it is quite a bit like arguments over scripture. If you don't agree with another person's interpretation, just claim that they need more context. You can widen and widen the context until the phrase in question can mean just about anything.

Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that. ;-)

I agree with you about the context of scripture often being expanded. I think that it really has the ability to expand and that it is fine to do that, consciously -- not to use it against another person -- but as part of an expanded understanding. I do that myself in interpretting scripture -- because I figure that the only reason that I am referring to it in the first place is to widen my understanding of Love and Life, anyway. If it actually applies for me -- it is OK. I do not think that it is OK for me to widen the context in order to justify applying it to another person's life for my own purposes.

I am unwilling to read it (the Bible) with a literal interpretation. It seems unreasonable for me to do so for so many reasons. If I can't actually apply any of the information to my life -- I don't see any point in even referring to it.

So IMO, there is already much symbolic, metaphorical, allagorical and historical presentation of information that it is up to me to interpret and choose what and how to apply it or not. I think that it is wise to choose not to accept elements that are inconsistant with Love or an overall understanding of what is right action in life. Even if it is because we simply do not understand something -- even if there is real wisdom there -- I think it is not a good idea to just accept something across the board that does not assimilate well with our own understanding at the time.

Anytime in life, when we are viewing something -- we are already creating a context, at least as far as the perspective from which we are viewing it is concerned, anyway. Why not choose the largest (holistic) perspective of life that we can view from at the time? Why not a larger and larger, ever growing context of Love that includes more and more people and more and more aspects of life? If the universe is continually growing why would it be considered odd for our personal context of it (and all of life) to continually grow also?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Yes, some of his audience, indeed, already like science and reason, but then so do a lot of people who also like spiritual enlightenment.

Yeah, being a fan and being a practitioner are two very different things.
See, one cannot really claim to embrace science and reason without accepting the consequences that come with doing so.
This 'having your cake and eat it too' approach that way too many people take is not only inconsistent, it is also appalling and dishonest.

As far as I see it, Dawkins is simply the atheist version of Rush Limbaugh; a pundit who loves to rabble rouse and throw red meat to his fans. His interests are very secular - a deep attraction to fame and fortune.

If you had any familiarity with Dawkins' body of works you would know what a faulty and ridiculous position that is.
The man is without question an educator first and foremost, and the fact that he is tired of the same illogical unscientific nonsense that is sprouted by various pundits and dishonest and ignorant people does nothing to change that.
Ideological relativism is complete and utter ox manure and it is time the educated parts of the world wake up to that fact.

 

[Road Warrior]

Dawkins is not that rich. His interests are very secular, though- he is interested in promoting secularism.

Compared to Limbaugh? Agreed. The percentage of RWNJ's in the USA is much greater than the percentage of atheists. OTOH, compared to you and me (I admit to only guessing about you. ) then Dawkins is rich indeed.

Yes, he is promoting secularism, but then so have I. It's a difference in tactics. Dr. Tyson also promotes secularism and I support his methods as being not only superior than Dawkins' but also much less self-serving.

 

[gnomon]

Is it ever ok to mock religious beliefs? Or even non-religious beliefs?

Are there some beliefs that are just completely off the table?

If there are some beliefs that are immune to mockery, which ones? Why? How to we distinguish between beliefs that are ripe for ridicule, and those that are immune?

Mockery is just fine.

Pretentiousness based on willful ignorance.......not so good.

edit: Forgot to add....being a hypocrite.

 

[Road Warrior]

Mockery is immoral since it only serves the mocker. Those who are moral seek effective methods of conveying a message, teaching others and/or persuading them to a particular point of view. The youtube clip posted earlier shows Dr. Tyson understands this point even if Dawkins and his fellow mockers do not.

His Reason Rally speech was simply another step in the same direction he has been heading for some time. Remember, this is the same guy who loves to repeat this quote: "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can f*** off."

While his apologists may say he is only saying it for fun, humor, whatever, [youtube]-_2xGIwQfik[/youtube]
as seen in this clip in his response to Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson's comments to him at Beyond Belief 2006, he is quite clear in his attitude and, IMHO, arrogance. I think Dr. Tyson has the correct idea on how best to convey science to the general public. Despite his words to the contrary, Dr. Dawkins seems more interested in generating controversy and notoriety rather than teaching science or reason.

 

[Student of X]

And then there is this one.

[youtube]dmP9XozKEV0[/youtube]
Phil Plait, "Don't Be a Dick" (Part 1 of 3) - YouTube

 

[Gomeza]

Aspects of this type of confrontation with another human being (mocking) that must be considered are the circumstances and the people involved. For example: Would anyone feel comfortable having any kind of confrontation with an octogenarian who has not adjusted to modern era multi-faith and secular sensibilities? . . . how about someone else's children (minors)? Either one of these two groups can be outspoken and for different reasons but I cannot see myself in a verbal exchange with either.

 

[Kathryn]

Excellent video from Phil Plait. I could actually watch the entire thing without cringing or laughing wryly at the speaker's self aggrandizing pontification - unlike when I watch Dawkins .

 

[HerDotness]

Mockery is immoral since it only serves the mocker. Those who are moral seek effective methods of conveying a message, teaching others and/or persuading them to a particular point of view.

Oh, GOOD GRIEF! Dawkins was quoting someone else to make a point and joking besides in the exchange with Tyson! He doesn't speak like that ALL the time by any means.

One off-the-cuff joking reference is being taken far, far too seriously and claimed to represent fairly how the man speaks to people all the time.

Edit to quote and remark:

His Reason Rally speech was simply another step in the same direction he has been heading for some time. Remember, this is the same guy who loves to repeat this quote: "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can f*** off." [underline added]

In which case, I think you should supply proof that Dawkins has used that quotation repeatedly since his debate with Tyson. Produce it, please.

 

[lisabel]

...........Yes.

LOL LOL LOL that's how i feel too

 

[vepurusg]

Mockery is immoral since it only serves the mocker.

Not when Mockery is effective.

Remember, most of this is a matter of marketing/advertising. Free publicity can be very effective, and sometimes mockery can achieve that.

PETA, famous for publicity stunts, continues to do them because despite negative perceptions by many, market research shows that it works (it's the most efficient way, dollar for dollar, of getting a message out).

Whether you like it or not, controversy stirs up very valuable publicity.

You should know the old adage "There's no such thing as bad press". There might be bad press somewhere, but something which is merely controversial in this sense has many more advantages than disadvantages in most cases.

Those who are moral seek effective methods of conveying a message,

Sure, but you haven't demonstrated that mockery is not effective. It doesn't get the message across well to the person being mocked, but because it gets free publicity, it does get the message out to third parties very effectively.

You're being very presumptuous here. You need to study marketing to even begin to analyze this kind of behavior in concrete terms of efficacy in a media environment.

Yes, he is promoting secularism, but then so have I. It's a difference in tactics. Dr. Tyson also promotes secularism and I support his methods as being not only superior than Dawkins' but also much less self-serving.

They may or may not be less self-serving; we can't know the minds (or bank accounts) of Dawkins or Tyson in this case.

The method may be superior in getting the message out to some people, but may be inferior in getting it out to others. Different audiences, different tactics. The methods are different, but it has not been demonstrated that either is necessarily inferior.

Dr. Tyson does seem to be doing a very good job, though. He does come across as more likeable to most.


I'm not saying I favor Dawkins or Tyson, but you're making unwarranted conclusions here from a position of ignorance of the marketing aspects of the various tactics.

 

[Road Warrior]

And then there is this one.


Phil Plait, "Don't Be a Dick" (Part 1 of 3) - YouTube

Thanks for the link. I've downloaded the half hour lecture for later listening, but the first few remarks sound great!

 

[Road Warrior]

Oh, GOOD GRIEF! Dawkins was quoting someone else to make a point and joking besides in the exchange with Tyson! He doesn't speak like that ALL the time by any means.

He has used the quote a few times. Often enough, it seems, that he is often attributed the quote instead of the New Science editor who is thought to have originally used it (although I'm curious about the context of that original use). IIRC, he also used it in this "New Atheist" lecture.

He definitely uses it here: Richard Dawkins Clip - Science is Interesting - YouTube

BTW, I thought this would be of interest to others regarding this topic:
Richard Dawkins is more persuasive when he refrains from god-bashing | Science | guardian.co.uk

It goes without saying that Richard Dawkins has a talent for causing offence to people of a religious persuasion. I'm sure he believes this offence is justified by the noble cause of rooting out dangerous superstition, but a recent comment he left on his own blog RichardDawkins.net, beneath a piece by Jerry Coyne, suggests he is about to take his campaign to a whole new level:

I suspect that most of our regular readers here would agree that ridicule, of a humorous nature, is likely to be more effective than the sort of snuggling-up and head-patting that Jerry is attacking. I lately started to think that we need to go further: go beyond humorous ridicule, sharpen our barbs to a point where they really hurt ... I think we should probably abandon the irremediably religious precisely because that is what they are – irremediable. I am more interested in the fence-sitters who haven't really considered the question very long or very carefully. And I think that they are likely to be swayed by a display of naked contempt. Nobody likes to be laughed at. Nobody wants to be the butt of contempt.

As someone who sat on this very fence for many years, I think contempt probably would have pushed me in the other direction – into the arms of the irredemiably religious. Nothing reinforces tribal identity like the contempt of your rivals. Ask a Glasgow Rangers supporter – or a Celtic supporter for that matter.

 

[HerDotness]

He has used the quote a few times.

Which hardly constitutes "repeatedly" as most people understand that word. Glad to see you qualify your earlier statement by what seems to be a much more fair assessment.

Often enough, it seems, that he is often attributed the quote instead of the New Science editor who is thought to have originally used it

Oh, come now! As if Dawkins is at all responsible for erroneous or deliberate attribution of the quote to him rather than to this as yet unidentified New Scientist editor.

BTW, I thought this would be of interest to others regarding this topic:
Richard Dawkins is more persuasive when he refrains from god-bashing | Science | guardian.co.uk

It's interesting only in that it's one person's or publication's disapproval of Dawkins and speculation about what Dawkins intends based upon that blog posting in 2009.

In that same posting the Guardian quotes, Dawkins concludes:

I emphatically don’t [sic] mean we should use foul-mouthed rants. Nor should we raise our voices and shout at them: let’s have no D’Souzereignty here. Instead, what we need is sarcastic, cutting wit. A good model might be Peter Medawar, who would never dream of shouting, but instead quietly wielded the rapier. Look, for instance, at almost any sentence in his magnificent review of Teilhard de Chardin’s pretentious Phenomenon of Man. It is reprinted in Pluto’s Republic or you can find it here:-
The Phenomenon of Man

Maybe I’m wrong. I'm only thinking aloud, among friends. Is it gloves off time? Or should we continue to go along with the appeasers and be all nice and cuddly, like Eugenie and the National Academy?
Richard
Wednesday, 22 April 2009 at 3:32 AM | #351636

Source

Honestly, does this sound like a man who's made up his mind that mockery and ridicule are definitely the tactics to use and use often? And what evidence do we have that he's done more than he indicates he thinks effective enough, employ cutting wit such as Sam Harris did when he compared just knowing there must be a God to people who think Elvis is alive because they simply "feel that he must be"?