This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Faith No More-Peter Boghossian interview

Faith No More-Peter Boghossian interview - Comments

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 1 by rod-the-farmer

Audio interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqmwLsNLn8E

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 23:45:29 UTC | #932645

Andres Heredia's Avatar Comment 2 by Andres Heredia

Wonderful interview, I'm glad to ehar He has helped many people lose their faith and try to comprehend the world using reason and evidence.

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 00:00:55 UTC | #932647

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 3 by Neodarwinian

Fifty years ago you could not find even the intimation of such news articles in any paper of any kind. Now the regularity of such articles convinces one change is in the air. A change for the better.

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 00:24:54 UTC | #932652

Fouad Boussetta's Avatar Comment 4 by Fouad Boussetta

Very nice interview. Professor Boghossian is no accomodationist.

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 00:41:37 UTC | #932653

VanMartinez's Avatar Comment 5 by VanMartinez

Wonderful interview. I like how he doesn't mince words. It's always refreshing to hear someone who is honestly speaking about this topic and not shying away from it.

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 00:54:41 UTC | #932656

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 6 by Ignorant Amos

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 00:56:14 UTC | #932657

helena!'s Avatar Comment 7 by helena!

I like his straight forward approach too very much. It's my style too - no nonsense. I'd like to see more people like this.

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 02:11:14 UTC | #932665

Jarl Carlander's Avatar Comment 8 by Jarl Carlander

i want to see him do some debates.

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 02:31:17 UTC | #932668

prietenul's Avatar Comment 9 by prietenul

accommodation: two c's and two m's

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 04:07:29 UTC | #932686

squeegee's Avatar Comment 10 by squeegee

This guy gets his point across in the best of ways, straight to the point and 100% reasonable and logical. Like Hitch, theists wouldn't stand a chance with him.

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 05:45:11 UTC | #932690

Metamag's Avatar Comment 11 by Metamag

Comment 5 by VanMartinez :

Wonderful interview. I like how he doesn't mince words. It's always refreshing to hear someone who is honestly speaking about this topic and not shying away from it.

And that's why RD type "stridency"(which is just clarity) works, and accommodationism doesn't.

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 07:16:47 UTC | #932696

strangebrew's Avatar Comment 12 by strangebrew

Comment 3 by Neodarwinian

Fifty years ago you could not find even the intimation of such news articles in any paper of any kind.

I would say you would be severely pushed to find anything so 'strident' even 10 years ago!

But this is exactly the approach that the theists detest, because there is anger directed at their own childish fantasies, none of this respect and accommodationist claptrap...

The time for that is well past, they have demonstrated over and over again that they are not civil in the slightest, and frequently abuse the traditional shield of this respect and deference which they invented for their self erected tacky bulwark against criticism while lobbing great gooey dollops of runny arrogantly stench soaked self righteous self indulgent poo at anyone they fear or detest, you see they do not exactly believe let alone practice, accommodationism of atheist or even agnostic...or homosexual or women or indeed reality, apparently it is a term that only works towards them!

That they are frightened and hysterical and so very confused is absolutely no excuse. And the paucity in content and cogency of 'fistikated feelology' allows it to exhibit all the charm and depth of intellectuality of a carbuncle on the raggedy ass of a psychotic tramp!

So fuck this respect lark they do not deserve or warrant such indulgence...none of them.

They whine and bleat 'strident'...methinks they should really experience it and Dr Peter Boghossian seems quite capable of teaching them the real meaning of the word!

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 07:58:56 UTC | #932699

robaylesbury's Avatar Comment 13 by robaylesbury

Music to my ears. No compromise, reality based. Some magnificent quotes in there.

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 08:00:39 UTC | #932700

jel's Avatar Comment 14 by jel

Great interview, I want to hear more from this person. I love this quote,

Don't find a way of thinking that's terrible. Find ways of thinking that are at least mediocre.

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 08:05:17 UTC | #932702

prietenul's Avatar Comment 15 by prietenul

I love the "now go and sit at the children's table..."

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 08:06:53 UTC | #932703

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 16 by Stafford Gordon

I'm going to wing this to a couple of religious friends of mine. They usually get shirty with me when I try to engage with them about the dreaded subject, but this interview can do it for me at arms length.

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 08:20:01 UTC | #932706

andersemil's Avatar Comment 17 by andersemil

He's so wonderfully strident I want to hug him! We need more of his sort at universities.

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 08:24:55 UTC | #932707

Friplo's Avatar Comment 18 by Friplo

I signed up just to comment on this article. There are so many problems with what he has to say that it's hard to know where to start. I'd be happy to address more if anyone asks... but one of his punchlines was: "The creator of the world actually cares about where people put their penises?" I think we all know he's referring to homosexuality...

BUT, is BOGHOSSIAN saying that he doesn't care if a 50 year-old man puts his penis in a 5 year old child? Sorry for the crassness of the comment, but it holds. According to his "logic" this too is something neither God nor men should care about. Be consistent.

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 08:55:47 UTC | #932709

prietenul's Avatar Comment 19 by prietenul

Welcome to Richarddawkins.net. I think Boghossian was talking about the issue of gay marriage (about which the religious are apoplectic) and not pedophilia. I don't think he and the religious disagree that pedophilia is wrong. Oh well, I guess I have to make an exception for the Catholic hierarchy...

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 09:20:19 UTC | #932713

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 20 by AtheistEgbert

Comment 18 by Friplo :

I signed up just to comment on this article. There are so many problems with what he has to say that it's hard to know where to start. I'd be happy to address more if anyone asks... but one of his punchlines was: "The creator of the world actually cares about where people put their penises?" I think we all know he's referring to homosexuality...

BUT, is BOGHOSSIAN saying that he doesn't care if a 50 year-old man puts his penis in a 5 year old child? Sorry for the crassness of the comment, but it holds. According to his "logic" this too is something neither God nor men should care about. Be consistent.

No clearly he's not saying it's okay for a 50 year man to put his penis in a 5 year old. Where in the article is he saying that? Maybe you invented that in your head (for whatever reason) and then tried to do some kind of logic.

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 09:24:19 UTC | #932714

susanlatimer's Avatar Comment 21 by susanlatimer

BUT, is BOGHOSSIAN saying that he doesn't care if a 50 year-old man puts his penis in a 5 year old child? Sorry for the crassness of the comment, but it holds. According to his "logic" this too is something neither God nor men should care about.

No. That's not what he's saying. He was discussing the absurd notion of a universal creator who cares about the placing of penises that does no harm. Not rape.

I'm not sure how you extrapolate one from the other. He was very clear about the topic. It was homosexuality. Not child rape. We all know what's wrong with child rape. We don't need a god to say that child rape is harmful.

If you realized there was no god, would child rape be harmful? I hope your answer is yes.

If you realized there was no god, would homosexuality be harmful? The evidence says no.

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 09:26:00 UTC | #932715

Mike Kemp's Avatar Comment 22 by Mike Kemp

Comment 18 by Friplo :

I signed up just to comment on this article. There are so many problems with what he has to say that it's hard to know where to start. I'd be happy to address more if anyone asks... but one of his punchlines was: "The creator of the world actually cares about where people put their penises?" I think we all know he's referring to homosexuality...

BUT, is BOGHOSSIAN saying that he doesn't care if a 50 year-old man puts his penis in a 5 year old child? Sorry for the crassness of the comment, but it holds. According to his "logic" this too is something neither God nor men should care about. Be consistent.

No, he didn't say that.

I believe this is called a "straw man" argument: Ascribe a view not stated to the protagonist then knock it down, which is much easier than addressing the actual statements made.

Is Mr Friplo saying that he can't distinguish between equality of human rights across sexual orientation and child abuse? It will be hard to debate if this is the case.

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 09:27:27 UTC | #932716

Peter Grant's Avatar Comment 23 by Peter Grant

Not pretending to know things that you don't know is a virtue.

-Peter Boghossian

That's a great quote!

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 09:34:53 UTC | #932718

Missus Gumby's Avatar Comment 24 by Missus Gumby

Comment Removed by Author

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 09:38:43 UTC | #932719

Missus Gumby's Avatar Comment 25 by Missus Gumby

I would like to refer the folks here to Friplo's second contribution to these forums, where he states, "I'm embarrassed when Christians use faulty logic or irrationality...". It's just after where he states he is a christian: click here.

Suffice it to say, I'm a big fan of irony.

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 09:41:27 UTC | #932720

mmurray's Avatar Comment 26 by mmurray

Comment 18 by Friplo :

BUT, is BOGHOSSIAN saying that he doesn't care if a 50 year-old man puts his penis in a 5 year old child? Sorry for the crassness of the comment, but it holds. According to his "logic" this too is something neither God nor men should care about. Be consistent.

How do you get to this from

You see it with the treatment of homosexual individuals. This is real. These are real people. These are people who are being denied civil rights on the basis of a book that was written in the freakin' Bronze Age. The creator of the world actually cares about where people put their penises?

Michael

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 09:44:08 UTC | #932721

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 27 by Alan4discussion

Comment 18 by Friplo

I signed up just to comment on this article. There are so many problems with what he has to say that it's hard to know where to start.

Really? Objective evidence and reasoning are usually a good place to start. The article seems to tell it straight.

At least you are prepared to discuss it. It seems many who see the problems it raises over the use of "faith" in their thinking processes, simply want to refuse people the right to listen and consider the issues on their merits. That usually indicates a very weak case.

@OP My talks have been cancelled at PSU numerous times. Why is that? What is the problem with getting this message out? Are we afraid to make people feel bad? To offend people? It's interesting—every time I've had a talk cancelled, I've challenged the people who cancelled it to a debate... and no one has accepted yet. If I were to debate somebody, and they could show me that there's really good evidence... that faith really is a reliable guide to reality, that would be fantastic. Then I'll be their voice. I'll be the voice of faith.

Unfortunately, history shows using faith as a substitute for evidence, causes disaster-areas -particularly in engineering and medicine.

"The creator of the world actually cares ...... ........ ...

Before the question of caring creators of worlds / universes can arise, there needs to be some evidence of the existence of such entities and evidence that any such entities have a capacity or inclination to think or care!

Comment 26 by mmurray

Comment 18 by Friplo : - According to his "logic" this too is something neither God nor men should care about. Be consistent.

How do you get to this from ........

I hope this is not an indication of the consistent use by Friplo of strawman arguments!

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 09:46:10 UTC | #932722

Corylus's Avatar Comment 28 by Corylus

Comment 18 by Friplo :

I signed up just to comment on this article.

Welcome.

There are so many problems with what he has to say that it's hard to know where to start. I'd be happy to address more if anyone asks... but one of his punchlines was: "The creator of the world actually cares about where people put their penises?" I think we all know he's referring to homosexuality...

I think he is. I also think we are justified in doing so, and not only because he mentions homosexuality. There is a thing in philosophy known as Principle of Charity whereby readers and listeners assume that people are using words in the normal way, and also, assume the most rational usage.

BUT, is BOGHOSSIAN saying that he doesn't care if a 50 year-old man puts his penis in a 5 year old child? Sorry for the crassness of the comment, but it holds.

No apologies for crassness, I might be peeved if I were Dr Boghossian, but as I am not I am fine with investigating this claim unemotionally. Let's look at what he actually said shall we?

The creator of the world actually cares about where people put their penises? Just think about that from an objective point of view: We go to some planet and we see these green blobs. And half the green blobs have a celery stalk and the other half don't. Some of these green blobs start sticking their celery stalks in some other holes and everybody's up in arms. The creator of the universe doesn't want the celery stalk in this hole.

OK, from this it is clear that we is talking about non-warrented prescriptive injunctions or, to put it another way, imagine someone saying - in response to a demand that their desires are justified - "Because I say so!" There is no additional reasons give why the celery should not go in the hole. No mention of physical harm to the owner of said hole; no discussion of the denial of autonomy; no mention of emotional trauma, etc. etc. No. The only reason given why the celery should not go in the hole is because god (or more accurately the the person talking for said deity) does not want this.

According to his "logic" this too is something neither God nor men should care about. Be consistent.

Consistency here would be neither god nor men caring about those physical acts that people do with each other that they cannot proscribe due to the presence of concomitant harm. This is not revolutionary. We do this all the time with heterosexual sex, for example, when we distinguish between consensual pairings and rape. Interestingly, when we do this, other people take this distinction as a given and do not ask us to explicitly make clear that we are not talking about paedophilia. The lazy, pernicious and inaccurate conflation of homosexuality with paedophilia is sadly very common and pervasive in much discourse. I am heterosexual myself, so I can only sympathise with people at the receiving end of this, but I can point out my dislike of it whenever I see it.

Do please think about this one.

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 09:47:15 UTC | #932723

Missus Gumby's Avatar Comment 29 by Missus Gumby

I'm now wondering if it should be deemed acceptable for an infinitely old god to impregnate a young, unmarried Jewish virgin (human). Without her permission!

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 09:50:39 UTC | #932725

Jonathan Dore's Avatar Comment 30 by Jonathan Dore

In the interview Bhogossian says:

My talks have been cancelled at PSU numerous times. ... every time I've had a talk cancelled, I've challenged the people who cancelled it to a debate... and no one has accepted yet.

The interviewer didn't pick up on this, but isn't there a clear free-speech issue here? Who is doing the cancelling? What authority do they have to do so? And why aren't they being challenged? (I mean challenged legally, not to a debate.)

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 11:20:40 UTC | #932731