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

← Robert Wright promotes accommodationism, disses Dawkins

Robert Wright promotes accommodationism, disses Dawkins - Comments

rjohn19's Avatar Comment 1 by rjohn19

Methinks Robert Wright is a sheep in wolf's clothing.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:01:38 UTC | #931257

yanquetino's Avatar Comment 2 by yanquetino

Wright just doesn’t get it. Such “accommodation,” such a “touchy feely” approach to dealing with others’ beliefs is precisely why religion has persisted through the centuries to this very day. I side with Dawkins on this 100%. It is high time somebody called a spade a spade, and frankly speaking, when something is ridiculous it deserves ridicule. Will ardent believers be offended? Meh. Let them. It’s about time they learned to take on the same level as they give.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:02:00 UTC | #931258

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 3 by Neodarwinian

Thank Poseidon for representative democracy, sometimes. In the US the representatives are as benighted as those they represent. Then, thank Dagon for the Electoral College.

What else can you have for 99% of religions but contempt? When these religious beliefs hold so many, gays, women, atheists in contempt why show them respect. To quote Tony Soprano< " those that want respect, give respect. "

" Wrong side of the war with his god " Priceless!!

They may not legislate transubstantiation these day, but they would if they could.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:08:26 UTC | #931260

AnthropicConstance's Avatar Comment 4 by AnthropicConstance

I'm all for accommodationism, up to a very specific point: The point at which others start making decisions about me and my world.

Thomas Jefferson put it, "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no God," but if someone offered counterfeit education to children as some do today he would have been demoralized.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:48:09 UTC | #931266

rsharvey's Avatar Comment 5 by rsharvey

Comment 1 by rjohn19 :

Methinks Robert Wright is a sheep in wolf's clothing.

Don't feed the troll..

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:54:04 UTC | #931268

aroundtown's Avatar Comment 6 by aroundtown

I will side with Richard on this one for full confrontation with these idiot beliefs. I am sick and tired of giving the religious a free pass at every turn. Got to give a shout out to Jamilla too for standing up for herself and not cowering down to Mr. Chris Hayes who would obviously give them a free pass and look the other way regardless of how loony the beliefs are.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 02:56:34 UTC | #931276

sbooder's Avatar Comment 7 by sbooder

It sounds like the presenter of this show is more concerned with not offending his father than understanding that anyones belief is just as accessible to attack as is atheism in the US.

I mean...come on, it appears you can not even run for certain office in the US if you are not religious.

Fuck em! Time to get down on belief. If you live by doctrine...how will that affect your decision making?

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 03:53:16 UTC | #931281

Carl Sai Baba's Avatar Comment 8 by Carl Sai Baba

If religious denomination really is a mere private belief, why is it that we ALWAYS know the religious denomination of every candidate? The candidates themselves seem to think we should know.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:08:14 UTC | #931283

RDfan's Avatar Comment 9 by RDfan

What Wright et al and the religious seem to forget is this: religions have had contempt for each other -- and for non-believer -- for centuries. How else would you explain much of the religious wars of the past, not to mention the assaults on individual liberties by religious institutions in the past and the present?

When the Arabs (who were often Muslim) invaded North Africa or the Crusaders invaded the Middle East or the Conquistadors invaded the Americas or the European missionaries marched across the "Dark Continent" and elsewhere, they were driven, in part, by contempt of the benighted fools, as they saw it, that people the world. You only have to read some of the personal accounts of these invaders to see that. More than that, it was an often deadly contempt that they had for their adversaries -- contempt leading to countless atrocities.

While some atheists might share with the religious a contempt for views that aren't in accord with their own, no-one, as far as I can see, is making a logically sound claim that atheists complement their contempt or ridicule of the religious with deadly assaults on their opponents. The religious seem to have a monopoly on contempt as a pretext to killing and other abuses -- including human rights infractions. Nothing but contempt for women would lead the Catholic church to pass its anti-contraception laws and nothing but contempt for gays would lead some Ugandan Christian legislators to consider killing homosexuals. Out-spoken atheists, on the other hand, don't want to kill anyone or tell them what to do with their bodies.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:10:30 UTC | #931285

aroundtown's Avatar Comment 10 by aroundtown

Comment 7 by sbooder It sounds like the presenter of this show is more concerned with not offending his father than understanding that anyones belief is just as accessible to attack as is atheism in the US.

Yeah that one popped into my head too about his daddy. He was expressing his fathers participation in the delusion like it was a badge of honor, made me want to ask him if his dad got to wear a goofy hat. That's another thing that pisses me off with these people, what's up with the freaking clothes they wear? They think this crap is some sign that you are suppose to give deference to regarding it's supposed importance. It's just a costume for crying out loud with zero importance. Time to call foul on all this crud and the overall delusion too.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:13:02 UTC | #931286

Carl Sai Baba's Avatar Comment 11 by Carl Sai Baba

Wright's argument is a load of crap because we don't get to vote on every issue. We have to elect a politician and hope that they don't make a stupid decision on some future situation of which we are not yet aware. It is absolutely stupid to say that we should put these people in charge of an entire country without caring that they have a general tendency to believe in nonsense, all because we are afraid of offending them.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:35:27 UTC | #931289

sbooder's Avatar Comment 12 by sbooder

I have noticed too, that there is a glaring hypocrisy here.

We spend half our time being told that religion should be in the public domain, education for instance, as this piece was about, i.e. the teaching of ID. But as soon as we attack individuals on this or any other religious point, it all suddenly becomes a private belief!

Which is it please?

I will get the ball rolling. I am an atheist!! Not privately or publicly...just an atheist, and I am available for attack at parties, weddings and Bar Mitzvahs!

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:39:05 UTC | #931290

Quine's Avatar Comment 13 by Quine

I am with Jerry on this one. I generally think being nice to believers is a good thing, but not the way Wright goes about it.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:39:45 UTC | #931291

This Is Not A Meme's Avatar Comment 14 by This Is Not A Meme

lol @ 'methinks', how does that word survive if not for letters to the editor?

Do I have to read the article to dismiss the argument as infinitely regressive? Dawkins may inspire backlash amongst Creationists. The political Creationists are a backlash to the rise of secularism. The rise of secularism is a backlash to the persecution of reason, and so on.

So now it is suggested that Rationalists should lay down and allow the rise of mysticism, for fear of galvanizing mystic resolve? That's flawed thinking. Ayn Rand had a few gems, one of which is that a compromise between food and poison results in poison.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:47:49 UTC | #931293

sbooder's Avatar Comment 15 by sbooder

I am with Jerry on this one. I generally think being nice to believers is a good thing, but not the way Wright goes about it.

Who said anything about not being nice to believers? But if believers are offended by an attack on their beliefs, then so be it.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:50:52 UTC | #931294

MAJORPAIN's Avatar Comment 16 by MAJORPAIN

Ok, I listened to this again to give it a fair hearing.

Point goes to Richard. Sorry Mr. Wright, you're just wrong on this one.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:32:11 UTC | #931295

susanlatimer's Avatar Comment 17 by susanlatimer

What I particularly like about Jerry Coyne's article is that he evaluates the evidence. Accomodation doesn't seem to be working. That's all we need to know unless there's evidence to the contrary. Our gut feelings about it don't mean a lot.

What I remember clearly about my christian experiences (catholic and later, evangelical) is that it was not OK to question beliefs in that world. Everyone had to play along. That's what keeps the game going. What REALLY keeps the game going is that people on the outside treat it with kid gloves. It's not OK for them to be critical, either. So, where will the critical thinking come from?

It makes me think of a dysfunctional family decades ago, where a man could beat his wife and kids to a pulp but people would look away because that was within the family and none of their business. Sure, someone sticking their nose in might make him beat them harder but eventually he'd do that anyway.

At some point, somebody has to pipe up, "This is WRONG and ABSURD."

I'm grateful that people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens (and many others) understood the necessity of holding faith accountable. The more I learn, the more obviously necessary I see it is.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:40:28 UTC | #931297

S. Gudmundsson's Avatar Comment 18 by S. Gudmundsson

Concern troll is concerned.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 06:30:08 UTC | #931302

Vorlund's Avatar Comment 19 by Vorlund

Firstly I wish interviewers and presenters like Hayes would just 'shut the f**k up'. Their coffee fuelled interruptions are the height of ill manners.

It is hard to see where Wright is coming from just from the few sentences he uttered. The distinction needs to be drawn between daft beliefs which people resort to on a Sunday and allowing those beliefs to acquire the recognition and prestige to run rough shod over our laws, political systems, education and geopolitical landscape.

I do not have a problem socialising with people who hold various supernatural views though I consider those views wholly incorrect and in the context of the large political systems of mainstream religion dangerous. The few I know are affable, surprisingly intelligent and articulate, well mannered &c. I wouldn't seek to attack or humiliate them in a social setting because we have fundamental disgareements. This is simple good manners and in the words of Robert E Lee, 'he who humbles others humbles himself'. However being reasonable requires both parties to observe a few simple rules principally about not inflicting unsolicited peurile and inane ideas on others to force them to share the fetters of rank stupidity. These ideas encroach on the lives of millions to the extent that even those who refute them are caught up in the madness. In such circumstances it is required of all reasonable people (by which I mean those who base their lives on reason) to speak out against what is unreasonable.

None of my associates who hold any religious view at all would dare to ask me to sign a petition supporting sharia or give donations to catholic missions or attend a mass or insist they say grace at a dinner table.

Politicians who communicate with their imaginations are a danger to all humankind and those who pretend to in order to win votes are even worse. see Thomas Paine

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 06:41:35 UTC | #931304

TIKI AL's Avatar Comment 20 by TIKI AL

Wright needs to ask 100 recipients of trans-vaginal ultra sounds if they think Richard is not polite enough.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 06:46:17 UTC | #931305

debonnesnouvelles's Avatar Comment 21 by debonnesnouvelles

It is good that this debate is happening. Richard's point is revolutionary to a lot of people. "ridicule religion" - a novel idea to them. And it is actually the only reasonable approach to take in a political culture where religion is omnipresent.

But people aren't used to the idea, so of course, they will need to question it. I think it's good they do and that they have people like Richard answering their questions. To my mind it's nothing less than a revolution he is asking for. But that revolution is long overdue.

Thumbs up to the lady from the Washington Post, too.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 07:34:25 UTC | #931310

Jumped Up Chimpanzee's Avatar Comment 22 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee

Accommodation or forced submission to religious doctrine has been the default position for millennia. It is precisely what has allowed religion to remain so pervasive, powerful and privileged. The demand for respect is religion's greatest trick.

It's time to stop that.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 07:37:30 UTC | #931311

Chala's Avatar Comment 23 by Chala

If Dawkins' words provoke a 'a reaction against perceived threat' then the individual is not on the fence. Dawkins is correct to say it like it is. The words may seem biting ordinarily but, in this case, actually quiet measured considering the entrenched barbarity (faith and religion) they are directed against.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:18:29 UTC | #931314

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 24 by Stafford Gordon

This should be opening up the debate nicely, but in my experience there is a threshold across which it's not possible to pass when debating with the religious.

And no matter which side it stems from, abusiveness achieves nothing; I know, because I've experienced it; even from a member of the clergy.

Water off a duck's back, but revealing.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:19:39 UTC | #931315

irate_atheist's Avatar Comment 25 by irate_atheist

I agree with Quine because he's smarter than me.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:46:59 UTC | #931316

Metamag's Avatar Comment 26 by Metamag

Comment 2 by yanquetino :

Wright just doesn’t get it. Such “accommodation,” such a “touchy feely” approach to dealing with others’ beliefs is precisely why religion has persisted through the centuries to this very day.

This is so simple to understand and backed up by evidence. So much that it seems very likely that such sentiments are coming from a psychological source of jealousy and being contrarian for the sake of attracting notice.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:21:16 UTC | #931318

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 27 by AtheistEgbert

But is Dawkins really pursuing our common goal in a reasonable way?

The answer to the question is yes.

I got a chance to run my argument by Dawkins (whom I'm a great admirer of, and whose writing has had a great influence on me).

Well then, where is the disrespect?

I also found Chris Hayes programme brilliant and intelligent. He might be fearful of offending religious sensibilities, but there are plenty of atheists who are not.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:31:23 UTC | #931320

ANTIcarrot's Avatar Comment 28 by ANTIcarrot

Now, suppose you’re a conservative Christian in Tennessee,

If I'm a conservative christian, and I decide to oppose evolution simply because I dislike someone Mr Dawkins - then I'm already far too stupid to be persuaded by reason, logic, or evidence - and I am already the sworn political enemy of athiests everywhere.

Why would athiests want to waste their time chasing such a lost cause?

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:29:15 UTC | #931324

Agrajag's Avatar Comment 29 by Agrajag

Comment 8 by Carl Sai Baba

If religious denomination really is a mere private belief, why is it that we ALWAYS know the religious denomination of every candidate? The candidates themselves seem to think we should know.

Isn't it obvious? It's so we'll know they're not... >shudder<.... ATHEISTS!
Steve

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:32:05 UTC | #931325

peter mayhew's Avatar Comment 30 by peter mayhew

We need to clean mumbo-jumbo out of our politics and that means cleaning it out of our elected representatives. The way to do this is to expose it.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:38:22 UTC | #931327