Richard Dawkins says trans activists 'bullied' JK Rowling for standing up for women's rights

Hardly equivalent. Discussing biology requires knowledge about actual, real things, but you don't need to know the finer points of the Bible in order to come to an opinion about whether God exists. Lots of people know all the minutiae about the Marvel universe, whereas I don't know the first thing about it. But I still know it's not real.

This doesn't work either. It would also require for there to be no real world evidence for the existence of salamanders.

Although presumably belief in evolution is protected as a belief.

It’s more like someone trying to tell everyone they know the truth about the evolution of salamanders when in fact they think salamanders are mythological fire dwellers.

Hardly. For that analogy to work if would require a group of people to insist that salamanders are a real supernatural entity in the first instance and for society to go along with that idea taking it completely seriously and protecting people’s right to believe it in law. That is the status of religion and it is also now the status of gender identity ideology. There’s not (afaik) any protections in relation to a person’s belief about the evolution of amphibians.

I listened to RD talk at Greenbelt last year. I thought he was very interesting.

Good on him for supporting JKR.

Honestly, you are typing nonsense.

Not only is his philosophy sound (and rooted in falsifiability, not po-mo soul-chasing modishness), he is the most brilliant living biologist on the planet.

Go make a meme out of that. He came up with the contagion-led concept, by the way.

He's welcome to publish the book, and he certainly made lots of money off of it, but he still looked like a boob to anyone with any background in philosophy or theology.

It's not like people being told they can't talk about gender if they aren't trans, it's more like someone trying to tell everyone they know the truth about the evolution of salamanders when in fact they think salamanders are mythological fire dwellers. No surprise if people think it's a bit of a joke.

No, but that doesn't matter as long as you shout it loud enough and often enough.

Of course it will happen. It’s easy to dismiss and discredit people on the basis of their immutable characteristics rather than on the quality of their arguments. It’s not terribly convincing though is it?

He can, however, be dismissed as a white, male, cisgender dinosaur who is blind to his privilege and who doesn't understand the wood for the trees. I hope this doesn't happen but I suspect it will.

I like Richard Dawkins, he's the kind of person that enjoys actual debate, so I wouldn't expect to always agree with him. I do come from a family that will argue, in a friendly way, over anything and work in academia, so I am probably more used to his style.

I saw him talk a few times, way back, about biology and he was so passionate about it. He only veered into religion because the anti-evolution people were sniping at him constantly, they essentially "started it," so I don't blame him for answering back. His interpretation of Christianity is not going to align with everyone's as there is hardly a lot of agreement between the Christians of the world. He was answering back, mainly, to the Christian "Intelligent" design, Earth is 4000 year old crew who had been pestering him. If you have a more moderate interpretation, then it would seem he is wrong, but I'd focus on the people making Christianity look stupid, rather than the person calling them out.

He is an important voice in this debate as he can't be dismissed as an American Right wing Christian, nor by the "Friendly Neighbourhood biologists" with their new facts about clownfish.

Good for Dawkins.

I'm in NZ. Dawkins was here recently and made a right twit of himself by complaining about the use of Maori words in official documents. Maori is one of the official languages here and complaining about its use is akin to saying Welsh people shouldn't use Welsh in Wales.

He's a fine scientist but he doesn't know when he's not sufficiently informed to give an opinion that deserves respect. His attitude seems to be a) science proves everything worth knowing b) I'm a fine scientist, therefore c) all my opinions are worth knowing. Actually lots of them aren't, and his expressing them detracts from what he has to say that is worth knowing.

I doubt RD cares much if some people think he’s spouting nonsense. The God Delusion did pretty well Didn’t it? You’re never going to please all of the people when it come to religion and since religion affects all of us in one way or another we should all feel free to share our opinion on it. It’s the same with trans activism. The amount of times trans activists try and argue that only trans people should speak about trans issues because non trans people don’t understand or because it doesn’t affect us.

In any case, I think he's been on the outs with the Rationalists' for a while now. As far as I can see, big-R Rationalism seems to be a sort of pop-logical positivism. So I'm not totally surprised to see it succumb to contradictions.

If you are going to pontificate about it publicly, it's helpful to know enough to avoid making yourself look like a boob. And it's not just theology where he is a boob, he makes playground level arguments about epistemology too.

If they can't smear him with being a right wing Christian he'll have to be a Nazi or a fascist.

Would have been nice if he'd stood up for JKR at the time.

Good old science! 😊

The God Delusion is Dawkin’s opinion presumably.

An opinion, no, but I read the God Delusion and it was clear he really doesn't understand Christian theology. Given that he was trying to deconstruct it, he ended up making a very poor argument.

Nevertheless, he does understand biology and he is a revered figure (or was, at least) in the New Atheist circles. It will also be difficult to paint him as a Christian fundamentalist.

Also 'Christianity' as we see it in all its forms today represents two thousand years of argument and disagreement on the meaning and definition of words describing the tiniest to the most vast thing.
We don't have Christianity now without the theologians and believers disagreeing for all that time and splitting apart; each position often hitched comfortably to a prevailing political power. Dawkins has as much right to talk about religion as anyone. You don't have to agree with anyone.

I believe a democracy must have free speech for everyone and an open forum for debate. Let people win their argument fairly. Silencing your enemy doesn't win an argument in the long run.

Dawkins is a provocateur with some awful views about Islam. But on this matter he is right.

🤣