Dawkins tweets support for Kathleen Stock

[NutellaEllaElla]

"I didn’t know of #KathleenStock until her tar-&-feathering prompted me (among many, as sales figures show) to read Material Girls. So far excellent. Refreshingly sensible. Superfluous debunking of ludicrous anti-scientific philosophies, but she has to because surrounded by them."
twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1465004190116188160?s=20

Agree with RoyalCorgi.

He's going to be a tough one for the anti women activists to try to paint as a right wing fundamentalist on the one hand, or as a male leader of a womens movement on the other.

@InspiralCoalescenceRingdown Thoroughly enjoyed those 2 articles, thanks. I see I was too quick to judge.

The Hayden screenshot on that thread is a gift.

As is the one where India Willoughby gets Tommy Sheridan mixed up with Tommy Robinson

For posterity

Looks like we need to cancel women's rights as a concept because a logo is vaguely similar to a virtually unknown historical nazi symbol.

Right, what's for dinner then, now we sorted that out?

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

But where was he before?

Golden bridge. We can't afford to care about this as the consequences of not supporting others to bring out the end to this are too grave.

Helen Joyce says that whether we like it or not, all of this will only be solved when the men get involved. And they will say that the women said it the wrong way, or that they couldn't listen to us because of our high, squeaky voices. And we will have to accept it because this erosion of our status as a sex class and our sex-based rights is harming women and children.

Golden bridge and support for every step towards it.

Yes. And they are starting to come out now. Thank goodness.

@ErrolTheDragon

Agree with RoyalCorgi.

He's going to be a tough one for the anti women activists to try to paint as a right wing fundamentalist on the one hand, or as a male leader of a womens movement on the other.

Typically people like this they will accuse of being Islamaphobic.

There is a huge difference between demanding perfection etc etc

And saying well this is going to bring to wide audience good but don't get too excited in general / embrace him with excitement.

Well I think so anyway.

Which may also be hard to make stick... I've seen RD being criticised for focussing on Christianity too much and not enough on Islam & other religions. Not that logic tends to come into such accusations very much.

My worry is that people will outside the GC landscape will see this and compare it to some of the bad takes he has become known for such as the Muslima letter and eugenics - there's a radio interview he did recently with a presenter whose child had Down's Syndrome that is appaling.

Dawkins rather militant atheism has always struck me as suspiciously religious in it's fervour ....

Agree.

I was raised RC but never believed any of it. For as long as I can remember. Eg during assembly when local priest spoke (convent school 1 hour a month I think it was he had). I thought eh? God up in heaven looking down etc? True, actually real? No way.

I don't go around behaving as he so famously has. The God delusion? Even the title is extremely goady!

Why so nasty, so aggressive? The only thing I can think is that he's-

1. Loves attention, lives starting fights and enjoys getting up people's noses.
2. Is not ACTUALLY totally sure. He doth protest too much.
3. Has something personal leading him to not be neutral at all, as I am pretty sure he claims.
4. More money in controversy.

?

@ScreamingMeMe

For posterity

Is Hayden Yoda?

Maybe money. If he was actually interested in being right he'd have learned more about it.

His books are really interesting and I've learned a lot from them. He clearly does love a fight though. I guess he's got bored of arguing with religious people and has moved onto another 'interesting' ideology.

You don't think he knew his topic?

I've not read the book tbh. I'd imagined he backed up his views pretty comprehensively given the book was so different read, discussed, reviewed etc with discussions on TV etc!

What areas did he not actually know about?

@SerendipityJane

Dawkins rather militant atheism has always struck me as suspiciously religious in it's fervour ....

Religious fervour does need militant atheism to counteract it. Once a religion has sufficiently 'softened', it paves the way for a 'softer' atheism too.

People like Dawkins, Hitchens etc are sort of viewed with a mixture of awe and respect by many of us not lucky enough to have grown up in a society where religion has been mostly 'neutered'. When criticism of religion / god or open expression of atheism can have serious repercussions including death, reading or watching Dawkins is pretty refreshing... even electrifying. (And risky if you are caught.)

I think many older ex-Muslims, ex-JWs, ex-Mormons etc have a soft spot for Dawkins as his books were probably part of our difficult journey away from religion and its authoritarian grip on our minds and lives. I have a few of his on my bookshelf.

His books are really interesting and I've learned a lot from them. He clearly does love a fight though. I guess he's got bored of arguing with religious people and has moved onto another 'interesting' ideology.

Bring it on. It would be amazing if he wrote a book like The God Delusion about it.

@CheeseMmmm

You don't think he knew his topic?

I've not read the book tbh. I'd imagined he backed up his views pretty comprehensively given the book was so different read, discussed, reviewed etc with discussions on TV etc!

What areas did he not actually know about?

No.

As I said above. Here is a guy who made his argument based on epistemology - the study of how we know things - without having read any epistemology, knowing anything about it, or even the meaning of the word. Truly like pronouncing on serious biological topics only having read a book about birds.

He really thinks logical positivism is the obvious truth, that it explains how we know (and don't know) things, and he needs to make no argument for this. Logical positivism is a difficult position to maintain from the perspective of philosophy, there is a whole history of discussion about that. And about the nature of knowing in science which he takes for granted is the only way to really know anything - an idea any philosopher of science would laugh at. He also routinely misunderstands or simply doesn't know about the theological ideas he tries to criticize.

No one in philosophy takes him seriously as a thinker on religion, even at the popular culture level.

I think LobsterNapkin is criticising RD for not writing the book they think he should have written rather than the one he intended to. It's a book written by a scientist from a scientist's perspective, and his intended audience wasn't particularly philosophers or theologians.

I sincerely hope the timing of this is coincidental!

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/richard-dawkins-tesla-attacked-by-cyclist-oxford-0rdx7cx52?shareToken=51eb3dfe537d7a7a58389417d5f2e4f8

I consider my religious upbringing to have been abusive. Imagine telling a child, in all seriousness, that if he or she rejects dogma that is patently absurd, even to a child, they will literally burn in hell for all eternity. The fear and guilt instilled by this and other practices can be profoundly damaging. I’m glad Dawkins doesn’t pull his punches with regard to religion. In my eyes, the absurdities and proselytism of the trans movement are broadly similar to the absurdities and proselytism of religion. It was the first thing that struck me about it.

I think Dawkins's exasperation with religion exactly matches our own exasperation with transgender ideology. The whole edifice of the ideology is based on flimsy foundations.

You don't need to know about theology or even epistemology to understand the flaws in religion.

You don't need to have read Judith Butler to understand the flaws in transgender ideology.

In both cases, an ability to use logic and reason will do the job.

You don't need to know about theology or even epistemology to understand the flaws in religion.

I doubt many believers know that much about these subjects either. It's been observed that studying theology tends to decrease religiosity. I don't know but would guess that a rigorous epistemological challenge might be liable uproot more believers than nonbelievers. But, it might not make for a very readable book.