Richard Dawkins takes on the Net

Thank goodness for that. The nastiness is probably out of control, and will find residence elsewhere. But Richard Dawkins has actually challenged part of his fan-base, and he didn't need to do that.

I think that he's to be commended for standing up for civility. Well said that man.

GV

Unfair to just see this as applying only to those that comment on Dawkins site:

What Dawkins identified (below) is rife across comments boards throughout the web (why else does the BBC also have moderation?):

““Imagine seeing your face described by an anonymous poster, as ‘a slack-jawed t**d-in-the-mouth mug’,” he wrote. “Surely there has to be something wrong with people who can resort to such over-the-top language, overreacting so spectacularly to something so trivial.”
https://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article7041878.ece

An anthropologist called Michael Wesch once conducted a study of YouTube as a class project.

The result, ‘An anthropological introduction to YouTube’, is now quite famous; not least on YouTube itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAO-lZ4_hU

A quote:
“Some of the comments on YouTube make you weep for the future of humanity just for the spelling alone, never mind the obscenity and the naked hatred.”

Wesch came up with a formula to explain the sheer naked hatred that is often expressed in comments:

Anonymity + physical distance + ephemeral dialogue = hatred as public performance.

Will, see? The little spats that we all enjoy on your blog have been positively charmant in comparison! Dawkins is right though - there are some pretty spiteful punters out there, and if one's objective is the promotion of rational thinking, that is at odds with some of the crazy stuff.

-Happy Polite Heliopolitan

Dawkins doesn't behave like a gentleman and a scholar so it's hardly surprising his site behaves the way he does. Read this article of his on the Catholic Church and tell me that it's temperate and civil.

https://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2009/10/give_us_your_misogynists_and_bigots.html

Isn't there even ONE journalist who will bother to check the facts of this (or any!) story before mouthing off about it? The vulgarities Dawkins cited were NOT aimed at him, they were NOT posted on his website, and they were NOT the cause of the forum lockdown but the CONSEQUENCE.

Tens of thousands of perfectly civil and in many cases heavily researched postings have already been deleted by the trigger-happy administrators of the site, and the entire database of two MILLION posts is likely to be destroyed. The spreading of the truth about this sorry saga is not aided by lazy journalism colluding in promoting the 'official' version of events.

Dawkins can do what he wants with his site, but for all his genuine intellect and achievements, he has been foolish to place so little value on what he has now thrown away: a thriving, intelligent community, an immense database of trenchant discourse, and a phenomenal amount of goodwill.

Dear forum moderators,

We know that this is a big decision. We know some of you moderators will be against this change. We ask that you respect our decision and help make this transition as smooth as possible. These decisions have all been approved by our organization, and we ask that you don’t add to our work by causing trouble.

We will not be migrating moderator roles to the new discussion site. Again, we’re sure this might come as a shock, and we hope you don’t take it personally. We can’t thank you enough for your contributions to the old forum. The new system will not require a large team of moderators, as the discussion area will be more focused. We encourage you to contribute to the new discussions area, and are welcome to flag inappropriate activity for review.

Please understand that this transition is going to be a lot of work for us. I’m sure as you read this, you will have a lot of questions and concerns. We also know that this is a change from what we had been discussing previously. This announcement does not require a response, but we wanted you to be aware. Please do not email Richard with complaints, we have discussed this transition thoroughly with him, and he is currently on tour in Australia and New Zealand. Please do not attempt to inflame the users, start any petitions, or “relocate” groups of users to a separate forum. Do not use any of the data held by the foundation (such as email addresses) through the control panel to cause any trouble. Any behavior of this kind will not be tolerated. We don’t expect you to do these things, but we say all of this only to discourage any well-intentioned moves that would only frustrate the situation.

Many thanks again.

Josh Timonen

Andrew Chalkley

The Richard Dawkins Foundation

Is it really that hard for you Journalists to actually find out the truth before just mindlessly rattling out some blog on the internet? I iwsh we could relive the old days where there was such a thing in journalism called research.

To cut a very long story short those nasty comments RD is talking about came AFTER the forum was shut down and all its volunteers and members were treated like crap. And these comments were made the following day on a third party website, not on Richard Dawkins forum and again to reiterate AFTER everyone was treated no better than scum for no reason.

For a full story with accounts from RDF volunteers; https://www.rationalskepticism.org/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=454&start=0

or see an excellent blog by Peter Harrison (former) RDF Volunteer; https://realityismyreligion.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/locked-entry-will-open-soon/

Regards,
HughMcB

I have to agree with the comments expressing amazement at how sloppy the reporting on this dispute has been. Five minutes of searching on the net would have turned up the real sequence of events and shown that the "abusive language" was the frustrated RESPONSE to the high-handed and insensitive treatment of the RD.net moderators by Dawkins' minions, not the CAUSE of it. The latter impression is a bit of spin put out to cover up the real scandal, as detailed in the links already given. Yet it seems journalists these days simply lift whatever version of the story that comes most easily to hand and run with that. Checking facts is too hard.

Already this totally false version of the story has been presented by The Times and The Telegraph and several technology bloggers. Now the BBC is exhibiting the same laziness. Get your facts straight and present the REAL story, not the rearguard action and spin.

@Tim O Neill,

Well done, this sloppy reporting (across the board not just here) is quite frankly disheartening.

Is this what the media has come to?
Copy and paste whatever is in their MS Outlook inbox?

Tim all your old friends are here; https://www.rationalskepticism.org/index.php

Those 'evil comments' were NOT posted to him on his forum, they were quote-mined from elsewhere. Sorry, but it is true.
I love R Dawkins work, I have the utmost respect for him, but he needs to read thru P. Harrisons blog to see the bigger picture.
Also, why not fix the forum bug, reopen it, AND section off the science section you desire. The mod pre-approved one I mean. Otherwise you simply have NO forum.
Please fix sir, we really want it to work. You can have both.
It's so easy. I'll buy you a pint!

I know I am a bit thick but why was one site closed and another opened? Managed differently? More focused? I agree with William's view of RD and remain a huge fan, I always think of RD and Hitchens as good cop bad cop.

DK

Having been a witness to the events of that night I can only say Dawkins is himself suffering from The Josh Delusion.

What I saw was a admin post stating the changes, the user base saying they did not like the proposed format as it risked censoring out valid opinions to a topic that did not fit the editors mandate, or ignore any casual users question, especially mistaken theories which might get corrected for a University educated person need only apply to post format.

The Admins of RDF did not like this one bit and simply run amoke deleting descenting posts, users suggesting alternative forums to talk in removed, wiping whole accounts, and what was really unforgivable; some of the former mods have said the RDF team deleted the very evidence they actually done what they did.

If this claim of deleting the evidence was made about an organisation which RDF is being a charity, those involved would be under investigation and if the case proven, be instantly dismissed for professional misconduct I think.

“How can anybody feel that strongly about something so small? Have we stumbled on some dark, territorial atavism? Have private fiefdoms been unwittingly trampled?”

Well this seems true about the RDF admins on a number of issues that night. Is it any wonder fourteen hour later after the forum shutdown people started venting anger and frustration at those who committed the act? Even less of a wonder they are still attempting to place the evidence before the public when the media accepts the Dawkins response as unquestionable authority on the issue especially as it can be proven foul comments were directed at one of the leaders of the admin team 14 hours after Richard claims they caused the forum to be locked down. Talk about weasel words, truth economy and deluded facts.

Now that plenty of evidence has been presented that the version of the story presented in the blog post above is a distortion of what happened, are we going to get a response from William Crawley? Or, better still, an update or correction?

Sorry to hear of your trouble, guys - I'll pray for you.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Er... like... get over it, folks, yeah? Nobody's dead.

Er... like... get over it, folks, yeah? Nobody's dead.

Indeed Helio, people need to get out of the house a bit more.

Helio

"Nobody's dead"

Exactly.

All this huffing and puffing over a web-site, flip.

I'm beginning to feel sorry for Mr. Dawkins, and that's a first; is this reverse psychology or something?!

"All this huffing and puffing over a web-site, flip."

It's not like this mere "web-site" was simply people chatting about celebrity gossip. There were posters there who had put in hundreds of hours writing thousands of words of detailed, carefully-referenced material on evolution, science and history. A lot of it went down the drain when the Admins went berserk and tried to shut down dissent. I myself have spent two years and thousands and thousands of words battling the "Jesus never existed" loons with detailed historical argument. Luckily I can now go back and salvage most of that from the wreckage before the whole thing gets flushed down the toilet, but those who suffered the petty wrath of Dawkins' out-of-control minions can't. Their painstaking work is gone - forever.

So "just website"? How would you feel? Nice to see some instructive displays of Christian charity from some here.

I think a lot of people who post on those blogs were brought up in homes where they were indoctrinated into religion as children and didn't question their beliefs until they were adults able to think for themselves. I think they are angry at what they feel was betrayal of their right to discover life for themselves. They were sold a bill of goods they had no way to avoid. I think that for many of them, posting is a way to vent this anger. It is anger at their parents, those in charge of their former religion, religion in general, society that tolerates and promotes it, and at other people who haven't come to the same conclusion. Many atheists I've met seem preoccupied with religion and their atheism almost obsessively. I can see their point but religion is hardly the only evil in the world, it's just the one they are angriest at.

It makes me grateful that while I was presented with the rituals and religious beliefs of my ancestors as well as their culture, I was never in any way coerced to believe or not believe in anything. Nobody cared when I didn't accept them. I think my parents were much more horrified at my political views which were diametrically opposed to theirs and which they could do nothing about, my religious beliefs or lack of them met with idifference. Therefore I am not angry at all and see these tormented souls as being every bit as pitiable as their counterparts who are still believers. How strange to hear people battle so vehemently and emotionally over an issue which should be completely unimportant to them. When accepted matter of factly, disbelief in god is about as natural as disbelief that the sun will rise in the west tomorrow instead of the east. What is there to argue so bitterly about?

Unfortunately the previous poster is unable to appreciate his fortune in that his parents weren't as set in religious dogma as many of the posters on Richard Dawkins site found refuge from. When one is refused education of science, and evolution, and has to suffer the nonsense of creationist trickery and misinformation, not to mention in many cases violence offered to some in American States where to be an atheist is of lower status than a black paedophile infected with HIV!

Some moderators lost thousands of hours worth of scientific posts and information, by the whim of a vindictive controller.

Richard Dawkins needs to reassess who exactly he wishes to support his cause, if all this is just 'trivia' to him. He will be able to rescue his reputation, but only if he communicates when he returns from New Zealand, and actually reads for himself how his 85,000 supporters were considered insignificant!

Tim, I feel your pain, having been on the receiving end of a similar decision on a web forum I used to visit. One thing - I doubt that it is all truly *lost*. It'll be somewhere - let the heat go out first. I would probably agree with you on a lot of things (I find the "Jesus never existed" arguments thoroughly uncompelling, although I defend anyone's right to make a case for them). But I agree with PZ Myers on this. [Mods, please don't delete the link - it is relevant]

Incidentally, Will, when are we going to hear your interview with PZ when he was over in Belfast recently?

-H

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Like some of the others above, I too am shocked at the inaccurate coverage this story has got in the mainstream media. I believe Hugh above posted a link to Peter Harrison's blog (realityismyreligion), and this should be required reading for all reporting or commenting on this topic.

So to reiterate what others have said - no one is spitting the dummy about the move to a different forum structure. We are 'spitting the dummy' over the willful intellectual vandalism of thousands of serious scientific posts, and a long list of childish punitive actions all carried out in Richard Dawkins' name by his web admin staff.

Further to this, we are particularly disappointed with Richard Dawkins response to this debacle as posted on his website. Unfortunately it is inaccurate and intellectually dishonest. In short, it is full of the very same types of intellectual fallacies and pathetic quote-mining that Dawkins accuses his religious opponents of doing. It would be hilariously ironic if it wasn't for the shame this event has brought upon the global atheist movement. We can only hope that Richard recants his inaccurate post and updates it with a more accurate account, and response to, what actually happened on that day.

Tim

I can appreciate that a focal point for communication has gone and people are frustrated by that, but how is my comment an absence of christian charity?

Many people here too, on W&T, have communicated a lot, but the BBC could pull the plug, what then? Surely there are more important things in life. That's all I'm saying.

There are many angles from which to view the demise of the Dawkins forums. Yes, Richard Dawkins is within his rights to close the forums down. Yes, he provided space in which a community developed. Yes, he let this community down by giving a sudden death to the moderators ie that they would not be needed in the new website format. Yes, the moderators were badly treated by the website management. Yes, Dawkins has been, seemingly, provided with mined quotes from another web forum - quotes which were a response not a cause of the chaos which followed the announcement of the new forum format.

However, within all of this there is the reality of what the Dawkins forums actually became. However hard the moderators worked, and many of them put in long hours of unpaid work, they were just not up to the job of representing Richard Dawkins and his Foundation.

The internet can be likened to the wild west of days gone by. Unfortunately, for a public figure, this is the sort of place that can tarnish his image. Regardless of how well a moderating team can provide house rules, guidelines, for posting, there are those who are very clever at skirting as close to the line as they can get away with. Some posters are experts at bullying, experts at intimidation and ridicule of the viewpoints put forward by others. All this was acceptable on the Dawkins forums. They were not a clear thinking oasis. They were contaminated by people on their own personal mission to debunk what they themselves deemed to be wrong.

One such Dawkins poster has now posted here. TimONeill - and has made no bones about the fact that his battle was with the ‘loons’ who took a mythicist position re the gospel story. It was this type of personal agenda that has contributed to the demise of the Dawkins forums. Basically, the forums have self-destructed. Once the field has been split into ‘Dumb atheists’ and ‘smart atheism’ - the internal conflict is bound to have consequences.

One very recent event in this regard highlights a shocking failure on the part of the moderating team. A charge of plagiarism was laid against a new poster. The subsequent appeal to the moderating team left no one in doubt as to which side of the fence the moderators were sitting.

Plagiarism and Moderation:

https://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=105746

However hard the end of the forums are for the community that began there - bottom line is that Richard Dawkins does have a name brand to protect, he has a reputation that has been well earned over many years. The end could have been managed better. But that the end of the forums in their present context was necessary is something that needs to be clearly stated.

"how is my comment an absence of christian charity?"

Back when I was still a Christian, that whole "charity" thing involved a lot of empathy and no gloating *schadenfreude*. Maybe things have changed.

"Surely there are more important things in life. That's all I'm saying."

And it's a stupid thing to say in relation to anything that doesn't affect you. "Someone burnt down your local church? Well, 57 people were killed in a bomb in Kabul, so there are more important things in life. That's all I'm saying."

There are more important things in life? Sure. But this blog post is about this *particular* thing. Try to focus.

Any of the regulars on this blog getting a horrible sensation/delightful frisson* of déjà vu? Does the word "Whitewell" spring to mind?

*delete according to preference

Nice wriggling there Will, but you also said:

"But, to be fair, the Richard Dawkins I have met is a gentleman and a scholar, and I am not at all suprised by his stand against incivility."

The whole debacle was not a "stand against incivility", it was a unwarranted defensive reaction against totally justified outrage. To pretend it was originally a "stand against incivility" is total nonsense. Yet that's the garbage version that your original blog post peddles. You tell only part of the story and you (now) know it.

Don't try to pretend otherwise. Time to amend your original post to reflect the real sequence of events

Tim

I fear I'm in a no win situation here but I'll try to explain.

I can be as cynical about Christianity as any Atheist and my first reference to 'prayer' illustrated that. As an ex Christian you'll know how the word prayer could be used as some kind of cure all with little meaning, I used it in that sense, I don't expect Atheists to think prayer will fix anything.

I then attempted to recognise your frustration, but I maintain, there are more important things: Haiti, people trying to make a living on the rubbish dumps of the world, caring for the sick and dying; those are the things I think of when I think of charity be that religious or humanist charity. Why say this on this thread, because of what I see as overreaction.

So apologies if I caused offence, it wasn't intented as gloating, I was trying to suggest that maybe a bit of balance would be helpful, and I don't plan saying any more on the matter

Two small points;
1. I am only interested in the religious debate because I believe it shapes our lives. Stem cell research, planes into buildings, overpopulation, spread of aids, children suffering unnecessarily.

Religion divides, look at any part of the world. I am looking out on a view of Belfast and reflecting on the evils of religion and all that happened here, all in the name of a handful of mythical characters in the near east. We all pay a terrible price for those who believe.... that's why it matters.

2. I cannot help thinking RD must be able to empathise with God this week. He created a little world, became annoyed at how some corrupted it, so destroyed it. He did provide an ark in the form of a new place. You gotta laugh.

Thank you for posting, William. Very enjoyable.
Regards
DK

"I maintain, there are more important things: Haiti, people trying to make a living on the rubbish dumps of the world, caring for the sick and dying; those are the things I think of when I think of charity be that religious or humanist charity. Why say this on this thread, because of what I see as overreaction."

Oh please - you can find something "more important" for just about *any* issue you care to mention. Try this - find me a dispute between the many fractured fragments of Christianity that *AREN'T* less important that people suffering Haiti or kids on rubbish dumps. Any luck? Yes, exactly. So please spare us the specious high school debating ploys and stop cluttering up this topic is feeble garbage.

With all due respect, Will, I still feel your "summary" is contributing to the perpetuation of some of the myths of this debate that are flying about in the mainstream media. You state:

"Dawkins has intervened in a dispute about the moderation of his official website. He says the nastiness of comments added to **the site**...."

The thing is, that the comments weren't added to HIS site (richarddawkins.net), they were added to a another site and forum altogether (rationalia.com).

"Doubtlessly, some will say that the stridency of the new atheism movement may partly explain the aggressiveness one finds on the Dawkins website;"

Once again, the aggressiveness which your article addresses, didn't occur on Dawkins' website. It occurred on another site well after richarddawkins.net forum had effectively been shutdown.

"But, to be fair, the Richard Dawkins I have met is a gentleman and a scholar, and I am not at all suprised by his stand against incivility."

Let's just be clear here. The "incivility" that he talks about is specifically related to a handful of abusive posts made by a small number of former mods and members (I believe it is only 3 or so people responsible) directed towards his website administrator. And as such, it can hardly be called a "stand" against anything. What it was, was an emotional response devoid of reasoning and evidence. Since then, many emails have been sent to Dawkins, and posts written on blogs and news sites, explaining how he has got this one wrong. And we are all still waiting on a clarification, if indeed one is even coming.

"My post focused on one aspect of this controversy: Richard Dawkin's comments about the incivility of some of the discourse in a debate about moderation on his site."

Which conveniently ignored the context of that "incivility" and pretended it was something to do with what you called "the stridency of the new atheism movement". Rather than the totally understandable and perfectly justifiable anger at some shoddy treatment. But hey, let's not let some mere *context* get in the way at some cheap swipes at "new atheism". That would make way too much sense.

"it is clear that many commenters are angry about new community moderation rules"

No, that is not even a minor part of the problem. Again, you don't seem to be paying the slightest bit of attention. Hint - people having thousands of hours of contributions deleted, attempts at communicating between members so they can go elsewhere disrupted, external links "rickrolled" by childish admins. See anything here that might be just a *TAD* annoying?

How hard is this stuff for you to grasp Will? Do you need some help? Report the real story please. It's really not that complicated.

My apologies Will,

but you are mistaken in a couple of points.

1) Richard Dawkins did not "intervene". He posted an inflammatory remark on a forum that was locked, a day after everything was all over.

2) You do not have to take his word for it that the "vitriolic remarks" were posted on his web site before the event. We have tracked down every such comment and can show they were all at rationalia.com after the event. The full list is here: https://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=9148&hilit=outrage&start=195#p356012

Cheers.

"Tim, I know from the tone of your comments here, that you feel some anger about what has happened on the RD.net forum."

Gee Will, you think?

"My post dealt with Richard Dawkins's comments about the language people have used to express their anger."

And the anger that I and others have expressed at this weirdly *narrow* focus is centred on the fact that this isn't the story. Are you not interested in the actual story Will or do you think having a BBC blog that you can focus on carefully-selected peripheral trivia is a good thing?

Here's a radical idea - how about you blog on the *real* story? No-one else outside the atheist bubble is buddy, so it might actually be a legitimate idea. Wow, it might even get you some attention as a judicious and objective commentator. Any attraction there Will? Give it some thought.

The real story in all of this? The mods stepped out of line. Their job was to comply with the directives given them by the webite management. They did not do that. That the forum community was going to be upset re the message that came their way detailing the context of the new website - almost beyond doubt. What the moderation team had to do was to calm the waters not insight a mutiny by publically revealing the content of their own letter from the website management. That is where the whole thing started down the path to the current fiasco.

“ As you can guess, the regular members were furious. A complaints thread appeared in Tech Support and quickly filled with countless users all expressing the same disappointment, sadness and anger at what was happening. Some even blamed the moderation team at first, since not all members are aware of how the staff are structured. It wasn’t clear that the moderation team had nothing to do with this. To help explain, one moderator posted Josh’s message to the mods, telling the staff that they are no longer needed.......” Peter Harrison’s blog post.

The mods were not caught in the middle of all this. Those in the middle were those, the website management, that were having to implement the decision of Richard Dawkins to change his website. The moderation team had a choice to make - and they chose to go with the disgruntled forum community.

Once that mod decision was made - then, obviously, the website management sought to take control of the Dawkins forum - and thus more issues were generated re the loss of large amounts of postings. And so a tit for tat escalated the whole saga between the mods and the website management.

One issue seems to be overlooked - and that is that the new website format would no longer require the present team of moderators. Which does raise the question - if they were to be kept on as moderators within the new website format - would they have been so quick to light the fires of mutiny?

As to the community issue - of the around 85.000 members of the Dawkins website, the number of regular posters to the forums is very small in comparison. Even now, with a website that is read only, the membership of the Dawkins website is continually growing since this debacle began. And what does that really say? It says that people are primarily members of the Richard Dawkins website for some connection to Richard Dawkins - support for his website is support for Dawkins and his Foundation. The forum was a small and incidental part of that bigger picture.

Perhaps Dawkins could have read the situation better and made some effort to dispose of the forum in a manner that would satisfy the community members. But really - why put such a burden upon the man. He provided, for a few years, an opportunity for atheists, particularly new and young atheists, to hang out in an accepting environment. But, eventually, children grow up and have no further need for the comforts of a kindergarten. If the Dawkins environment has been successful, then there should be many new atheists able to set foot outside of its confines - and able to set about whatever community efforts they want to continue.

Dawkins does say:

“If I ever had any doubts that RD.net needs to change, and rid itself of this particular aspect of Internet culture, they are dispelled by this episode.”

Dawkins has seen the need to change his website format. Whatever his actual reasons - that he has seen the need for change is enough. That the forum community are disheartened is a given. That the mod team chose mutiny instead of supporting both Richard Dawkins and supporting the forum community through this difficult change, is the true story of what transpired here.

Indeed, Richard Dawkins is a shinning star in the atheist firmament - but there are others. The danger for Dawkins in having facilitated an atheist community on his web forums, is that once all those atheist ‘cats’ are herded - they can transform into ‘sheep’ so very quickly. He had to cut the cords and set free all those atheist ‘cats’...Well, done, Richard.

Having read some of the above comments I think little needs to be explained as to why RD took the action he did. Tim, start your own blog somewhere and then the world can choose to read your story, and how you express yourself, or not.

Kind regards
DK

It's a bit disheartening to see how some (including the author of this article himself apparently) don't seem to be interested in hearing the truth of what actually happened and have, it seems, no clue what a community is and how it works.

I'm hardly involved in this whole affair, having posted only a few times in RD.net half a year ago or so, but it got my attention as I'm a regular reader of Pharyngula where PZ Myers described what was happening from his point of view - which I no longer share after closer investigation.

I will not repeat what people like Tim have tried to say because it is visibly misunderstood by readers who don't care to take the time to make further research and are too easily irritated by his tone when he tries to make his point.

I will only say this - at the risk of having my post rejected: Mr. Dawkins is quite certainly a gentleman and a scholar, and I would also not at all have been suprised by his stand against incivility - to paraphrase the author of the article. But from what I've read so far across the Internet, either Mr. Dawkins is ill-informed about what happened, or he has no clue about how the Internet and communities work, or - at the moment I have no evidence disproving this possibility - he is flat out lying by distorting the facts.

Mr. Dawkins has every right to change the rules of his forum/his game - but my feeling is that the foul-play wasn't on the side of the people that he and a few people in the posts above are accusing. And in my eyes lies are the ugliest forms of incivility.

I acknowledge that I may be wrong as I certainly don't have access to all information, but I tried very hard to listen to the different voices and weight the arguments/testimonies. So far Mr. Dawkins' side failed to convince me that they didn't apply ... let's call it excessive force in the incident and Mr. Dawkins "Outrage" message didn't impress me even a bit (because I didn't take what he wrote for face value but had a closer look at the facts)...

Even if, at the end of the day, it's only a storm in a tea cup, I don't see why lies or even only half truths should be spread about the details of what actually happened.

From my point of view Mr. Dawkins and the paid administrators of his site should apologize to the community for their poor handling of the situation. Whether the changes they have in mind for RD.net are good or not is a totally different matter - only time will tell if they are right or wrong.

The owners of a blog can set any rules they care to, interpret them any way they like, even entirely capriciously and inconsistently the way BBC moderates its blog sites (except for this one of course :-)

Anyone who doesn't like it can go to another blog site or start their own and set their own rules. Blog sites are not a democracy, there is no guarantee of freedom of speech to the participants. You accept or reject it on its owners rules and terms.

The culture on the internet may reflect the culture at large which right now is often angry, frustrated, disillusioned, cynical, and highly irritable. We also note the dumbing down of society where people often react emotionally and quickly instead of thoughtfully and with knowledge and respect. That's more than enough to keep moderators busy if they want to maintain civility especially on issues that are inherently packed with emotion for many people.

Good luck Mr. Dawkins, you have a dawking task ahead of you :-)

William,

Do I hear echoes of Colonel Nathan R. Jessep, Commanding officer, Marine Ground Forces, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?

:-)

@ William Crawley:

"the Richard Dawkins I have met is a gentleman and a scholar, and I am not at all surprised by his stand against incivility"

me too

The whinging on about the loss of a forum on the RDFRS website is a bit silly really. Some of the comments make me wonder about the competence of web users. Early on in learning how to use computers didn't we all lose material and learn the concept of 'back up'?

Those who feel that their blabbing on forums is really important can easily buy their own web presence, start a blog or even self publish a paper book. Isn't this a bit of common sense?

Mean, vengeful Andrew Brown seems to be gloating in this little bit of web gossip as if it is the end of Dawkins:

"The mutiny at RichardDawkins.Net

You need a rhino's hide to deal with with the angry atheists on Richard Dawkins' site"

https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/feb/25/atheism-dawkins-meltdown-comments

As one who has continually suffered the nasty wrath of Brown's vitriol I think his tackiness reflects jealousy that no one knows or cares about him. If Brown walks into a room of 2,000 people, who would notice yet when Richard does the group goes wild.

Brown doesn't own his Guardian blog and it can be nixed at the whim of the GU shareholders too.

Any event featuring Richard Dawkins quickly sells out. One of the most exciting and fun events with Dawkins last October was hosted by Berkeley Arts & Letters (California), you can watch the video here, it takes a few minutes to boot:

https://www.channels.com/episodes/show/7653659/Richard-Dawkins-The-Evidence-for-Evolution

That event was fantastic due to the overwhelming intelligence of the audience members.

Everyone posting here should remember that William Crawley does not own this blog either although it has his name on it. The corporation of the BBC is the owner, retains copyright and can pull the plug at any time.

William Crawley I see a couple of obvious omissions on your blog roll,
Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science:
https://richarddawkins.net/

and the brilliant:
Gerry Coyne - Why Evolution is true:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/

Will:
I think I finally got your point. But I wonder who'd be interested in Richard Dawkins' opinion about rudeness in the Internet, hadn't there been the story that led to his comment on the subject..

I can even understand Richard Dawkins' displeasure with the language used by some. As I mentioned in my previous post I've been a regular reader of Pharygula (only seldom a poster) and was more than once "shocked" by the language some use there (including PZ Myers himself) - but got used to it over time. I don't think that foul language helps you make your point under any circumnstances - but that's the way quite a few posters play the game at Pharyngula. I cannot say how things were going on at RD.net, having been there only a few times. Another maybe interesting fact in this context is that the foul language Dawkins denounces was used on an other site (after RD.net had been locked) and that the authors of the nasty sentences have outed themselves in the meantime.

A few more words on the "true" story: what comes across to me is the arrogance of the administrators (in their case coupled with unprofessionality it seems - deletion of log entries and such) and also of Richard Dawkins (LucyQ's post and a few others here and in other places feel just the same BTW) towards the community that had built up in RD.net. If a community had built up around my site and I had reached a point where I wanted to make a new start for whatever reason, I cannot imagine ever acting the way they did. And the reason why I'm through with Richard Dawkins after this episode (unless words of appeasement come from him) is that I think that someone who shows so little comprehension for "his" community, doesn't have much more comprehension for "his" readers, listeners and followers. Richard Dawkins has every right to act the way he did - but just as I do not appreciate the foul language some have been using, I do not appreciate the way he reacted and handled the issue so far.

As far as my favorite color is concerned: it's blue - and if you don't like it, you're a *** with a *** on the *** ;-)

Jerry Coyne - oops for the typo

@mary-helena
Let's get some things straight shall we? You said:

"And so a tit for tat escalated the whole saga between the mods and the website management."

There was no "tit for tat". Do you have ANY evidence to back up this absurd claim? What happened was forum members and moderators made queries about the decision and expressed some polite disagreement. What followed was not "tit for tat". It was the website administrators taking childish punitive actions in an effort to censor and wipe-out any opposing opinions. Since that time, there have been many emails and posts and comments requesting Richard explain why his staff acted like they did. There was a very small number of abusive posts directed to the admin staff, and it was those that Richard chose to focus on, and in doing so he has committed terrible intellectual fallacies by tarring all of us with the same brush.

The real story is this: Was Richard Dawkins purposely lying in his "Outrage" post, or was he lied to by his staff? Most of us suspected the latter, but since he has yet to offer an apology, or at the very least re-issue a truthful statement about the matter, some of us are starting to suspect that the former may also be true as well. And all this from a supposed giant of evidence and reason. Shame on you Richard.

49. At 9:16pm on 27 Feb 2010, rEvolutionist wrote:
@mary-helena
Let's get some things straight shall we? You said:

"And so a tit for tat escalated the whole saga between the mods and the website management."


The moderators on the Dawkins forums received a letter from the website management. They were not happy with the content of that letter. The forum members received a letter also. They were not happy either. The moderators were asked, by the Dawkins website management to help to make the transition to the new web format as 'smooth as possible'. Instead they let their own feelings - over the manner in which the decision on the new web format was made - override their loyalty to the Dawkins Foundation.

"We know that this is a big decision. We know some of you moderators will be against this change. We ask that you respect our decision and help make this transition as smooth as possible. These decisions have all been approved by our organization, and we ask that you don't add to our work by causing trouble. (The letter from the website management.)

"To help explain, one moderator posted Josh’s message to the mods, telling the staff that they are no longer needed,".(Peter Harrison's blog)

This message was removed by the website management. It was later re-posted by Mazille, a forum moderator. The website management, at this stage - when it was clear that the moderators were not going to comply with the directive to make the transition to the new web format as 'smooth as possible' - had to take control of the disintergrating forum situation.

https://thinking-aloud.co.uk/temp/rdf.html


by Topsy » forum Admin Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:30 pm

Whatever happens next, the staff will stay and try to keep things going for everyone until their staff permissions are removed.

I can't tell you what will happen to all the emails re: logging on problems etc until I have a reply to my enquiry about that.


by Topsy »Forum Admin: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:00 pm


"No answer to the above. Staff have decided that we will no longer be answering general emails or responding to reports. Apologies if this hampers your enjoyment of the forum but the team here (past and present) have worked 24/7 to keep the forum going and as their (past and present) volunteer efforts are reduced to a "thanks but we don't need you now", there's not much point in staff continuing with their forum work as it's all going to be taken down from the Internet."

by Mazille » Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:02 pm

I think those lovely announcements draw a pretty good picture, don't you think?

Just to make sure it doesn't get.... "lost":


by nleonard » Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:04 pm

Topsy wrote:
No answer to the above. Staff have decided that we will no longer be answering general emails or responding to reports. Apologies if this hampers your enjoyment of the forum but the team here (past and present) have worked 24/7 to keep the forum going and as their (past and present) volunteer efforts are reduced to a "thanks but we don't need you now", there's not much point in staff continuing with their forum work as it's all going to be taken down from the Internet.


I don't blame you in the least. Maybe we should all stage a walk-out!

by 95Theses » Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:11 pm

Topsy wrote:
Staff have decided that we will no longer be answering general emails or responding to reports. Apologies if this hampers your enjoyment of the forum but the team here (past and present) have worked 24/7 to keep the forum going and as their (past and present) volunteer efforts are reduced to a "thanks but we don't need you now", there's not much point in staff continuing with their forum work as it's all going to be taken down from the Internet.


Do I take it to mean that this is now an unmoderated forum?

This could be interesting.

-----------------------
https://www.rationalskepticism.org/viewtopic.php?p=6542

by Topsy » Feb 27, 2010 1:32 pm

Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:53 pm Admin announces to members and mods/forum admins that the forum will be deleted in 30 days.

Members start topic "New Discussion Area, Death of the Forum" to ask questions and complain about the forthcoming deletion. Some initial posts assume that forum staff are in agreement with this.

Topsy (forum admin) posted Admin's letter to mods as an announcement to members, to demonstrate that forum staff didn't know anything about this & that their services would no longer be required.

Admin deleted Topsy's announcement.

Other staff then re-posted it but it was deleted again by Admin.

Topsy told forum members that staff won't be doing any more mod duties other than remove posts that would damage RD's reputation or the Foundation (eg porn or anything illegal)

It seems to me that when you start out by saying that those who disagree with your thesis are mentally ill as evidenced by their strong beliefs in what is irrational, that sets a tone of acrimony that filters through and pervades the entire site. Even if this is true, it hardly sets the stage for a civil discourse between opposing sides. As someone who has observed humans for over six decades I have concluded that at times all of them are irrational to one degree or another, each in his own way. In a way, Dawkins has no one to blame but himself. He threw the first handful of mud. He should not complain when others on both sides use the same tactics. I'd bet he's won few converts to his point of view. Emotionally charged disagreements are rarely if ever resolved by persuasion. Rancor only hardens both sides.

The update on the Richard Dawkins forum website re the current forum 'conflict' - clearly places a lot of the blame for what happened with the forum moderators. It was the moderators who had it within their hands to ease the situation for the forum community by supporting the decision made by the Richard Dawkins Foundation - regarding the move to a new website format. They chose not to do so...they let their hurt feelings cloud their rational thinking. Particularly in regard to just who, and to what, they had primarily volunteered their time. Instead of thanking Richard, and the Foundation, for the opportunity they had been given to volunteer - they turned around when their service was no longer required - and shouted 'foul'. Service to others, volunteering, is its own reward - expecting to be lauded, given a pat on the back, seeking a seat on the high table - thats more like self-serving than a real spirit of volunteering...

All the rancor over who said what, where, and when, is only to erect a smokescreen over the fundamental issue involved.

https://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?p=2752001&f=1#p2752001

Updated: Forum Announcement Feb-22-2010
by admin » Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:53 pm

Update: 2010-02-23
A few points to clear things up.

We originally posted a private message to the moderators only asking them not to use the information in the foundation's database to cause trouble, email Richard en masse, ask all of the users to go to a separate forum, or anything like that. We take the privacy of the users' data held by the foundation seriously—to that end the data shouldn't be used to solicit and promote other services. This is not what our users signed up for. This was only directed toward the small group of moderators, who had the access to the administration panel. Against the foundation's wishes, they turned around and posted this message publicly in the forum, and many people misinterpreted this to be directed at regular users. We were not telling the regular users what they could and couldn't do, they were all welcome to move to a separate forum. This public posting of personal communication, along with several inappropriate posts made by our very own moderators, convinced the foundation to close the forum down and make it read-only.


We had hoped to keep the forum functioning until the transition to the new site. Having no forum for 30 days is not what we had hoped would happen. But without being able to trust our own moderators for the forum's final month before the transition, we were left with no other option. A few accounts have been deleted along with their posts due to the nature of their posts. We're sorry that a few had to ruin it for the many.

When Dawkins speaks the crowd - goes wild???!!!

Are we sure that we're not overestimating the gentleman's charisma just a tad?

As much as I'd miss W&T of it left the blogosphere, I'm not sure that I'd suffer the breakdown on evidence here.

What I've read above confirms what I wrote in post 1. I thought I was overplaying Dawkins courage. In fact I wasn't. This could cost him "fans".

So one more reason for Christians (and everyone else) to like Dawkins. When push comes to shove, he's on the side of civility.
Well said, that man!


GV

mary-helena - now I've heard everything! The mods should be THANKING the ingrate Dawkins for the privilege of donating thousands of hours of their time? Perhaps you do not understand the direction in which 'thanks' usually flow: it is from the receiver of service to the provider. I wonder if you are right now 'thanking' Dawkins for the opportunity to write endless posts in defence of his vile action?

The moderators displayed the instructions they had received from the site administrators because they, the moderators, were themselves receiving (civilised) flak on the thread discussing the proposed changes: members thought the volunteer moderators were responsible, when of course they were not. Timonen and co reacted to this action by deleting the entire thread. What was in the e-mail from the website administrators, who were presumably acting on Dawkins' instructions, that was too shameful to be publicised? Why were the moderators wrong to defend themselves by honestly explaining the situation? Why are you defending the indefensible?

Richard is on tour in Australia. Traveling can be exhausting, I do it and can report on that first hand. He has just posted a lengthy piece offering an apology to those who feel slighted, thanks to those the volunteered and some more information about what users can expect in the new format:

An Apology by Richard Dawkins
https://richarddawkins.net/articles/5165

Also for those who haven't taken the time to check it out the old forum is available in 'read only' format.

https://forum.richarddawkins.net/

Please remember to back up your material people.

I agree with Richard about Josh's talent. It is thanks to his techno brilliance that https://www.richarddawkins.net is so fantastic. Josh also produces all of the video material. The vitriol against Josh is just plain mean.

Thanks Richard & Josh, best LWS

I am glad Richard Dawkins found the words for a "happy end" after all this mess.

Let's learn how to communicate better in the future - all concerned parties.

Wow, that was just a great apology from Richard Dawkins. Ultimately, it was his responsibility to attempt to resolve the present situation. He has now stepped up to that responsibility and apologized for the manner in which the proposed transition, to the new web format, has been handled. Apologies are never easy and its truly a mark of the man's character that he saw the necessity for such an action.

Perhaps the hurt will remain for sometime - for both sides. Something that everyone involved needs to take cognizance of. There were errors of judgement on both sides. Richard has taken the big step - hopefully, the forum community and the ex-moderators, will themselves be big enough to not now seek from Richard something he might well feel unable to give them - sanction of some kind or another against the website management. Their own role in that connection not being without question.

So, a new day for Richard Dawkins. A new day for a new web format that will seek to circumvent the dangers inherent within the old format. A new day for the forum community in their new home - where they can continue with the freewheeling format to which they have been accustomed. Divorce is never easy - but when partners drift apart in their goals it is sometimes inevitable.

Just read the apology as linked to above. Very welcome, and I'd like to thank Richard for saying this. It's never easy to apologise.

I guess there are still a few issues floating about. One is the 10's of thousands of posts deleted - are these going to be restored for the archive? Another is perhaps a lack of acknowledgement that the abusive posts about Josh and Andrew (the website admins) were a vanishingly small minority of comments about this issue - and as such he has nothing to fear from the vast majority of his members. And the final issue to mention is the silence about how his admin staff acted. I mean, I wouldn't expect much to be said, but many of us would be reluctant to take part in a discussion forum that was being administrated by these SAME people.

Nevertheless, I would like to thank Richard again for his open apology.

All this garbage aimed at Will seems oddly familiar -

"Here's a radical idea - Wow, it might even get you some attention as a judicious and objective commentator."

"hey, let's not let some mere *context* get in the way at some cheap swipes at "new atheism". That would make way too much sense."

"Again, you don't seem to be paying the slightest bit of attention. Hint –"

"How hard is this stuff for you to grasp Will? Do you need some help?"

I mean the measured tone and careful argumentation just put me in mind of someone. Even the vocab seems familiar.

No, Will couldn't possibly have identified a characteristic common to New Atheist bloggers. Perish the thought, we've seen no evidence of that on W&T.

By the way Will, good luck on keeping Lucy Q AND OT happy...

Funny. Richard apologises and all is calm. All is bright.

This is almost as much fun as the Whitewell thread.

Gee, I've only been gone an hour. That's quite a kit-kat that the mod's having today.

GV

John

I'd noticed the similarity with the Whitewell thread also. It's a bit weird.
However, having taken on an entire mega-church, I'm not quite ready to take on the intellectual might of McAtheism. So I'm going easy on the sarcasm.
Oddly, though, Dawkins finds himself in the same situation as many charismatic church/cult leaders.(I'm using those terms in the Weberian sense. I'd clarify, but I'm hoping someone will misinterpret me.)
He seems to be trapped by the expectations of his followers. So he has to tread very carefully.
Check out the furore he generated by giving an award to Bill Maher. Maher has impeccable atheistic credentials, and Religulous made him a star with the McAtheist tribe. But he also endorses alternative medicine - which irritates PZ Myers et al. That left Dawkins with quite the circle to square. He may have pulled it off too.
But how often can he anger his followers? And they clearly act, and think, like followers. Did you notice the style of argument that Will was subjected to? I recognised the tone of voice (weary condescension)and strategy (pretended intellectual superiority, crude sarcasm, all in an attempt to intimidate). Even the choice of words was oddly familiar ("Hint" etc).

It's all very, very odd. A New Non-Religious Virtual Movement. The secularisation thesis never predicted that.

GV

By the way - if Dawkins fought the net, I take it the net won?

Suggestions have been made here about the similarities with another thread some time ago on W&T.

Do any of the atheist regulars on here have any views on that? Not specifically on the RDnet issue (as I said earlier I've nothing more to say about that) rather, are there any comments about the idea of followings, leaders, movements?

Is this not the same as all that has been said about the 'dangers' of religion and the opposite of the call for people to think for themselves?

Hello petermorrow,

"Suggestions have been made here about the similarities with another thread some time ago on W&T. Do any of the atheist regulars on here have any views on that? Not specifically on the RDnet issue (as I said earlier I've nothing more to say about that) rather, are there any comments about the idea of followings, leaders, movements?"

I think LucyQs comment about what a privilege it is to volunteer your time moderating on RDnet sounds like a somewhat silly case of 'cheering for the leadership'. Other than that I mostly heard people voicing anger and/or dissent in the first few dozen comments in this thread.
After Dawkins issued an apology things quieted down a lot. Bit hard to compare the apparent acceptance his apology by many to the response from the WW horde, as McConnell never issued any apology or gave any insight in any of the decision making that caused the uproar there.
I don't know what most who feel disaffected will do now, move to the newly created forum or stick with the new format of the RDnet forum. Ask again in a few months, I guess?

While you specifically mentioned not being interested in the RDnet thing, the comparison has been made several times, so I can't help myself commenting on that. It looks pretty bad, having some people from the supposed 'oasis of clear thinking' falling out nastily, venting their anger, etc. Still, while the general concept of angry venting over decisions by the leadership is the same, the magnitude is not even in the same league as the WW saga. The RDnet forum had 85000 registered members, WW some 2500-3000. Despite the number of affected people being 30 times higher, the post count here has yet to reach the 100 mark, the three WW threads combined almost 2000 when two out of three were closed by the blog operator. Two comments out of 67 in this thread have been removed sofar, when I did a count on one of the WW threads, 1 out of every 7 was removed. On the WW threads there were threats of legal action by posters. Graham tried to engage his fellow christians in discussion and got such a nasty response that he ran for the hills and didn't dare post on W&T for several months, for fear of real-world consequences. Helio, have you been subject to anything like that? I haven't. And I doubt if LucyQ will come after me for saying that part of one of her posts was stupid the way the WWers went after Graham. The anger, nastiness and scope of the response from people from RDnet is hardly anything (but still bad though) to hateful venom level and raw, unthinking emotional anger displayed by the WW horde.

Although the following quote is taken from a post by a former mod/admin member of the Dawkins forum - its point does relate to all other communities that might spring up around a charismic or prominent individual. This post, out of all the words that have been written regarding the Dawkins forum saga, is the only one that pulled at my heart strings....

"But I can tell you what I have learnt, what I can reflect on soberly and without bitterness. What I have learnt is that such a community should be governed on the foundations of its social dynamic, and not on the integrity, brilliance or fame of the person who brought them together. People are fallible, emotional and reactionary, even those that we hold up as beacons of rationality can be prone to sudden destructive bouts of irrationality...........I'm just saying that one person is too unstable a peg to hang our hopes on. A community must exist for its own sake."

https://www.rationalskepticism.org/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=925

What did Peter say at 9.12? The suspense is killing me!

I might not get back on today...can I hazard a guess here?
I wasn't referring to old regulars on the blog.

GV

If that doesn't make any sense, then I haven't caused unnecessary offence, and I'm quite relieved.

So tell me Graham, your posts 69 and 70 appeared very shortly after posting. Mary-helena and I have been waiting for a day now. What does it take to become the moderators pet poster? Do you bring him/her kit-kats regularly?

Petermorrow, you asked for a response from atheist regulars, I typed one that didn't seem that strong to me. Calling the suggestion that volunteering your time to moderate is a privilege stupid was the strongest part of it, I think. If it never gets out of the moderation queue then I'll retype what I still remember saying in it.

For pities sake, why has Peter had to wait 24hours for a decision?

PeterK

No Kit-Kats were involved in getting my posts up. Maybe Josh Timonen's doing a bit of moonlighting on W&T? That's the only explanation available to me at the moment.

I think what puzzles PM and me is the level of devotion to Dawkins on display here. This thread was beginning to look like the Whitewell thread - until Dawkins apologised. Then all was quiet on the western front. A sort of "peace, be still" moment. And the same seems to have happened on many other threads across the inter-web.

Now I know that Brian McClinton and Helio are among Dawkins fans. (And he's not as bad as some Christian apologists make out - his *arguments* are Humean, and that's not a bad pedigree. His *rhetoric* is excellent. So I've a sort of grudging admiration.)So I can see why Helio et al *like* Dawkins. Admiration, sure, that seems justified. But I just can't see the atheists on W&T treating Dawkins with *adulation*. You guys would never go this far. This is just baffling to me.
Pastor McConnell claimed a direct line with God. And he had personal contact with his Church. Charismatic (in the Weberian sense)leaders are meant to have this sort of personal contact with their followers. But Dawkins doesn't have the personal, one on one, contact. He doesn't claim a direct line to a higher power. Yet he seems to have generated the sort of following typical of charismatic leaders. (To the extent that he *can't control* his followers - that's a classic sign of a charismatic leader. They get trapped by their followers expectations. He's only in control when he meets his followers expectations.)

I'd be grateful for any insight.

GV

Graham,
Fair questions. I do like Dawkins. I think he is right a lot more than a lot of people like to think, and by and large his critics (especially from the Christian apologetics benches, but also from some areas of Philosophy) miss the point and end up with egg on their faces. We have already discussed Mary Midgley and Jerry Fodor as prime examples of such silly people. Dawkins is just human, however. He is an excellent writer and an excellent *explainer*. He gets some things wrong - I don't think he has ever been that clear on our conflict in NI for example (but then he admits that).

I don't think the primary problem in all this actually is Richard Dawkins - the problem is *atheists*. Yes, we are all different, but being an atheist does not guarantee that someone has adequately thought through the issues, nor even has the critical thinking skills to even go there. I do confess to being really annoyed when atheists come out with arguments that are the atheist equivalent of the creationist boner "if evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?" Some atheists are hostile and dogmatic, and not interested in *the truth*. I do not feel that Dawkins is like that (although some people like to pretend that he is), and even PZ Myers is not like that.

To be honest, *atheism* is not the objective. Critical thinking is.

@ GV - I don't understand your confusion. Richard has written many books that make science understandable to everyone. He has an intellectual pedigree that should make anyone's knees weak, a small entry is posted here:

Brief Scientific Autobiography by Richard Dawkins
https://richarddawkins.net/articles/4757

Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' took a bold step in pointing out that religion is not true. While many Atheists (persecuted up until the last few years) have also offered similar views there was something about TGD that captured attention. We owe Richard gratitude for breaking the spell. That message has been the inspiration to many who knew this and now most can say it out loud without suffering the inquisition. Be out, be proud.

Many anti-Dawkins/TGL books are litter, he calls them fleas:
Those works are signs of desperation by 'believers' and mostly end up remaindered:

https://richarddawkins.net/fleas

FYI: Richard & AC Grayling will be speaking at the Sydney Opera House on Sunday afternoon to a sold out crowd. The presentation will be available after that so if you have high speed internet then can enjoy the presentations too. How cool is that, I mean the SOH, wow!

What troubles me is the BBC R4 show Everyday Ethics - it never address ethics but focuses on religion. I frankly can't listen to it as the panel is made of truly delusion and IMO disturbed speakers. What makes them so crazy? They aren't calling in from remote caves in Pakistan so there can be no excuse for the irrational blubbering.

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/ethics/

How do any of the presenters on that show keep a straight face on hearing the preposterous statements by the believers? They are utterly tragic. If the topic is Ethics why doesn't panel represent balance?

Did you all see the new study showing that believers tend to be less intelligent that Atheists? That is hardly a surprise.

https://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/atheists_and_liberals_more_intelligent_says_atheist_liberal_psychologist

Have some fun:
"Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?" South Park (not really South Park)"
https://richarddawkins.net/articles/5183

Graham your comments in post 73 reveal a deep misunderstanding of the situation. Professor Dawkins may have admirers ( and I am one of them)but he does not have followers. You are trying to impose the hierarchy that you are familiar with where "truth" is handed down from above. A world of gurus, leaders, and chaismatic preachers where you feel comfortable. You should try life in the freethinking world. You would find it invigorating!

I'm working on the hypothesis that the moderator takes a coffee break at three.

Helio -

Does Fodor directly criticise Dawkins in his new book? Odd fight to pick. I'm still quite vague as to Fodor's argument against the explanatory power of Natural Selection. (A lot of folk miss this, but even YECs claim that Natural Selection has massive explanatory power - it's responsible for *all* the variation within the very broad category of "kinds". I think this would make Natural Selection the source of,say, the giraffe's neck, and the elephant's trunk - but not the kangaroo's pouch. I'd need to check, but I think that follows from what they say about "kinds" of animal).Maybe you've made more progress on Fodor than I have. If so, let me know. Because I think he's more radical than Young Earth Creationists on Natural Selection.

Midgely is pretty good on the place of science in culture. Her book "Wickedness" is excellent. I find her vague on some key issues - for example, what the mind is. And she is a proponent of 'Gaia' mythology. (She's quite clear that it's a myth).
So, yeah, she got "Selfish Gene" quite wrong - and has admitted as much. But I wouldn't dismiss everything that she says.

GV

Actually, if you look at what YECs believe about Natural Selection, I think you'll see why "Theistic Evolution" isn't a helpful term. Even YECs believe that God uses evolution to create new and interesting forms of life.
Just a thought.
I think.

GV

Nobledee

I'm using terms from sociology - and I'm afraid, from the abundant evidence on the web it is simply the case that Dawkins has founded a movement and has followers. He miay not have meant to, but there it is. Blame Weber.
One of my points is that followers never blindly follow leaders. Even Jim Jones and David Koresh felt trapped by their movement's expectations. (I'm ***not*** equating Dawkins with Jim Jones and David Koresh. I'm making a point about charismatic leaders and their followers.)
It's the *kind* of criticism of Dawkins, the deep **hurt** his decisions caused that's interesting. I've spent hours reading for the OT course on W&T. Now if W&T collapsed, and all my posts disappeared I'd be disappointed, sure. I'd miss the chat with H and PM, Parr and RJB etc. (I'd even miss PK). But I wouldn't feel hurt or betrayal.

Then, Dawkins posts *once* - just once. And the hurt is forgotten, the relief is tangible.

Yes, he's a very good polemicist (one of the best, to be painfully honest) and has wonderful expositional skills. That just doesn't explain what's happened on the web over the last fortnight. It doesn't even come close.
Whatever else is going on in the Dawkins forum, you're kidding yourself if you think this argument is about free-thinking.

It's all very peculiar...

GV

When you blog Lucy Q
Then the moderators blue
Because Lucy, my Lucy Q
He thinks your links are suss
Yes he does
LucyQ

Lucy QLucyQ
the mods got it in for you
Oh Lucy
my Lucy Q
Oh well you’re out of luck
LucyQ

LucyQ LucyQ
What could you type that's so bad
Lucy Q
Oh its five oclock
LucyQ
What did you post at three?
We all need to know
LucyQ

We’d like you
LucyQ
To post what you want to
Oh Lucy what to do oo oo
But the mods ignoring you
It’s a pity LucyQ

Not bad for 6 minutes work

nobledeebee

If I might make a comment in relation to your post #76. Graham, or I, may well have ‘misunderstood’ this situation, but our thoughts are prompted by the uncanny resemblance of some of this thread to some of the comments about a recent church split - it is that we have picked up on.

People have been vehemently protesting, what shall I say, the mistakes of others and it is the passion which has been provoked which is interesting. There have been comments about the loss of a community, about actions being unforgivable, sides were taken, that is what I found to be interesting and is why I used the language I did: “followings, leaders, movements” #66, and I suspect it is why Graham described things the way he did.

It is a phenomenon I think that is worth considering and it’s not unreasonable to use the description 'religious like'.


Helio

You know that what motivates people (what makes us tick) intrigues me.

You say, “To be honest, *atheism* is not the objective. Critical thinking is.”

Can I ask, is it your view that ‘critical thinking’ will inevitably lead one to atheism, that atheism will, of necessity, follow?

@ GV - Censorship is sooo Inquisition and boring. I'm not sure what I typed that is offensive and am not about to recreate it. Stop writing folk ditties, leave that to Christie Moore.

Lucy
In my defence, I don't get out much.
However, I don't think you realise just how priveleged you are...not everyone gets their own theme tune!
(-:
GV

Graham, Fodor's "On Darwinism" (which seems to be the basis for his latest book, which I confess I have not read) is one of the stupidest articles I have read in a very very long time. "Respected" he may be in some circles, but those circles do not overlap with biology, where he is regarded with derision. As for Midgley, she basically repeated a lot of the stupid (and I use that word quite deliberately) nonsense that characterised her review of TSG in 1979 in her recent review of Fodor. Those two twits should get a room. Or stick to topics they perhaps *do* know something about, rather than pretending to pronounce on subjects of which they are ignorant, like biology.

Peter, does critical thinking lead to atheism? Well, on Planet Earth I rather think it does; if a god really existed, I do somewhat tend towards the view that it would leave *some* evidence of its presence, rather than having to rely on tedious sophistry and human gullibility - IF it really does wish to be found. But even if the gods were not just made up, the best standpoint to find them is to start with the null hypothesis and see where that takes us.

Peter... by which I mean that I don't have a problem either way, if there is a god or not - just that I want to know the correct answer. *Yahweh* is made up - I am certain of that; maybe there are other gods who are not fictional, but I see no evidence.

Helio

I have, perhaps, had an "Ah," moment regarding your thinking, correct me please if I am wrong, and forgive me if I have somehow missed this previously.

Regarding the issue of God being known or the evidence which there may or may not be for his existence, are you saying that the 'evidence' claimed by Christians (or whoever) for such an existence is simply too small to suggest the reality of someone so great as 'God'?

I've only read a few posts on "Why Evolution is True" on this topic. But I'm still a bit lost - why does Fodor think that Natural Selection doesn't work as an explanation? I'm not sure that I see his point.

I'm following Elliott Sober's analysis here. (You'll be glad to hear that Sober complained about Fodor's unnecessary, and confusing, use of 'ceteris paribus').

Fodor argues - ‘contrary to Darwinism, the theory of natural selection can’t explain the distribution of phenotypes in biological populations.’

1) Fodor’s argument begins with the claim that such an explanation would have to use the concept of there being "selection for" a trait. His argument is metaphysical — there are no truth makers for propositions about selection-for. If there are no truth-makers,such statements cannot be true.

But that's an abstract metaphysical argument. Even if it did work - and for reasons below I don't think that it does - all it would do is give biologists reason to take some versions of Platonism more seriously. That is - there are abstract entities. Fodor hates that idea, but so what? In any case, how many biologists sit up at nights pondering truth makers???

2) Okay, say, "selection of" trait T just means that individuals with T have a higher average fitness than do individuals who lack T. So "selection for" trait T in a population would just mean that having
T **causes** organisms to survive and reproduce better. "Selection for" is just shorthand for identifying a cause of increased fitness.

3) Fodor says that "selection for" entails laws or an agent. But can't there be "mechanisms" in nature that ground facts about 'selection-for'?
Imagine a mixed batch of marbles, some square and some
round, that is run through a filter all the holes of which are round. Suppose that all the round marbles are red and all the square marbles are some other color.
Then the sort will pass only red objects. But it's fairly clear that what this device sorts (or "selects") for is not color but shape.
Can't there be situations analogous to this machine in nature? Don't you guys create situations **logically** just like this in the lab? Pretty much routinely?

4) Maybe Fodor just thinks the theory doesn't illuminate much:

"the theory of Natural Selection reduces to a banal truth: "if a kind of creature flourishes in a kind of a situation, then there must be something about such creatures (or about such situations, or about both) in virtue of which it does so"

As a counter example to Fodor, we can use an abridgement of Fisher's model of sex ratio evolution:

"If producing equal numbers of sons and daughters and producing more
daughters than sons are the alternative reproductive strategies that a parent might follow in a randomly mating population, and if the cost of rearing a son is the same as the cost of rearing a daughter, then there will be selection for following the first strategy and against following the second."

There seems to be plenty of content in that statement. It's theoretically illuminating and practically useful. So once more - what is Fodor's point exactly?

5) Fishers model also meets Fodor's definition of a "law" - (a)it is general, (b) it doesn't refer to specific places, times, or individuals, and (c) it supports counterfactuals (it allows us to say what would have occurred in different circumstances). So it seems as if we do have a law that entails "selection for".

6) Fodor wants to know what property all these cases of "selection for" have in common.After all the circumstances that lead to us producing unequal numbers of sons and daughters differs from the kind of circumstance that leads there to be "selection for" altruism.
But a substantive theory does not have to describe a necessary-and-sufficient condition for there being "selection for" a trait. Multiple sufficient conditions suffice to identify a cause (think of the may different causes of explosions, or epidemics). Many kinds of circumstance that lead there to be selection-for. What knits "relative numbers of sons and daughters" and "altruism" together is their consequences for the frequency of phenotypes.

GV

Lucy

I think ~75 makes my point rather well.

GV

Since in the course of one short week Richard is still celebrated as the most important, outspoken Atheist. (See all the news about Dawkins taking Aus. by storm @ https://richarddawkins.net/ - What a thrill to hear that Richard and AC Grayling will be speaking to a sold out audience at the Sydney Opera House on Sunday, um wow!

Answer me this then people - Why is there as BBC radio show called 'Everyday Ethics' when ethics is never the topic and it seems to be simply a platform for staunch superstition practitioners and believers to promote their way passed the sell by dates in irrational ideas? Surely ethics in the modern interpretation has nothing to do with delusion and is rooted in truth.

"a platform for staunch superstition practitioners and believers to promote their way passed the sell by dates in irrational ideas?"

Answer me this then Lucy -wonderful alliteration, but do you ever supply any arguments?

"Richard and AC Grayling will be speaking to a sold out audience at the Sydney Opera House on Sunday, um wow!"

Yes, I'm overjoyed. Do you work as a PR agent for Richard Dawkins? GV

"Why is there as BBC radio show called 'Everyday Ethics' when ethics is never the topic and it seems to be simply a platform for staunch superstition practitioners"


That's easy - it's the memes in the air conditionsing system. Difficult to wash out, what with them being empirically undetectable and all.

What is wonderful is that you're here suggesting a Religious bias at the Beeb, and another Blogger, OT, on many other threads sees a liberak secular and humanistic bias at the beeb!

Them pesky memes - no-one said they had to be consistent.

GV

As I see it is what LucyQ, rEvolutionist, Mary Helena et al ate saying is:

All I need to do is read "The God Delusion" and believe in what Richard says, and I will be set free from my superstition.

Would somebody like to hum John Lennon's "Imagine" while we have an altar call?

Dawkins is good but Hitchens (C) does it so much better.

DK

So

If I just read "God is Not Great" and believe what Christopher says (slurs) then I'll be set free?

Cue chorus of "imagine"...

GV

"All I need to do is read "The God Delusion" and believe in what Richard says, and I will be set free from my superstition."

No that won't work for you Graham. Your mind is too closed. You mentioned having read TGD on previous threads. Yet despite Dawkins dispelling a number of the common flawed arguments that christians come up with to support their faith, like the god of the gaps fallacy, you keep peddling that. So having had it explained to you in very clear, simple language, you still won't get it. Your mind filter only allows through those bits that are comfortable to your existing christian word view. As the proverb goes

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

Yes, PK, but nobody hummed "imagine" and asked me to make a decision for Richard.

GV

Or Christopher. Of course, in that case we'd need to replace "imagine" with a drinking song.

"Give me a thought of my own, oh a memes gotten into my head, a heard a Christian preach about an hour ago, and my IQ fell down dead"

"Oh, four and twenty Theists went to Inverness, when the seminars over, there'll be four and twenty less!"

GV

Not that I condone the original lyrics!

(;