Dawkins loses humanist title

[Belacqua]

A week or two ago there was a clip going around of Dawkins on a radio show arguing that the world would be a happier place if all the Downs Syndrome kids were aborted. When asked for a logical or scientific argument to support this he admitted that he had none.

Today he's trending on Twitter for this post:

Richard Dawkins
@RichardDawkins
· 5h
Kafka’s Metamorphosis is called a major work of literature. Why? If it’s SF it’s bad SF. If, like Animal Farm, it’s an allegory, an allegory of what? Scholarly answers range from pretentious Freudian to far-fetched feminist. I don’t get it. Where are the Emperor’s clothes?

It's good for people who don't understand anything about literature to ask sincere questions. He lives in Oxford, where a significant percentage of the population could take him aside and explain the basics of what fiction is and why people read it. I mean, most people learn this in high school, but it's never too late.

If those are rhetorical questions, though, it's just more proof that he shouldn't talk about things he doesn't know about. As he's been doing for decades now.

And an opinion piece on how the New Atheist crew's influence has held up over the years:

https://www.salon.com/2021/06/05/how-the...surrender/

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Just thinking about your post Bell and something struck me. (Enough to post/reply/question)

In the first part you've mentioned Dawkin's giving his opinion on a subject. That of individuals with a genetic issue. Then mentioned that (Here's where my comprehension gets fuzzy) that Dawkin's can't give a logical or scientific backing for said opinion.

Uhm....... are they even the right 'Things' to be trying to use as a measuring stick (In search of a good analogy/term) about the matter?

Personally, I'm watching someone slowly being financially crippled/crushed by giving the support needed to assist someone of such a disposition survive.

Is one person's physical and mental health worth more than another's?

Sorry to present the above, I'm certainly still torn about it all...... But the way Dawkin's position was painted.... has me rather scratching my head about that matter is all.

The second bit? Yah, well there are literary works whose worth I too find dubious even after the study thereof.

Perhaps Dawkin's is simply seeking a wider audience than (Tongue partially in cheek) cloistered academics?

Perhaps he seeks more a reflection from the 'Common person'?

He has asked the internet as a whole with his tweet and/as such. *Shrug*

Cheers.

[Belacqua]

Dawkin's can't give a logical or scientific backing for said opinion.

  Uhm....... are they even the right 'Things' to be trying to use as a measuring stick (In search of a good analogy/term) about the matter?

His assertion was that the overall amount of happiness in the world would be increased if Downs Syndrome children were aborted. 

So, yes, the proper question is: what measuring stick do we use to determine this? Does the happiness of the Downs Syndrome children count? 

The interviewer suggested that there was no objective, scientific way to quantify this, and Dawkins agreed. It's his opinion. It's also debatable whether the overall level of happiness in the world (even if that were quantifiable) is the only standard of judgment we should go by. Dawkins seemed unaware of any of this.

Yah, well there are literary works whose worth I too find dubious even after  the study thereof. 

There are good books and bad books. Some deserve study and some don't. 

It's OK to say you have no clue why a book is good or bad, if you admit you just don't know or care. If you don't know or care about a subject, it's best not to make a judgment. 

 Perhaps Dawkin's is simply seeking a wider audience than (Tongue partially in cheek) cloistered academics?

 Perhaps he seeks more a reflection from the 'Common person'?

  He has asked the internet as a whole with his tweet and/as such.  *Shrug*

If he ever gave any indication that he was listening to the answers people give to his questions, and learning from them, that would be great. 

I see no reason why he should seek a wider audience for his personal views on topics he doesn't know anything about. Humility is good.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Uhm.... okay. Don't reply to 'My' posts just type stuff with bits of my letters/words in them.

Cool.

[Fake Messiah]

Yeah, guys, game over, Dawkins wants to have a casual discussion about literature - that means that God exists.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Yeah, guys, game over, Dawkins wants to have a casual discussion about literature - that means that God exists.

No!

People (Average or otherwise) aren't allowed to talk about or (Possibly) have opinions on or about literary things.

Only those with the proper qualifications can compose such lofty thoughts.