What'd I say?

[Gob]

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has denied Islamophobia after a US radio station cancelled his forthcoming speech.



The best-selling author had been due to address an event hosted by KPFA Radio in Berkeley, California, in August.
Organisers accused him of "abusive speech against Islam" when scrapping his appearance, but he argues his criticism was not directed at Islam.
He called on the station to review his past remarks and apologise.

In a letter to ticket-holders, the publicly funded radio station wrote: "We had booked this event based entirely on his excellent new book on science, when we didn't know he had offended and hurt - in his tweets and other comments on Islam, so many people."
The station, which is not affiliated with the University of California, said in a letter - which Mr Dawkins published online - that it does not support "hurtful" or "abusive speech".

It also apologised "for not having had broader knowledge of Dawkins views much earlier".
Local media report that Bay Area residents had brought attention to statements made by the author of the anti-religion book The God Delusion, including a 2013 tweet saying "Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today".


Media caption'It gets lonely': Being conservative on a liberal campus
In an open letter to organisers, Professor Dawkins wrote that he "never used abusive speech against Islam".
He said harsh statements he has made in the past have been directed at "IslamISM" - apparently referring to those who use the religion for political objectives - and not adherents of the faith.

"I have criticised the appalling misogyny and homophobia of Islam, I have criticised the murdering of apostates for no crime other than their disbelief," Professor Dawkins writes.
He also pointed out that he has been a "frequent critic of Christianity but have never been de-platformed for that".
He describes listening to KPFA "almost every day" during the two years he lived in Berkeley, adding that "I especially admired your habit of always quoting sources".

"You conspicuously did not quote a source when accusing me of 'abusive speech'.
"Why didn't you check your facts - or at least have the common courtesy to alert me - before summarily cancelling my event?"

Professor Dawkins' book about the study of evolution, The Selfish Gene, was named last week by the Royal Society as the most inspiring science book of all time.

[Lord Jim]

He also pointed out that he has been a "frequent critic of Christianity but have never been de-platformed for that".

That's different Dickie...

At Berkley they'd give you a medal for that....

[Big RR]

does anyone really believe the radio station didn't know what jerk Dawkins is? Face it, that's what gets him the attention, not his "excellent new book on science". He's one of those who prefers one liners and passive aggressive attacks to actual discussions; not that he's incapable of discussing things rationally, he just chooses not to because it gets him more attention.

[Lord Jim]

Professor Dawkins' book about the study of evolution, The Selfish Gene, was named last week by the Royal Society as the most inspiring science book of all time.

LOL

What "Royal Society" is that?

A more "inspiring science book" than Nicolaus Copernicus's On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres?

A more "inspiring science book" than Galileo Galilei's The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems?

A more "inspiring science book" than Issac Newton's The Principia?

Hell, even in just the field of evolution, a more "inspiring science book" than Charles Darwin's Origin Of the Species?

That is truly hilarious...

I'd really like to know just what "Royal Society" bestowed this august distinction...( and also what "Royal Society" uses a 3rd grade elementary school type phrase like "science book" rather than one like "scholarly treatise"...)

The Royal Society of Complete Ignoramuses?

[Big RR]

Laughable indeed.

It looks like they were looking at "Popular Science" books--ones written for the general public and not intended to be scientifically rigorous.

https://royalsociety.org/news/2017/07/s ... l-results/

Even in this limited arena, I couldn't put it ahead of Hawkings' book, but it was not a vote of the Society, merely a popular opinion poll--perhaps the biography of the Kardashians was included as well?

edited to add:

To be fair, I will admit that I have not read the book, nor am I likely to. I see Dawkins more as a publicity whore than a scientist, but he does have some scientific credentials, so there is a chance the book could show some scientific rigor--I just don't care enough to find out one way or the other.

[rubato]

People don't like Dawkins because when someone points out that you have been deluded and made a fool of you will more often hate the person who points it out, not the person who gulled you.


Dawkins likes attention, as do nearly all authors and all public figures so that cannot be a criticism. And he travels the world debating his opinions. He is a little abrasive at times but he expresses himself clearly and honestly and does so when he knows it will get him criticised which is a quality to be more admired than the opposite. Darwin delayed publishing his great work for decades because he was afraid what the public reaction would be.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson (another person who likes attention) has said the same things Dawkins does about religion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRHefbIgKxk

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

People don't like Dawkins because when someone points out that you have been deluded and made a fool of you will more often hate the person who points it out, not the person who gulled you.

People don't like Dawkins because he's a sneering, condescending, obnoxious, pompous ass...

You know rube; pretty much the same reasons people don't like you...

[rubato]

People don't like Dawkins because when someone points out that you have been deluded and made a fool of you will more often hate the person who points it out, not the person who gulled you.

People don't like Dawkins because he's a sneering, condescending, obnoxious, pompous ass...

You know rube; pretty much the same reasons people don't like you...

And look who volunteers to be the prime example of the phenomenon.





yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Dawkins debates a Catholic Cardinal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8hy8NxZvFY


Dawkins with Tyson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltbADstPdek



yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

And look who volunteers to be the prime example of the phenomenon.

You mean the "phenomenon" of people who don't like sneering, condescending, obnoxious, pompous asses?

Guilty as charged...

[ex-khobar Andy]

It's worth following the link Big RR provided to see the criteria for the award: and given that it was a popular vote and not by 'experts' it is not surprising that a relatively recent book won as opposed to (say) Origin of Species or Principia or even Euclid's Elements. If I had to take one of Dawkins' books to a desert island I would probably pick The Ancestors' Tale. The best science writers for a non specialist audience over the last 30 years or so in my view (of course biased based on what I have read) have been Dawkins, Gould, Sagan and Feynman and of course Martin Gardner. 55 years ago I first read Lancelot Hogben's Mathematics for the Million which has been a favorite of mine ever since. I did not realize until this week reading a bio of JD Bernal that he and Bernal (long another favorite science writer whose like we will not see again) were friends.

Edited to add:

. . . but he does have some scientific credentials . . .

Er, yes. Glad you acknowledged that, Big RR.

[BoSoxGal]

I agree with you on those mentions, with the exception that I haven't read Hogben or Gardner. In general I love science writing - I came within a year of completion of a Zoology degree before switching to English & PoliSci, a decision I've often regretted as science is so much more satisfying than the vagaries of human expression & government.

Have you ever read Lewis Thomas? I count him among the best science writers of the 20th century, his Lives of a Cell is a stunning work.

[Econoline]

I'd have to add Isaac Asimov to that list.

[Burning Petard]

The NPR radio program Science Friday today had a long discussion of a book by Martin Gardner on pseudo science and what we now call alternate facts. For those who do not recognize the name, he was writing regular math column in Scientific American when I first started looking at it in the library in the mid-'50's

Without the non-fiction column by Isaac Asimov in the Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, I never would have survived my college Chemistry and Physics courses. My college library had back issues.

snailgate

[Econoline]

BTW, most (if not all) of those Asimov F&SF science columns were collected in various books published over the years/decades. Not sure if they're all still in print, but they were throughout his lifetime, and they're easy to find used. I still have paperback copies of most of those collections.

[Big RR]

Asimov was a great writer, both with his science fiction and non fiction books. in the latter, he stated things clearly and matter of factly, quite the opposite of Dawkins.

[Econoline]

Back on topic (from Andrew Sullivan at NYmag.com):

• It’s revealing, it seems to me, that Richard Dawkins is the latest target of the authoritarian left — and why he is under attack. This week, he was disinvited from a book event hosted by a progressive radio station, KPFA, because of his criticisms of Islam. “While KPFA emphatically supports serious free speech, we do not support abusive speech,” the radio station explained. “We apologize for not having had broader knowledge of Dawkins’s views [on Islam] much earlier.” This is hilarious. As anyone with a brain and an internet connection knows, Dawkins has made a second career out of vilifying religions of all kinds.
  
  To take one random example, here’s what he has written of Judaism: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” Why is he Islamophobic and not also obviously anti-Semitic? Why was one disqualifying and the other not? And I won’t begin to cite his fulminations against Christianity. Perhaps his sin was a recent, not completely relativist pronouncement that “it’s tempting to say all religions are bad, and I do say all religions are bad, but it’s a worse temptation to say all religions are equally bad because they’re not. If you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world, it’s quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam.”
  
  Notice the qualifier: “at present.” And with that qualifier, who, on earth, could deny this? Is there a Christian regime currently anywhere even close to ISIS’s caliphate? How many Jewish terrorists are setting off bombs at pop concerts full of young girls? History is replete with horrors of all religions when abused by fanatics. But today, it is Islam that is clearly out in front. Dawkins is not, moreover, attacking Muslims. In fact, in the same interview, he immediately followed up with this: “It’s terribly important to modify that because of course that doesn’t mean all Muslims are evil, very far from it. Individual Muslims suffer more from Islam than anyone else.” KPFA couldn’t read that far?
  
  I fear that the truth is Islam has become an untouchable shibboleth for some on the left. What they lacerate in other religions, they refuse to mention in Islam. Sexism, homophobia, the death penalty for apostasy … all of this is to be rationalized if the alternative is Islamophobia. Why, one wonders? Is it because Muslims are a small minority? But the same could be said for Jews. My best guess is simply that, for the far left, anything that is predominantly “of color” is preferable to anything, like Judaism and Christianity, that can usually be described as “white.” That’s how “intersectionality” can be used to defend what would otherwise be indefensible. The preoccupation with race on the far left is now so deep, in other words, it’s becoming simply an inversion of that on the far right.

BTW, I note with approval that he refers specifically to “the authoritarian left”, “some on the left”, and “the far left” instead of just throwing all liberals/leftists/progressives together and referring to us collectively as “the left”. That’s important.

[Lord Jim]

I note with approval that he refers specifically to “the authoritarian left”, “some on the left”, and “the far left” instead of just throwing all liberals/leftists/progressives together and referring to us collectively as “the left”. That’s important.

The sorts of qualifiers and distinctions that, (you may have noticed) I also generally use...