There was something in my newspaper (uk) about Richard Dawkins having to ban ppl from his site ... I only skimmed the article but when I couldn't sleep last night had a look for myself ... Big headlines from his article in The Times ... he's comparing evolution 'deniars' to Holocaust 'deniars' ... umm well as someone who's father lost his family as a child in the camps, personally I didn't appreciate the analogy ... from my experience, ppl who are Holocaust 'deniars' (am I spelling that right?) are not only ignorant but anti-semitic/ anti-Jewish .... I lived round the corner from a family whose twin daughters told me that the Holocaust wasn't true ... when I said about my Dad they replied 'well, YOU weren't there, were you?' ....


Well I suppose those twin girls had learned their views from their parents .... I  could only take comfort in the fact that they lived in a house named 'Mobec' (no, not a cute Cornish name, but rather - unbeknownst to them - a conglomeration of the names of the former occupants ... a very Jewish Morry n Becky ....


Anyhoo I don't think most creationists have such nastiness at the bottom of their thoughts . and I don't think Richard Dawkins is going to win any 'hearts and minds' with his insensitive analogy - even though I can understand the logic.


My own mother has a sorta woolly 'G-d created the world in 7 days which was actually 7 aeons in line with evolution' type of belief ...  she would be mightily offended to be compared with Holocaust deniars (however that's spelt). 


PS  It was actually that same Mum who gave me Richard Dawkins previous book, The God Delusion.



Views: 196

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Sine says: I guess what I am arguing for is an elevation of the facts over the emotional context.

A good stance to have. Emotions can seriously hamper reason and objectivity in people.
As opposed to coming from dirt. XD
Not being able to "see" evolution is part of the problem. But neither can we "see" Pluto orbit the Sun, yet there is not this whole class of loons out there refuting the science on that.

No, most of drive for denial is rooted in the emotions of a person and how it relates to a topic. Holocaust deniers may tend to be distrustful of Jewish people. Evolution deniers will tend to be distrustful of science and be religious. In almost all cases like these, I'd be willing to wager that there is an underlying, ulterior, and emotional motive for the denial of facts and evidence.
Reminds me of people who deny slavery being so bad, or that the bible was used to justify it, tending to be from the South.
Yeah, they did get free room and board, right? Not so bad at all.

But that is another good example.
I think this business of subjectivism is an irrelevant tangent to my point ... as Adriana says, the facts are not subjective ... this was genocidal and inhumane. My point is, is it fair to compare Holocaust deniers with evolution deniers or is this unfair and insensitive to the latter ... and unwise, as not likely to win hearts and minds. In fact, I would suggest it may come over as'name calling' imo - even if there is a logical parallel. Or is my position on this coloured by my sensitivity to the issue??
Very well said, Adriana. I generally do not like comparisons involving the Holocaust because they are generally hyperbolic and inevitable, as per Godwin's Law. However, I do think that the hyperbole is justified in this situation; the denial of evolution, promotion of creationism, and overall advocacy for irrationality hold severely negative consequences for the world at large. The drama of a Holocaust comparison is appropriate considering the potential fallout of a world that continues to be mired in religious dogma; faith is the ultimate enemy of any peaceful international relations, and this is extremely frightening in a nuclear age.
More often than not, comparisons involving the Holocaust or Hitler have little merit beyond the shock value, which I think is why I personally don't care for them. But this doesn't make all comparisons of this type guilty of the same crime.

Dawkins explained his point and explained why the comparison is made. To try and take the analogy and make ALL aspects fit is disingenious. I was just listening to a SGU podcast and they were speaking about this very thing. One example they gave to illustrate this fallacy was something along the lines (but not exactly this) of comparing someone to Ray Comfort because of their fundamentalist views and ignoring of evidence, but they object to the comparison because they do not have a mustache.

And I apologize to Adriana, since this started as a response to her, grew into something else, and now I don't know if I should move it or not but am too lazy to do so. :-)
Adriana I agree with your first para totally ... don't like to see all that suffering exploited by Israel or anybody ... my Dad was in camps as a child and lost his family ... impossible NOT to be subjective ... which doesn't mean not trying to understand what and why all this happened and its effects now ... although very difficult ...

Just to say ... I went on the Dawkins site to see what the fuss in the newpapers was about ... he'd banned ppl from his 'open' forum who were extremely personally verbally abusive to the person who set up the forum (I wont' go into details here - have a look for yourself if you like)... was actually nothing to do with the Holocaust comparison, I don't think. I see he's apologised for his response and will now vet new threads before they're posted but allow free comments to all threads (he's stopped the old forum but it's available to look at).
Fancy Nancy, go here to learn more and for links regarding the RDF forums. And you are right that the closing of the forums have nothing to do with the Holocaust analogy, which is quite old (by internet standards), I believe.
Thanks Reggie ... so THAT was what the fuss was all about ...
You are most welcome! :-)


© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service