Wouldn't a degree in Semantics fall under linguistics or philosophy? It was part of the trivium a thousand years ago.

The conclusion of the thread is that Dawkins tweet was an objective fact, also known as the truth, and that the truth is not racist. Another reality of the thread is how much individuals want to ignore the truth and produce rationalizations that claim the truth is racist.

Ok...soooo...who are the crazy nutbaggers that think an objective fact can be "racist"?

Can you sum up their irrational arguments?

The tweet was bigoted. The fact presented int he tweet was not. It's simply a matter of analysis. The tweet comes from a person and has motive. The fact presented as an independent analysis *without* reference to the poster/tweeter is not bigoted.

The difference is between the fact presented and its usage.

And quit calling facts "truths". Facts are facts, truths are subjective.

Sounds like a topic for another thread.

Without delving in to the whole thing, yes, a fact is a fact, and a fact can be used in a racist, subjective manner. The media does this all the time.

I presented this idea to my daughter just the other day. Media reports the following:

A black man walked by the store. The store owner later reported a broken window.

Two facts, presented in a way as to suggest a black man broke a window.

The missing middle fact, "There was a violent hail storm" changes the story completely.

No singular fact is racist. Presentation is clearly so...

Is that what you are driving at, Draug?

OK, so do you see that the fact presented, while not inately racist/bigoted, is intepretted as such form the point of view as being a "statement" from a person with a certain predisposition?

Exactly, krellin, except in this case it was only one fact presented by someone with a known anti-religious view and specifically an anti-Muslim view. The intent behind the presentation was a bigoted inference. So as it stands, the fact *in* the tweet was just a fact. The intent *of* the tweet was bigoted.

And that is what most of us have been trying to get through to Emac. As statement or tweet is more than just the fact it presents. It is the intent of the person making it which is easily derived knowing Dawkins positions on these matters. To deny his intent is to be intentionally obtuse, or just an idiot.

Draug, your words seem wasted. You already told Emacs yesterday, i explained in my words, steephie explained in his. Emacs is either willfully ignoring you, or just stuck in his own little world.

All the things he says are true, but neither interesting nor relevant. There is no point in arguing with someone who is not talking about the same thing you are talking about.

I tried to get him to explain his logic, but he's not listening.

@Krellin, good example (and before i get called a lier again, i just unmuted you) as you said a fact can be presented in a way which is rascist.

I was talking about context, you're talking about presentation. I guess how you present something gives it a specific context.

Calling someone a nigger could be rascist if it came from a white person, but perfectly acceptable coming from black person. In that case it is the social context of the word which is different (i guess, it's ok to call someone a slave so long as you're not implying that you are better than them... i was trying to think of an example where the president of america said something, and the difference in context between Bush and Obama... but i can't think of anything good)

I'll just reference quantum mechanics as a wrench to throw into the whole "observations are facts" idea. There are no facts in this world, only perceived truths based on a reality created for us by our senses and intuition.

An Aristotelian post.

It's puzzling why someone desiring to discuss a topic outside the scope of a thread doesn't start another thread for that topic. Kind of like asking for a pizza at Burger King using the reasoning "it's all food." A troll hijacking?

The previous post was of the "if the shoe fits" variety.

@y2k, thanks i like wrenchs...

but seriously, we all have a worldview, it is flawed, it is biased, it is human, and most of all it is an approximation of reality.

I actually prefer the term Maya, from Hinduism. Roughly translated, an Illusion. We each have our own personal illusion of what reality is actually like.

Given the quantum mechanics, it is safe to assume that we only have the illusion of facts. But that is what we're talking about, even if we don't acknowledge it. (the fact that this illusion is so good it might aswell be real makes talking about it as an illusion a fairly good waste of time)

Anyway, think Matrix or Inception, but we each have veils over our eyes, we each see different worlds each time we open our eyes, and for every veil you remove there is never a way to tell whether that was the last veil... (veil, maya, illusion, and each as if it were a factual thing...)

"I'll just reference quantum mechanics as a wrench to throw into the whole "observations are facts" idea. There are no facts in this world, only perceived truths based on a reality created for us by our senses and intuition. "

I was hoping this would come up, as "objective facts" as we percieve them *still* rely upon a human metaphysical interpretation of the universe...but that's a wholllllle other ball of wax, isn't it?


There is not such thing as a carrot....there is only a collection of subatomic forces arranged in a particular order for a given length of time....

Just saying...

"The point of the statement is to imply that Muslims are somehow inferior to the other group, so yes, it can be perceived as racist whether it is "true" or not."

I disagree, bo_sox, as to the implication--

The implication isn't that Muslims are inferior...

But rather that religious fanaticism/states endorsing that fanaticism has led to an entire people falling behind in terms of the Nobel Prize race, not to mention science and literature.

And...he's right.

The fact IS true...

And, well...

When a book ("The Satanic Verses") which was intended to be SYMPATHETIC to Muslims generates a 20-year-long fatwah and ruins that author's life for the mere crime of writing a work of fiction...well, that's religion ruining a culture's capacity to have full creative and intellectual freedom.

"Why not mention Christianity and Judaism?"

1. The same reason take more issue with Islam on an international level--it's not the Christians and Jews (currently) who are blowing up buildings and people in the name of establishing a new Caliphate because of their own holy book. That doesn't make their holy book BETTER...but they're just (mostly) not the #1 threat to peace.

2. There are so many Jews in the various scientific fields, and have been for centuries, that really, I think (most) Jews are past that...the oldest of the three, arguably it's the furthest along of the three in terms of integrating into a secular world.

3. I think most Christians realize that, first, science and advancement is helpful, and with the exception of those trying to teach Creationism or Intelligent Design, are letting science and literary/freedom of expression proceed.

So it's not that Muslims are somehow inferior...

It's that Islam, as practiced in many parts of the world right now, is holding an entire people back...when you refuse to acknowledge evolution and threaten to kill an author for the terrible crime of writing a novel, that's not progress, that's a definite problem.

All of this is somewhat ironic given that the Muslim world used to be light years ahead in scientific research way back when in the Middle Ages...

Sadly, a lot of Islamic clerics and radicals who have power want to keep ideology and ethics rooted in that era, and are anti--progress, which is the problem.

I haven't read all of this thread, so forgive me if the points I make here have already been raised. Richard Dawkins has published numerous scientific papers, written books, delivered public lectures, made documentaries, been interviewed on TV, magazines, newspapers, he's on YouTube and his ideas have been discussed at length by millions of his supporters and critics. Richard Dawkins views are a matter of public record. He has expressed nothing in that tweet that he hasn't said hundreds times all ready.

Any interpretation of Richard Dawkins tweet needs to be consistent with his already well-known views about biology and religion. Richard Dawkins is clearly NOT racist (in a biological sense). But yes he is against all religion including the Islamic faith. There is nothing new about this fact.

Richard Dawkins believes that the world would be better off without religion. It just so happens that parts of the world most strongly influenced by religion at this point in the 21st century are primarily Muslim. And it also happens that many of those countries are held back by that religion because it, at this time, it often suppresses any ideas that run counter to those beliefs, including scientific ideas.

Does Richard Dawkins believe that those Islamic countries would be better off if they were Christian or another religion? I don't think there is anything in his published works which supports that view. But if he did hold that view, so what? Christians believe that Christianity is superior to Islam; Islam believes Islam is superior to Christianity. To follow any religion is to believe that other religions are inferior. And to be atheist is to believe that followers of all religion are deluded.

Take this post by Philcore:

"Fewer Nobel prizes because they're intellectually inferior as a race = racist"

The trouble with this statement is it is full of ambiguity... mmmm.... Racism is bad m'kay....

The provocative word in that post is "race". Race can be used in a loosely biological sense, to refer to physical and mental characteristics. The idea that some races are inferior/superior has been totally discredited in the scientific community, and within that community Richard Dawkins does a very good job of articulating why notions of racial inferiority/superiority are ludicrous.

But sometimes we use race to convey notions of ethnicity, part of which might include a religious element.

I think Philcore is twisting Richard Dawkins words to imply - that because he he is against religion, and because we can define the word "race" to include religion, and since "racism is bad" that Richard Dawkins is bad.

That is a total distortion of Richard Dawkins's views. If you want to know what Richard Dawkins really thinks read some of his books.

I have just had a quick read of Obi's last few post - I pretty much agree with his interpretation.

"It's that Islam, as practiced in many parts of the world right now, is holding an entire people back...when you refuse to acknowledge evolution and threaten to kill an author for the terrible crime of writing a novel, that's not progress, that's a definite problem. "

+ 1 Obi

@spyman: " I think Philcore is twisting Richard Dawkins words to imply ..."

I think you got me completely wrong spyman. The point I was making was that objective facts are not racist. Therefore what Dawkins tweeted was not racist. But objective fact can be used for racist - or otherwise bigoted - purposes, and gave one example explicitly about race and another about a non-racial bigotry to illustrate my point and the difference between the two.

I tried to make it clear that the word "racism" should only be used about race, not religion, not ethnicity, not nationality. Maybe I failed in that attempt.

For the record, I like dawkins, but I liked hitchens too and he was WAY more critical about religion in general and Islam specifically. So I wasn't attempting to twist his words even slightly. I was only expanding on how one could use the fact that he stated without any implication, to make such an implication and use it for as a racist comment.

Sorry philcore... I got it completely the wrong way around I see. I completely agree with you then.

First, you missed the whole thread, but that's ok cause Emacs wasn't listening.

Second, is it not cultural imperialism (or bigoted) to say our values are better than yours. I mean a whole part of the justification for colonial power was them thinking they were 'civilised' and the rest of the world were backward... I'm sure that Islamic culture thinks itself better off in many ways.

I mean, you pick a few examples of 'bad-ness' in one culture (the satanic verses and evolution?), and assume that represents the whole thing, then it's pretty easy to make out as if your culture is the best.

Now i may actually agree with you, in general, i think the treatment of women and lgbt people is terrible, and as a humanist I would oppose it. The lack of education... etc etc. but I also admit that my own cultural values mean my judgement is biased in this.

I mean i talk here a lot about how guns are bad m'kay, but i also say how happy i am for Americans to have guns so long as i don't have to live there... it's not my job to change your culture.

But yes, just because Dawkin's is bigoted - the is, intolerant of religion - doesn't mean he is wrong. I just don't like his tactics, his tendancy to polarize people and his outright attacks - mostly because i believe they do more harm than good.

Whew, I'm glad we cleared that up :-)

If I could make a point and not get attacked, Dawkins did fail to take into account the current situation of the Muslim world as compared to the Christian world, that is to say, the infrastructure of the various Muslim countries is much less hospitable towards achievement. On his website, Dawkins acknowledges the achievements made during the middle ages in the Muslim world, while Europe went through "The Dark Ages" but then discredits them by asking "so what's gone wrong for the past 500 years?" What Dawkins seems to fail to take into account is that the Muslim world was turned upside down by colonization by the Europeans, who did all they could to keep the countries behind so that they could maintain control. The only piece that doesn't fit into the puzzle is the ottoman empire, but their policies that were contemporary to the colonial european policies seemed to be the same, they just didn't have a false sense of superiority for religious or racial reasons. Anyways, that's my two cents. I'm totally up for debating and such but the exchange of ideas is interrupted when we start calling each other stupid and then it just becomes a waste of everyone's time. Glad to see this thread is still going though

'If I could make a point and not get attacked', well i don't think that's possible... but good luck.

But you're right, and Dawkins could have been using this fact to encourage investment in education and culture in Islamic nations. I mean that could have been the intent of his message, but it wasn't.

Filed under rationalization.