Richard Dawkins: : I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI

Morbert

While I am not a fan of all of Dawkins's writing. There have been major accusations against him on this thread that are clearly incorrect.

Dawkins is not a fundamentalist and Dawkins does not subscribe to scientism.

vodafoneproblem

ISAW wrote: »

You may be interested in the following then:
http://www.cam.cornell.edu/~rclewley/jom.html
http://www.lucifer.com/virus/alt.memetics/concepts.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6566/is_1_30/ai_n28910381/?tag=content;col1
which ends:
This is a much more humble approach for an academic discipline that purportedly helps us explain the very origin of culture and mind. However, it is also an approach that may yield real results--as opposed to the creation of memetic myths that have no basis in e mpirical fact and tell us nothing truthful or helpful about the origin, replication, and descent of language, mind, and culture.


You see what gets me is when a scientist uses the word "evolution" in reference to biological evolution of a species ther is a specific meaning attached to that. Social "evolution" isn't the same thing at all! Now a biologist should go to pains to point that out instead of inventing a whole new field to justify it!

Appreciate it! I have to say Dawkins has gone down to an even lower level in my eyes as a result of this discussion. I've seen people say that they don't like his tgd book but his biology work is great. Turns out, that ain't so hot either!

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

While I am not a fan of all of Dawkins's writing. There have been major accusations against him on this thread that are clearly incorrect.

Dawkins is not a fundamentalist and Dawkins does not subscribe to scientism.

And your evidence for this bald assertion is?

http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_dawkinsfallacies.htm
Dawkins confuses science with philosophical naturalism to produce scientism. Perhaps we really do need a ‘Professor for the Public Understanding of Scientism’.


http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=724
He became the apostle of scientism, the ideology that says everything in the universe has a materialist explanation and must answer to the rules of empirical scientific evidence; to believe anything else is irrational....Such indoctrination is a hallmark of the fundamentalist who knows he is not just right but righteous. So all who oppose him are by definition not just wrong but evil. Which is why alternative views must be howled down or suppressed.
This is, of course, the characteristic of all totalitarian regimes, including religious inquisitions. Which is why Dawkins can lay claim to being not the most enlightened thinker on the planet, as his acolytes regard him, but instead the Savonarola of scientism and an intolerant closer of minds.

Michael G

PDN wrote: »

Peter Tatchell tried to do something similar with Robert Mugabe in Brussels in 2001. As I recall he had the crap kicked out of him by Mugabe's bodyguards.

I remember that, and thinking, as the Americans say, "I have no dog in this fight."

antiskeptic

ISAW wrote: »

And your evidence for this bald assertion is?

http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_dawkinsfallacies.htm
Dawkins confuses science with philosophical naturalism to produce scientism. Perhaps we really do need a ‘Professor for the Public Understanding of Scientism’.

An enjoyable read..

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

And your evidence for this bald assertion is?

There is no evidence that Dawkins is a fundamentalist or that he subscribes to scientism.

http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_dawkinsfallacies.htm
Dawkins confuses science with philosophical naturalism to produce scientism. Perhaps we really do need a ‘Professor for the Public Understanding of Scientism’.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=724
He became the apostle of scientism, the ideology that says everything in the universe has a materialist explanation and must answer to the rules of empirical scientific evidence; to believe anything else is irrational....Such indoctrination is a hallmark of the fundamentalist who knows he is not just right but righteous. So all who oppose him are by definition not just wrong but evil. Which is why alternative views must be howled down or suppressed.
This is, of course, the characteristic of all totalitarian regimes, including religious inquisitions. Which is why Dawkins can lay claim to being not the most enlightened thinker on the planet, as his acolytes regard him, but instead the Savonarola of scientism and an intolerant closer of minds.

While I do not agree with Dawkins's claim that science can be applied to the question of God, that is not sufficient to claim Dawkins subscribes to scientism. Dawkins has stated, for example, that the appreciation of art and literature is not scientific. You seem to be conflating scientism with materialism. I, like Dawkins, subscribe to a certain materialism, but not to scientism.

Also, Dawkins does not indoctrinate, nor has he been indoctrinated, so he is not a fundamentalist.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

There is no evidence that Dawkins is a fundamentalist or that he subscribes to scientism.

Also, Dawkins does not indoctrinate, nor has he been indoctrinated, so he is not a fundamentalist.

Humm... Possibly people have different understandings of the word fundamentalist because I don't think that indoctrination is necessarily a core component of what makes a fundamentalist. Even if it was, I think that one could look at Dawkins' support for advertising campaigns and childrens camps as forms of indoctrination.

Personally I think Dawkins is a Zealot.

Hugo Drax

Jonny7 wrote: »

Taken from the headline on the timesonline.co.uk

Apparently Dawkins along with fellow atheists and legal will try to arrest the pope on his visit to UK.

The atheist in me is thinking 'stick it to him', but, quite honestly, I believe not much good will come of this, its more of a disgruntled revenge attack. Its up to the Catholic church to resolve this issue themselves. I'm not sure if this deserves its own post or should be merged with the ongoing thread.

Would assume that if Dawkins attempts anything of the sort he will very likely be shot by the elite Swiss Guard.

Dave!

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Would assume that if Dawkins attempts anything of the sort he will very likely be shot by the elite Swiss Guard.

pppssshhhhhhhhhhhh




oooooohhh scary

Hugo Drax

Dave! wrote: »

pppssshhhhhhhhhhhh




oooooohhh scary

Well that guy in the photo is wearing a trad uniform but he's still a trained military professional armed and ready.

The swiss guards that travel with the Pope wear plain clothes, carry semi automatic handguns and submachine guns and are very much prepared to use them if the Pope's life is threatened.

They are trained to the same standard as other elite military units and the only thing ceremonial about them is the uniform you've posted....

Dave!

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Well that guy in the photo is wearing a trad uniform but he's still a trained military professional armed and ready.

The swiss guards that travel with the Pope wear plain clothes, carry semi automatic handguns and submachine guns and are very much prepared to use them if the Pope's life is threatened.

They are trained to the same standard as other elite military units and the only thing ceremonial about them is the uniform you've posted....

It's a pretty silly uniform in fairness...

Hugo Drax

Dave! wrote: »

It's a pretty silly uniform in fairness...

It's all about tradition, tradition my friend.

Look at the silly uniforms on display at Buckingham Palace...same thing.

Fanny Cradock

Let's look at this rationally. Firstly, 69 year old Dawkins isn't going to vault the barrier and fling himself at the Pope. Secondly, the Swiss guard look like Oompa-Loompas.

Hugo Drax

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Let's look at this rationally. Firstly, 69 year old Dawkins isn't going to vault the barrier and fling himself at the Pope. Secondly, the Swiss guard look like Oompa-Loompas.

Trained oompa loompas with machine guns.

Willy wonka would have given all his wonka bars for oompa loompas like that.

goat2

Jonny7 wrote: »

Taken from the headline on the timesonline.co.uk

Apparently Dawkins along with fellow atheists and legal will try to arrest the pope on his visit to UK.

The atheist in me is thinking 'stick it to him', but, quite honestly, I believe not much good will come of this, its more of a disgruntled revenge attack. Its up to the Catholic church to resolve this issue themselves. I'm not sure if this deserves its own post or should be merged with the ongoing thread.

hope he take along his toothbrush and pj s , as he will not be returning home for a long time after this

prinz

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Let's look at this rationally. Firstly, 69 year old Dawkins isn't going to vault the barrier and fling himself at the Pope.

Now that would be hilarious to see. :pac:. Me thinks an online game is in the offing, Dawkins Storms the Vatican.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Secondly, the Swiss guard look like Oompa-Loompas.

Highly trained miltary men all the same. If you've ever seen some units of the French Foreign Legion parade you'll see that looking ridiculous isn't restricted to the Swiss Guard...

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/french-foreign-legion2.jpg

I'd be caught between 'Hi-Ho Hi-Ho it's off to work we go' or Monty Python's Lumberjack song, but either way I think I'd come off worse in a confrontation

Teclo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5spUtCNpLbQ

Dont be at yourself

Is the whole trained guards with guns not against the whole Christianity thing? Didn't Jesus tell the lads to lay down their weapons in the garden of Gethsemane?

vodafoneproblem

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Well that guy in the photo is wearing a trad uniform but he's still a trained military professional armed and ready.

The swiss guards that travel with the Pope wear plain clothes, carry semi automatic handguns and submachine guns and are very much prepared to use them if the Pope's life is threatened.

They are trained to the same standard as other elite military units and the only thing ceremonial about them is the uniform you've posted....

They do? Awesome! In fairness, that's a pretty serious looking dude if you ignore the uniform.

Lol "Dawkins gunned down while chewing on the popes robes and ranting about spaghetti monsters" would make for interesting reading...

prinz

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Is the whole trained guards with guns not against the whole Christianity thing? Didn't Jesus tell the lads to lay down their weapons in the garden of Gethsemane?

A better comparison to draw would be the fact that some of Jesus' companions were armed at all. So no, not particularly against the whole Christian thing.

crotalus667

IIRC this is a mute point the pope has diplomatic imunity , due to the deal one of his predessers did with Musalini

Manach

I believe a Wall street journal article pointed out that the Vatican successor to the pre-Italian reunification Papal kingdoms, thus is a state.

cypharius

Manach wrote: »

I believe a Wall street journal article pointed out that the Vatican successor to the pre-Italian reunification Papal kingdoms, thus is a state.

Yes, but that's not the important part, the important part is that the Vatican isn't recognised by the UN, so he doesn't get diplomatic immunity.

PDN

cypharius wrote: »

Yes, but that's not the important part, the important part is that the Vatican isn't recognised by the UN, so he doesn't get diplomatic immunity.

Actually the status at the UN is not the important part.

The important part is that the UK has had diplomatic relations with the Vatican since 1982, so he does get diplomatic immunity.

prinz

cypharius wrote: »

Yes, but that's not the important part, the important part is that the Vatican isn't recognised by the UN, so he doesn't get diplomatic immunity.

Another dodgy fact that is being repeated over and over. The Vatican's status is inconclusive. Yes the Holy See has observer status in the General Assembley, however the Vatican also takes part in various UN organisations as a fully recognised member. The Holy See is diplomatically recognised by the vast majority of the world's nations, including the United Kingdom as PDN pointed out. Thereare only a handful of countries in this world where the Pope's diplomatic immunity could be successfully challenged.

The article re the campaign Dawkins endorsed is completely flawed, from the Pope's immunity status to the scope and limitations of the ICC.

ISAW

prinz wrote: »

Another dodgy fact that is being repeated over and over. The Vatican's status is inconclusive.

No it isn't!

Yes the Holy See has observer status in the General Assembley, however the Vatican also takes part in various UN organisations as a fully recognised member. The Holy See is diplomatically recognised by the vast majority of the world's nations, including the United Kingdom as PDN pointed out. Thereare only a handful of countries in this world where the Pope's diplomatic immunity could be successfully challenged.

The Holy See is recognised as a full member of the UN and has all the rights of every other member except the right to vote. That was accepted by a UN decision

Resolution 58/314 of 16 July 2004.

The legal status of the Holy See, both in state practice and according to the writing of modern legal scholars, is that of a full subject of public international law, with rights and duties analogous to those of States.

The article re the campaign Dawkins endorsed is completely flawed, from the Pope's immunity status to the scope and limitations of the ICC.

WRONG! Your opinion about the Pope as a head of state is flawed as shown above by the FACT of the UN Resolution.

prinz

ISAW wrote: »

No it isn't!
The Holy See is recognised as a full member of the UN and has all the rights of every other member except the right to vote. That was accepted by a UN decision

Resolution 58/314 of 16 July 2004..

http://www.un.org/en/members/index.shtml#v

UN Member States under 'V' 'T' 'H' doesn't throw up anything...

Oh wait here it is... under Non Member States.... odd

http://www.un.org/en/members/nonmembers.shtml


The Resolution clearly states that the Holy See is an observer State afforded the rights and privileges of a full member. However, legally, it is still not a full member of the United Nations.

1. Acknowledges that the Holy See, in its capacity as an Observer State,
shall be accorded the rights and privileges of participation in the sessions and work
of the General Assembly and the international conferences convened under the
auspices of the Assembly or other organs of the United Nations, as well as in United
Nations conferences as set out in the annex to the present resolution;

http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-58-314.pdf

My point is that claiming the UN doesn't recognise the Vatican is nonsense. It does. The Vatican is not a full member state but it is recognised on par as one.

ISAW wrote: »

The legal status of the Holy See, both in state practice and according to the writing of modern legal scholars, is that of a full subject of public international law, with rights and duties analogous to those of States...

Yes.. I have repeatedly said the very same thing

ISAW wrote: »

WRONG! Your opinion about the Pope as a head of state is flawed as shown above by the FACT of the UN Resolution.

Not flawed. See above. The Vatican is not a full member of the UN despite enoying the benefits of being one. It has a privileged obsever status.

ISAW

prinz wrote: »

My point is that claiming the UN doesn't recognise the Vatican is nonsense. It does. The Vatican is not a full member state but it is recognised on par as one.

On the substansive issue we dont differ then. I though you were saying the Pope or Vatican diplomats don't have diplomatic Status or immunity. they do

The Vatican is not a full member of the UN despite enoying the benefits of being one. It has a privileged obsever status.

The only difference between observer and full member is that the person reppresenting the State can vote in the UN general assembly. The Holy See can do anything else but vaot.

The Holy See is like the State the Vatican is just part of it. Tehr are other places worldwide (indeed several non Vatican sites in Italy) covered by the Holy See. the Vatican is recognised by Italy under the Latern treaty. It is a bt like sayng the Holy See is like the US and the Vatican is like a city in the US. Except the Holy see doesnt have national territory in a geographic sense with the exception of the Vatican and the other listed sites.

prinz

ISAW wrote: »

On the substansive issue we dont differ then. I though you were saying the Pope or Vatican diplomats don't have diplomatic Status or immunity. they do.

Yes. I was originally referring to the fact that numerous people were claiming the UN doesn't recognise the Vatican therefore no immunity. These people are going on the fact that the Vatican is not a 'full member' so to speak, but I was pointing out that it does enjoy the privileges and rights of a full member. For some people it's as simple as saying 'the UN doesn't recognise the Vatican therefore no immunity'. This is black and white nonsense. The issue is more complex.

I was making the same point clear, the Pope and Vatican officials do enjoy diplomatic immmunities.

PDN

prinz wrote: »

I was making the same point clear, the Pope and Vatican officials do enjoy diplomatic immmunities.

Indeed they do, but by virtue of bilateral agreements with national governments - not by virtue of belonging to the UN.

If the Pope visits the UN headquarters in New York, for example, he enjoys diplomatic immunity because of an Executive Order issued by President George H Bush, not because of the UN.