Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'
by TheValve.org
OK, so it's not a real book, but I thought it was pretty hilarious.
Reposted from:
http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/more_on_dawkins/
and
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/dawkins_demolished.php
The controversy stirred up by Dawkins's latest book The Fascism Delusion really seem to be heating up. Here is one recent review, from many, that takes him to task:
Only Dawkins, or perhaps his psychiatrist, can say why this subject seems to make him so angry; but he should be advised that the intemperate hostility he exhibits towards his subject is counterproductive. I'll eat my shiny peaked cap if this book persuades even the most hesitant half-Fascist to renounce his beliefs.
… [Dawkins's] sense of 'Fascism' is lamentably error-strewn. Dawkins has only a superficial knowledge of Mein Kamf, or the poetry of Marinetti; and he seems entirely ignorant of the much more subtle and intellectually stimulating work of Fascist philosophers such as Hermann Graf Keyserling, Alfred Baeumler, Martin Heidegger, Giovanni Gentile, Rafael Sánchez Mazas, Alain de Benoist and many others. Only somebody who has mastered the complete works of all these thinkers could even conceivably be in a position to advance an anti-Fascist argument. The lack of that necessary body of knowledge fatally undermines Dawkins's right to attack Fascism in the first place.
Right from the get-go he makes the mistake of talking about 'Fascism' as if it were some unified quality. Of course the truth is that there are a great many varieties and flavours of Fascism. Do his generalisations refer to Italian Fascism? Hitlerian fascism? Islamofascism? Falangism? Crypto-Fascism? Brazilian Integralism? It is meaningless to extract an idealised, monolithic 'fascism' from this myriad patchwork of human practices, even for polemical purposes. Nor is it right to call Fascism 'right-wing' (what about the career of Otto Johann Maximilian Strasser?) or 'militaristic' (many Fascists are wholly peaceable).
Dawkins repeatedly compares the best of non-Fascism to the worst of Fascism. He (again repeatedly) accuses Fascism of being an 'extremism'. There have been some Fascists who were extremists, of course; but this doesn't mean that Fascism itself is extremist. I certainly did not recognise myself, or any of my local Party organisation, in Dawkins's bitter, hate-filled portrayal. Worse, he does not seem to realise that his own position, so-called non-Fascism, is actually a kind of Fascism: a structure of belief determined by Fascism, dependent for many of its core ideas on Fascist traditions.
… Take for example this biased observation: "Fascism seeks to impose total state control over all aspects of life, from the political and cultural right down to questions of individual ethical and sexual choice. It valorises strength, and exalts the nation state as superior to the individuals composing it." Not even the junior Nazi Party secretary who first introduced me to Fascism believed that! ...
Almost all of Dawkins's claims are easily dismissed. His main one is that 'the fascist mindset' (whatever that is) 'enables people to commit appalling acts of barbarism and violence', that it 'encourages a tendency to separate humanity into sheep from goats, thereafter not only permitting but actively encouraging the persecution of the goats'. Then he trots out the tired old example of the holocaust. I've news for Professor Dawkins: yes, Fascists killed six million Jews in the 1940s. But they didn't do this because they were Fascists; but because they were human beings. All through history Jews have been killed. Killing Jews is one of the things that people have always done; deplorable, perhaps, but a fact of life. Since killing Jews predates Hitlerian Fascism, and since it has carried on after the decline in influence of Hitlerian Fascism, I think it's pretty obvious that this particular mass-murder of Jews had very little to do with Hitlerian Fascism, and everything to do with people's inherent capacity for evil—something, incidentally, for which Fascism has not only an explanatory theory, but a remedy; which is more than can be said for Professor Dawkins.
... Though he accuses Fascism of being an extremism; he flatly refuses to acknowledge the extremist bias of his own non-Fascist position. He is also blind to the obvious truth that his beloved non-Fascists have killed just as many people as have Fascists—more, indeed. Why doesn't Dawkins focus his polemic on them? The reason is that a peculiar hysterical hostility to the very idea of Fascism blinds him. (He claims for instance that 'non-Fascists don't do evil in the name of non-Fascism', which would be news to all the senior Fascists hanged by the Nuremberg anti-Fascist trials). All ideals — political, transcendent, human, or invented — are capable of being abused. And knowing this, we need to work out what to do about it, rather than lashing out uncritically at Fascism. But Dawkins cannot understand this.
I am not, of course, suggesting that Fascism has been perfect; no reasonable Fascist would. Whilst it's true that the Leader is the inerrant embodiment of the will of the People—ordinary Fascists themselves are prone to all the fallibilities of the human condition. Fascism has never claimed otherwise. But whilst Dawkins is happy to highlight the occasional bad consequences of Fascism, he wilfully ignores the good that Fascism manifestly has done in the world. There is no mention in this book of the prodigious architectural triumphs, the autobahns, the economic miracles, or most of all, the sense of belonging, purpose and meaning that being a member of a Fascist brotherhood brings to the ordinary man-in-the-street. All the evidence shows that Fascists are more likely than are non-Fascists to dedicate themselves selflessly to an ideal higher and to forego their own individual gratification; indeed for many people this is the point of Fascism.
Far from being a serious philosophical book, this ill-edited and garrulous diatribe contains just about anything that crosses the author's mind: page after sarcastic page of attacks against any aspect of Fascism Dawkins considers an easy target. Dawkins avoids the real question of whether one's political understanding terminates with a structureless, anarchic and social aggregation void of meaning, or with an authority who provides order, stability and reason for living. The bottom line is that Dawkins cannot affird to entertain the possibility that Fascism fills a deep-seated need in people. But the evidence that this is the case is so strong. Fascism could hardly have been as popular as it has been, for as long, otherwise.
Reposted from:
http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/more_on_dawkins/
and
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/dawkins_demolished.php
The controversy stirred up by Dawkins's latest book The Fascism Delusion really seem to be heating up. Here is one recent review, from many, that takes him to task:
Only Dawkins, or perhaps his psychiatrist, can say why this subject seems to make him so angry; but he should be advised that the intemperate hostility he exhibits towards his subject is counterproductive. I'll eat my shiny peaked cap if this book persuades even the most hesitant half-Fascist to renounce his beliefs.
… [Dawkins's] sense of 'Fascism' is lamentably error-strewn. Dawkins has only a superficial knowledge of Mein Kamf, or the poetry of Marinetti; and he seems entirely ignorant of the much more subtle and intellectually stimulating work of Fascist philosophers such as Hermann Graf Keyserling, Alfred Baeumler, Martin Heidegger, Giovanni Gentile, Rafael Sánchez Mazas, Alain de Benoist and many others. Only somebody who has mastered the complete works of all these thinkers could even conceivably be in a position to advance an anti-Fascist argument. The lack of that necessary body of knowledge fatally undermines Dawkins's right to attack Fascism in the first place.
Right from the get-go he makes the mistake of talking about 'Fascism' as if it were some unified quality. Of course the truth is that there are a great many varieties and flavours of Fascism. Do his generalisations refer to Italian Fascism? Hitlerian fascism? Islamofascism? Falangism? Crypto-Fascism? Brazilian Integralism? It is meaningless to extract an idealised, monolithic 'fascism' from this myriad patchwork of human practices, even for polemical purposes. Nor is it right to call Fascism 'right-wing' (what about the career of Otto Johann Maximilian Strasser?) or 'militaristic' (many Fascists are wholly peaceable).
Dawkins repeatedly compares the best of non-Fascism to the worst of Fascism. He (again repeatedly) accuses Fascism of being an 'extremism'. There have been some Fascists who were extremists, of course; but this doesn't mean that Fascism itself is extremist. I certainly did not recognise myself, or any of my local Party organisation, in Dawkins's bitter, hate-filled portrayal. Worse, he does not seem to realise that his own position, so-called non-Fascism, is actually a kind of Fascism: a structure of belief determined by Fascism, dependent for many of its core ideas on Fascist traditions.
… Take for example this biased observation: "Fascism seeks to impose total state control over all aspects of life, from the political and cultural right down to questions of individual ethical and sexual choice. It valorises strength, and exalts the nation state as superior to the individuals composing it." Not even the junior Nazi Party secretary who first introduced me to Fascism believed that! ...
Almost all of Dawkins's claims are easily dismissed. His main one is that 'the fascist mindset' (whatever that is) 'enables people to commit appalling acts of barbarism and violence', that it 'encourages a tendency to separate humanity into sheep from goats, thereafter not only permitting but actively encouraging the persecution of the goats'. Then he trots out the tired old example of the holocaust. I've news for Professor Dawkins: yes, Fascists killed six million Jews in the 1940s. But they didn't do this because they were Fascists; but because they were human beings. All through history Jews have been killed. Killing Jews is one of the things that people have always done; deplorable, perhaps, but a fact of life. Since killing Jews predates Hitlerian Fascism, and since it has carried on after the decline in influence of Hitlerian Fascism, I think it's pretty obvious that this particular mass-murder of Jews had very little to do with Hitlerian Fascism, and everything to do with people's inherent capacity for evil—something, incidentally, for which Fascism has not only an explanatory theory, but a remedy; which is more than can be said for Professor Dawkins.
... Though he accuses Fascism of being an extremism; he flatly refuses to acknowledge the extremist bias of his own non-Fascist position. He is also blind to the obvious truth that his beloved non-Fascists have killed just as many people as have Fascists—more, indeed. Why doesn't Dawkins focus his polemic on them? The reason is that a peculiar hysterical hostility to the very idea of Fascism blinds him. (He claims for instance that 'non-Fascists don't do evil in the name of non-Fascism', which would be news to all the senior Fascists hanged by the Nuremberg anti-Fascist trials). All ideals — political, transcendent, human, or invented — are capable of being abused. And knowing this, we need to work out what to do about it, rather than lashing out uncritically at Fascism. But Dawkins cannot understand this.
I am not, of course, suggesting that Fascism has been perfect; no reasonable Fascist would. Whilst it's true that the Leader is the inerrant embodiment of the will of the People—ordinary Fascists themselves are prone to all the fallibilities of the human condition. Fascism has never claimed otherwise. But whilst Dawkins is happy to highlight the occasional bad consequences of Fascism, he wilfully ignores the good that Fascism manifestly has done in the world. There is no mention in this book of the prodigious architectural triumphs, the autobahns, the economic miracles, or most of all, the sense of belonging, purpose and meaning that being a member of a Fascist brotherhood brings to the ordinary man-in-the-street. All the evidence shows that Fascists are more likely than are non-Fascists to dedicate themselves selflessly to an ideal higher and to forego their own individual gratification; indeed for many people this is the point of Fascism.
Far from being a serious philosophical book, this ill-edited and garrulous diatribe contains just about anything that crosses the author's mind: page after sarcastic page of attacks against any aspect of Fascism Dawkins considers an easy target. Dawkins avoids the real question of whether one's political understanding terminates with a structureless, anarchic and social aggregation void of meaning, or with an authority who provides order, stability and reason for living. The bottom line is that Dawkins cannot affird to entertain the possibility that Fascism fills a deep-seated need in people. But the evidence that this is the case is so strong. Fascism could hardly have been as popular as it has been, for as long, otherwise.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, September 9, 2007 | PermalinkComments 51 - 100 of 159 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers52. Comment #69203 by Robert Maynard on September 10, 2007 at 2:11 am
I lol'd.That was some seriously great stuff. :D
Other Comments by Robert Maynard
53. Comment #69206 by Konradius on September 10, 2007 at 2:23 am
I think the alusion to fascism works better than would communism. There is a visceral dislike of fascism whereas communism is still seen as a valid intellectual exercise by many and does not get quite the same reaction.
Actually, this is exactly why the communist delusion would work better than the fascist delusion. Sure, you would not get much of an impression with someone who holds fuzzy feelings for both religion and communism. ("Well, 'true' communism isn't atheistic!").
However it would work better for people who have fuzzy feelings for religion, but are critical of communism. It works better because these people can know of people who think communism is a valid intellectual exercise while they themselves are still critical of it.
Bottom line is to give someone a birdseye view of the debate. This can be done by comparing the debate they are in by a similar debate they are removed from. The communism delusion would work better because the debate is more similar.
Having said that, the piece is absolutely brilliant!!
Other Comments by Konradius
54. Comment #69219 by tieInterceptor on September 10, 2007 at 3:26 am
"This piece does not rely on comparing religion and facism. What it does is taking the arguments against the attack on facism is the same as the arguments against the attack on religion. And since the arguments works and we still know fascism is bad, we have an absurd situation. And this shows that arguments themselves are flawed.
So this writing does NOT rely on comparing fascism with religion.
very good point.
Other Comments by tieInterceptor
55. Comment #69226 by pewkatchoo on September 10, 2007 at 4:23 am
AtticusPerhaps, but it is not a question of fairness, it is a question of funny.
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
56. Comment #69233 by Bertybob on September 10, 2007 at 5:41 am
Very funny!I went into Waterstones Bookshop today and went to the Religion Section. Both TGD and "God is not Great" were in there with the Religion books which was an interesting position for them.
I picked up McGrath's "Dawkin's God" and read about 6 pages.
I think I could fairly summarise the arguments in these pages as:-
a "you're wrong RD"
b "you're wrong RD"
c "you're wrong RD"
d "you're wrong RD"
I know it's not fair to judge on 6 pages, but it was enough to stop me buying the book to see if there were any excellent retorts to TGD.
I did not find one rebuttal argument from McGrath in those 6 pages, in which he attempted to explain the Theist faith and why there is a God.
I might have a go at writing my own "flea" to TGD so as to make a few bucks (not really). Although I know how to do it now!!
Regards,
Rob.
Other Comments by Bertybob
57. Comment #69237 by Dr Benway on September 10, 2007 at 6:13 am
Oh goodness. The "communism" vs. "fascism" point rather misses the point also. Any topic that allows for a parody of the fallacious criticism against TGD will do. I can't predict a priori which might be funnier; just depends.Here's a parody of one specific criticism, i.e., "Dawkins bashes a God I don't recognize; my God is entirely different!"
For me, God is mashed potatoes. What have atheists got against mashed potatoes, which I and a majority of the world's citizens find quite delicious? Mashed potatoes are not "the root of all evil." Mashed potatoes don't "poison everything." Silly atheists!One might ask, what variety of spud corresponds to Reformed Judaism? But I don't think anyone would answer.
from http://richarddawkins.net/article,1381,Wont-anyone-stand-up-for-God,Daily-Mail
Other Comments by Dr Benway
58. Comment #69239 by pauliej on September 10, 2007 at 6:16 am
Berybob, it's not surprising that you found no direct rebuttals to TGD in 'Dawkin's God' - it was written a year before TGD ;-). McGrath's rebuttal to TGD is 'The Dawkins Delusion'. I doubt you'll find it anymore impressive than his previous effort, though.If ever I can bring myself to finish The Dawkins Delusion, I want to write a rebuttal called 'The McGrath Confusion' :-)
Other Comments by pauliej
59. Comment #69247 by NMcC on September 10, 2007 at 6:45 am
And what makes the whole 'fascism or communism' question even more 'ironic' is that your 'communism' wasn't communism at all, it was capitalism run by the state! So Lenin said, anyway. And he should know, he started it.So, ironical laughs all round, I'd say.
Other Comments by NMcC
60. Comment #69249 by Bertybob on September 10, 2007 at 6:58 am
Pauliej.Thanks.
Ooops!!! / Doh!!!
Regards,
Rob.
Other Comments by Bertybob
61. Comment #69251 by J. J. Ramsey on September 10, 2007 at 7:04 am
atp: "This piece does not rely on comparing religion and facism. What it does is taking the arguments against the attack on facism is the same as the arguments against the attack on religion. And since the arguments works and we still know fascism is bad, we have an absurd situation."Trouble is, several of the arguments don't work as well for fascism as they do for religion, so the claim that "the arguments works and we still know fascism is bad" is wrong. The argument not only doesn't work, but it blatantly doesn't work, which would indicate that the author's point is "See, the arguments look obviously absurd when we substitute fascism for religion." And considering that the point of the article was to make fun of reviewers who were originally commenting on religion, the implication is that the arguments were absurd when applied to their original target, religion. Again, we are back to the implication that religion and fascism are roughly equivalent.
Eric Blair: "But most believers would not find this funny because they don't accept the new paradigm Dawkins et al. have presented."
Most believers wouldn't find this funny because they would see the obvious implicit analogy that nearly all of you are trying to pretend isn't there, and they would see it as over the top. As Russell Blackford admitted, much of religion "has evolved into relatively benign modern variants."
Other Comments by J. J. Ramsey
62. Comment #69252 by matt_shute-07 on September 10, 2007 at 7:12 am
If fascism can somehow re-brand itself as a faith, this exactly the kind of nonsense religious apologists may one day be writing about those who criticize the deity Hitler. Other Comments by matt_shute-07
63. Comment #69261 by pewkatchoo on September 10, 2007 at 8:07 am
JJ RamseyGiven that there are now neo-nazi groups being reported in Israel, your argument is looking a touch flimsier. I see your point, but it really does not matter in the grand scheme of things. It is enough that humour can still be demonstrated.
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
64. Comment #69266 by bamboospitfire on September 10, 2007 at 8:47 am
The aim of this (highly amusing) article is merely to expand on the point made by Sam Harris in response to the argument that only extreme religious belief is harmful. I recall Harris saying that the argument that moderate religion is ok is akin to arguing that moderate Nazism is ok. Perhaps many members of the Nazi party were kind, honest, generous people. But they shared a view with others who exterminated millions of innocent people in the furtherance of that view. That is where the comparison with religion begins and ends. You may argue that some Muslims (for example) are good people, but they share a view with others who have exterminated thousands of innocent people in the furtherance of that view in 2001 alone. The moderate position enables the extreme position. It is very simple. Let's not miss the point by trying to draw (irrelevant) distinctions between political and religious beliefs. Other Comments by bamboospitfire
65. Comment #69268 by Canuck#1 on September 10, 2007 at 8:53 am
a superb piece of writing...the best satire is the most subtle....start reading the piece...after a few lines... YES, this is excellent...than enjoy the rest...well done THE VALVE....A+WE HVE THE STARS TOO MUCH TO BE FEARFUL OF
THE NIGHT.
Other Comments by Canuck#1
66. Comment #69269 by Canuck#1 on September 10, 2007 at 8:56 am
That should read.....WE HAVE LOVED THE STARS TOO MUCH TO BE FEARFUL
OF THE NIGHT.
Other Comments by Canuck#1
67. Comment #69276 by Dr Benway on September 10, 2007 at 9:36 am
JJ Ramsey:Trouble is, several of the arguments don't work as well for fascism as they do for religion...I'm lost. Are we talking about arguments for fascism, against fascisim, against Dawkin's criticism of fascism? Too many turns of the table. Perhaps a specific example would help?
Most believers wouldn't find this funny because they would see the obvious implicit analogy that nearly all of you are trying to pretend isn't there, and they would see it as over the top.You mean, that religions can be like fascist organizations? Lots of things can be compared to fascism, often with humorous effect, e.g., Seinfeld's "Soup Nazi."
I think your over-reaction says more about what you might be pretending isn't there.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
68. Comment #69288 by TheCelestialTeapot on September 10, 2007 at 10:23 am
Within the confines of this article the author defines Fascism as such, "Fascism seeks to impose total state control over all aspects of life, from the political and cultural right down to questions of individual ethical and sexual choice. It valorises strength, and exalts the nation state as superior to the individuals composing it." Religion doesn't impose control over all aspects of a follower's life? It doesn't have ready-made answers to political and cultural questions? It doesn't attempt to answer questions concerning the individual and ethics? Nor sexual choice? Religion doesn't value the "in-group" of followers over those who are not?The article was funny and well written. According to the author's definition of Fascism it would seem as though religion fits the analogy. As for the other point that the author somehow implies that religion "is" fascism or conversely that the religious among us will see this as the main point within the article, that cannot be helped. I'm willing to bet that the idea that the author intended a direct comparison between fascism and religion already exists in the minds of the religious anyway, and that this article will only serve as a confirmation bias concerning their own concrete suspicions. I find the entire argument raging back and forth in the postings to be petty and trivial. While I credit those with an acute attention to detail and nuance, I find it to be completely irrelevant in this case. The whole disagreement was a parade of pedantry.
Other Comments by TheCelestialTeapot
69. Comment #69290 by Northern Bright on September 10, 2007 at 10:39 am
I posted this "review" on another forum I take part in, and got the following reply:Not sure I'm going to add this to my library, he's drifting too far away from his evolutionary, biologist base.
:-)
Other Comments by Northern Bright
70. Comment #69297 by Tumara Baap on September 10, 2007 at 11:28 am
If you enjoyed this, you ought to check out a similar piece somewhere on this website where Harris replaces the word "religion" with the word "witchcraft" in critical responses to his books. It is with devastating efficiency that this wickedly homorous style exposes the weakeness of counter arguments and highlights the original accusation that religion gets undeserved immunity from scrutiny not accorded to any other idea.The icing on the cake should be the agonizing by apologists that fascism and religion aren't exactly analagous. But then, they do have a track record of missing the point.
Other Comments by Tumara Baap
71. Comment #69303 by ronnieharper on September 10, 2007 at 12:40 pm
HAHA! Very clever, I love it. Forum religionists - just try to remember it's not a mean-spirited comparison between facism and religion, but an intellectual experiment/exercise in critique.Here's the witchcraft one, also very funny ~
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1338,In-Defense-of-Witchcraft,Sam-Harris
Other Comments by ronnieharper
72. Comment #69304 by _J_ on September 10, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Harris' witchcraft analogy was good enough, but this one's excellent. The author of this piece has just gone to town on making an excellent, excellent job of it. And it's pitched just right - the correct amount of showing off the 'reviewer's' superior knowledge of Fascism(/religion), the right reasonable-sounding tone. Just like umpteen infuriating TGD reviews, without falling into the trap of exaggerating them into silliness. A spot-on bit of mimicry that lets the wrongness of the arguments shine through.[Takes hat off.]
Oh, and without wishing to extend the 'Which brand of fascism corresponds to which religion?' debate: that really isn't the point. Different forms of fascism relate to the general ideology of fascism just as different religions relate to religion, as a whole. That's the important point of comparison and it's a secure one. As for fascism-as-a-whole as a comparison for religion-as-a-whole: well, they're both ideologies that persist without reliance on evidence. But that can pretty much be laid to one side - the validity of the comparison may be judged by how well the reappropriation of arguments against TGD fits against 'TFD'. I'd say it fits pretty damn well. These are exactly the arguments that come up against TGD over and over, and they seem perfectly at home attacking 'TFD'.
It really is an excellent article.
EDIT - Actually, does anyone know how much of this is direct quotation/paraphrasing from existing reviews of TGD? I guess I've fallen behind in my review reading - only just noticed some familiar lines in there.
Other Comments by _J_
73. Comment #69305 by konquererz on September 10, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Love the satire. Hilarious and oh so telling. This made me laugh a couple times out loud. Other Comments by konquererz
74. Comment #69312 by quicksilver on September 10, 2007 at 7:39 pm
An off-topic comment:The media here in the US works for some as a series of markets one may penetrate. It would be helpful to see Richard Dawkins in other places, say, in an episode of "House" if only as a walk-on/walk-off spot, or as a celebrity voice in music recordings, say with Bjork (another famous atheist) or Bad Religion, Mandy Moore, etc. This keeps evolving, too, so next year there may be some other presentation formats in which his message may have to appear if it is to survive. Some deeper cultural niches must show some evidence of Dawkins' determination to resonate.
Of course you may take these suggestions for what they're worth.
Other Comments by quicksilver
75. Comment #69321 by Shuggy on September 10, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Adam Roberts failed to mention Dawkins' most conspicuous lapse. Nowhere in The Fascist Delusion does Prof. Dawkins make any reference to, let alone give any credit to Il Duce for, the now-proverbial punctuality of the Italian railway system. This more than anything illustrates his overweening arrogance and hostility towards Fascism. Other Comments by Shuggy
76. Comment #69341 by fides_et_ratio on September 11, 2007 at 12:12 am
If of course, "Dawkins" was claiming that facism didn't exist, the author of this article might have a point as well as being undoubtedly hilarious.Other Comments by fides_et_ratio
77. Comment #69343 by Corylus on September 11, 2007 at 12:22 am
Fides I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse here.
The analogy is between religion and fascism not god and fascism.
Do stop trolling.
Other Comments by Corylus
78. Comment #69357 by Goldy on September 11, 2007 at 1:27 am
My hairy arse!!! What does this last comment have to do with the price of fish?? Other Comments by Goldy
79. Comment #69368 by keith on September 11, 2007 at 2:24 am
JJ Ramsey,Are you saying that analogies have to have equivalences in every detail? If someone said that eyes were 'windows onto the world', would you object because eyes don't have PVC frames, metal locks and there is no eye equivalent to double-glazing? I can't help thinking you are being a bit too literal-minded here...and I can't help thinking that you know it.
Other Comments by keith
80. Comment #69401 by J. J. Ramsey on September 11, 2007 at 6:00 am
Dr. Benway: "I'm lost. Are we talking about arguments for fascism, against fascisim, against Dawkin's criticism of fascism? Too many turns of the table. Perhaps a specific example would help?"See an earlier post: http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1622,Review-of-Richard-Dawkins-new-book-The-Fascism-Delusion,TheValveorg,page1#69114
Dr. Benway: "Lots of things can be compared to fascism, often with humorous effect, e.g., Seinfeld's 'Soup Nazi.'"
But we are talking about a satirical polemic, something in the "Ha, ha, only serious" vein, which the "Soup Nazi" is not. Even then, "Soup Nazi" is only funny if you don't think too hard about Nazis being mass murderers.
keith: "Are you saying that analogies have to have equivalences in every detail?"
No, but they should be close enough. Furthermore, when one of the objects of an analogy is notorious for its use in fallacious appeals to emotion, one had better be very guarded in its use. There is a reason we have Godwin's Law. If the parody had been a review of "The Zeus Delusion," we would not be having all these denials that a comparison of Zeus and God was being made, because comparisons to Zeus aren't the polemical dynamite that Hitler comparisons are.
Given the utterances that atheists have made about violence and oppression in religion, the likelihood that a substitution of something known to be violent and oppressive, such as fascism, for religion isn't echoing those past complaints is about nil. Cynically speaking, an advantage of using an implied analogy is that one can sneak the complaints in through the back door and bypass a discussion of their validity.
Other Comments by J. J. Ramsey
81. Comment #69402 by Macque on September 11, 2007 at 6:05 am
I posted this "review" on another forum I take part in, and got the following reply:
Not sure I'm going to add this to my library, he's drifting too far away from his evolutionary, biologist base.
:-)
That could actually be even funnier, and more bitingly satirical than the article itself.
Of course, the person who wrote this was probably just a good, old-fashioned idiot.
Other Comments by Macque
82. Comment #69408 by Dr Benway on September 11, 2007 at 6:47 am
JJ Ramsey, when I asked for clarification of your point, I didn't expect a link to the thread we're discussing. That's not a particularly useful response.I suspect that either you're being deliberately obtuse and argumentative, or you have a history of head injury.
Some religious organizations are very authoritarian.
Some corporations are very authoritarian.
Some schools are very authoritarian.
Some deli owners who serve soup are very authoritarian.
No one denies the above. Except you seem to take exception to the notion that religions can be like fascist organizations. Which is strange. I'd think the truth of that statement would be self-evident.
But stranger still, you're missing the primary point of the parody, which is more concerned with the fallacious arguments offered in response to TGD.
If the parody had been a review of "The Zeus Delusion," we would not be having all these denials that a comparison of Zeus and God was being made...Hah! You got me. I thought you were being serious, but now I see you actually can be quite funny.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
83. Comment #69412 by fides_et_ratio on September 11, 2007 at 6:58 am
77. Comment #69343 by Corylus on September 11, 2007 at 12:22 amI must have missed the book called 'The Religion Delusion'.
Other Comments by fides_et_ratio
84. Comment #69413 by Russell Blackford on September 11, 2007 at 6:59 am
... and the point is that you don't need to explore every nuance and variation of some phenomenon to be able to show that it is fundamentally harmful. People like Eagleton seem to think that doing so would show that religion is basically benign, but it simply isn't. In fact, the more you explore it, the worse it gets.Yes, I did frankly concede that religion has evolved some rather benign strains of late, or however exactly I expressed it. I have nothing much against moderate Anglicans, for example. The fact is, however, that these strains are not representative, and they are benign in proportion to the extent that they differ from what religion has been like historically (and is still like, in the main). Moreover, the existence of a few nice Anglican bishops and the like is something that Dawkins is well aware and has acknowledged. It has nothing to do with Terry Eagleton's bizarre review of The God Delusion.
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
85. Comment #69443 by Northern Bright on September 11, 2007 at 9:12 am
That could actually be even funnier, and more bitingly satirical than the article itself.
Of course, the person who wrote this was probably just a good, old-fashioned idiot.
Yes, Macque, I did a double-take on this one too, but the person who wrote it has a track record of being most definitely NOT stupid, so I think it's safe to give him the benefit of the doubt! :-)
Other Comments by Northern Bright
86. Comment #69452 by NormanDoering on September 11, 2007 at 9:41 am
Corylus wrote:The analogy is between religion and fascism not god and fascism.
Right, the analogy to god would be Hitler or Benito Mussolini then.
Still the reason people can get away with the kind of bad arguments that are mocked in "Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'" is because we're being stuck with a bad frame.
I think we need to fight the frame that religionists are trying foist on us.
I wrote about it here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/thank-you-mother-teresa-youve-shown-me.html
Other Comments by NormanDoering
87. Comment #69465 by J. J. Ramsey on September 11, 2007 at 10:53 am
Dr. Benway: "you seem to take exception to the notion that religions can be like fascist organizations."No, I take exception to the broad-brush analogy of religion as similar to fascism, emphasis on the broad brush. It is one thing to say that, for example, the dominionists are fascistic. It is another thing to blithely substitute fascism for religion.
Dr. Benway: "you're missing the primary point of the parody, which is more concerned with the fallacious arguments offered in response to TGD."
No, I understood what the parody was trying to say. It just didn't say it very well, or at least not in a way that stands scrutiny.
BTW, don't think I didn't notice that you substituted the weaker term "authoritarian" for "fascist."
Russell Blackford: "... and the point is that you don't need to explore every nuance and variation of some phenomenon to be able to show that it is fundamentally harmful."
There is a difference, though, between a good argument that religion is fundamentally harmful that doesn't go over the top by implying an exaggerated comparison, and, well ... the parody that we have been discussing.
Other Comments by J. J. Ramsey
88. Comment #69495 by Corylus on September 11, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough for you Fides I'm reading the above as a skit (I'm not even going there with the irony/satire debate!) on how critics of Dawkins persist in talking about religion and ignoring his central point as to whether god exists.
It is therefore about fascism/religion and not god/fascism because the question of god's existence is simply is not addressed.
This piece is about bringing to light faulty methods of argumentation.
I can't believe I am sitting here dissecting different viewpoints on a humourous piece :-)
I'm off to watch something less subtle like Monty Python - I believe they have a good sketch which involves grown men slapping each other with fish...
Other Comments by Corylus
89. Comment #69505 by robotaholic on September 11, 2007 at 2:02 pm
When is Enemies of Reason part 3 coming out? - I'm ready for it Other Comments by robotaholic
90. Comment #69506 by Dr Benway on September 11, 2007 at 2:07 pm
JJ Ramsey:BTW, don't think I didn't notice that you substituted the weaker term "authoritarian" for "fascist."Right. I was too uncomfortable saying that some religions can be like fascist organizations.
JJ, I now understand why you're in PZ Myer's killfile. I read his note:
Wouldn't normally have been subject to banning, but chose to insult my daughter here, several times, after being warned. If you must insult my family, do it to their faces so they can kick your ass; it's cowardly to try and do it in front of me.Maybe you should hook up with Rage Boy. You two might have fun knocking the chip off each other's shoulders.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
91. Comment #69514 by Corylus on September 11, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Result! Found it.http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WsfiD78Cy0s
Q: Is this satire / irony / parody / just funny or just plain weird??
:P
Other Comments by Corylus
92. Comment #69534 by Dr Benway on September 11, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Corylus, I'm outraged that you would show us something like this. And I'm doubly enraged that an allegedly learned man like Dawkins would allow something so offensive to decent sensibilities to be displayed here. Here, at this eponymous web site bearing the name of Richard Dawkins. Herr Professor must be held to account for the manner in which his electrons are being used to perpetrate hate. Soon the depraved minions will gleefully draw all the wrong conclusions from this rubbish, as is there habit. A few calmer voices may whisper, "Come, let us reason together." They may point out the unfairness of the display, which cannot in any way, shape, or form be described as typical of fish fanciers generally, or the manner in which the vast majority of ordinary citizens integrate a fishy spirituality into their daily lives.
But will these kind and selfless voices crying in the wilderness have any effect upon the hard-hearted crowd here in this desolate, demented, wasteland of Dawkins? I fear not, for these fish-deniers are as blind as they are giggly.
Lord, I pray you remove the scales from their eyes, so they might see clearly, as We now see, how this lot are NOT "all that and a basket of chips."
Humbly I follow in the footsteps of the Fisher of Men. The way is often crusty, but I am reassured by the crappie I keep stapled to my shoe. Like my Lord, I will bravely face the hateful rabble poised to crucify me and yes, even ridicule me. But it is not my bravery that pushes me onward; it is His. It is not my righteousness that will quicken their consciences; it is His. It is not my awesomeness that will totally overwhelm their teeny little minds; it is His.
It's been said before but it must be said again: Fish don't kill people. People kill people.
The kind of unprovoked wet-halibut smackdown depicted in this video represents the actions of a small minority of crazed extremists. Most fish fanciers are gentle and hardly any trouble at all. I, for one, am an example.
Fish fanciers enrich our culture. Some say it's a old wive's tale, but many swear by the practice of chasing away the rainyday blues by slotting a minnow between each toe. And for centuries, children have learned of the Great Walleye who watches over them while they slumber. They've played "pass the bluegill" and "pants scallops" at recess. And who has not delighted in the sight of the sun shimmering off a rainbow trout balanced on the end of an old man's nose?
Call me daft, if you will. But I know what's objectively right. And your video, Corylus, is NOT it.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
93. Comment #69536 by kkant on September 11, 2007 at 4:25 pm
J. J. Ramsey, are you a Christian?Other Comments by kkant
94. Comment #69564 by Jef on September 11, 2007 at 6:02 pm
J.J.Ramsey, please promise me that you'll never sit next to me at any comedy event ever. Other Comments by Jef
95. Comment #69584 by Goldy on September 11, 2007 at 7:17 pm
While on the jokes, someone sent me thishttp://www.marryourdaughter.com/
I do love a bit of satire, me :-)
Other Comments by Goldy
96. Comment #69648 by Corylus on September 12, 2007 at 3:02 am
Dr Benway - you've just made my morning :) Other Comments by Corylus
97. Comment #69669 by pewkatchoo on September 12, 2007 at 5:42 am
Dr BenwayWhat unadulterated nonsense. Everyone knows that it was an eel that the old man had on the end of his nose. This was confirmed by the late great Lewis Carroll.
This talk of rainbow trouts is heresy, pure heresy.
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
98. Comment #69673 by Macque on September 12, 2007 at 6:24 am
Yes, Macque, I did a double-take on this one too, but the person who wrote it has a track record of being most definitely NOT stupid, so I think it's safe to give him the benefit of the doubt! :-)
Then it goes to show that one can master evolutionary biology, complex mathematics, and even go some way to wrapping one's grey matter around quantum mechanics, but satirical humour can still prove a deep and unfathomable mystery...
:)
Other Comments by Macque
99. Comment #69674 by Tela Sela on September 12, 2007 at 6:32 am
As a fascist I am offended. I mean its one thing when you commies make fun of my faith, but poking fun at my political party this is just not to be born. Moscow here i come.Other Comments by Tela Sela
100. Comment #69717 by Yeti on September 12, 2007 at 11:10 am
Interesting review.I didn't know the current pope had a part time job reviewing books.
Other Comments by Yeti
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
51. Comment #69200 by Atticus_of_Amber on September 10, 2007 at 2:02 am
But that's exactly why I think the analogy would be more fair. :shrug:
Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber