Wednesday, January 14, 2009 | Reason : Political | print version

Print | Comments |

Clifford Longley 'silly', says friend

by Heresy Corner

http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2009/01/clifford-longley-silly-says-friend.html

The other day I wrote about the remarkable behaviour of the "distinguished" Catholic commentator Clifford Longley in cutting and pasting an article from a religious website and submitting it to the Advertising Standards Authority in a protest against the Atheist Bus Campaign. I found it "scarcely credible that such a supposedly intelligent, learned - and undoubtedly experienced - commentator should have imagined that his lazy act of plagiarism wouldn't be found out. Or that the journalistic standards of this old-school writer should have been so lax." I also pointed out that the quotes used in Longley's complaint misrepresented the views of prominent scientists.

Longley was far from alone in complaining about the slogan "There's probably no God" - at last count there were almost a hundred submissions to the ASA. And Stephen Green - described memorably as a "godsend to atheists" by Steve Hill on CIF - has so far got most of the publicity, presumably because he lends so much support to the idea that the ad's detractors are all comedy fundamentalists. Longley, though, had the kind of profile that might just have led to the ASA taking him seriously - which is why the ASA received a communication the other day from the Heresiarch pointing out both the ill-thought-out basis of his complaint and the inaccurate quotations from scientists including Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies that it contained. (See update below.) But if Longley has more innate credibility than Stephen Green, he also has rather more to lose - which is why he must be feeling particularly foolish to find that his complaint unravelled so quickly. Or at least he should.

Click here to continue reading:
http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2009/01/clifford-longley-silly-says-friend.html

Posted: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 42 of 42 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #319257 by kaiser on January 14, 2009 at 10:56 am

I do not believe that the 'fine-tuning' of physical constants provides any sort of argument for the existence of God or anything else supernatural. That is because if the constants had been set intentionally by supernatural entities, then the intentions of those entities must themselves have been at least as 'fine-tuned' when they set the constants, and that fine-tuning would remain unexplained. Hence that supernatural hypothesis does not even address the fine-tuning problem, let alone solve it.

More generally arguing for supernatural explanations on the grounds that the current scientific explanation for something or other is flawed or lacking is always a mistake. There are two main reasons for that. One is that there are always unsolved problems. But they get solved. Science continues to make progress even (or especially) after making great discoveries, because the discoveries themselves reveal further problems. Therefore the existence of an unsolved problem in physics is not evidence for a supernatural explanation any more than the existence of an unsolved crime is evidence that a ghost committed it.

The second reason is that supernatural explanations are always empty explanations. That is to say, 'the gods did it' is invariably a bad explanation because, as you can see, to invoke that explanation I didn't even have to say what it is they did. It could 'explain' anything whatsoever and hence actually explains nothing.

Great quote, especially the last part.

Have to remember that, when "the god of the gap" argument turns up.

Other Comments by kaiser

2. Comment #319261 by splink on January 14, 2009 at 11:02 am

"{The} existence of an unsolved problem in physics is not evidence for a supernatural explanation any more then the existence of an unsolved crime is evidence that a ghost committed it."

The absolutely perfect analogy! I have waited so long! Looks like I'll be doing some plagiarizing of my own. ;)

Other Comments by splink

3. Comment #319271 by Richard Dawkins on January 14, 2009 at 11:13 am

Yes, it is a great quote. And it should therefore immediately be attributed. To David Deutsch.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

4. Comment #319275 by JAMCAM87 on January 14, 2009 at 11:19 am

Richard,

Could I just draw your attention to this website which has hundreds of concise quotes about atheism, most of which would be great on the side of a bus.

http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/viewQuotes.php

sorry to be off-topic.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

5. Comment #319282 by zeroangel on January 14, 2009 at 11:23 am

Excellent stuff!

As an aside, I had lunch with a coworker whom I recommended TGD to. He has read the first chapter online and plans to buy the book.

We had a discussion at lunch about these topics and I am happy to say I have found yet another non-believer.

Richard, he said, laid out everything so clearly, things he had been thinking about for a long time (and this in only the first chapter).

Thank you, once again, Richard Dawkins.

PS. Off topic, as well, mah bad.

Other Comments by zeroangel

6. Comment #319290 by Edouard Pernod on January 14, 2009 at 11:29 am

The whole religious protest over the ad campaign illuminates a key difference in tactics between the rational and the religious. Atheists and agnostics are benignly presenting a point of view contradicting a previous bus ad campaign. Rather than writing to officials trying to get the religious advertisement banned or altered, Atheists and agnostics simply exercised their own free speech, in a very benign "make up your own mind" manner at that. In response, the religious are crying to mommy ASA in an attempt to get them to stop Atheist/agnostic speech. Making up one's own mind is apparently not allowable in the minds of the religious protesters.

If they're so secure in their own beliefs, why are they insisting on stopping atheists/agnostics from expressing theirs? Why not just buy more advertising time to express their opinion? The atheist/agnostic approach is tolerant and encouraging an exchange of ideas, while the religious approach is a totalitarian attempt to interfere with discourse.

Other Comments by Edouard Pernod

7. Comment #319295 by JAMCAM87 on January 14, 2009 at 11:35 am

I have listed the shortest of the quotes by famous writers/philosophers and scientists. I don't see why the adverts have to have one slogan, maybe it is cheaper I guess. Having a "pool" of quotes gives people a lot more to think about. People have short attention spans It's employed as a common advertising trick. I have come across many juice drinks and beers and various other products which vary the slogans on their packaging. I don't know, maybe the following are not modern enough but there is no denying their poetry.

The sailor does not pray for wind, he learns to sail

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason

Which is it, is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's'

Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike

Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

8. Comment #319304 by JAMCAM87 on January 14, 2009 at 11:40 am

Although this is my favourite!

"Without God, life is everything."

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

9. Comment #319310 by Lucas on January 14, 2009 at 11:48 am

Quoting Andrew Brown from the article:

On the other hand, he does take seriously the anthropic principle and he believes that his own beliefs about God are probable in the light of the scientific evidence, although that is not what led him to them.

So then, he was indoctrinated into the belief long before he was capable of deducing the probability of the scientific evidence. Quite right. This is supposed to be a defense somehow?

Other Comments by Lucas

10. Comment #319346 by quisquose on January 14, 2009 at 12:13 pm

I've been following this story on the various blogs and laughing my arse off.

I thought it was funny that George Pitcher's blog had to dissapear for a while after the deception was discovered.

I've been rolling in my office chair as I've read the comments from theists trying to claim the bus as positive for them.

The attempts to claim that Richard Dawkins is actually deist, although he doesn't realise it, are just surreal. If they think they can do it now, what will they be saying about you when you're not here Richard?

Oh, and another excellent blog to enter into my bookmark. Nice.

Other Comments by quisquose

11. Comment #319359 by Dark Matter on January 14, 2009 at 12:29 pm

I often listen to the Moral Maze and you can always depend on Clifford Longley or Melanie Phillips to say something utterly cretinous or completely unsourced or unchecked.

I am, therefore, not exactly surprised that he has made a lazy, misplaced and misleading complaint to the ASA. As for completely misunderstanding the anthropic principle and to openingly state the direct opposite of what it actually means - what a complete moron.

Why the Times, Radio 4 or anyone would employ someone who is so transparently stupid does deserve further scrutiny. Is there really no one who is better qualified for the job?

Other Comments by Dark Matter

12. Comment #319361 by chaos^fr on January 14, 2009 at 12:34 pm

i have been asked many times, how is the extremist atheist different from the extremist religious?

now i got a litmus test:

"there is probably no god"
"god probably loves you"

Other Comments by chaos^fr

13. Comment #319362 by epeeist on January 14, 2009 at 12:35 pm

Comment #319359 by Dark Matter:

I am, therefore, not exactly surprised that he has made a lazy, misplaced and misleading complaint to the ASA. As for completely misunderstanding the anthropic principle and to openingly state the direct opposite of what it actually means - what a complete moron.

It is even more moronic than you think. Longley's complaint is an exact cut and paste from http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/creatorfacts.htm down to the misspelling of Dennis Sciama's name.

Go the the front page of the site and you can see its creationist credentials in all their finery.

Other Comments by epeeist

14. Comment #319367 by the great teapot on January 14, 2009 at 12:43 pm

Jamcam87,

"Without god life is everything" definitely my favourite so far and I have read all the threads.
I second your motion.
It needs to be a positve message, not actually insulting anyone. This fits the bill perfik.
I also liked the "pray for wind" quote but it is too subtle, pray is just another word for wish for most. It would increase sailing club membersip though, or more likely increase the sail of saleing sim games.

Other Comments by the great teapot

15. Comment #319379 by Frankus1122 on January 14, 2009 at 12:56 pm

Jamcam87,

"Without god life is everything" definitely my favourite so far and I have read all the threads.
I second your motion.

Thirded.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

16. Comment #319385 by the great teapot on January 14, 2009 at 12:59 pm

Could be read the other way ofcourse, but that to me is a plus point as well. (Is ofcourse one word or two?)
ie, Make up your own mind but at least think about it.

Other Comments by the great teapot

17. Comment #319389 by God fearing Atheist on January 14, 2009 at 1:05 pm

#319304 by JAMCAM87

Fourthed!

RD is looking for ideas for the next Atheist Bus Campaign here:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3508,My-week-Ariane-Sherine-Im-a-believer-ndash-in-plastering-buses-with-atheist-slogans,Ariane-Sherine-Times-Online,page26#319318

Suggest you add yours.

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

18. Comment #319395 by JAMCAM87 on January 14, 2009 at 1:10 pm

the great teapot and Frankus1122

"Without god, Life is everything". It's great because it's short, catchy, positive, subtle and unoffensive. But maybe it is too similar to "So stop worrying and enjoy your life". Anyway I think it should be considered for the bus!

Did anyone read Madeleine Bunting's horrific article in the grauniad about how Obama's faith is going to save the world' Anyway, she contradicted herself in the first paragraph. She actually said

" "God probably doesn't exist", Who's that going to convince".

The irony is delicious. Her previous article criticised atheists for being pushy and dogmatic and now she is having a go at the softness of the atheist bus campaign. Yet more evidence that the campaign has got the religiots confused, running in circles.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

19. Comment #319398 by JAMCAM87 on January 14, 2009 at 1:13 pm

Comment #319389 by God fearing Atheist

Done, thanks.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

20. Comment #319403 by the great teapot on January 14, 2009 at 1:19 pm

Jamcam87
It is kinda similar but better.IMHO.
Without even stating god doesn't exist.

Other Comments by the great teapot

21. Comment #319405 by Apeseed on January 14, 2009 at 1:22 pm

As I enjoyed the article so much, I started reading previous posts on Heresy corner.
One posted that jumped out was 'The Islamist?'.
While I was reading through it I came down to a picture of a Muslim protester holding up a sign that says 'DEATH TO ALL JUICE'
I wish I hadn't been eating at the time because it's going to take me ages to get all the bits of food out from between the letters of my keyboard.
Priceless.

Other Comments by Apeseed

22. Comment #319408 by Dark Matter on January 14, 2009 at 1:24 pm

"It is even more moronic than you think. Longley's complaint is an exact cut and paste from http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/creatorfacts.htm down to the misspelling of Dennis Sciama's name.

Go the the front page of the site and you can see its creationist credentials in all their finery."

Hello Epeeist,

I have looked and there is no way he could have found himself there by accident. It seems a rather blatant and cynical attempt to mislead and deceive by:

1. By going to such a unreliable source in the first place (a cretinist website).

2. Copying and pasting material from that website without citing his sources or referencing them in anyway. This has had the inevitable result of misquoting the scientist he cites.

I have posted a comment on the original Ruth Gledhill blog explaining in full detail what has happened and have included the excellent quote from Dr David Deutsch.

I doubt if they want to show my comment so I would encourage all here to add their own comments so that Clifford's sophistry doesn't go without note:

http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2009/01/d-and-b-the-ath.html?cid=145086504#comments

BTW, I have read and enjoyed many of your comments on the Guardian CIF (I am assuming that you are the same Epeeist who writes there). I used to write there under the moniker of "theophobic" until they banned me for being mean to Madeleine Bunting - such thin skins.

Dark Matter.

Other Comments by Dark Matter

23. Comment #319418 by epeeist on January 14, 2009 at 1:35 pm

BTW, I have read and enjoyed many of your comments on the Guardian CIF (I am assuming that you are the same Epeeist who writes there). I used to write there under the moniker of "theophobic" until they banned me for being mean to Madeleine Bunting - such thin skins.

That is me. But wow, getting banned for being mean to Mad Bunting, several million points for style.

Other Comments by epeeist

24. Comment #319419 by God fearing Atheist on January 14, 2009 at 1:38 pm

#319295 by JAMCAM87

Acually, add the lot! (and their sources?)

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

25. Comment #319420 by black wolf on January 14, 2009 at 1:40 pm

I've posted about my perception of the common and systematic mining and fabricating of quotes going on in the creationist and apologetic scene.
What really puzzles me is, as this is so common and every observant atheist and skeptic knows it and checks their quotes (assuming argument from authority had any real weight) and sources before taking them at face value, what are they hoping to gain?
They don't need to misrepresent scientists to construct a good or at least rhetorically decent argument, or do they?
Instead, again and again, all over the web, from the lowest to the top 'ranks', we see dishonesty and intellectual lazyness worn like it was a medal. Apparently they just don't care anymore if they discredit themselves, their faith, their scripture and thereby denigrate and insult every believer out there.
All I can do is advise believers to take note of quotes and check them. Check the phrases your favorite priest or apologist uses. Ask them for sources whenever they cite statistics, or quote any person you wouldn't normally expect to make statements of faith.

Other Comments by black wolf

26. Comment #319425 by Corylus on January 14, 2009 at 1:50 pm

Comment #319420 by black wolf:

All I can do is advise believers to take note of quotes and check them. Check the phrases your favorite priest or apologist uses. Ask them for sources whenever they cite statistics, or quote any person you wouldn't normally expect to make statements of faith.

Well said.

I would also add that it is important to watch out for three little dots between words.

You never know what the ... is being missed out.

Other Comments by Corylus

27. Comment #319483 by Heresycorner on January 14, 2009 at 2:23 pm

Most gratifying: I haven't had this many referrals since my revelations about Georgina Baillie were featured in The Register. Which must say something.

I'm especially pleased to play a small part in disseminating the Deutsch quote. The line about the ghost was particularly fine, I think. It would look great on the side of a bus.

Other Comments by Heresycorner

28. Comment #319492 by quisquose on January 14, 2009 at 2:30 pm

Your blog really is excellent Heresycorner. I've spent the last hour trawling through with interest, which is a great testimony given that QI is on the box.

Looks like you've given me something to do at work tomorrow.

:)

Other Comments by quisquose

29. Comment #319522 by MakingBelieve on January 14, 2009 at 2:49 pm

I always liked:

"Atheism is a religion like bald is a hairstyle."

MB

Other Comments by MakingBelieve

30. Comment #319596 by Sean on January 14, 2009 at 3:41 pm

It's amusing that George Pitcher, the Religion editor of the Telegraph, has been singing the praises of Longley's complaint on his blog:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/george_pitcher/blog/2009/01/09/probably_the_best_advert_for_god_in_the_world

Wow, science quotes! It must be true!!!

Other Comments by Sean

31. Comment #319780 by BrandySpears on January 14, 2009 at 5:20 pm

Let's all hope the ASA dismisses all arguments and then collapses on itself from it's own censorship.

"Freedom requires religion like a slug requires salt." -Pat Condell, British comedian

Other Comments by BrandySpears

32. Comment #319818 by gdhnz on January 14, 2009 at 5:53 pm

I love one of the quotes in the comments on the article

As soon as wishful thinking is involved, critical thinking flies out of the window.

Other Comments by gdhnz

33. Comment #320169 by jo5ef on January 14, 2009 at 11:59 pm

Living here in Australia I have not seen one of these buses close up, as so far the campaign is yet to find a bus that will advertise its slogans, do the adverts give a URL? I certainly hope so, as it seems to me we are witnessing the birth of a new movement here - a rational alternative to the religions that may yet eclipse them. We are after all constantly accused of being just the same as religious ideologues, perhaps we should embrace that identity. It almost seems that, once everyone realizes that most of us (i'm taking to you too, churchgoing folk) don't really buy into this god stuff, it could all start to dissipate like a bad dream. And all thanks to the internet, this extraordinary cyberspace where we find out what people REALLY think.

Other Comments by jo5ef

34. Comment #320173 by epeeist on January 15, 2009 at 12:09 am

Comment #319522 by MakingBelieve

I always liked:

"Atheism is a religion like bald is a hairstyle."

Corylus has the best one:

Atheism is a religion like going commando is a form of underwear

Other Comments by epeeist

35. Comment #320175 by nalfeshnee on January 15, 2009 at 12:11 am

"Without God, life is everything."

Brilliant.

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

36. Comment #320272 by Steve Zara on January 15, 2009 at 1:49 am

Fine tuning again....

We look back at the past of the universe from a unique perspective. Each of us. Copernicus was wrong. There are 6 billion universes, all centred on planet Earth. As we each look out at our private realities, we feel ourselves at the centre. We turn our heads, and the universe moves around us. This is the illusion we are born with, and we gradually - but rarely completely - grow out off.

Most people never manage to see through the illusion. Around them they see a half-dream world built by an imaginary architect that is itself constructed from and by wishful thinking. It must be a kindly architect as the world is suited to us, and he is made in our image, because what other image do we know?

Fine tuning is an important question. But rarely is it the right question. The wrong question is "why am I here?". The right question is "why is there what we see?" We start to ask the right questions when we look at reality in collaboration with others, when we realise than our personal universe isn't special.

From what we see, we make pretend universes, models that we can feel and shape with mathematics, and fire up into life in computers.

These models audition in front of facts, and the facts come from the most important thing in science - the sample. We have a sample - the reality in which we live.

Do they at least allow us? We aren't special. We may not even be typical. But we are necessary. No model can exclude us. That is the real meaning of "fine tuning" - the tuning need not be fine, but it has to include our wavelength, as our voices are part of reality, broadcast into the universe.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

37. Comment #320281 by Quetzalcoatl on January 15, 2009 at 1:55 am

Steve Zara-

Outstanding post. This is why we like having you around. You make sense, and do so with an eloquence that puts me to shame. :-)

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

38. Comment #320513 by Galactor on January 15, 2009 at 5:15 am

There is a great irony to be found in one of the comments posted on the blogsite above. Someone has noted that Dennis and Scania (the two names of the non-existent Cambridge scientist in the creationist website which Longley plagiarised) are types of *bus* manufacturers.

My guess is that the original author(s) of the piece searched for the name Dennis and something like Scania/Schiam and the word Scania appeared and was erroneously adopted instead of the correct name Sciama.

It's cdesign propentists all over again.

And the irony that Dennis & Scania are bus manufacturers and all this hoo-ha is about an advert on a bus!

Comedy gold. You couldn't think of it yourself if you tried.

Other Comments by Galactor

39. Comment #320917 by splink on January 15, 2009 at 9:25 am

Ok, I guess I should point out I was kidding and I am not going to actually plagiarize the line. I can't, I have just graduated from college and may never do anything productive again.

However, I can giggle with girlish delight to my friends that Richard Dawkins the guy who "hates God" possibly made a comment inspired by a juvenile comment I made. And now to tie this into the article at hand, it's a good thing people investigate these things because the internet has become a great friend to plagiarism. It has to be pretty easy.

Other Comments by splink

40. Comment #321013 by stevencarrwork on January 15, 2009 at 10:47 am

There probably is no Dennis Scania, which does not stop Mr.Longley telling us what he says.

There probably is no God, which has never stopped religious people telling us what he says.

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

41. Comment #321039 by robotaholic on January 15, 2009 at 11:24 am

Ha ha, one of the 'scientists' he quoted in his objection to the advertisement doesn't EXIST.

Other Comments by robotaholic

42. Comment #324745 by johnscarborough on January 20, 2009 at 2:53 pm

I was looking thru the atheist quotes website and saw this one from Gene Roddenberry :

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.

It made me think of this one:

It's like making a cake with plain flour and blaming the cake for not rising.

Other Comments by johnscarborough

Reload Comments | Back to Top