Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Jef


1. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125471 by Jef on February 11, 2008 at 12:15 pm

So many great candidates. I'm torn between Neil de Grasse Tyson and V. S. Ramachandran. They are both excellent communicators and passionate about science. I think i'm tipped just slightly in favour of de Grasse Tyson because of the sheer joy he emanates when talking about science. One gets the impression that if he loved what he was doing any more, he might burst at the seams. :P

2. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

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.

3. The Out Campaign

Comment #59804 by Jef on July 30, 2007 at 5:22 pm

Now I feel all left out because I've never been anything but a completely unapologetic atheist... :/

I want to come out too!

Hmm.. never thought I'd ever be saying that.. :P

4. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36896 by Jef on May 2, 2007 at 5:27 pm

'"So what you" say? It's rude, unprofessional and undermines his credibility by giving his opponents something to attack him with.'

And I would simply repeat, "So what?"

Quite why you would consider it rude, is anyone's guess. I would consider it far ruder to presume to tell a full-grown man what he can and cannot do with his own body.

If it is unprofessional, that, again, is nobody's business but his own. Those who employ him can expect to recieve, (and do receive), high quality, erudite prose and quality arguments. They should not expect a mandate to dictate how he lives his life; and that goes for his publisher too. This recent round of public appearances have been in the interests of publicising a book for which he is sole author. He owes nothing to anyone. If his publishers have an insurmountable problem with having 'drunken' bestsellers pouring cash into their business, I'm sure Hitchens would have no trouble finding another who doesn't.

As for it giving his opponents something to attack him with, this is the biggest 'so what?' of all.

I'm sure his opponents are far more astute than to underestimate the force of his arguments. I'm also sure they're not so cynical as to dismiss those arguments on the basis of ad hominems. Indeed I give his opponents the benefit of the doubt and suggest that they, like I, probably realise that whether Hitchens has had a few to drink is not only completely and utterly irrelevant, but is absolutely none of their business.

Did the members of this board acquire the right to arbitrarily dictate the actions and lifestyles of citizens of a free society and I somehow slept through it?

If not, then you're going to have to come up with some better argument as to why Hitchens can't do what the bloody hell he likes. He's not breaking any laws, he's not causing any harm to others, and his behaviour is impeccable. I really can't see the problem.

5. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36672 by Jef on May 2, 2007 at 1:42 am

To the 'Hitchens is a drunk' crowd, I'd just like to say, 'So what?'

What exactly is it that gives anyone here the right to pass judgment on Hitchens for his personal habits? Is he harming anyone other than himself? Frankly, I don't see that it's any of your business what he does.

As was said above , and rightly so in my opinion, atheism is not a temperance society.

For those who say that drinking should be avoided because religionists equate drinking alcohol with immorality, I can only ask why you are kow-towing to their prejudices in that respect.

6. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33631 by Jef on April 20, 2007 at 7:22 pm

In response to some of the above.

I think the fact that Hitchens expresses views which many consider right wing to be actually quite a good thing. I think it would be damaging for atheism to be characterised as pertinent solely to a left wing agenda. The fact that atheism is demonstrably inclusive of all of the political spectrum is one of its stronger 'selling points', and something which should be emphasised.

I, for one, would be encouraged to see more outspoken right wing atheists from America's Bible belt. I might not agree with their politics, but it's not their politics that are the subject of my current concern.

7. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #33286 by Jef on April 19, 2007 at 7:39 pm

Does religion really console people at a time like this?

Had one of my children been a victim of this terrible and senseless tragedy, any man who took it as an opportunity to spread the 'good news' of God's love for us all, or sought to console me with the solemn affirmation that it was all part of some divine plan, would do so at very serious risk of personal injury.

Nothing anyone says can be any real consolation to those who have lost their loved ones. I can only empathise. Anyone able to make real sense of something so senseless would be a greater man than I, but those who try to simulate that knowledge with sugar-coated nonsense and false hope are charlatans who demean humanity.

At least atheists have the decency to not try to give answers where there can be none.

8. The Great British Literary Census

Comment #31543 by Jef on April 13, 2007 at 7:54 am

This serves to humble me through the contemplation of how few of these I have actually read. Of those that I have read, I must agree that they are some remarkable books.

My only complaint would be that only one Pratchett book made the list, and even then, I think he has written far better than CoM in the intervening years.

9. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30549 by Jef on April 8, 2007 at 2:51 pm

The Seattle Times must be desperately short of writers if it has no better content to print than this. What utter drivel. Poorly thought out and poorly written. The editor should be embarrassed.

10. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30249 by Jef on April 7, 2007 at 10:37 am

"Answers to the Atheists"

Umm.. where were the answers?

Also, it seems to be something of a fashion in theistic circles to use terms like 'dogmatic' and 'fundamentalist' as buzzwords, without ever really getting to grips with what they actually mean, or explaining how they apply to what has been said. Why does this annoy me so much?

Maybe because it's the intellectual equivalent of saying, 'I know you are, but what am I?', like an irritating prepubescent child.

11. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29518 by Jef on April 3, 2007 at 8:29 am

Re: Comment #29516 by september

Yet more making noise without any substance again. Frankly, I can't help but be glad you're not a teacher any more, if this was the attitude towards discourse you took into the classroom. I dare say the students are probably better off without you.

I certainly think this discussion would be.

Oh, and when you get time.. do wipe the spittle off your screen, it's unhygienic, if nothing else.

12. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29478 by Jef on April 3, 2007 at 4:03 am

I would also like to express my thanks to Ellen for her clarifying post, but would also like to add that I share the opinion of Jonathon Dore, (Comment #29473), that the points she has elucidated were, well.. fairly mundane. I simply cannot see the purpose in making so complicated, through the use of obtuse language, ideas which are so ordinary.

There seems to be no real evidence of deeper thinking in any of this, other than a certain creativity, shall we say, in the use of language.

I also liked Smurrish's link to the wiki page for PM, not because it made things any clearer, but because it spent so much of its word count on the view that almost no-one seemed to know what PM was and those that professed to were split as to whether or not it should be considered a field of study at all!

13. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29324 by Jef on April 2, 2007 at 2:55 pm

Comment #29317 by roach

not a fan of postmodernism. As a political science major, I spent almost my entire time in college listening to that nonsense. I just ended up confused and frustrated. As if that time of your life isn't confusing/frustrating enough!


Fortunately for me my field is law. People tend to like certainty in their laws, so I haven't come across a great deal of postmodernist thought in my field. Which probably explains, to some degree, my ignorance of it.

14. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29308 by Jef on April 2, 2007 at 2:29 pm

Comment #29305 by nine9s

Does this clarify?


If I am correct to summarise that postmodernism is the a priori contemplation of the consequences of a relativistic reality, (which is the understanding I have gleaned from this thread), then yes, it does.

If not, then no.

15. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29303 by Jef on April 2, 2007 at 2:18 pm

Comment #29297 by reggiedixon

I seem to have missed it, was it good?


It's my understanding that it depends on who you ask...

16. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29296 by Jef on April 2, 2007 at 2:07 pm

Ok, so postmodernism is relativism. However, I'm going to assume that there's some reason that we don't just call it relativism, and ask: what else is it?

Also, what makes postmodernists believe there is no objective reality? I know there are many reason why people might believe such a thing, but why do postmodernists, specifically, believe this?

17. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29293 by Jef on April 2, 2007 at 1:58 pm

However, I no longer have the luxury of those great male parts.


That's as may be, September, but you've sure got some balls!

18. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29292 by Jef on April 2, 2007 at 1:54 pm

I am thrilled with its ending, because i disagree with many of its main assertions. Not EVERYONE who criticizes it is uneducated or stupid, just Dawkins and many of the people in this forum.


I'll just let that one soak in...

19. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29290 by Jef on April 2, 2007 at 1:50 pm

Comment #29286 by nine9s

I thought that was relativism and, in your example, specifically moral and cultural relativism.

The OED defines these as:

b. Special collocations: ... (b) ethical relativism, the view that there are no universal or objective ethical standards; that each culture develops the ethical standards that it finds acceptable and that these cannot be judged by the ethical standards of another culture; (c) cultural relativism, the theory that there are no objective standards by which to evaluate a culture; that a culture cannot be understood except from the point of view of its own values or customs; the practice of studying a culture from such a standpoint.


Is postmodernism relativism?

20. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29282 by Jef on April 2, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Comment #29277 by september

As a scholar of the modern/postmodern/doxa movements


Perhaps, as such, you might consider providing us with the succinct definition of postmodernism for which we have asked, rather than further bemoaning the fact that we don't already have one:

I'm amazed that an educated person such as yourself had to google for a definition of postmodernism.


Berating the Professor for not knowing isn't exactly going to advance his, or our, knowledge, is it?

Wouldn't it have been far simpler to just define the term? The OED's definition certainly wasn't illuminating, in my opinion. So, just where exactly is the Professor to turn for a comprehensive definition?

It's not the sort of thing one can pick up through osmosis, and, as you've probably realised, reading papers on postmodernism isn't exactly shining a light in the dark either.

21. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29213 by Jef on April 2, 2007 at 5:41 am

Comment #29212 by William.

I have. Everything about postmodernism enrages me. Even the name "postmodernism"


I stand corrected..

:D

22. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29210 by Jef on April 2, 2007 at 5:28 am

Comment #29203 by silves93:

"It's not expected or even acceptable for a layman to debate with a scientist on issues of science..."


Excuse me but, says who?

...but it is fine for postmodernism to be dismissed after a quick review?


I don't think anyone has dismissed postmodernism as a whole quite yet. They have however been extremely critical of certain postmodernist writers.

If, perhaps, you would care to grant us an interpretation of the material quoted in the opening post which gives us all a clearer understanding of its substance then I'd certainly be grateful.

(Aside) How exactly does one become a 'postmodernist' in any case? On a literal reading one would expect it to involve some form of time travel...

23. Richard Dawkins: Author of the Year!

Comment #28432 by Jef on March 29, 2007 at 7:14 am

Congrats, Professor!

24. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #27833 by Jef on March 27, 2007 at 2:26 am

...and for this reason we have Poe's Law.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe's+Law

25. A Brief History of Disbelief

Comment #26562 by Jef on March 20, 2007 at 12:45 pm

Sheer class.

The Beeb at its best!

26. A 'Sad First' in the History of the Congress

Comment #25982 by Jef on March 15, 2007 at 11:32 pm

...but they want to establish a right for liberals to bash Christians and berate God around the clock.


Everyone already has this right. Do they want to take it away under the ruse of keeping it from being established?


This is exactly what I thought in relation to that sentence. It's no surprise to me that the Christian Right want to do away with the first amendment.. and with it the establishment clause.

The right to be offensive to the religion of others has also been specifically upheld by the Supreme Court in cases such as Cantwell v Conneticut (1940) 310 US 309 and Terminiello v New York (1949) 337 US 3. One look at the dates involved here shows that claims of this being some 'new' right are poppycock.

27. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25230 by Jef on March 11, 2007 at 6:20 am

Since the feminist revolution, no one has proposed an acceptable singular pronoun to replace the generic 'he', 'his' etc. I think this is why people generally and journalists in particular use the plural 'they'. I am not making an argument with the generic masculine, I understand and have no problem with the etymology of its use.

The only substitute has been 's/he' - a little forced and sounds like an expletive when spoken.

Care to add??


I'd go for 'it' and 'its'. Sure it's offensive, but it's equally offensive to everyone. So in a sense it's an improvement!

28. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25201 by Jef on March 10, 2007 at 9:45 pm

Mr. Dawkins is English and so am I, and I am writing to him in our common native language. I was in fact adhering very strictly to grammatical norms: they just weren't your norms. Think of that.


Mr. Dawkins is a Professor. I too am English. Being a pedant is fun.

:P

29. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25154 by Jef on March 10, 2007 at 1:14 pm

It surprises me that a man who considers himself free from superstition should still subscribe to this fetichistic avoidance of the split infinitive. You have made your sentence ugly to no purpose, and you would be blind not to see so.


Your paragraph is seemingly contradictory. On the one hand you are saying he should avoid the split infinitive; on the other you say that doing so is fetishistic, purposeless and makes his sentence ugly. Are you trying to say that he should make his sentences ugly? Were you otherwise intending to make some point about strict adherence to linguistic rules not being necessary to convey meaning?

:P

30. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25147 by Jef on March 10, 2007 at 11:53 am

I'm not sure which i find more saddening; that someone somewhere went to all the trouble of manufacturing such an utterly vacuous 'controversy', or that somebody else considered it 'news'.

Does everything in this country have to be reduced to the level of gossip before people will take an interest?

31. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24516 by Jef on March 7, 2007 at 3:03 am

Thankfully none of the law professors who have ever lectured me were this poor at critical thinking.

32. Long live satire

Comment #24504 by Jef on March 7, 2007 at 12:42 am

The president of the university's Islamic society said "I found the magazine hugely offensive ... freedom of expression does not constitute a freedom to offend."


Perhaps I could direct the President to the case of Handyside v UK (1976)1 EHHR 737, where the European Court of Human Rights held that the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the ECHR is not only applicable:

"to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society."

This is now given direct effect in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998.

So yes, freedom of expression does include the freedom to offend, as expressly interpreted by the ECtHR.

33. Merkel wants EU to be vocal about Christian roots

Comment #23586 by Jef on March 1, 2007 at 3:49 pm

"we should have bombed you're country properly."

Close, ...but no cigar.

34. Merkel wants EU to be vocal about Christian roots

Comment #23541 by Jef on March 1, 2007 at 1:57 pm

If the experience of Americans in relation to the inclusion of 'under God' is anything to go by, it wouldn't be too long before we were constantly having to rebut the suggestion that the EU was always intended to be a Christian community!

35. Merkel wants EU to be vocal about Christian roots

Comment #23533 by Jef on March 1, 2007 at 1:30 pm

How in the name of Jean Monnet do you get from an agreement to form a common economic market to Christianity?

The notion of a Constitution for Europe was, rightly in my opinion, rejected several years ago. Merkel is flogging a clearly dead horse.

Which leads me to conclude that this is just a political shell; a means of tacitly expressing concern over the possible accession of Turkey.

36. My critics are wrong to call me dogmatic

Comment #21978 by Jef on February 12, 2007 at 3:00 am

Russell, isn't the term fundamentalist, as used in the context of religious debate, the counter-position to modernism? As in "the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy in the Presbyterian Church", to use Wiki's example.

I wonder if the movement would have been as popular if they had used other antonyms of modern, like 'old-fashioned' and 'out of date'?

:P

37. My critics are wrong to call me dogmatic

Comment #21968 by Jef on February 12, 2007 at 2:04 am

'After thousands of years of theological reflection' - stpetes

Perhaps you would like to share with us the 'truths' that theology has uncovered for us in the two millenia? What are the fruits of this ongoing reflection?

38. The God Delusion

Comment #21733 by Jef on February 10, 2007 at 8:07 pm

I'm left no clearer as to who are the supposed 'best thinkers' of theology. Who exactly is it that atheists should be addressing?

39. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21729 by Jef on February 10, 2007 at 7:51 pm

Having read his 'arguments' I find it quite amazing that Professor McGrath is able to extract a wage from one of the finest Universities we have.

I would be disappointed to read such weak comments had they come from a Professor in any field of higher education, or indeed any reasonably educated lay man, but when I consider that this is Professor McGrath's specialist subject the mind simply boggles.