Right now twitter has a shit storm brewing over Dawkins not so much ridiculing the idea of a winged horse for the prophet to ascend on, but that Mehdir Hasan lacked credibility to be hired as a serious journalist for believing it to be true.
Usually I try to keep a belief separate from the believer – unless that belief is for example a call to increase suffering or to oppress others in the name of faith. So if you want to believe a man ascended towards heaven on a flying horse, fine, on your own count me out. As part of civil discourse I will not make fun of you for doing that, but I will ridicule the idea.
Richard is sadly digging in, while everyone jumps this way or that. Owen Jones made the comment that Dawkins did not speak for him as an atheist in response to the tweet.
Thing is, did anyone think Richard Dawkins was our spokesman? A champion over creationism yes. The star may be waning perhaps in light of recent tweets on other issues.
Thing is this was a classic ad hominem that we tried to be wary of on richard.dawkins.net/forum as moderators alert that this was leading to flaming that we may have to remind people to be civil before it went too far.
Oh irony …
UPDATE 5:25pm: if you had said it like that earlier Richard … (Goes into corner and weeps)
UPDATE 22 April in an article on paradoxes of belief and people Richard Dawkins has apologised for his ill choice of words:
None of those three meanings was well conveyed by my ill-judged words, and I withdraw them with apologies. I’m grateful to the many tweeters who came to my defence and saw no problem with my original formulation. Nevertheless, I cannot deny that my words were carelessly chosen.
UPDATE 14/6/2013 video context of Dawkins and Hasan talking about the winged horse …
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog