From a few days ago, the same old dreck – the priest George Pitcher calls Richard Dawkins “shrill.”
First there’s the usual boring empty non-argument –
The narrow and rather meaningless argument to which Dawkins confines himself is the incessant charge that there is no “evidence” for God. And evidence, of course, is defined only within the strictures of his own empirical scientism. The problem is that faith isn’t primarily evidential, as he demands it to be, but revelatory – and we would claim no less true for all that in explaining the human condition.
Oh yes? We need a “revelation” to explain the human condition? And when we have one, it’s reliable? Please.
That contemptuously lazy pass at justifying belief in god accomplished, Pitcher gets on with the “shrill” accusation.
The shrill voice of Dawkins is gradually being marginalised by those of no more faith than him, but who nevertheless perceive mystery in humanity and, while not accepting the presence of God in the world, are prepared to face in the same direction as the rest of us and stand in awe and wonder.
God that’s bad writing. “Of no more faith than him”? Yuck. And then he moves on briskly without bothering to pick a subject for the verb, and then changes to a new one – what a dog’s breakfast. But as for shrill – George Pitcher has a nerve calling anyone else shrill. Remember him after the election, rejoicing that Evan Harris had lost his seat?
A stranger to principle, Harris has coat-tailed some of the most vulnerable and weak people available to him to further his dogged, secularist campaign to have people of faith – any faith – swept from the public sphere. The Lib Dems served the purpose of providing him with a parliamentary seat, but his true love was the National Secular Society. For a doctor, he supported the strange idea that terminally ill people should be helped to kill themselves.
I commented at the time. That’s the man who thinks Dawkins is shrill.
At any rate – Russell posted on the “shrillness” meme, and Richard pointed out that Pitcher told a big fat lie in the Mail piece. Yes, a whopper. Pitcher said Hitchens said cuddly things about Christianity near the end, “much to the evident frustration of his interlocutor Richard Dawkins.” That was rather stupid of him, since he should have realized Richard could just say “no he didn’t.” But apparently he is stupid (as well as shrill), because he said it anyway. Richard said “no he didn’t.”
I was his interlocuter in his very last interview, for the Christmas issue of New Statesman, which I edited, and I can state with total certainty that he expressed no sympathy whatsoever, generous or otherwise, for the Christian worldview. So that is a lie, and so is the “evident frustration of his interlocutor Richard Dawkins.”
Shrill George Pitcher caught in lie shock.
I would say something about little Pitcher having big ears – but then I wouldn’t be able to resist the temptation to find an anagram for that last word, and that would be too strident…
Oh, hell, he wants strident? We can do strident.
Well, I say we. Actually all I tend to do is sputter in outrage, too blown away by the sheer effrontery of, for instance, telling lies to promote your religion–which says telling lies is a no no. So I don’t usually manage strident very well myself.
You want strident, I recommend Aquaria. Now, she is strident. And funny. And I love reading her comments.
I have never once seen Dawkins strident. I have occasionally seen Hitchens pushing the strident edge a little, but really, not all that much. It’s just that while Dawkins calls a spade a spade Hitch generally referred to it as a fucking shovel. But the truth is, those folks define “making a lot of sense and refusing to kowtow to religious sensibilities” as “strident”, whereas I just call it “being correct”.
It should be “by those of no more faith than he. And the remainder of that quotation seems to make no sense whatever.
Pritcher needs to learn how to write the English gooder than he does before he can advance to character assassination.
Hmmm George Pitcher…the same George Pitcher who was the Press secretary for the Archbishop of Canterbury, until Rowan told him to sod off.
Rowan Williams has a reputation for getting along with everybody, except…..
Wait, what? The author of The Magic of Reality is incapable of perceiving “mystery in humanity” and standing “in awe and wonder”?
this stry dent picture gy shud lern two rite english gud lik wot I duz.
Empty Pitchers make the most noise.
Scientism. Oh yes let’s stick an -ism behind a word and suddenly it sounds like communism which makes it scary and bad. Geesh their attempts to smear science are so transparent.
We should point out that “empirical scientism” is just what we use routinely for knowing whether things are true or not; if you want to know if there’s water in the kettle, you don’t wait for a revelation, you look in the f’ing kettle already.
George Pitcher has responded:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2095343/Should-I-sue-Richard-Dawkins-calling-liar-Jesus.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
It’s even more dishonest that the original piece. It’s now clear that Pitcher based his original lie around a comment from Hitchens, in which he commends certain Christians for stating their beliefs honestly. Pitcher gleefully quotes the words:
while leaving out the actual context:
This makes it clear that Hitchens has no actual sympathy for their world-view, and that the commendation of their honesty is also an attack on the dishonesty of other Christians.
He also quotes the line “I know a lot of very educated, very prosperous, very thoughtful people who believe.”, while ignoring the fact that Dawkins does not dispute this fact, and never has done.
“The problem is that faith isn’t primarily evidential, as he demands it to be, but revelatory – and we would claim no less true for all that in explaining the human condition.”
Always the putting forward of inner, revealed or “spiritual” truth as being equally valid to what can be independently verified with evidence. The rational person is always presented as someone who is incomplete because they are refuse to accept the emotional side of human existence. This is a straw man to make rational people seem incomplete. We also enjoy the emotional side of life with love, joy and awe of what is to be found in our world. We just accept that humans are good at fooling themselves and that the emotions are not a reliable path for finding what is true. We do not reject our feelings – we just look look at inner “truths” with a skepticism gained from a growing knowledge of human psychology. When we do this, the “spiritual” call us shrill.
I guess since being an educated Christian requires a metric shit-ton of self-deception in order to avoid the obvious flaws in religious thinking, it is easy as pie to lie to and about other people.
Yikes that follow-up piece in the Mail is vile. He’s a real genius at being vile. He’s a worm of a human being. Sue me.
As I sit in my shrill silence, I don’t know if the Pitcher is half full or half empty.
“Yikes that follow-up piece in the Mail is vile. He’s a real genius at being vile. He’s a worm of a human being. Sue me.”
On behalf of the worms, consider yourself sued.
Not really. The piece resembles a poison-pen letter written by a child. He tries so desperately hard to cram in every piece of condescension he can muster, and to service every little grievance, that the article is more incoherent than nasty. He’s vile, but it’s through effort, not skill.
Rough translation, then – “Hitchens said precisely what everyone would expect him to say, but hie didn’t call me a total wanker – Win!”
“I don’t know if the Pitcher is half full or half empty”
Worse than that. The Pitcher seems to be cracked, which makes it a likely reservoir of pestilence, perhaps suitable for use as a flower pot or to hold pencils, but not for anything you would consume.
In August 2010 George Pitcher appeared on Unbelievable? — a Christian radio discussion programme (and podcast) from the UK. The subject was assisted dying, and Pitcher was thoroughly obnoxious. I started a thread on their discussion forum to explain why his approach was doing his side no favours, and most of the commenters seemed to agree with me:
http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk…
Pitcher doesn’t care what the atheists think. He’s not trying to impress atheists. He’s preaching to the converted. The mugs in the pews love all that “us and them” stuff, and Pitcher feeds it to them in big lumps.
Well, Dawkins would say that, wouldn’t he?
It’s not like Dawkins would exactly proclaim it to the world when Hitchens asked for priest to perform the last rites, is it?
/snark
I have learn a few just right stuff here. Definitely price bookmarking for revisiting. I wonder how much attempt you place to create such a magnificent informative website.