Anthony McIntyre
is disappointed at Richard Dawkins being snubbed by Trinity College’s Historical Society.

Internationally renowned evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins has had an invitation to address Trinity College’s Historical Society next year withdrawn. The world’s oldest student debating society auditor, Brid O’Donnell, in a ludicrous statement reeking more of woke than wisdom, claimed that she was “unaware of Richard Dawkins’ opinions on Islam and sexual assault until this evening.”

How O’Donnell did not know Dawkins' opinions in advance illustrates the dangers of valuing ignorance. She stood to learn much from Dawkins had the decision to invite him not been reversed. Not content to suffer in silence her affliction of being dangerously unaware, she is intent on becoming a super spreader so that ultimately the virus of ignorance will strike everyone down.

Her first targets were the student members of the Hist, as it is known. In order that they might know as little as she, Richard Dawkins was disinvited in a bid to thwart the intellectual insight that he was likely to bring. Exposure to critical ideas was less important to O’Donnell than “the comfort of our membership." Nothing, of course, to do with her own condescending chauvinism which could only see students as snowflakes likely to melt when confronted with an incendiary idea: something like Young Earth Science and Flat Earth Science being intellectual equals.

The reasoning was spurious. Dawkins being an atheist is of course going to reject the tenets of Islam and all other religions. He is a firm opponent of creationism being taught in schools as science rather than the junk science it is, which has of course angered religious fundamentalists of all hues including some within Islam. Dawkins lamented that Muslim students frequently walked out of class during discussions on evolution. That they might have a preference for magic, much like their Christian evangelical counterparts, is no reason for public educators to remain silent out of respect for their religious opinion.

As for his views on sexual assault:

Well apparently it refers to two tweets he sent in 2014, in which he suggested that being drunk and unable to remember being assaulted might make it more difficult to secure a prosecution.

Hardly much controversial there. It seems horrendous that a victim of rape might see her attacker go free because she was too intoxicated to remember the event. But this is what rape victims face in a legal system with a very low conviction rate for the vile offence of sexual violence. Dawkins did not seek to minimise the awfulness of sexual assault or give any quarter to rapists, but aimed to raise awareness about the evidentiary barriers that excessive alcohol consumption might raise. Enhancing awareness is something Brid O’Donnell seems hostile to. Nevertheless, it is a message I would have no difficulty sharing with my daughter. Maybe that will get me banned from Trinity as well. No more guest lectures at your invite then Professor Eunan O'Halpin! Thus spoke Brid the Banner.

The irony is that in a hotel less than a mile from Trinity, the same daughter when she was ten met Richard Dawkins at the World Atheist Convention who, while curious that one so young would be present, told her that he was writing a book for children of her age. Now at Trinity it seems she stands to learn a lot less in a university at 19 than she did in a hotel at 10.

The Hist has form for sticking fingers in its ears. Two years ago it also disinvited Nigel Farage. The then auditor Paul Molloy rowed back from his original compelling reason for inviting Farage:

The Society plays host to numerous individuals of divergent views, many of which our members feel strongly and passionately about. This is the nature of free enquiry in a democratic society. It is by that enquiry the strength of ideas and the validity of beliefs are challenged and upheld.

Once Molloy folded under pressure and disinvited Nasty Nigel the die was cast. Free inquiry was no longer the moving spirit of the Hist. To comfort the students, ideas had to be made uncomfortable and unwelcome.

Irish society might have thought it had purged itself of the spectre of Conor Cruise O’Brien. Brid O’Donnell in treating Dawkins as Cruise O’Brien did Mary Holland - when she too discomfited people Cruise O'Brien would rather view as mushrooms - has, like some deranged necromancer, breathed life into the the old ogre. 

⏩Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

Disinviting Dawkins

Anthony McIntyre
is disappointed at Richard Dawkins being snubbed by Trinity College’s Historical Society.

Internationally renowned evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins has had an invitation to address Trinity College’s Historical Society next year withdrawn. The world’s oldest student debating society auditor, Brid O’Donnell, in a ludicrous statement reeking more of woke than wisdom, claimed that she was “unaware of Richard Dawkins’ opinions on Islam and sexual assault until this evening.”

How O’Donnell did not know Dawkins' opinions in advance illustrates the dangers of valuing ignorance. She stood to learn much from Dawkins had the decision to invite him not been reversed. Not content to suffer in silence her affliction of being dangerously unaware, she is intent on becoming a super spreader so that ultimately the virus of ignorance will strike everyone down.

Her first targets were the student members of the Hist, as it is known. In order that they might know as little as she, Richard Dawkins was disinvited in a bid to thwart the intellectual insight that he was likely to bring. Exposure to critical ideas was less important to O’Donnell than “the comfort of our membership." Nothing, of course, to do with her own condescending chauvinism which could only see students as snowflakes likely to melt when confronted with an incendiary idea: something like Young Earth Science and Flat Earth Science being intellectual equals.

The reasoning was spurious. Dawkins being an atheist is of course going to reject the tenets of Islam and all other religions. He is a firm opponent of creationism being taught in schools as science rather than the junk science it is, which has of course angered religious fundamentalists of all hues including some within Islam. Dawkins lamented that Muslim students frequently walked out of class during discussions on evolution. That they might have a preference for magic, much like their Christian evangelical counterparts, is no reason for public educators to remain silent out of respect for their religious opinion.

As for his views on sexual assault:

Well apparently it refers to two tweets he sent in 2014, in which he suggested that being drunk and unable to remember being assaulted might make it more difficult to secure a prosecution.

Hardly much controversial there. It seems horrendous that a victim of rape might see her attacker go free because she was too intoxicated to remember the event. But this is what rape victims face in a legal system with a very low conviction rate for the vile offence of sexual violence. Dawkins did not seek to minimise the awfulness of sexual assault or give any quarter to rapists, but aimed to raise awareness about the evidentiary barriers that excessive alcohol consumption might raise. Enhancing awareness is something Brid O’Donnell seems hostile to. Nevertheless, it is a message I would have no difficulty sharing with my daughter. Maybe that will get me banned from Trinity as well. No more guest lectures at your invite then Professor Eunan O'Halpin! Thus spoke Brid the Banner.

The irony is that in a hotel less than a mile from Trinity, the same daughter when she was ten met Richard Dawkins at the World Atheist Convention who, while curious that one so young would be present, told her that he was writing a book for children of her age. Now at Trinity it seems she stands to learn a lot less in a university at 19 than she did in a hotel at 10.

The Hist has form for sticking fingers in its ears. Two years ago it also disinvited Nigel Farage. The then auditor Paul Molloy rowed back from his original compelling reason for inviting Farage:

The Society plays host to numerous individuals of divergent views, many of which our members feel strongly and passionately about. This is the nature of free enquiry in a democratic society. It is by that enquiry the strength of ideas and the validity of beliefs are challenged and upheld.

Once Molloy folded under pressure and disinvited Nasty Nigel the die was cast. Free inquiry was no longer the moving spirit of the Hist. To comfort the students, ideas had to be made uncomfortable and unwelcome.

Irish society might have thought it had purged itself of the spectre of Conor Cruise O’Brien. Brid O’Donnell in treating Dawkins as Cruise O’Brien did Mary Holland - when she too discomfited people Cruise O'Brien would rather view as mushrooms - has, like some deranged necromancer, breathed life into the the old ogre. 

⏩Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

9 comments:

  1. Sean Mallory comments

    Not much of a discussion if everyone thinks the same. If that were the case the world would still be flat and we would all be discussing just how flat it is rather than questioning why it is that we believe it is flat or in fact is it flat at all - at least that is a discussion!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Some of Dawkins' arguments make me, an atheist, make me uncomfortable but his capacity for empirical research and knowledge make it even more compelling a reason to emgage with Dawkins.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Some of Dawkins' arguments make me, an atheist, make me uncomfortable"

      Why? He's an Evolutionary Biologist who's an atheist not an atheist who uses evolutionary biology to dictate to others what to believe. I throughly enjoy his works and believe he is correct but I'd say I'm agnostic bordering on a belief in a higher order too.

      Delete
    2. what sort of higher order? A supernatural force or an order like that marveled at by Einstein?

      Delete
  3. Like Einstein. Specifically the huge number of paradoxes that remain unexplained in various fields of science including his of Relativity. The 'supernatural' is no explanation at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it is wondrous - but like you, I see no place for the supernatural even an afterlife

      Delete
  4. It was his diversion into quantitative mechanics in the last chapter of "The God Delusion" that I found puzzling. This is not his area of expertise and I found it odd that he would use that discipline to disprove the existence of a supreme being.

    It is his almost visceral hostility towards any from of organised religion that troubled me a little. Aa an atheist, i am quite relaxed with the visible preseecne of religiious built envoronments and with religiously based social justice activity. It is when religious authorities request that the State uphold its doctrines abnd to police its dissiddents that I object to.

    But his evolutionary biology work will always stand the test of time against theological arguments on the origin of the universe.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As the closest thing to a "resident woke" that TPQ has, I feel I should comment.

    Disinviting Dawkins is a nonsense, as are the reasons for disinviting him.

    I don't find anything that AM has written objectionable. But interesting ethical questions do emerge around this. I was listening to a podcast recently where the host, Joe Rogan, described taking issue with a YouTube employee about her employer designating a video featuring Douglas Murray and Sam Harris in discussion about Islam as hate speech.

    I know little about Sam Harris, but Douglas Murray is an interesting example. He has brains, profile and platform. He also, in my opinion, provides intellectual cover for a certain type of person who hasn't really ever liked brown people, and are now able to claim that they have a problem with aspects of Islam, rather than acknowledge themselves as crude racists. Melanie Phillips does much the same.

    I think it's fairly obvious that Islamophobia has been rising in the UK since the mid-90s. As ever, it's decent, ordinary people being abused in the street and spat on. The old media certainly fuelled this prejudice, but new media has amplified it. Characters like Douglas Murray don't have to use the rhetoric of Farage or Tommy Robinson, but what they do is arguably more dangerous.

    I'm not saying Murray (as an example) should necessarily be denied a platform - but there should be an honest debate and discussion about what giving him one represents, and what it can do. Tone and nuance are the victims in the "no-platform" debate and everyone suffers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sam Harris is a great mind and very insightful. His book A Letter To A Christian Nation was a brilliant read. But he has supported horrible practices such as torture. To me that is on a par with supporting slavery or rape.
      Charles Murray is a brilliant mind. I loved his work because of the extent to which it made me think. It was through follow up discussions with Alfie Gallagher that I came to understand how seriously flawed some of his developed arguments in fact are. The reason I have more sympathy than usual with him is his characetisation of the Bloody Sunday massacre gang.
      The type of honest debate and discussion about giving him a platform is something that can be requested from every perspective and about everybody that is given a platform. Even censors should be given a platform to make their case so that we may better understand their reasoning, if for no purpose other than overcoming it.

      Delete