PLAYBOY: Do you have any deeply religious friends?DAWKINS: No. It’s not that I shun them; it’s that the circles I move in tend to be educated, intelligent circles, and there aren’t any religious people among them that I know of. I’m friendly with some bishops and vicars who kind of believe in something and enjoy the music and the stained glass.
Sunday, November 04, 2012
Vicars
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In the interest of those who struggle with sexual sin, how wise do you think it is to put a link to Playboy on your site?
ReplyDeleteIf they struggle with sexual sin, I expect they already know how to surf the web for porn.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Dawkins, who makes such a big deal about peer review, uses Playboy magazine to make his case for atheism, tells you something about his editorial standards.
BTW, this interview is already getting attention because of a ridiculous remark which Dawkins makes about the historical Jesus.
"the circles I move in tend to be educated, intelligent circles, and there aren’t any religious people among them that I know of"
ReplyDeleteTranslation: I live in an echo chamber where intelligent people are those that agree with me.
“If they struggle with sexual sin, I expect they already know how to surf the web for porn.”
ReplyDeleteIsn’t that like putting a cheeseburger in front a person who struggles with overeating and saying, “I expect they already know where the refrigerator is.”
I'm not a Nannystatist. I don't assume responsibility for another adult's actions.
DeletePlayboy mag has been around since before I was born. Hugh Hefner is a household name (sorry to say). There's hardly a male American who hasn't heard of Playboy. This isn't breaking news.
Likewise, the existence of internet porn is hardly a secret. You can go to a perfectly respectable site, but be treated to come-on ads in the sidebar. Any man who uses the internet is already aware of this.
If he lacks impulse control, I can't protect him from himself. If his resistance is that weak, he shouldn't online anyway.
I gave a quote, with the source. That's my standard practice. If I quote someone, I give the source.
No one has to go to the source of find the quote. I already posted the quote.
This is about Dawkins. Don't lose your focus.
I didn't want to lose focus but when I clicked the link...
DeletePretty sure you could have quoted the source without the link.
DeleteIt's irresponsible to give unsourced quotes. Giving the source guards against the accusation that one misquoted the individual, fabricated the quote, or passed along an attribution that has no basis in fact.
DeleteAnd as far as that goes, there's nothing wrong with reading the entire interview.
steve said:
Delete"If he lacks impulse control, I can't protect him from himself. If his resistance is that weak, he shouldn't online anyway."
By the way, this reminds me of Dante's Inferno Canto 5:
La bufera infernal, che mai non resta,
mena li spirti con la sua rapina;
voltando e percotendo li molesta.
The hellish wind, which never rests,
drives on the souls with such violence;
twisting and pounding it torments them.
Perhaps Dante imagined the lustful forever swept up in this violent wind or storm, and driven helplessly hither and thither, because they had lost or never gained self-control. Rather they had subjected their reason to their lust ("che la ragion sommettono al talento").
Here is Gustave Doré's depiction of the scene.
I only read Playboy for the articles.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Steve. As a responsible adult male I have software on my computer that blocks that sort of trash, since I understand that sexual sin is a weak spot in my own life I take the requisite steps to guard myself from it... in other words get some accountability and by some software if it is a problem for you... just sayin.
ReplyDeleteThere are many Christians who are tempted to indulge in food to the point of harm to themselves and worse. Perhaps some of them follow Triablogue.
ReplyDeleteSay the Dawkins interview had occurred on a website that celebrated gluttony. Say it was on a site like gluttonyisgood.com, foodgod.com, or whatever.
If Steve had given such a source for the Dawkins quote, would the same people be on his case like they are with him sourcing Playboy? I kinda doubt it.
Translation: I live in an echo chamber where intelligent people are those that agree with me.
ReplyDeleteNice! That was on the spot.
If Steve had given such a source for the Dawkins quote, would the same people be on his case like they are with him sourcing Playboy? I kinda doubt it.
Me too. For the record, unless you're married perhaps, I don't think there's any sin in viewing a Playboy mag as such. It's the monetary support of a nigh unto soft-porn producing company that should be of greater concern. I'm guessing Ray, Lockheed, and foreigner come from the perspective that entertaining sexual fantasies are wrong across the board with the exception of spouses for each other, and even then only after they are married. That's definitely not my position, and not why I'd get all up in arms about Playboy.
Thanks for the link, Steve! I appreciate a reminder now and then of just how off-the-wall Richard Dawkins can be, even though he's allegedly this genius in the atheist community.
Prince Asbel said:
Delete"For the record, unless you're married perhaps, I don't think there's any sin in viewing a Playboy mag as such."
1. Whoa, hold up! Sorry, maybe I should've been clearer in what I said, but I'm not implying this at all. I'm not implying it's okay to view Playboy's nude models if that's what you mean. (Although this might get us into a debate over what is and isn't porn, which I find difficult to define.)
2. Rather my point was I don't think it's wrong to provide a link to Playboy as a source like Steve did in this post. That's all I was trying to say, nothing more.
3. However, if Playboy is porn like most Christians think it is, and if it's wrong to view porn, then I would think this applies whether single or married. (Although I'm not currently married.)
Whoa, hold up! Sorry, maybe I should've been clearer in what I said, but I'm not implying this at all. I'm not implying it's okay to view Playboy's nude models if that's what you mean.
DeleteI was speaking for myself for the record's sake. I wasn't saying you personally agreed with me.
However, if Playboy is porn like most Christians think it is,
Do most Christians think that? I know most Christians object to it on a moral basis, but not on the specific grounds that it's pornography persay.
and if it's wrong to view porn, then I would think this applies whether single or married.
Depends on what's wrong about it. Like you say, it opens up a wide area of discussion- My whole point was that viewing Playboy through the method of supporting it monetarily would probably be wrong, not (as seems to be being suggested by Ray, Lockheed, and foreigner) that somehow single men and women can't look at that kind of material without sinning in fantasizing about its contents. I have different reasons than they have indicated.
Prince Asbel said:
Delete"I was speaking for myself for the record's sake. I wasn't saying you personally agreed with me."
Well, I think it was reasonable to presume you were addressing me when you said after quoting something I had said: "For the record, unless you're married perhaps, I don't think there's any sin in viewing a Playboy mag as such." After all, either "you're" could be used in the singular or plural, which in both cases would've included me.
But anyway, fair enough, and thanks for the clarification.
"Do most Christians think that? I know most Christians object to it on a moral basis, but not on the specific grounds that it's pornography persay."
Most Christians would think there's a moral (immoral) element to viewing pornography, no? I don't quite follow why you make the distinction. Perhaps you could elaborate please?
"Depends on what's wrong about it. Like you say, it opens up a wide area of discussion- My whole point was that viewing Playboy through the method of supporting it monetarily would probably be wrong, not (as seems to be being suggested by Ray, Lockheed, and foreigner) that somehow single men and women can't look at that kind of material without sinning in fantasizing about its contents. I have different reasons than they have indicated."
Hm, I'd be interested in your reasons why you think "single men and women can't look at that kind of material without sinning in fantasizing about its contents" as well as your previous statement "I don't think there's any sin in viewing a Playboy mag as such." Not looking for a debate. Just curious why you think so. (If it's relevant, I'm familiar with Steve's posts on lust, pornography, masturbation, and sexual ethics on Triablogue.)
Um, guys? Playboy is most definitely porn, and it's most definitely evil to view its pictures. That's not even an open question.
ReplyDelete