Stephen Hawking “Taliban like” a study in double standards

[plekhanov]

On the today program the other day Baroness Greenfield accused Stephen Hawking of acting in a “Taliban like way”!

 

Now Hawking hasn’t tortured or killed anyone for disagreeing with him nor has he called for people to be tortured and killed for disagreeing with him nor imprisoned or in fact punished in any way shape or form for speaking out against him. Nor has he called for contrary opinions to be in any way censored. All he has done is express an opinion (that god is “not necessary”) which lots of people took exception to and be countered by large numbers of other people who made far stronger claims. Hawking so far as I’m aware hasn’t even claimed that he knows for certain that god definitely doesn’t exist.

 

Furthermore a significant portion of these people publicly disagreeing with Hawking in a much more “Taliban like” way argue not only that they know god exists but they also know what he (it almost without fail a “he”) wants and that his will should be forced upon everyone by the state. Yet Greenfield doesn’t seem to have accused any of Hawking critics of being “Taliban like” in any respect.

 

Prof John Lennox for example responded to Hawking's claims in the Mail making a series of claims far more emphatic than Hawkings yet Greenfield doesn't seem to regard him as being "Taliban like".

 

For an atheist to be accused of acting like the Taliban on national radio it seems all they need do is express an opinion in more moderate terms than preachers do from the pulpit every sabbath. Theists on the other hand have to do far more than Hawking to be equated with the Taliban. The absurd double standard by which the conduct of atheists and theists are judged could hardly be more neatly underlined.

 

edit: Just to make it clear the topic of this thread is the contention that there is a double standard when it comes to how the conduct of atheists and theists are judged in our society, not the validity of Hawking's claims there is already a thread on that subject.

[Suffragette1]

. . . The absurd double standard by which the conduct of atheists and theists are judged could hardly be more neatly underlined. . .

 

I agree, the double standards are disgraceful. It also highlights the 'special status' conferred to relgionistas.

[splodgeyAl]

Love the comment

For years, other scientists have made similar claims, maintaining that the awesome, sophisticated creativity of the world around us can be interpreted solely by reference to physical laws such as gravity.

 

It is a simplistic approach, yet in our secular age it is one that seems to have resonance with a sceptical public.

As, obviously, the physical laws as we currently know them have only been derived after years of painstaking observations, mathematical modelling and collaboration and peer reviews and so on; whereas the alternative was written down by sources unknown and since has rarely been allowed to be challenged or questioned.

 

Hmmm, I know which I think is most likely to be the correct approach

[Wildcat]

It is fairly typical of her though.

 

She seems to have a pet theory about computers\Facebook damaging peoples brains (unless it is her own products she is marketing).

 

When Ben Goldacre asked her to back up her claims in a formal paper, her response was to claim he was like the people who denied that smoking caused cancer.

 

http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/a-clarification-why-people-have-been-concerne

[Wildcat]

At least she doesn't express her views in the Lords very often.

 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/peer/baroness_greenfield

[plekhanov]

It is fairly typical of her though.

 

She seems to have a pet theory about computers\Facebook damaging peoples brains (unless it is her own products she is marketing).

 

When Ben Goldacre asked her to back up her claims in a formal paper, her response was to claim he was like the people who denied that smoking caused cancer.

 

http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/a-clarification-why-people-have-been-concerne

Regardless of whether or not Greening is worthy of respect the fact is that she compared Hawking to the Taliban on Radio 4 without the interviewer or Prof Grayling reacting to such an unsupportable slur. I would suggest this is because we are so used to the double standard in our society that it usually goes unnoticed and unchallenged.

[Wildcat]

Regardless of whether or not Greening is worthy of respect the fact is that she compared Hawking to the Taliban on Radio 4 without the interviewer or Prof Grayling reacting to such an unsupportable slur. I would suggest this is because we are so used to the double standard in our society that it usually goes unnoticed and unchallenged.

 

Without hearing the interview it is hard to respond to that, perhaps Grayling thought she had embarassed herself to such an extent it was unnecessary to pull her up on the apparent stupidity of comparing Hawkins book against creationism with the Taliban.

 

Perhaps the more pertinent question is why they chose to include her in the discussion? It is not a topic she is qualified to speak on, so far as I am aware.

[plekhanov]

Without hearing the interview it is hard to respond to that, perhaps Grayling thought she had embarassed herself to such an extent it was unnecessary to pull her up on the apparent stupidity of comparing Hawkins book against creationism with the Taliban.

 

Perhaps the more pertinent question is why they chose to include her in the discussion? It is not a topic she is qualified to speak on, so far as I am aware.

I posted a link to the exchange in the op.

[Wildcat]

I posted a link to the exchange in the op.

 

I'll listen to it when I get home. I don't have access to media files where I am currently.