32315 Responseshttp://www.nullifidian.net/2007/07/04/misplaced-credit/Misplaced+credit2007-07-04+13%3A06%3A19nullifidian to “Misplaced credit”

1. XanderG on July 4th, 2007 2:35 pm

   A question for Sentamu, “Why’d it take your god so long?”.

   Though looking at some of your posts on Sentamu, he begins to look like a bit of a James Blunt.

2. nullifidian on July 4th, 2007 2:39 pm

   I saw an interview on the BBC, and he asked himself that same question, but then instantly dismissed it with a vague “mysterious ways” type comment.

   Thankfully my understanding of rhyming slang knows what you mean. :-)

3. AV on July 4th, 2007 4:30 pm

   A question for Sentamu, “Why’d it take your god so long?”.

   You beat me to it.

4. Jake Paton on July 4th, 2007 4:43 pm

   Although to be fair to the man hiself he did record an interview on Al-Jazeera asking for Aj’s release not long after his BBC press card had been handed in to the Al Jazeera offices in Palestine.

   Also he’s kept the story in the headlines through sermons and vigils. Even if you don’t share the man’s beliefs he spent time promoting Aj’s captivity and kept it in the news.

   He’s done more than most and but not as much as others to help AJ. For that I think we should be grateful.

5. nullifidian on July 4th, 2007 5:06 pm

   Although to be fair to the man hiself he did record an interview on Al-Jazeera asking for Aj’s release not long after his BBC press card had been handed in to the Al Jazeera offices in Palestine.

   Indeed, and when he did, what did he do? He started quoting scripture: someone else’s scripture. He didn’t even have the sincerity to use his own scripture (the same one he’s now given credit to) the one he is supposed to believe is the one and only truth. His appeal was nothing more than an appeal to emotion/tradition/authority combined with an element of cherry picking.

   Also he’s kept the story in the headlines through sermons and vigils. Even if you don’t share the man’s beliefs he spent time promoting Aj’s captivity and kept it in the news.

   As did the BBC, who are just Johnston’s employers, rather than supposed keepers of the divine. In fact, the BBC only had earthly material resources to offer, whereas he had the creator of the universe to petition. Which one did more?

   If I had access to Sentamu’s resources, I might have done the same, but I wouldn’t have used it as a platform to promote my own agenda. Did he make that plea primarily as a member of the human race, or as a high ranking official in a religious order?

   He’s done more than most and but not as much as others to help AJ. For that I think we should be grateful.

   He’s in a position to do more than most, being a figurehead within a national institution that the establishment, for better or worse, pays attention to.

   Of course, none of this take away from the fact that he’s assigned credit where it isn’t due, which amounts, in a practical sense, to completely ignoring everything that was actually done to secure Johnston’s release, including the very media exposure that you mention above.

6. Jake Paton on July 5th, 2007 9:34 am

   Oh come, come, I think it ill befits any of us not to recognise credit and giev ti where it’s due. Otherwise do we not become those very same bigots ourselves ?

   Of course he quoted the Koran to those holding AJ, he was making an appeal to them wasn;t he ? Isn;t tha the best way to make an appeal ? To appeal to that to thich those who were holding AJ view as holy ?

   If am I am to appeal to you do I not use logic rather than the Bible ?

   As for making the plea as an Archbsihop rather than a member of the human race I don’t think (and rather susopect you don’t either) that the two are incompatible. He was using his position to do something good. Surely that, in and of itself, is something to commend rather than denigrate ?

   In the past he has made comments about “illiberal secularists” or “intolerant atheists” or somesuch description. By refusing to acknowledge the good things he does, whilst rightly objecting to those other actions you feel are less so, do you not fulfil his description by sacrificing reason and logic on the altar of prejudice ?

7. nullifidian on July 5th, 2007 10:54 am

   Oh come, come, I think it ill befits any of us not to recognise credit and giev ti where it’s due. Otherwise do we not become those very same bigots ourselves ?

   So you agree with Sentamu that credit should be given to his god? I’ve acknowledged Sentamu’s contribution, if that’s where this line was going, I was further questioning his methods and his motives on top of his baseless assertion, and only as you brought it up. I had no issue with his appeal per se which was why I didn’t mention it in my original post, but you have since raised it and I am addressing it. Other than that, it’s a bit of a red herring.

   Of course he quoted the Koran to those holding AJ, he was making an appeal to them wasn;t he ? Isn;t tha the best way to make an appeal ? To appeal to that to thich those who were holding AJ view as holy ?

   If am I am to appeal to you do I not use logic rather than the Bible ?

   You could make an argument, and I’d weight it up. Being logical would help.

   My point was that Sentamu used as an argument something that he himself doesn’t believe in. As in your example, are you saying that logic, while I might appreciate it, plays no part in what you yourself think? If such is the case, I would consider you insincere and am probably less inclined to listen to your argument in the first place.

   It was also a bad argument on Sentamu’s part, as I’m sure the “army of islam” are quite familiar with their scripture and could justify their actions with their own cherry-picked verses.

   And, for what it’s worth, I don’t consider logic as “holy”, I consider it useful, if that was a point you were trying to make.

   As for making the plea as an Archbsihop rather than a member of the human race I don’t think (and rather susopect you don’t either) that the two are incompatible. He was using his position to do something good. Surely that, in and of itself, is something to commend rather than denigrate ?

   Indeed, and after I commented I realised the false dichotomy I presented, but I left it unedited to allow you to see it. As you rightly suspect, I don’t think they’re incompatible, but, as I mentioned above, I acknowledged his contribution and take no issue with the act of his appeal.

   However, it doesn’t answer my question: did he do it because he felt that he should, as a fellow human being with access to such resources, or because he was compelled to by his interpretation of faith? I know which attitude I would consider more sincere.

   You seem to be under the impression that I’m denigrating his effort: I am not. I am however calling into question his presumptuous claim that his god was responsible for Johnston’s release, which he has no evidence for whatsoever, yet states it as if it was a matter of fact. In my original post, I made no mention of his appeals as they were superfluous to the point I was making.

   In the past he has made comments about “illiberal secularists” or “intolerant atheists” or somesuch description. By refusing to acknowledge the good things he does, whilst rightly objecting to those other actions you feel are less so, do you not fulfil his description by sacrificing reason and logic on the altar of prejudice ?

   I have not refused to acknowledge what he did, as I’ve mentioned before, and this is still a red herring from my original point. Sentamu is one of those people that seems to see a christian-positive silver lining in just about anything, whether it is deserved or not. While this might make him feel all warm and fuzzy about his idea of his god, it doesn’t necessarily reflect reality, as in this case.

   And, for what it’s worth, I don’t hold much truck with a particular bishops’ ideas of “tolerance” or “liberalism”, two ideas which appear to be antithetical to the dogma that he espouses. I’m going to go off on a tangent here: he may be preaching magnanimously about, for example, homosexuality now, but it was most certainly not always the case.

   This leads me to question as to why he feels the need to be magnanimous at all; it appears on the face of it to be quite spectacularly arrogant. What right does he have to be forgiving or accepting to people like that? They did nothing except violate his ideas of dogma. Of course, I’m glad that he’s not calling for a biblical style punishment for them, but at the same time I’m not particularly enthralled that he thinks it’s necessary to have to try and reconcile not being arrogant and judgemental with his dogma.

   Calling secularists or atheists “intolerant” or “illiberal” seems to me to be a classic case of projection. If rallying against dogmatic bigotry and arrogance, and wanting to prevent people imposing their own ideas of reality and morality on me and society, especially when it comes in the form of impositions derived from the scribblings of bronze age desert nomads, then yes, I’m intolerant and illiberal. Of course, this admission makes no sense whatsoever.

8. Jake Paton on July 5th, 2007 12:46 pm

   First, thank you for treating my posts and the points I made with respect and responding to them. I’m grateful to you for the opportunity to discuss this.

   I note that in your response, you say you’ve acknowledged Sentamu’s contribution to AJs release and you say it is a red herring from your OP.

   With respect I disagree. Your OP contrasts Sentamu with those who “You know, those that actually did something”.

   I acknowledge that you are positing your argument on the basis that Sentamu claimed divine providence, and whilst you effectively highlight that in the OP, the clear suggestion is that he did nothing at all over the past weeks except claim divine providence, which is clearly not the case. Not so much a red herring as a generalisation not borne out, which you acknowledge and rectify in subsequent posts.

   As for the wider issue, “arrogance” is a term that lacks the empirical objectivity borne of logic and at the very least is a subjective two way street which can be entered into whenever a claim is made by one and not accpeted by another.

   I not the admission you make at the end – and acknowledge it, but think it does make sense. Being intolerant against an untruth is still being intolerant. The characteristsic is dependent upon the behaviour displayed not on the motivating cause. So to say it “makes no sense” simply because that of which one may be illiberal or intolerant is unworthy or untrue is a fallacy as the unworthiness or untruthfulness of religion does not make the intolerance or illiberality any less.

   The prolem this gives borth to however is the lack of objectivity borne from such a characteristic. And given the essential need of objectivity within logic and reason to admit illiberlaism and intolerance of religion or the religious removes that very platform that raises one above the superstitious: objectivity.

9. nullifidian on July 5th, 2007 3:27 pm

   First, thank you for treating my posts and the points I made with respect and responding to them. I’m grateful to you for the opportunity to discuss this.

   You’re welcome, although I don’t think I should have to make the point to you that I have no reason to not do so. If you were under the (mistaken) impression that we atheists are all a bunch of fire-breathing baby eaters (a commonly-held notion, at least on the other side of the Atlantic) I’m afraid you’ve been misled. You posted a rather courteous comment, and I responded in kind, it’s as simple as that.

   I note that in your response, you say you’ve acknowledged Sentamu’s contribution to AJs release and you say it is a red herring from your OP.

   With respect I disagree. Your OP contrasts Sentamu with those who “You know, those that actually did something”.

   On the contrary, my “OP” as you describe it acknowledged Sentamu (…and everyone else who offered their voice and action…, everyone else in this case includes Sentamu) and my contrast was with whom I was thanking for those actions (…those that actually did something.) with whom he was attributing thanks (i.e. his god).

   The contrast that you attribute to me is misplaced.

   I acknowledge that you are positing your argument on the basis that Sentamu claimed divine providence, and whilst you effectively highlight that in the OP, the clear suggestion is that he did nothing at all over the past weeks except claim divine providence, which is clearly not the case. Not so much a red herring as a generalisation not borne out, which you acknowledge and rectify in subsequent posts.

   This is your interpretation of my words, but it doesn’t match what I wrote, and I suggested no such thing. As I again pointed out in my last comment, I am however calling into question his presumptuous claim that his god was responsible for Johnston’s release, which he has no evidence for whatsoever, yet states it as if it was a matter of fact) I again made it clear that it was the object of his gratitude that I was rejecting.

   In fact, I also explicitly made this point in my first reply to you: none of this take away from the fact that he’s assigned credit where it isn’t due, which amounts, in a practical sense, to completely ignoring everything that was actually done to secure Johnston’s release, including the very media exposure that you mention above.

   However, I didn’t rectify such a generalisation, as I made none. While getting away from the original point of my “OP”, unless Sentamu is willing to concede that islamic scripture is as holy to him as his own (and everything that that entails), then I certainly did not say that Sentamu claimed divine providence: I said that he quote-mined islamic scripture. It was you that thought that I called into question how he acted during his appeal, I made no such claim in my initial post. Please go back and read it and, if you can, please identify where I did so.

   As for the wider issue, “arrogance” is a term that lacks the empirical objectivity borne of logic and at the very least is a subjective two way street which can be entered into whenever a claim is made by one and not accpeted by another.

   I not the admission you make at the end – and acknowledge it, but think it does make sense. Being intolerant against an untruth is still being intolerant. The characteristsic is dependent upon the behaviour displayed not on the motivating cause. So to say it “makes no sense” simply because that of which one may be illiberal or intolerant is unworthy or untrue is a fallacy as the unworthiness or untruthfulness of religion does not make the intolerance or illiberality any less.

   The prolem this gives borth to however is the lack of objectivity borne from such a characteristic. And given the essential need of objectivity within logic and reason to admit illiberlaism and intolerance of religion or the religious removes that very platform that raises one above the superstitious: objectivity.

   Please don’t presume to hold up “logic” as an inflexible measuring stick by which to compare me: it only serves to make me think that you are either deliberately conflating it to some sort of irreligious equivalent of a god, or that you are attempting to call into question some presumed all-encompassing logical dogma that that I must at all costs adhere to, neither of which are the case.

   As for my comment on Sentamu’s arrogance, I am basing this not just on his actions here, but on the many times that he has determined who should do what to whom, and how they should do it, usually with regard to their genitalia. To presume to place oneself in a position to be able to tell other what they can and cannot do is arrogance. Where is the objectivity that gives him any claim to such a right? His scripture?

   In case it wasn’t perfectly clear (and it seems that it wasn’t) I was making the point that my “intolerance” is against intolerance itself. You and I both seem to recognise that this is ridiculous (I said it makes no sense, you called it “a fallacy”) which was why I—perhaps a little too subtly—purposefully responded with the rather facetious end note at all. To equate this with genuine bigotry is at best facile and at worst deliberately disingenuous. Do you honestly think that my ersatz “intolerance” is comparable to that genuinely and forcefully shown by those who presume to position themselves above others and lay down the moral law?

10. Michael on July 6th, 2007 12:47 am

    This is a great discussion! As for the original post, more than one religious leader is claiming victory in the name of their God. Remember the interfaith vigil? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6585623.stm

    I wonder which God it was that was most responsible for his release?

11. nullifidian on July 6th, 2007 6:15 pm

    Perhaps it was group effort, they all chipped in to control the minds of those that follow them?

12. XanderG on July 7th, 2007 8:16 am

    “Perhaps it was group effort, they all chipped in to control the minds of those that follow them?”

    POLYTHEISM! HOW DARE YOU! There is only one god and his name is: Allah, Yaweh, Jesus, etc.

13. TW on July 7th, 2007 11:23 pm

    Good post with some good comments.

    It intrigues me that various Church members pop up every now and then claiming that God has intervened to help “person X” or what ever. Obviously this paints the picture of a capricious, often malicious deity. Why did he intervene to save Mr Johnson but not the child kidnapped in Nigeria? Is Mr Johnson more important or has the Archbishop not been able to intervene on her behalf yet?

    It is entertaining that the faithful seem so willing to credit their choice in deity with any good fortune that falls their way, but dismiss the bad things (especially if they happen to others) as either nothing to do with the deity or being part of “mysterious ways.”

    I suppose I need to go and make some offerings to Jupiter now so that the weather will be nice tomorrow…..

14. nullifidian on July 8th, 2007 12:06 am

    I don’t know whether I should be insulted, annoyed or worried that Jake hasn’t returned to rebut my points.

15. TW on July 8th, 2007 10:27 am

    You should be pleased. It may mean the points are un-rebuttable…