Bertrand Russell Used Ridicule Effectively, as Does Julia Sweeny, George Carlin and Bill Maher
The list of people who advocate and/or use ridicule effectively should be more than enough to convince the deniers. British atheist and Freethinker George William Foote (1850-1915) wrote:
Take Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot. That was an example of ridicule. He also backed his ridicule up with reasons and evidence. So the teapot example caught people's attention precisely because they knew he was not stupid. He earned the right to ridicule. The teapot example also educated people. There was information to be gleaned from it, a discussion to be had based on it. Per Russell, it is indeed possible to both ridicule, inform and convince others. There are times to ridicule and times to argue, and the same person can do both, even in the same lecture, and convine others! Those who still disagree simply don't make all of the distinctions necessary. According to Foote (per above) they are either priests or fools.
The bottom line is that those who reject ridicule just don't like it. So noted. Stop trying to kick against the goads and admit it.
Julia Sweeney has a great monologue that both ridicules and informs her audience, called Letting Go of God. She can be convincing. Her ridicule is not mean-spirited.
I think George Carlin was convincing to his audience even though his humor was mean-spirited, as can be Bill Maher's movie Religulous, which I defended at the 2009 annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. So I just don't understand how any reasonable thoughtful person can argue ridicule is not effective in our intellectual wars.
Socrates, Voltaire, Jonathan Swift, Erasmus, Keith Parsons, Richard Carrier Stephen Law, Bertrand Russell, Julia Sweeney, George Carlin, Bill Maher, and many others convince people, sometimes people on the margins, but they do. What they ridicule is based on the CONCLUSIONS (not the reasoning) of believers themselves.
Someone should made a YouTube video of these things! You're welcome.
Goldsmith said there are two classes of people who dread ridicule–priests and fools. They cry out that it is no argument, but they know it is. It has been found the most potent form of argument. Euclid used it in his immortal Geometry; for what else is the reductio ad absurdum which he sometimes employs? Elijah used it against the priests of Baal. The Christian fathers found it effective against the Pagan superstitions, and in turn it was adopted as the best weapon of attack on them by Lucian and Celsus. Ridicule has been used by Bruno, Erasmus, Luther, Rabelais, Swift, and Voltaire, by nearly all the great emancipators of the human mind. ["On Ridicule" Seasons of Freethought, 2013, page 260. See the tag "Ridicule" below for others who embrace it.]To see what Socrates, Voltaire, Jonathan Swift, Erasmus, and modern thinkers like Keith Parsons, Richard Carrier and Stephen Law said about ridicule click here. There are more people who advocate it, or use it, than can be named, including Bertrand Russell.
Take Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot. That was an example of ridicule. He also backed his ridicule up with reasons and evidence. So the teapot example caught people's attention precisely because they knew he was not stupid. He earned the right to ridicule. The teapot example also educated people. There was information to be gleaned from it, a discussion to be had based on it. Per Russell, it is indeed possible to both ridicule, inform and convince others. There are times to ridicule and times to argue, and the same person can do both, even in the same lecture, and convine others! Those who still disagree simply don't make all of the distinctions necessary. According to Foote (per above) they are either priests or fools.
The bottom line is that those who reject ridicule just don't like it. So noted. Stop trying to kick against the goads and admit it.
Julia Sweeney has a great monologue that both ridicules and informs her audience, called Letting Go of God. She can be convincing. Her ridicule is not mean-spirited.
I think George Carlin was convincing to his audience even though his humor was mean-spirited, as can be Bill Maher's movie Religulous, which I defended at the 2009 annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. So I just don't understand how any reasonable thoughtful person can argue ridicule is not effective in our intellectual wars.
Socrates, Voltaire, Jonathan Swift, Erasmus, Keith Parsons, Richard Carrier Stephen Law, Bertrand Russell, Julia Sweeney, George Carlin, Bill Maher, and many others convince people, sometimes people on the margins, but they do. What they ridicule is based on the CONCLUSIONS (not the reasoning) of believers themselves.
Someone should made a YouTube video of these things! You're welcome.
0 comments:
Post a Comment