This is a topic that I’m more or less done with for now, but before I move on I wanted to add one last posting that contains a couple of links that consist of some quite good writing on it all. I should add that putting links to them here does not necessarily imply I endorse each and every view expressed within any or all of these. I do however find them to be well thought out, and so I’m pointing to them because they do add to the whole conversation in one way or another.
First and Perhaps Foremost – Steven Novella – NECSS and Richard Dawkins
This is the posting where Steve explains why they disinvited Richard Dawkins. I do still feel that they made a mistake, but it is still also important to recognise that Steve did address the topic in a truly earnest manner that lays out their thinking, and also addresses some of the potential criticisms.
Steve very wisely closed the posting to guest comments, and so only his regular readers could chip in. That I must admit was a smart move.
If you are jumping in and commenting on all this anywhere, then if you have not read his explanation, then you need to do so before you write any further comments (unless of course you prefer to argue from a position of complete ignorance :-) )
Secondly, a well-written piece by the philosopher Massimo Pigliucci – Richard Dawkins
You might not agree with this next one (I don’t with specific aspects), but I do not intend to get into that here. I’ve included it because it is both well-written and also goes into a lot of background that grants you some additional and quite extensive detailed insights. He also wholly endorses the view that NECSS made the right decision and so I’m including it so that you may gain a better understanding from another viewpoint not aligned with mine.
Comments are usually worth avoiding, but in this case I’ll make an exception and recommend reading those under his posting as well, because many are quite well thought out and not your usual emotive ones.
Finally, a piece by Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland – NECSS should reconsider Dawkins decision, made in haste without full information
Michael takes a completely different slant on it all, and comes at it from the perspective of honouring your contractual agreements, and not simply walking away from them without any dialogue with the party of concern. He lays out a very detailed case and drives his points home with well-honed examples.
My interest and perhaps dilemma is that I personally know the folks at NCESS and have hung out with them (I have the pictures to prove that), and at the same time, I’ve been greatly entranced and influenced by Richard’s books and find them to be both elegant and insightful, so that all perhaps stirs up a few conflicts for me.
However, that’s it, that is a wrap for now. I’m putting this topic to one side, and moving on, because what has happened is done and dusted and is now history. I’ve posted my initial bit on the 29th Jan, then as more details emerged, commented upon that a few days later, and so this is (I suspect) my last posting on it all.