The Courtier's Reply

Nightmarishly the emperor parades naked, a courtier tries rescuing him from public ridicule and scorn!

English

The Courtier's Reply by PZ Myers:

"I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics."

About the Courtier's Reply

The Courtier's Reply imagines that a person cannot say there is no evidence for a given religious claim without first understanding in detail every conclusion that follows from the relevant claim. That is clearly false.

“	Most of us happily disavow fairies, astrology, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster without first immersing ourselves in books of Pastafarian theology.	”
—Richard Dawkins

PZ didn't agree with H. Allen Orr's criticism of The God Delusion in the NY Review of Books and wrote The Courtier's Reply as from a courtier defending his Emperor from Richard Dawkins' accusations that the Emperor was, in fact, unclothed.

Links

• The Courtier's Reply
• Courtier's Reply, follow-up by Jason Rosenhouse
• Who says we don't need bible scholars?
• The Courtier's Reply, entertaining but not very polite How would the women react when they see the naked emperor? Atheism Wiki has some suggestions.
• The Courtier's Reply When can one use The Courtier's Reply? Find that out and more, also from Atheism Wiki
• » Responsum Aucili Science After Sunclipse - Latin translation
• Η Απάντηση του Αυλικού « Διαγόρας ο Μήλιος - (Modern) Greek translation: I Apadisi tou Avlikou by Diagoras of Melos

Videos

• The Courtier's Reply by PZ Myers Hillarious video illustrating The Courtier's Reply, strongly recommended

Sophisticated theology

Sophisticated theology certainly distracts believers so they overlook how unreasonable the God of Christianity is. None of that cuts any ice with PZ.

“	I have no problem admitting that clever minds have constructed an elaborate castle of wind and vapor for their fairy tales, but bullshit shoveled into majestic mountains must still slump into shapeless, decaying mounds when the props are knocked out with the facts.	”
—PZ

Forget the Sophisticated theology, forget the Sophisticated theologians, the facts are what count.

Deutsch

Des Höflings Antwort

"In Verzweiflung ob seines eklatanten Mangels an Gelehrigkeit, habe ich die flegelhaften Argumente des Herrn Dawkins in Betracht gezogen. Offensichtlich hat er weder die detaillierten Diskurse des Grafen Roderigo von Sevilla über die exquisiten und exotischen Leder der kaiserlichen Stiefel gelesen, noch hat er nur einen Moment Bellinis Meisterstück Über die Lumineszenz des kaiserlichen Federhutes berücksichtigt. Wir haben ganze Schulen, die sich damit beschäftigen, gelehrte Abhandlungen über die Schönheit der kaiserlichen Gewandung zu schreiben, und jede größere Zeitung veröffentlicht Kolumnen über die sich der kaiserlichen Mode verschrieben haben. Dawkins verwirft dies alles ungeniert. Er lacht sogar über die höchst beliebten und überzeugenden Argumente seines Landsmanns, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, der bekannter Maßen darauf hinwies, dass der Kaiser weder gemeine Baumwolle, noch unbequemen Polyester, sondern zwangsläufig, ich betone zwangsläufig, nur Unterwäsche aus feinster Seide tragen müsse.

Arrogant ignoriert Dawkins all diese tiefen philosophischen Gedankengänge, um den Kaiser der Nacktheit zu bezichtigen.

Ich selber vermute, dass der Kaiser vielleicht nicht völlig bekleidet sein könne – wie sonst könne man die offenkundige Muße des Personals der Kaiserlichen Waschküche erklären – jedoch, nun, jeder andere scheint sich mit seinen Kleidern zu beschäftigen, und dieser Dawkins Bursche ist solch ein ungehobelter Emporkömmling, dem der Esprit meiner eleganten Umschweife fehlt, dass, während ich unfähig bin auf den Kern seiner Anschuldigungen zu antworten, ich ihn doch zu mindestens für seinen schlechten Stil schelten sollte.

Bis Dawkins in den Geschäften von Paris und Milan in die Lehre gegangen ist, bis er den Unterschied zwischen einem gekräusten Volant und gepufften Pantalons gelernt hat, sollten wir vorgeben, er hätte nicht gegen des Kaisers Geschmack gesprochen. Seine Ausbildung in Biologie mag ihm vielleicht die Fähigkeit gegeben haben, baumelnde Genitalien zu erkennen, wenn er sie sieht, jedoch hat sie ihn nicht die gebotene Ehrfurcht vor Imaginären Textilien gelehrt."