David Quinn of the Iona Institute has retreated from an open civil online discussion, about the Iona Institute and Atheist Ireland and religious and atheist morality, and he has called me a virtual stalker for asking him questions about how Iona decides on its policies.
This is ironic because, when he recently sued RTE, he complained that calling Iona derogatory names was aimed at closing down open civil debate on the very issues that I am now trying to discuss with him. The two most recent questions which David has declined to answer are:
- You say Iona decides which Christian values to promote or not based on what makes most sense. What criteria do you use?
- You say Iona’s arguments re marriage are not even specifically Christian. Then what are they based on?
I have published below the relevant tweets between us over the past few weeks. I have answered all of the questions that David has asked me. If David wants to recommence discussing these issues I am happy to do so.
17 February
.@DavQuinn Iona Institute exists to promote the Christian religion. So why not highlight different Christian values on same sex marriage? — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 17, 2014
18 February
@micknugent There isn’t a unified atheist position on the issue either. — David Quinn (@DavQuinn) February 18, 2014
@DavQuinn The point is that Iona exists to promote the Christian religion and its values, not just to promote some of that. — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 18, 2014
@DavQuinn So why does Iona not accurately promote the variety of Christian values regarding same sex marriage?— Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 18, 2014
20 February
.@DavQuinn Again, why does Iona not promote the variety of Christian values regarding same sex marriage? — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 20, 2014
22 February
.@DavQuinn Third time: why does Iona not promote the variety of Christian values regarding same sex marriage? — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 22, 2014
25 February
.@DavQuinn And fourth time: why does Iona not promote the variety of Christian values regarding same sex marriage? — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 25, 2014
@micknugent We hold to a particular view of marriage just as Atheist Ireland has a particular view on various topics. — David Quinn (@DavQuinn) February 25, 2014
@micknugent Why don’t you promote the variety of atheist views on, well, everything? Instead Atheist Ireland is reliably left-wing. — David Quinn (@DavQuinn) February 25, 2014
.@DavQuinn 1/3 Atheist Ireland exists to promote atheism, reason and ethical secularism, hence specific policies to promote secularism… — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 25, 2014
@DavQuinn 2/3 Iona exists solely to advance and promote Christian religion and its values, hence should reflect various Christian values… — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 25, 2014
.@DavQuinn 3/3 So how does Iona arrive at its “particular view of marriage” (or other issues) from among the various Christian views? — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 25, 2014
@micknugent You might also ask how ANY Christian body arrives at a particular view. Basically, you don’t want us to have a particular view. — David Quinn (@DavQuinn) February 25, 2014
.@DavQuinn But Iona isn’t ANY Christian body. It exists solely to advance and promote THE Christian religion, not ANY particular version — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 25, 2014
.@DavQuinn so how do you get from advancing and promoting THE Christian religion to promoting one of various Christian values above others? — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 25, 2014
.@DavQuinn re: “you don’t want us to have a particular view”. You personally can have any view. Iona’s view should be based on its purpose. — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 25, 2014
@micknugent 1/2 You know perfectly well that our view of marriage is absolutely part of the Christian mainstream. — David Quinn (@DavQuinn) February 25, 2014
@micknugent 2/2 None of our arguments in respect of marriage are even specifically Christian. — David Quinn (@DavQuinn) February 25, 2014
@DavQuinn Yes, but Iona exists to promote the Christian religion, not just to promote part of the Christian mainstream. — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 25, 2014
.@DavQuinn If Iona’s arguments re marriage are not promoting the Christian religion, then what are they based on? — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 25, 2014
@micknugent You’re been obtuse. Now, why doesn’t Atheist Ireland represent every possible atheist view of everything? — David Quinn (@DavQuinn) February 25, 2014
@DavQuinn I’m not being remotely obtuse. You’re just not answering my questions. I’m happy to answer yours, but lets keep that separate. — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 25, 2014
.@DavQuinn 1/4 Atheist Ireland is an advocacy group with a specific mission statement included in our constitution… — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 25, 2014
@DavQuinn 2/4 Our first aim is to promote atheism and reason over superstition and supernaturalism… — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 25, 2014
@micknugent In response to 2/4.That’s a laugh given the absurdities of philosophical materialism. (Read Crick on free will for example?) — David Quinn (@DavQuinn) February 25, 2014
@DavQuinn 3/4 Our 2nd aim is to promote an ethical secular Ireland with no state support, funding or special treatment for any religion. — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 25, 2014
@micknugent Atheist Ireland strikes me as the atheist branch of Labour. — David Quinn (@DavQuinn) February 25, 2014
@DavQuinn 4/4 We don’t claim to represent all views of all atheists on everything. We promote the aims outlined in our constitution. — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 25, 2014
.@DavQuinn 1/3 Now, separately from Atheist Ireland, Iona exists to advance and promote the Christian religion… — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 25, 2014
.@DavQuinn 2/3 You say that none of Iona’s arguments about marriage are even specifically Christian… — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 25, 2014
.@DavQuinn 3/3 And I asked: If Iona’s arguments re marriage are not promoting the Christian religion, then what are they based on? — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 25, 2014
28 February
@micknugent @DrCollins10 Michael, justify your moral code without reference to utilitarian criteria. — David Quinn (@DavQuinn) February 28, 2014
@DavQuinn Good and bad are utilitarian concepts. They measure changes in suffering or wellbeing of sentient beings. @DrCollins10 — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 28, 2014
@DavQuinn If no sentient beings suffered or thrived, then there would be no concepts of good and bad @DrCollins10 — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 28, 2014
@DavQuinn To oversimplify, right and wrong measure rational responses to doing good or bad @DrCollins10 — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 28, 2014
@DavQuinn Christiany uses essentially the same ideas, but shifts the consequences of your behavior to an imagined afterlife @DrCollins10 — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 28, 2014
@DavQuinn Can you justify your moral code without reference to supernatural criteria? @DrCollins10 — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 28, 2014
@micknugent @DrCollins10 Atheists have no basis for saying something is wrong in itself hence must always resort to utilitarian criteria. — David Quinn (@DavQuinn) February 28, 2014
@DavQuinn Actually it is religion has no basis for saying something is wrong, hence must resort to imaginary commands @DrCollins10 — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) February 28, 2014
@micknugent If a drug lord maximiseS his own utility at huge expense to others, by your criteria how is that wrong IN ITSELF? — David Quinn (@DavQuinn) February 28, 2014
1 March
@DavQuinn morality is about shared utility, not just personal utility (unless hypothetically you were the only living being) @eoinsc — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 1, 2014
@micknugent You really, really need to read Nietzsche properly to cure you of your naive atheism. — David Quinn (@DavQuinn) March 1, 2014
.@DavQuinn Nietzsche is dead 🙂 How about dealing with my arguments using your own ideas? — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 1, 2014
@micknugent Wow. So the ideas of all dead people are to be discarded? — David Quinn (@DavQuinn) March 1, 2014
@DavQuinn It was a play on his god quote, hence the smiley 🙂 But make specific arguments, even if you are citing him, and I will reply. — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 1, 2014
2 March
@micknugent 1/2 Sartre: “The existentialist, on the contrary, finds it extremely embarrassing that God does not exist, for there… — David Quinn (@DavQuinn) March 2, 2014
@micknugent …disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven.” — David Quinn (@DavQuinn) March 2, 2014
.@DavQuinn Morality is an evolved property of our brains. It does not depend on gods or intelligible heavens. No reason for embarrassment. — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 2, 2014
@micknugent Exactly. It is a human invention which means morality can be anything at all. You’re agreeing with Sartre! — David Quinn (@DavQuinn) March 2, 2014
@micknugent And since it is an invention, nothing can be judged right or wrong in itself. It is all utilitarianism. — David Quinn (@DavQuinn) March 2, 2014
@micknugent Equality, for example, isn’t ‘moral’ as such but is to be judged solely on its utility. — David Quinn (@DavQuinn) March 2, 2014
@micknugent Yet lots of atheists positively scream that those who don’t put equality at the top of the moral pile are…immoral. — David Quinn (@DavQuinn) March 2, 2014
@micknugent All they are really doing is expressing their emotional preference as the likes of AJ Ayer admitted. — David Quinn (@DavQuinn) March 2, 2014
.@DavQuinn 1/8 Firstly, lets focus on the actual arguments rather than whether Sartre or Nietzsche or anyone else would agree with them. — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 2, 2014
.@DavQuinn 2/8 Morality is not confined to humans. It is an evolved property of the brains of social animals. Human morality is more nuanced — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 2, 2014
.@DavQuinn 3/8 Morality measures the impact of our actions on the suffering or wellbeing of sentient beings, regardless of what word you use — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 2, 2014
.@DavQuinn 4/8 You say morality is utilitarian as if that is bad. It is not. It is good. Morality has to be collectively utilitarian. — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 2, 2014
.@DavQuinn 5/8 That an action has no value in an intelligible heaven does not mean it has no value to the sentient beings experiencing it. — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 2, 2014
.@DavQuinn 6/8 Whether equality is ‘top of the tree’ is debatable. But equality is broadly in line with fairness and justice. — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 2, 2014
.@DavQuinn 7/8 Choosing the best moral decision may be influenced by emotional preferences, but that has to be tempered by reason. — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 2, 2014
.@DavQuinn 8/8 For example, what would be the fairest action if you did not know which of the people involved you would be? — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 2, 2014
4 March
1/3 @DavQuinn David, two quick questions, in case the last four times I asked got understandably missed in the sea of tweets… — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 4, 2014
2/3 @DavQuinn How does Iona decide which of the various Christian values (mainstream or not) that it will promote ahead of others? — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 4, 2014
@micknugent On the basis of what we think makes most sense, just as in your case I suppose. — David Quinn (@DavQuinn) March 4, 2014
3/3 @DavQuinn if Iona’s arguments re marriage are not promoting Christianity, or not even specifically Christian, what are they based on? — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 4, 2014
@micknugent BTW, you’re becoming a ‘virtual stalker’. — David Quinn (@DavQuinn) March 4, 2014
.@DavQuinn Can you please apologize for calling me a virtual stalker? It closes down debate and I might have to sue you 🙂 — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 4, 2014
.@DavQuinn Seriously, though, we’re having a conversation. I’m answering your questions. If you ignore mine, I’ll keep asking them. — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 4, 2014
.@DavQuinn So Iona decide which Christian values to promote based on what you think makes most sense. What criteria do you use for that? — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 4, 2014
.@DavQuinn I thought you wanted to encourage debate on these issues, rather than close it down? Then join in the debate you want to happen. — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 4, 2014
6 March
1/4 @DavQuinn David, I agree with Iona that we should have open civil debate about the issues Iona was established to highlight. — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 6, 2014
2/4 @DavQuinn I’m happy to continue answering any questions from you. My latest two follow-up questions for you are: — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 6, 2014
3/4 @DavQuinn You say Iona decides which Christian values to promote or not based on what makes most sense. What criteria do you use? — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 6, 2014
4/4 @DavQuinn You say Iona’s arguments re marriage are not even specifically Christian. Then what are they based on? — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 6, 2014
10 March
.@DavQuinn To clarify, are you declining to continue having open civil debate on issues Iona wants to see open civil debate on? — Michael Nugent (@micknugent) March 10, 2014
Interesting technique from David, there.
1. Avoid the question by asking a question. When that fails,
2. Patronise the questioner. When that fails,
3. Insult the questioner. When that fails,
4. Ignore the questioner.
No sign of actually engaging with the question, which is a pity.
Sure he blocked me just for pointing out that Cristiano Ronaldo supports same-sex marriage! https://twitter.com/ASourceDD/status/440863900217524226
If Iona’s status as a charity is based on it’s promotion of “The advancement and promotion of the Christian religion, its social and moral values” but Iona’s arguments re marriage are not promoting the Christian religion then it is using the charities money outside of its remit and as such it’s charitable status is deeply questionable.
Now I really do know why I think Twitter is well, to put it politely, a problem that gets in the way of orderly & efficacious conversation. To reassemble the flow, one would benefit by having the patience of – a saint? 😉
David wrote extensively opposing the introduction of Civil Partnership in 2010. He said it would damage marriage and was an attack on religious freedom. I’ve asked him several times via twitter to explain specifically how the Civil Partnerships of thousands of Irish people have damaged marriage or attacked freedom of religion. Alas he blocked me before he took the opportunity to defend his own positions.
I hope our journalists will pursue my questions when next he appears on our TV screens making the same claims about marriage equality.
Give it up Mick. You are beginning to look obsessive.
“David Quinn retreats from open civil discussion on Iona Institute” How can you have a discussion on Twitter? Which seems to be your favourite way for debating. It was a barrage of questions from yourself which lead him to call you a virtual stalker. But then again no good answer could ever satisfy the Skeptic.
Emmanuel, plenty of people have good discussions on Twitter and contrary to your personal fantasy good answers are exactly what satisfies skeptics.
Emmanuel, it is bad answers that don’t satisfy skeptics, while good answers don’t satisfy religious people.
To reformulate that last comment: Skeptics and atheists don’t like bad answers. Many religious people don’t like good questions.
David, what is my “personal fantasy”?
Michael, You asked “So why not highlight different Christian values on same sex marriage?” What did you expecting David to answer with?
Emmanuel, you are expressing your own personal fantasy when when you say “no good answer satisfies skeptics”. As a person who often takes a skeptical view point I am frequently satisfied by good answers even when they raise more questions on a topic and I am also comfortable with uncertainty.
Some of the things that leave my unsatisfied are misrepresentation as in David Quinn’s submission on SSM to the constitutional convention and obfuscation as in David Quinn’s defense of Pure in Heart in his opinion piece this week.
Emmanuel, if you read the sequence of the tweets you should understand what I was trying to find out from David, and what he was trying to avoid answering by changing the subject.
The Iona Institute is not just David Quinn. It is a registered company with a specific registered aim: to advance and promote the Christian religion and its social and moral values.
I am trying to identify how the Iona Institute adheres to its registered aim, and how it makes decisions as to what aspects of its registered aim it prioritises over other aspects of its registered aim.
These questions are in the public interest, as the Iona Institute is indirectly funded by taxpayers by virtue of having tax-free charitable status on the basis that it is adhering to its registered aim.
The questions won’t go away because David declines to answer them. The only impact of not answering them is to make it seem as if the Iona Institute does not have good answers to the questions.
Michael, the Iona Institute can’t be pinned down by its specific registered aim on a form for some government department’s satisfaction.
Trying to identify how the Iona Institute adheres to its registered aim one would have to look at what it does and what it writes and says.
As for your public interest the tax free charitable status has changed over the years. The public interest is more that monies sent to organisations are not for an illegal purpose; not if companies are adhering to their registered aims.
The questions won’t go away you are right there. So why don’t you call David out to a debate? Face to face!
Well Michael it now appears that you could be stalking David Quinn!