Dawkins calls for official apology for Turing
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
Richard Dawkins last night joined the campaign to win an official apology for Alan Turing, the code-breaking genius and father of the modern computer who committed suicide in 1954 after being prosecuted for being homosexual.
More than 2,500 people have now added their name to the on-line petition calling for the Government to recognise the "consequences of prejudice" that ended the life of the scientist aged just 41.
Professor Dawkins said that an apology would "send a signal to the world which needs to be sent", and that Turing would still be alive today if it were not for the repressive, religion-influenced laws which drove him to despair.
The author of The God Delusion, who is due to present a forthcoming television programme for Channel 4 on Turing, said the impact of the mathematician's war work could not be overstated. "Turing arguably made a greater contribution to defeating the Nazis than Eisenhower or Churchill. Thanks to Turing and his 'Ultra' colleagues at Bletchley Park, Allied generals in the field were consistently, over long periods of the war, privy to detailed German plans before the German generals had time to implement them.
"After the war, when Turing's role was no longer top-secret, he should have been knighted and fêted as a saviour of his nation. Instead, this gentle, stammering, eccentric genius was destroyed, for a 'crime', committed in private, which harmed nobody," he said. Professor Dawkins also called for a permanent financial endowment to support Bletchley Park, where Turing helped break the Nazi Enigma code.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
What good will another 'official apology' do?" When do we stop - 20th century, 19th? 18th? What do we stop at? Catholics burnt at the stake for major-religion, minor-political offences?
Carry on celebrating Turing's achievements and remembering the prejudice, but another meaningless apology - Dawkins should know a little better,.
Of both the films made about his life, one focuses on his parallel demise and victimisation during his post Bletchley days while the other barely makes any mention of his sexuality at all. Clearly not your romantic run-of-the-mill hero then.
His death neads to be clarified, and in the process, can only reveal that the investigation carried out by police against him was so mean and pathetic only one conclusion can be drawn. This emotionally vulnerable innocent man who did nothing wrong was driven to suicide by unjust laws which are a blight on the world and are still being widley fought against today. Acknowledgement would support that on-going struggle and such a gesture would still remain historically, socially and politcially relevant.
http://db.jhuccp.org/ics-wpd/exec/icswp
http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:3266145
http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:8036067
http://healthmad.com/conditions-and-dis
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShAr
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/i
A figure of speech by Dawkins? Well, it's a silly and laughable one. Would you say that "Oscar Wilde would still be alive today if it were not for the repressive, religion-influenced laws which put him in prison"? He'd be 155! Well, Turing would be 97, and my point was that the chance that a man, 42 years old in 1954, had of living to 2009 was very low, especially considering his high-risk sexual practices.
And I note that Dawkins's assertion "Turing would still be alive today if it were not for the repressive, religion-influenced laws which drove him to despair" is very tendentious. Turing was convicted of an offence which was criminal at the time, and sentenced to probation. This destroyed him professionally, and more than two years later he (apparently) killed himself. In this case, I don't see how you can blame religion for it, or anyone other than the man himself. I don't think the anti-homosexuality laws were primarily inspired by religion, in any case. My basic point is that Dawkins generally puts on the pretence of being a reasonable and unbiased person, but he is very far from that.
If I had to confront these Intellectual Theists (an oxymoron if ever there was one) that he does then I don't think I'd have half the patience that he does. If you think he's unreasonable or unbiased then he certainly doesn't have a monopoly on that. This current god and the religions that believe in him have had that privilige for 2000 years. Not to mention the 9,999 gods that have gone before him.
And no matter what Turin's chances are of being alive today, if there's a chance, then there's a chance.
But you know what they say, if you could reason with a religious person, then there would be no religions. And what a glorious day that would be.
I'll leave the last word to you.
We do not need apologises from politicians now; we need correct decisions now so that future generations will not look at this time with anger and regret over what was done and what was not done. To my mind things are not looking remotely propitious. We need proper government now not retrospective government by crocodile tears for the past.
Simple, justice.
An apology would be good, but would achieve nothing. Funds for Bletchley Park, and a posthumous honour for Turing would be better=.
Let me start with the one thing we can probably agree on - Turing was brilliant (your language makes me suspect you don't appreciate quite how brilliant) man who was persecuted for his homosexuality, said persecution playing a major part in his subsequent suicide.
I didn't grace the rest of your post with comment because it is paranoid bilge (polite descrition).
Let us begin with Turing's work. He was a mathematician and not a scientist. If you want to appreciate the nature of his achievements, the brilliance of his work that is very important. His position in the worldwide mathematics community is unassailable, as is that in the computer science community. His work on scientific problems, typically brilliant, was secondary to his achievements in mathematics. The problem with public recognition is that relatively few people understand or can explain, other in terms so abstract as to be useless as a base for comparison with other 'public achievers'. I suspect most people who call themselves 'computer scientists' could not explain the significance of a Turing machine today).
Of course you seem to forget, or not be aware of, little things like The Turing Award (crumbs - originated in a country with a similar homophobic and far stronger religious bias than the UK), blue plaques, stamps, more than a smattering of statues, buildings ect ect ect.
Understanding Turing is difficult - he was the outsiders outsider, damned for being a brilliant mathematician in a country that at best, derides mathematics and science (until they are unwell, need to travel, want to watch television fort example), damned for being homosexual and admitting it. But religion had relatively little influence other than as moral 'background' and certainly has bugger all in present day Britain other than in the marginal lunacies that a minority support. After all - look at the front benches of both our major parties - I am sure they found it difficult getting there but does anyone seriously think that the majority of people in this country believe that the fact Mandelson is gay makes any difference to his position in the administration? Progress I think. So shrill simplifications are not helpful.
I'll let you go off to your bunch of paranoid grownups, while I leave for my bunch of educated adults.
ttfn
Hmm, you must be very young indeed - Don't you remember Clause 28? What about the established church, with lawmakers in the house of Lords suggesting Sharia Law is inevitable? Get your head out the sand, the tories will be back in power shortly too and they love all this stuff. Clearly you need to stick to the maths as history and politics are not your strong points. Once you can stop throwing personal insults directly at people rather than attack arguments you may fund more respect. 'till then.... (oh, yes, and your use of the word bugger, was that deliberate? >; ) ) I might believe you're out of short trousers if you can tell me who originated TTFN. Clue, he's parodied on the Fast Show. hugs and kisses xx
Sharia law?? I have no time for the deadbeat Bishops in the Lords, but the comment you refer to related to acceptance of civil mediation that for better or worse (probably the latter) has been accepted. Please do read.
On mathematics yes baas, history and politic - OK, I'll stick to the maths and pay attention to people such as yourself (bows and tucks forelock) - there are people who knoweth better than us.
Bugger - oh dear darling.
TTFN - always struck me as a a fine sig - please enlighten for the prolls who do not watch (?) 'The Fast Show'
* sharia law is not favoured - I can't see any member of the house asking for stoning - but maybe you can (see comment below)
* names - no, just an observation - paranoia, 'a mental condition characterised by delusions of persecution, typically elaborated into an organised system" - yes, don't underestimate issues with religion, but on the other hand don't let it ruin your life
* key issues - covered I think.........
I'd be interested to know what evidence he has for the claims that the laws in question are "religion-influenced", and in precisely what ways. Or does he just have a feeling in his bones about it? Maybe "everyone knows" that homophobia was invented by Christianity. I'm not sure.
The truth is that social prejudices, while often described in religious terms, often have far more complex origins and interactions than a simple quote from Leviticus might suggest. This is bandwagon-jumping: it's cynical and its anti-scientific, and in transposing Turing's appalling treatment into the polarised space of the debate over hard secularism he does his far more eminent predecessor a grave disservice.
We must turn our minds not our brains to reflecting on what constitutes reality. Certainly vilifying a decent man is miserably sad and we should reflect on that also.
The human is a flawed species. The worse of our imperfections is lack of compassion. It makes for bad laws and bad attitudes. The only important driver in us is our intentions. Do we mean to harm others or not. Do we intend to cause happiness and enjoyment? Do we mean to save or destroy?
Great things were done in Bletchley and in a thousand other unheard of and forgotten places by brave men and women. Those are the realities.
I support Dawkins. I cannot bring myself to believe there is a God but we are not all there is. We are just too ignorant. Yet there is a superior wisdom to be found. It may even already be in us. Some have more than most. We should listen and learn from them.
Persons B and D are both Alan Turing.
Persons A and C aren't persons, they're our society.
So the suggestion is for an expression of apology by society to Alan Turing.
There was a rash of prosecutions of homosexuals in the fifties, reversing the general disinterest of the previous half-century and the main reason was that progressive minds had been persuaded there was a scientific cure for homosexuality. One of the cures was hormone therapy which Turing had been obliged to accept as the alternative was a possible prison sentence and losing his job.
The only thing that can be said for the pseudo-scientific rehabilitation craze of the fifties was that it brought homosexuality back into the limelight and was thus responsible for the 1967 repeal of the act making it illegal.
So please, enough of this........
Couldn't we just apologise to every suicide who got a raw deal at the hands of society and be done with it? Or should we search out every one of these tens of thousands of individuals and apologize to each of them by name?
Hell if Dawkins can hijack a serious question to peddle his own product....
Just wondering though, if Turing was alive today what would he *do* with the apology? Think "oh, that's alright then, you made my life a living hell, drove me to the brink of suicide, pumped me full of chemicals. But you've said sorry even though most of you are only hazily aware of who I actually am so all's forgiven and it's like the past fifty years never happened"?
If he could manage that he'd be a damned sight more forgiving than I'd be in his place.
We need to stand up for them too, not castagate and oppress them, and continue to drive *them* to suicide.
typically, the Great God Delusionist is making Turing a martyr for his own political fight.
Oh the irony. And the vulgarity.
What better solution for the empty plinth at Trafalgar Square than Alan Touring?
It would satisfy all of the trendy lefty Livingstones, and it would complete the set by recognising a brilliant man who did more for this country than many of the other nonentities whose statues on the streets of London are purely decorative.
He doesn't have to confront intellectual theists - he chooses to do so.
I read "The God Delusion" and found it rather jejune, although amusing.
You said "And no matter what Turin's chances are of being alive today, if there's a chance, then there's a chance."
At least his shroud is still around!
In fact the memorial should include three statutes. Alan Turing, Tom Kilburn and Frederic Williams. Between them they built the Manchester Mark I, the world's first electronic stored program computer. That alone should make their memories worth preserving down the centuries.
Then again, a silicon based civilisation may be worshipping them as the founders of their race long after the rest of humankind has been forgotten!