Dr. Richard Dawkins On Education, 'Innocence of Muslims,' and Rep. Paul Broun

In this video interview (with transcript), Dr. Richard Dawkins discusses religious exceptionalism with regard to the teaching of evolution, and the chilling effect of fundamentalism on the production of scientists and engineers. He says, "I can think of no other reason why, of all the scientific facts that people might disagree with or disbelieve, [evolution] is the one they pick on. Physics gets through OK. Chemistry gets through Ok. But not biology/geology, and I think it's got to be because of religion." He also addresses the recent comments from Rep. Paul Broun, who denounced evolution and the Big Bang theory as "lies straight from the pit of hell," and the recent Innocence of Muslims video that led to unrest in various parts of the world. "Freedom of speech is something that Islamic theocracies simply do not understand. They don't get it. They're so used to living in a theocracy, that they presume that if a film is released in the United States, the United States Government must be behind it! How could it be otherwise? So, they need to be educated that, actually, some countries do have freedom of speech and government is not responsible for what any idiot may do in the way of making a video." He also has some very insightful comments about religion as one of the most arbitrary labels by which people divide themselves when involved in conflict. Hit the link below for the video.

Comments

Dawkin's is a piss poor social scientist

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

He should stick to something he KNOWS about - like biology.

His other claims are largely bias - uninformed by fact or context.

There were protests about the film in Libya. How does his "theocracy" argument even apply to a country that was a secular state - more like Cuba? Iran, with a religious institution at the head of government, saw no such unrest.

Dawkins is a bigot. He unfortunately uses his impressive scientific and academic credentials to bolster the audience for his bigotry, and conflate the domains of his expertise to support his prejudice.

Re:Dawkin's is a piss poor social scientist

[mcgrew]

He should stick to something he KNOWS about - like biology.

Mods, just because you disagree with a comment doesn't make it flamebait. I'm sure that whoever modded that was sure that Cornelius is a card-carrying anti-abortion creationist fundamentalist, but the fact is (from other of his comments I've seen) he's an agnostic. But he's right about Dawkins, especially when he says "Dawkins is a bigot." Why is it bigotry to say that homosexuality should be stamped out, yet not bigotry to say religion should be stamped out?

He is a bigot, and so is the antitheist who modded Cornelius down. Shame on you intolerant censorious fools.

Re:Dawkin's is a piss poor social scientist

[Empiric]

I presented no logical fallacies. The reason appropriate relative association between the actions and the worldview is that mass-killing is -directly contrary- to the principles of Christianity, and therefore, by definition, -not Christianity-.

By contrast, mass-killing is -directly compatible- with Darwinian Naturalism, by reference to what it -is-, rather than by the standard rhetorical references to what Christianity -is not-, definitionally, as representative. The question remains open as to in what respect Darwinian Naturalism is incompatible with mass-killing if that's the optimal DNA-propagation strategy for a given context.

Agreed, people fail in remaining consistent with their claimed worldview, both theist and atheist alike. That is not the issue, nor is that a productive point for either side. The issue is what does the worldview logically support arguments -for-, and -against-. We are here to evaluate the worldviews qua worldviews, anything else is useless. Formally defining an entire society as atheistic, stating as a formal goal the elimination of religion, and ending up in mass-killings of both atheists and theists, for the objective, in actuality, of (who would have guessed) social power, and power perfectly consonant with Darwinian expectations, could not have provided us with a better test-case of the philosophy, as -actually applied-. We have that test case, as historical fact rather than Dawkins' fanciful musings, and you cannot evade the evidence.

Re:Dawkin's is a piss poor social scientist

[mcgrew]

I got death threats from Christians for being an atheist.

Name names or be known as a liar. Christians don't hate athiests, we pity them.

Where are those "peaceful Christians" that you're talking about

Ever see those red kettles outside stores at Christmas time? The Salvation Army is a Christian organization that feeds and houses the poor. Ever wonder where all that money Christians put in the collection baskets goes? To the poor. Know of any athiest 12 step programs for alcoholics? I guess the athiests would only have 11 steps.

Can you name one single athiest charitable organization? I certainly can't think of one. The food pantries and homeless shelters here in Springfield are, every single one of them, run by Christian organizations.

I don't believe in Richard Dawkins.

[Gordonjcp]

You can say he exists, but that doesn't make it true. You can publish words that you claim he wrote, and pictures you claim are of him, and that's great.

You still cannot prove that he exists. Dawkins is just another "Russell's Teapot".

Re:God

[amstrad]

So.. much... wrong... with.. this.. post... I don't even know where to begin. So I won't, because you're clearly fucking clueless.