Slashdot Mirror
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.
I don't know if the parent post was supposed to be humorous or if the OP is ignorant. The host of Family Feud was Richard Dawson, not Richard Dawkins.
That's called "ironic humor". You should look into it.
I'm going to be a pedant on this one, because although the Constitution is definitely based on the philosophy you mention, the words themselves aren't there.
The bit about being endowed by our creator with unalienable rights is in the Declaration of Independence.
Well, despite what the guy at the top might have thought, your rank-and-file German soldier still had "Gott mit uns" on his belt.
Note to future religious text writers: stick to unfalsifiable metaphysics and moral advice.
So much win
Well, despite what the guy at the top might have thought, your rank-and-file German soldier still had "Gott mit uns" on his belt.
According to Wikipedia, you couldn't join the SS unless you professed some religion. It didn't matter which, so long as you had one.
"Jew" didn't count, since they deemed it an ethnicity rather than a religion.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
No, you are simply wrong about factual history.
Review the defined worldview of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a political entity, and the millions of people killed, internally and externally, by it, to correct your error.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Thirty percent of Americans.
Dawkins would have a name for himself with or without his opinions on religion. If you read his works, he has traveled the world trying very hard to understand religion and it's conflict with what he finds to be "very obvious principals of science."
I'm not faulting your observation about his general opinion on religion, I simply don't see it as a prejudicial thing. He's alluded to many of the benefits that religions have had in the formation of modern society. But today, on the balance are they doing more to enslave or to free mankind? Now that we have more advanced justice systems than "And eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth." is it time to put those old teachings to behind us and use our own reason, our own humanity to shape the next generation's world. I think Dawkins would argue "yes."
His arguments are predicated on the idea that we are ready to cast off "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." and can still retain "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
If you believe as he does, that we are, then it makes sense to focus on the problems caused by religion, and try to enrich the positive side of a secular state. I don't think anyone could argue that the Catholic Church doesn't do an amazing amount of good for impoverished African states. The question is, can we learn from their examples, adjust our foriegn aid policies to something nearly as good, but have the benefit of providing alternatives to the Rhythm Method in a country whose population has outstripped its food supply?
I think we can.
But who on earth is silly enough to take the bible literally? I was brought up a Christian, and not once did anyone tell me that the bible is a literal documentary on events, but rather a collection of stories written after they happened (especially the old testament, which is basically cobbled together from bits of the torah, and some other things). I've also not met a single Christian who takes the bible literally (and I even went to Sunday school).
Allow me to introduce you, then.
Here it is from the official website of the Southern Baptist Convention(in the context of the discussion of a book outlining creation):
Therefore be it RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, June 10-12, 1980 reaffirm our belief in a literal biblical creation and a literal heaven and hell
That's the 2nd largest denomination in the USA. Most of the so called Evangelical churches have also embraced it. If I were to write up a list of the churches in my town alone, I would feel completely comfortable laying money on the fact that a random selection from that list will believe in the literal interpretation of the bible.
And that is just one, albeit large, Protestant group. The Eastern Orthodox and Catholics also have sections of the bible which they believe MUST be interpreted literally, including pieces of the Old Testament. Indeed, the majority of Christians(I'd say 100%, but I'm sure there is some sect out there that says, "yeah, we're christian but we think it's all a metaphor") uphold a literal interpretation in some form. Tenets of the faith like Original Sin and the entire point of the blood sacrifice of Jesus are based on such interpretations.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Clue time: Go to North Korea and try selling atheism. They will send you home in a cheap pine box.
There may sometime have been a revolution in France that had nothing to do with religion or the lack thereof, but the late 18th century revolution commonly referrred to as "The French Revolution", which featured the rejection of religion, the establishment of the "Cult of Reason", with its accompanying "Festival of Reason", and radical and violent dechristianization, certainly wasn't it.
"Yet those same SS soldiers were also forbidden to believe in a god (other than Hitler)"
Citation DEFINITELY needed.
They swore an oath to Hitler HIMSELF, but swore to GOD for it.
Seriously, Hitler was a Good Christian.
How depressing that I have to lead you through this. The parent of my post said:
AND
To which I replied with links to a large group of Christians who, in fact, take that very stance. I also added that most Christian groups, including the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, have sections of the bible, including the Old Testament, which they claim have to be interpreted literally. In Catholic theology, for example, it is a tenet of the faith that Adam and Eve were actual people, and not metaphors:
"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own.
That is from the papal encyclical "Humani Generis," linked from the Vatican website. And what was my claim, from my post? Let's revisit that, shall we?
Well, hell, unless the Vatican is hosting fake documents on their website, then my point stands exactly as I said. As for the Eastern Orthodox, they haven't had an ecumenical council to deal the issue, so there is no single official stance on it. However, when researching the issue, I have found no Eastern Orthodox teachings which deviate strongly from this position, either. Feel free to find some contradictory information on that point. I'd find it interesting.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Name names or be known as a liar. Christians don't hate athiests, we fear them.
I've corrected this on your behalf.
Ever wonder where all that money Christians put in the collection baskets goes?
To the churches. Some of it does trickle down to humanitarian programs, and sometimes there are "Special Collections" in addition to the regular one, usually for some particular charity, but most of that money in the collection plate goes to running the church, not to the poor.
Can you name one single athiest charitable organization? I certainly can't think of one.
You apparently fail at Google, too. There are plenty of non-theistic charities, including several you may have encountered, but didn't realize they aren't non-theistic. Amnesty International? The American Civil Liberties Union? OxFam?
Here's a list: http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Secular_charities