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.

10 of 862 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Dawkin's is a piss poor social scientist by Psyborgue · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There were protests in almost every single Muslim majority country without few exceptions (such as Singapore, which had it blocked), as well as some western ones, such as France, where violence also broke out. Was it because of the video? I'm not so sure. A week after the video was released the french satirical paper Charlie Hebdo released cartoons that were by far more vulgar than Innocence of Muslims (for example, depicting Muhammad naked). There was almost no response at all to that. Either they're becoming desensitized to cartoons or as many have commented, this was just yet another excuse to blame the foreign devil yell "death to America", "itbach al yahud" and run rampage burning stuff down.

  2. Re:Dawkin's is a piss poor social scientist by Empiric · · Score: 5, Interesting

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union

    No revisionism here at all. After starting with the very first sentence in the above link (and the provided references), I'd check the label on your Kool-Aid, actually.

    --
    ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
  3. Re:Dawkin's is a piss poor social scientist by tbannist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think the point is that Stalinist Russia is more commonly know for some other -ism that isn't atheism. The implication is, of course, that the other -ism is the real reason for the persecution of religion in Stalinist Russia.

    I'm sure if you spend some more time studying the subject you will figure it out. While it's true that USSR was officially atheist, the question you need to answer is why it was atheist and why they persecuted religion.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  4. Re:Theocracies by BakaHoushi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I had a boss who became a born-again Christian (this is in the U.S., for reference) and afterwards he would always spout on and on about how every single word in the Bible was true and there were no contradictions. I suspect a lot of what he said and what he believed was sort of passed-on to him. He would always talk about Bible groups and people who showed him movies, and it was they, for instance, who taught him that the ACLU is trying to legalize child pornography.

    It's also kind of funny. Before he was "saved," he once told me that as long as people let him do his own thing, it didn't matter what they believed or did. I later expressed that view to him and he told me that was Satan's viewpoint.

  5. Re:Dawkin's is a piss poor social scientist by the_B0fh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, you are saying stamping out ignorance is bigotry?

  6. The difference between an atheist and a believer by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Or put another way:

    The difference between an atheist and a believer is only in how many gods they don't believe in.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  7. Re:Dawkin's is a piss poor social scientist by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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-.

    If that were true, Christians would be deluded. I got death threats from Christians for being an atheist. Where are those "peaceful Christians" that you're talking about, and more to the point, where have they been hiding in the previous two millennia? Where are all the "true Scotsmen" you're talking about?

    By contrast, mass-killing is -directly compatible- with Darwinian Naturalism, by reference to what it -is-

    You have no idea what the word "Darwinian" means.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  8. Re:Dawkin's is a piss poor social scientist by tbannist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In my mind, Russia's athiesm was an instrument used to promote communism. Religion was explicitly seen as an impediment to proper communism, so it was opposed not because it was thought to be false, but because it was thought to be a tool of oppression used by the elite against the common man. In that case, it was not a root cause. I'm not even sure it was used as an excuse, it seems atheism was enforced because it was supposed to benefit communism.

    If that's the case, then that's not at all the same situation as using religion as a cover for other issues. If religion adds legitimacy to illegitimate conflicts, is that not bad? Is that not a harmful effect of religion? A key difference here is that I find it hard to believe that you could ever rally thousands of atheists to riot under the pretense that the god they don't believe in has been insulted (or not sufficiently insulted). Atheism can be used a policy to harm theists, but I can't say I've run into anyone who could be motivated to do anything more than prattle on about how smart they are by their atheism.

    Additionally, as others have pointed out previously, both communism and libertarianism (and probably many other -isms) are pretty much godless religions. They have sets of beliefs that their adherents must believe, and they even have their own "holy" books. They may belong to a superset that includes them and religion that is occasionally the problem.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  9. Re:Dawkin's is a piss poor social scientist by rmstar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Calling all religious believers "delusional" by definition, meets your criteria fully.

    How should atheists call religious believers, then? People with special beliefs?

    There is no way of saying that god does not exist without saying that all people who believe in god are delusional. But this is normal: anyone who claims that his god is the true god says that all the others are wrong and their believers are also delusional. If you want is us to keep completely mum about the issue? Of course we are not going to do that.

    Most of these projections against religion, are, simply, an "Argument from the Never-existed" fallacy that doesn't even propose to offer hard metrics, such as statistics, for -relative- comparison on what is a -relative- normative question. Understandably so, since the atheist worldview would lose immediately and overwhelmingly if we introduced actual hard data, simply by reference to the 20'th Century alone.

    I am always puzzled by arguments things like this. Are you saying that god exists because of all the advantages religion brings? That's quite a fallacy there.

  10. Re:Dawkin's is a piss poor social scientist by monsterinlaw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm an Iranian and let me tell you...99.9% of the Iranian population doesn't give a damn to the movie or its content. Hey...Youtube is even filtered in Iran. What CNN showed was just a show organized by the Iranian regime to make _you_ (yes you) believe people care. I mean, does the fact that the foreign media was allowed to make reports from this "protest", not seem fishy to you? How come during all the protest in the Iranian green movement CNN and other media were not allowed to make reports !?