Religion
Related: About this forumMeet a real-life Grinch:
Say what you will about Larry Tauton -- This Richard Dawkins guy is every bit as mean-spirited and narrow-minded as any overzealous fundie.
http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/opinion/52230682
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
humblebum
(5,881 posts)
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)This is ridiculous.
Dawkins' book is a popular graphic science book for older children. It is not specifically about God or atheism; it is about the scientific process and includes discussion how the reality of science is more accurate and just as awe-inspiring as mythology. The myths are from a variety of traditions, many of them nonreligious.
And I don't see how it is 'stealing Christmas'. The youngsters for whom it's intended are secondary school age pupils, not young children; and would not be still believing in Father Christmas and other typical Christmas myths. If Larry Taunton means that it stops them believing in Christianity (a) this isn't 'The God Delusion' and is not mainly preoccupied with religion; (b) Christianity, if one really does believe in it, is like many things, for life and not just for Christmas, and bringing up Christmas and Grinches here is actually trivializing the message.
I am not even an uncritical fan of Dawkins, whom I consider as a bit too much of a self-publicist in some ways, and I am cross with him for co-operating with the privatized university in London (though in fact not as much as was claimed). But if anyone is being 'mean-spirited and narrow-minded here, it is Taunton. He could at least have discussed the CONTENT of the book before going into his sound-bytes.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)And your proof for Dawkins being "mean-spirited and narrow-minded" is...?
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)anti-science propaganda.
But we see this over and over again, not just of Fox News. It's "Christian" to rail on against atheism and critical thinking in the nominally "secular" press, don't you know!
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)Dawkins is actually a very nice looking man.
Jim__
(14,075 posts)According to wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Taunton ) :
I'm guessing this is the same guy.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)I've met Richard Dawkins...he was delightful.
And his latest book is a wonder.
Say what I will about Larry Tauton?
OK, he's a delusional jerk who can't understand
that reality is magical enough for those that seek
to understand our world and to love our fellow humans.
What a piece of filth column.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)I hope to meet him at the Rally for Reason conference in DC in March.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Richard Dawkins is a brilliant Evolutionary Biologist, and I firmly believe "The Greatest Show on Earth" should be required reading for EVERY high school student.
He can be curt, but contrast him with Hitchens (whom I also love) - who can be mean, spiteful and downright cruel.
Dawkins has his opinions, and I agree with many of them. I also disagree with many of them (mainline Christians are not just as bad as fundies or evangelicals, in fact Christianity, when approached with reason, can actually be a GOOD thing. (Yes, you heard this Atheist say it, religion DOESN'T poison everything.))
But he is right in our culture's catering to the religious too much. Religion is for all practices and purposes, a hobby. There's nothing wrong with hobbies, but in the end it is just that, unless it is a profession.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)Still, he sounds to me like just another abrasive, arrogant academic -- of which there are far too many in this world. He's just the the type to raise the hackles of a hardheaded Midwesterner like myself.
BTW, I'd like to say something about your comment about religion being a "hobby." I find it rather condescending. I am a lifelong Christian, and have been a Catholic for going on four years. It is far more than just a "hobby" for me, and for many millions of different religious persuasions around the world.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)I do not mean it in the sense that it is something you would move into and out of like collecting stamps or refubishing classic cars.
What I mean is that your religion, it doesn't define you any more than collecting stamps or refurbishing classic cars. Good people are good people, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Atheist or other...
And at the same time, it may be a large part of your life, but so can hobbies. I like to think of Churches more like societies, than the direct line to god. You are on a journey - to find whatever it is you are looking for. There is nothing wrong in calling this a hobby.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)You mean one of those damned inconvenient scientists who will insist on testing and producing proof before accepting something as being real? Yeah, they take all the fun out of being willing to believe any old supernatural drivel, don't they?
You seem rather proud of your ignorance of Dawkins and his work - perhaps you could try and read some of it before dismissing it.
Being a lifelong believer in your god doesn't give you the right not to be offended by smeone calling it a hobby. Many hobbies are personally satisfying and can even be used to generate extra income. You know, like starting a church, for example.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)you judge him by his detractors alone, have you read or saw anything made by him?
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)is that if someone said of someone 'He sounds to me just like another abrasive, arrogant Christian - of which there are far too many in this world', they would probably be accused very quickly of 'persecuting Christians'.
If they said 'He sounds to me just like another abrasive, arrogant atheist - of which there are far too many in this world', they *might* be accused of 'persecuting atheists'.
Yet, saying things like that about academics (or about lawyers, doctors, van drivers, teachers, builders, etc. etc.) is seen as perhaps impolite, but not 'persecution'.
I am not implying that it *is* persecution; but it's an example of the double standard that I often see between people's perceived rights to say anything about a person's religion, and their rights to say anything about people's other characteristics.
On your other point, I agree that religion is not a 'hobby'; but there are certainly people whose hobbies assume the proportions of a religion.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
Who needs all that silly book-learnin' anyway? If it ain't in the bible, I don't need to know it!
humblebum
(5,881 posts)on religion. He is one of the remaining 3 of "The Four Horsemen" , who roundly condemn religion on a regular basis. He is a brilliant evolutionary biologist, but his POV is extremely narrow and he evaluates everything from that very narrow perspective, as do most organized atheist groups. And as long as they keep spewing they will be met with increased opposition. They hold no monopoly on reason, nor intellect.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)
humblebum
(5,881 posts)MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)It is SO LIMITING to consider all the possibilities, and ONLY reject those that don't make logical sense, reject ONLY those for which there is no evidence, reject ONLY those where proofs cannot be offered and only hypotheses are put forward.
To some, that kind of thinking is actually considered "limiting". But I am yet to be shown why.
Seems as though they prefer beliefs in an invisible man in the sky who has made you faulty and then blames his creation for his mistake and punishes you!
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)weapon and avoiding any discussion of what Dawkins *said* in his book (did Taunton even read it?) is not a very useful form of criticism.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)is ignorant of the fact that his POV really is severely limited and limiting. There really is nothing more to say than that. Each new publication may have a different title and cover, but still the same old narrow perspective of human life and existence.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)Failing that, (since I doubt you would own such books), perhaps just one "limited and limiting" example to demonstrate your having " read much of Dawkins' work"?
Someone who has " read much of Dawkins' work", surely, can come up with a few or at least ONE CONCRETE EXAMPLE, to demonstrate and elucidate your point, no?
Here we like to discuss points and opinion based upon facts and concrete examples, not glittering generalities, not pompous proclamations.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Those points have been discussed and regurgitated time and again here, by you and me, and several others, over the past couple years.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)Not a single example from all that " much of Dawkins' work" you have read!
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)any examples of Dawkins' "limited and limiting" thoughts, I thought I would quote a few NOT SO LIMITING thoughts in his books.
“By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
-this quote is actually found in Carl Sagan's book The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, where he attributes it to engineer James Oberg, who says he stole it from someone else.”
― Richard Dawkins
“Let children learn about different faiths, let them notice their incompatibility, and let them draw their own conclusions about the consequences of that incompatibility. As for whether they are ‘valid,’ let them make up their own minds when they are old enough to do so.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
“I am thrilled to be alive at time when humanity is pushing against the limits of understanding. Even better, we may eventually discover that there are no limits.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
“There is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
“We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
― Richard Dawkins
“Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time.”
― Richard Dawkins
“Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.”
― Richard Dawkins
“When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)said something like that!
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)Yeah, reality is like that.
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)It's certainly not all the same thing with a different title; he actually writes about different topics.
Silent3
(15,210 posts)And if someone spills the beans about what's a made-up fairy tale and what isn't, then Christmas has been "stolen"?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)astrology, homeopathy, and other inaccurate belief systems.
I can see why someone who adhered to inaccurate belief systems would feel a children's book explaining science would be viewed as Grinch-like.
I propose science and education are not your enemy, but rather your friends, but I guess that makes me Grinch-like too.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)I have a BS in Political Science and English, plus an AS in Nursing. My faith does not make me an unecucated rube or anti-science, as you seem to be implying. You can knok off the backdoor personal attacks any time now.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)The book sounds really positive to me.
Here is Amazon's description of the book:
Magic takes many forms. Supernatural magic is what our ancestors used in order to explain the world before they developed the scientific method. The ancient Egyptians explained the night by suggesting the goddess Nut swallowed the sun. The Vikings believed a rainbow was the gods’ bridge to earth. The Japanese used to explain earthquakes by conjuring a gigantic catfish that carried the world on its back—earthquakes occurred each time it flipped its tail. These are magical, extraordinary tales. But there is another kind of magic, and it lies in the exhilaration of discovering the real answers to these questions. It is the magic of reality—science.
Packed with clever thought experiments, dazzling illustrations and jaw-dropping facts, The Magic of Reality explains a stunningly wide range of natural phenomena. What is stuff made of? How old is the universe? Why do the continents look like disconnected pieces of a puzzle? What causes tsunamis? Why are there so many kinds of plants and animals? Who was the first man, or woman? This is a page-turning, graphic detective story that not only mines all the sciences for its clues but primes the reader to think like a scientist as well.
Richard Dawkins, the world’s most famous evolutionary biologist and one of science education’s most passionate advocates, has spent his career elucidating the wonders of science for adult readers. But now, in a dramatic departure, he has teamed up with acclaimed artist Dave McKean and used his unrivaled explanatory powers to share the magic of science with readers of all ages. This is a treasure trove for anyone who has ever wondered how the world works. Dawkins and McKean have created an illustrated guide to the secrets of our world—and the universe beyond—that will entertain and inform for years to come.
http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Reality-Know-Whats-Really/dp/1439192812
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)much worse than the Dr. Seuss character. Especially with his character assassination of Richard Dawkins.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Hypocrisy at its finest, on display for all to see. And even worse, from ignorance at that.
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)It was Larry Taunton, not Brigid herself, who wrote that piece.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)As far as a personal attack, maybe, I'm criticizing behavior though, so its iffy. But the fact is that it pales in comparison to the personal attacks leveled at atheists and other non-believers by religious people, such as this character assassination of Richard Dawkins in the OP.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)Looks like Dawkins is really proud to be accused of this by such a rabid religionist.
I wonder if Larry Taunton has a web site that publishes all of Dawkins' short editorial critiques of religion.
Doubt it.
